Exclusion Principle

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

“There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another. This conception is a potent menace to social regeneration. All human experience teaches that methods and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose; they influence it, modify it, and presently the aims and means become identical” – Emma Goldman
“There are going to be times when we can’t wait for somebody. Now, you’re either on the bus or off the bus. If you’re on the bus, and you get left behind, then you’ll find it again. If you’re off the bus in the first place — then it won’t make a damn.” – Ken Kesey
“Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society” – Emma Goldman

Occupy Wall Street is founded upon the Principles of Solidarity, which can be found here: http://www.nycga.net/resources/principles-of-solidarity/
Additionally, we are founded upon the Statement of Autonomy, which can be found here:
http://www.nycga.net/resources/statement-of-autonomy/

One quote in particular from the Statement of Autonomy is highly relevant to the question of whether this all-encompassing movement can or should exclude individuals:
“Those seeking to capitalize on this movement or undermine it by appropriating its message or symbols are not a part of Occupy Wall Street.”

The General Assembly should stand empowered to sever ties with those who do not follow the Principles of Solidarity, the Statement of Autonomy, or other standards of behavior that have been agreed upon.

Continued participation in Occupy Wall Street, as a movement, confers benefits.  An individual whom the General Assembly proposes to exclude from the Movement via direct and transparent participatory democracy, based on their adherence to the standards of conduct that define a member as part of OWS, thus loses access to these benefits.  They include, but are not limited to:

  • The ability to be present and claim space to live in and sleep in for any physical Occupation we may possess, now or in the future;

  • The ability to access Occupy Wall Street funds and resources, such as metrocards, housing access, *@nycga.net email accounts, food, clothing, and similar supplies;

  • The ability to join Working Groups or Caucuses, and participate in OWS discussions;

  • The ability to attend General Assembly, Spokes Council, working group meetings, or other forms of decision-making bodies and be placed on stack;

  • The ability to draft proposals to be heard by working groups or the General Assembly;

  • Access to bail funds for any arrests they may be subject to at Occupy Wall Street marches or events and commissary funds for jail stays of over seven days;

  • And the ability to state to the outside world, and those within the Occupy Wall Street movement, “I am a member of Occupy Wall Street.”

This is the standard that any such proposal the General Assembly brings forward should seek to meet, before excluding anyone: be it for failure to uphold the Principles of Solidarity, or failure act in keeping with the Statement of Autonomy, or the failure to abide by any other community agreement, action agreement or code of conduct as yet forthcoming, efforts must be made to heal the breach and repair the harm if such repair is possible.  Refusing to repair such harms to individuals or to the community as a whole by the airing of grievances and making of amends via the transformative justice processes, when they are in place, shall be recognized strictly in proportion to the offense to our standards and our ideals – no one shall be asked to leave the Movement for tripping and falling on someone, then having it called ‘assault,’ for these are the tactics already being used against us and we shall not use them against each other.

Actions taken by an individual shall be seen to be against the Movement as a whole only if they are grievous in nature, or both harmful and systemically repetitive.  The line in the sand between the individual and the Occupy Wall Street movement is drawn by that individual themselves, by their failure to abide by our standards of behavior or community agreements which have achieved consensus in the General Assembly, and a proposal to the General Assembly to formally recognize that an individual stands outside of Occupy Wall Street by their own choice and their own actions should abide by that decision on their part and ratify it lest the individual continue to harm those within the Movement or the Movement as a whole via their actions.

The mechanism Occupy Wall Street can apply to enforce this separation is simple: for access to resources, we offer none; for access to ourselves, our time, and our systems, we agree to shun the individual as a whole body rather than continue to interact.

37 Responses to “Exclusion Principle”

  1. Justin Samuels

    As written I’m afraid I have to block this. It seems like anyone could potentially be kicked out of the “movement” just because someone didn’t like them, if they had enough allies in the GA.

    Kicking people out left and right will not secure the safety of occupiers in public spaces.

    If you wanted to argue that distributing certain things attracted a freeloaders, I’d be inclined to agree with you on that.

    But to push draconian proposal after proposal to ban people is ridiculous. Yes, Nan was banned from spokes, and violence and disruptions broke out from other people. So in the end banning Nan didn’t do any good, did it?

    • Sean McKeown

      This sets a clear standard, and a very high one. You can’t just have “enough allies” in the GA, you would need to have 91% of the GA, and any subsequent GAs that would seek to overturn a clearly egregious use of this principle.

      There is nothing here about “liking” anyone. The statement of requiring proof as well as cause states that a standard should exist by which an individual must violate our principles or agreements, and do so consistently or egregiously. Occupy Wall Street is not high school or Survivor, where “cliques” rule the day, and while there may be cliquisheness in the social circles of friendship there’s not much we can do about that – our basic ‘bit’ unit is the ‘person’ after all, and people coalesce as they will in predictable ways – we CAN and in so doing here WOULD prevent any such elements from entering our systems of self-governance.

      We have already used this principle non-transparently and non-democratically. I’m pretty sure we’ve even used this principle violently – I’ve heard of at least one person who received a beating to tell him to stay away from the park, as a repeated sexual offender, prior to 11/15 – and I would seek to formalize this via this proposal in keeping with our principles… ALL of our principles.

      • Monica McLaughlin

        I agree with Justin. Any body that would vote for some of the foolish spending that was voted for, is very likely to vote some very decent people (like myself) off the island. The very public nature of.the vote lends itself to cronyism and abuse.

        • Sean McKeown

          Help assemble meaningful burdens of proof – they’re implied but not dictated, and presumably not something that once properly created anyone need fear. I’m leaning towards ‘an active police report has been filed’ but this doesn’t cover all cases that might be applicable – not all reasons for wishing to be done with someone would include criminal charges (only), as defined by our Principles of Solidarity and Statement of Autonomy.

  2. Justin Samuels

    Also, the above proposal doesn’t give specifics on what SHOULD cause people to get EXCLUDED from OWS.

    Its like trying to push for a death penalty without stating what crimes should create a death penalty.

    I think the above proposal is far more oppressive than anything we currently have in our government. The government has checks and balances and OWS has no protection against tyranny of the minority, no appeals process, and there are a number of other serious flaws I could point out.

  3. Justin Samuels

    Speaking of Nan, it seems like when she hits someone, you push for her to be banned. Yet when others hit people, you have no problem with that. That’s favoritism to the extreme, and if you’re going to push for exclusion you need to push to remove everyone in occupy who has hit someone and everyone who has caused a disruption.

    • DirekConek (aka Dallas)

      EXACTLY.

      First we have to agree that people can be removed. Then why they can be removed. THEN we start removing people.

      It’s about logic and rule of law, not “favoritism”.

  4. comrade zak

    i have three problems with this proposal as is:

    1. one problem is the way the thing about banning people from participating in GA/spokes relates to the final paragraph about “mechanism”: strictly speaking the “mechanism” (“shunning,” more specifically) serves as enforcing the banning in name only, as shunning a person who is yelling at the GA isn’t really effective if they’re belligerent. in general this reflects a more organization-wide refusal, for various reasons, of OWS to empower de-escalation (which seems to me the most appropriate group to empower) to remove people from GA/spokes/etc, in my view at least. whether de-escalation (or anyone) should be empowered to do so is obviously at the heart of this question of exclusion; i would argue that if we cannot agree to empowering someone to do this, we effectively cannot exclude people, even economically (as individual working groups, such as housing and kitchen, or just members thereof, could always just disobey the GA; cf. point #3).

    2. nitpicking, but i think the second-to-last paragraph should say “egregious” instead of “grievous.”

    3. lining up with a point made in the first Tidal (“On Power”) about the limits of the GA’s power (though, perhaps, not being as far-reaching in this instance as Tidal’s point more generally is), we have to recognize that, a) GA can’t ban people from working groups/caucuses/”OWS discussions”, the closest it can do is ban one of these things (WG/caucus/etc) period, b) the GA can’t remove the ability of people to identify with the movement (which I would personally rather call the Occupy movement but that distinction is an argument within the movement as a whole…) but can merely discredit them before/after such identifications.

    as far as Nan, I would say that 1. banning Nan from spokes did work insofar as -she- has not caused problems there; the fact that others have is connected to the problem of not having a broader process in place for exclusion, more precisely the lack of precedent for such (which this proposal aims to create) which has generally held our community back from banning others. 2. your point about Sean’s “favoritism” is true only if he himself brought the proposal to ban Nan; if he did not, he is entirely consistent in supporting (i.e. not blocking) that proposal when it appeared, but not himself bringing proposals for excluding other specific individuals insofar as he planned to himself make a proposal for a general precedent for exclusion.

    i think the claim that Sean’s proposal does not set standards for why to remove people is just plainly false. as it says, “The General Assembly should stand empowered to sever ties with those who do not follow the Principles of Solidarity, the Statement of Autonomy, or other standards of behavior that have been agreed upon [e.g., community agreements].”

    I disagree with dallas’s claim about “First we have to agree that people can be removed. Then why they can be removed” in that we already have documents defining (literally, drawing the limits of) our community (again, principles of solidarity, statement of autonomy, community agreements, etc), which by definition are grounds upon which to exclude people. it is thus a contradiction that the GA cannot exclude people, since it already created definitions of our community, which by definition excludes those who do not fit those definitions. (obviously I’m not someone who thinks that our community should “include everyone” or be “all-inclusive.”)

    • Sean McKeown

      1. I do not believe a small subgroup being empowered is effective, nor horizontal. Security becoming Community Watch and then Community Alliance when we had an encampment follows the model of what I think would be both effective and ideal – that the responsibility for action in this capacity is spread amongst the group as a whole, and the group is empowered to take direct action to confront problems and de-escalate them as a whole. Thus there is no mechanism, implied or explicit, stating a group should be nominated to “do the dirty work” – the standard instead notes the will of the group, and the group as a whole will defend itself autonomously when they know they are so empowered. A proposal by the General Assembly to exclude an individual will be upheld by the actions of the group as a whole, and needs no regulating mechanism – we can entrust to the group to protect itself and take care of its own needs, and the barrier between where we are now and “this happens” is in peoples’ heads – and is twofold. One, people look for “someone else” to do it for them; two, people do not step up to do it themselves because they are afraid of negative social pressure as a ramification of their autonomous action. A proposal passed against an individual or group of this sort would account for the second of those, so long as we do not also enable and feed the first.

      2. Nitpick noted but I and Microsoft Word 2007 seem to disagree, hopefully that’s not a big deal. Egregiously is a word that would fit, but not egregious. Thus “greivously” would be wrong but “greivous” is correct according to my reading.

      3. The idea here is not that the GA would be so empowered to exclude individuals from subgroups, but that by adopting this standard it would likewise pass down to subgroups of the GA, i.e. if a Working Group wished to exclude an individual from the group, it would need to follow a similarly directly-democratic and transparent process instead of just, y’know, “doing it”.

      Also, I did bring the proposal against Nan, along with several others. The proposal specifically noted it was for violent acts performed *in that meeting body*, and thus the instances to which Justin is referring are consistent with my actions in that they occurred outside of that meeting body. Additionally, there is the matter of repetition and scale – in response to the incident in question to which I believe he is referring, Jeff punching someone, I took immediate and direct action – evicting him from the free housing on my couch he had been enjoying – and applying a “wait and see” aspect for repeat incidents that would force additional attention on my part. However, my focus in this regard has been on larger and more problematic offenses, and this proposal for the general case of such is being advanced again at this point in time because I am aware of one such that should be addressed (and it is neither Jeff nor Nan). But I do not wish to sticky the general-case discussion with specific-case details, thus I am seeking to create a standard and a protocol rather than focus on any individual.

      Also: this is a group where everyone has equal access to power. Literally anyone can bring such a proposal as that one, Justin himself included; calling me guilty for not doing so, when he himself is knowledgeable and empowered, suggest he is equally guilty. Perhaps we are both equally innocent, and applying a similar standard that says “this is not yet the appropriate action in that regard” and seeking more information as well as lesser means for rectifying that problem. That’s where I’m at, anyway… don’t want to speak for anyone else.

      • Justin Samuels

        Sean:

        While who you house is certainly your business, I do think its a bit harsh to tell everyone on the internet you kicked Jeff out. I’m sure he got another place, but still, getting kicked out can be a stressful and embarrassing situation. Have a little empathy, dude.

  5. DirekConek (aka Dallas)

    I’m just expressing my understanding of why Sean is approaching the problem from this angle.

    True indeed, I would generally think that our existing community agreements + de-escalation means we’re already empowered as a group to ask people to leave us alone when they cause problems repeatedly…. but apparently not everyone agrees.

    Only problem is: in public spaces, even if we empower de-escalation to bodily remove people, the NYPD and the law as it currently exists would almost definitely interpret that as assault, were someone that de-escalation members removed to go ahead and press charges.

    In Spokes, we’re in a private building that we’ve at least agreed to pay rent on for the time we spend there. It empowers us to a somewhat greater degree in the eyes of the existing law to ask someone who is not welcomed by the rest of the group due to harassing and/or violent behavior to GTFO.

    • Trish OWS

      Dallas,

      I appreciate all you attempted to do…and know if it could have been done, (video/livestream) you could do it!

      Could you send the link to me: trish.ows@mail.com

      I’m not that savvy, but I’ll ask others who maybe able to accomplish it.

      Thanks again.

      Trish

  6. Justin Samuels

    Zak, Sean himself brought the proposal to ban Nan from spokes. Yet so far he has not tried, to my knowledge, tried to ban others who have done acts of violent that he is on friendlier terms with. This is indeed favoritism. I’m not naming names…………..

    While I’ve never said the movement should be all inclusive, asking the GA to ban people from working groups or for calling themselves occupiers is ridiculous, and Sean doesn’t make it clear what would trigger this. Also, during the attempt to ban Will from spokes, the kitchen working group made it quite clear that they felt uncomfortable policing who get foods. In part if they tried to police who gets food, you’re asking volunteers to put themselves on the line for a nasty confrontation.

    And I agree with Dallas, you can’t ban someone from public spaces. So would this proposal threaten working groups if they interacted with a banned person? I’m very uncomfortable with that.

    • Sean McKeown

      Justin,

      I brought the proposal with several others, while face-down over a toilet. There are others I seek to deal with over acts of violence, such as Jeff, whom I kicked off of my couch and thus out of the free housing he had been receiving as soon as I found out he hit someone at GA. That a proposal has not been brought to either GA or Spokes regarding Jeff is due to the fact that @DiceyTroop does not seem to have wanted to pursue it further, and Nan was only banned after *repeated* physical altercations at *multiple* events, up to and including an instance in the Kitchen when she menaced someone with a knife. I haven’t brought a proposal to ban Sage, either, and that is a considerably more repetetive active source of physical altercations at this point than Jeff – am I showing “favoritism” by not having acted against Sage? No… if anything I am remembered for the phrase, “Hi everyone, you’re an ANGRY MOB!” at 11pm on the night of that proposal, insisting that if we are to do anything of the sort that we do it for the right reasons, and with sufficient emotional distance.

      I believe those are consistent with the issues presented here, that we should discuss in the general case before discussing in the specific case. By all means name names, call bullshit when you think you see it, but better yet – become informed. Jeff doesn’t get a pass because I like Jeff and don’t like Nan. Do recall that literally anyone in the movement is equally as empowered as I am, and at Spokes Council because of that proposal there is an established framework… and do recall that by that logical inference, since you know such to be possible, you are just as guilty as I am in giving Jeff that “pass”, because you could just as easily have stepped up to do something as complained about it not being done. This is a do-ocracy; I’m following through in this way following the priorities I feel are important, and in that regards Jeff is a very small fish, one that I have stated publicly would make an excellent “test case” for the grievance process we are forming in that he clearly needs to apologize and mend his ways but to the best of my knowledge has been unbending when it comes to the now-overdue apology.

      The logic I am applying here is that GA will create the standard, which then is applicable to every subgrouping. If a Working Group wishes to exclude a member from the Working Group, they would also have to follow a similar chain of action, seeking group consensus in so doing rather than arbitrarily deciding so – and having that group decision be publicized, and honored. I have stated a minimum threshold for action which I felt was quite clear in noting how infrequently this should be considered for action – presently, I am not even sure Nan meets the threshold requirements for this, and I am comfortable with that as I am considerably more worried about more violent offenders.

      There is no mechanism of enforcement, putting Working Groups or individuals at ‘peril’ of some sort for failing to uphold a “shunning” on a social level, but the denial of resources is key. I understand Kitchen does not wish to ‘police’ the kitchen line and I see no problem with that; we feed whomever wishes to be fed by us, and it would not de-escalate such a situation by seeking to turn anyone out of the line. I would ask, however, should they know anyone to be so noted by the General Assembly, that they do not speak to the individual even as they serve them food – the social impact of shunning within the community is more impactful than failing to offer someone a plate of food could ever be.

      As one of the members of the De-escalation working group, I am uncomfortable with a group being nominated for ‘enforcement’ in this capacity, which is why you do not see one being advanced, nominated, or created for this. That gives one group of individuals power in a nonhorizontal fashion, and thus the correct stance is to empower *everyone* to take this action. Presently, efforts like that have spontaneously appeared, with groups of individuals seeking to ‘box in’ people they felt had violated nonviolent principles or community agreements and allowing the assembly body to move to a new location absent of any disruption.

      • Justin Samuels

        Sean,

        Alright, you’re more consistent that I thought. I didn’t realize that you had kicked Jeff out.

        With that said, personally I’ve not sought to kick out any individual because I don’t like the precedent it would set for the movement.

        The problem this proposal doesn’t clearly state what should lead to one being banned. The other thing is, perhaps occupiers should involve the police more. If someone is arrested for raping someone, assaulting someone, or for theft and if they do time for it, I can understand more why the person should be banned from the movement and would support it.

        With no charges files against Nan or Jeff, it becomes more hearsay. I’ve heard the reports of what they did, however I don’t know if there was anything threatening from the individuals that they had the confrontation. As far Nan allegedly pulling out a knife on someone, where is the police report on this? Is it on camera, or is there any other evidence of this? Barring no professional investigation into these incidents, I don’t see why OWS bodies should take action against them.

        I remember the two cops who were accused of raping a drunk women. They were not fired until a court found them GUILTY of the CRIME.

        OWS would seem to want to kick people out without them having an actual trial, for actions that may not be criminal. This proposal would enable unpopular people to get banned.

        • Trish OWS

          Justin,

          Thanks for your clear balanced assessment.

          If, we as the 99% were truly participating in a transparent, leaderless, un-bias, anti-it all,

          social/economic justice movement the proposal could be looked atfairly from all angles.

          Another angle:

          There continues to be a proposal in Spokes Council to ban Robert, 03.12,2012.

          And, because of no one in our entire movement, tech savvy or not, can even offer assistance to

          produce video/live-stream of (02/13/2012) the the proposal is pending.

          Yet, when there was the issue of Nan, being banned, video/livestream, well….you get the

          picture.

          My experience is we have these proposals appearing to address one thing when they are really

          double edged tools to be used for all the wrong reasons, by all the wrong people.

          We, as a community should really look at what is in our face, everyday, and question it’s validity,,,,

          before we attempt to address any fake issues of exclusion.

          WE DON”T LIKE YOU, SO….

          YOU’RE NOT TOEING THE LINE, SO….

          You’re being disruptive, so…

          You’re being VIOLENT, but we can’t find the video…yet, so…

          • sumumba

            violence and threats has occurred in the GA, Spokes and at 60 Wall Street of which i and MANY others have witnessed as has verbal threats and disrespect…but i guess eye witnesses or even police/medical reports account for NOTHING without ‘videotape’ or the ‘consensus’ of OWS? MMMMMMK….

    • sumumba

      so maybe we need to look at ‘open meetings’ and ‘public spaces’ what is it going to take someone getting killed or SERIOUSLY injured before we realize that the OPPOSITE of Civilization is to allow people to do what they wish when they wish with no rules or CULTURE in place ….

      • DirekConek (aka Dallas)

        Dude… autonomous action.

        Speaking strictly for myself, if a situation escalates to the point where I feel like someone’s physical well-being or life is really endangered (rather than only their sense of safety and their peace of mind) I’m not really about to wait to be empowered to do something to prevent people from going to the hospital or worse.

        I sort of doubt I’m the only person that feels this way, but all this non-violence talk is damned stifling sometimes. If I see someone swinging a chair (again) or a bottle or some ish… guess what: I’m not gonna throw them a peace sign and give ‘em a hug. Sorry.

  7. Yoni Miller

    This is the theory of inclusion/exclusion. If you’re going to have a group, the group should have a clear boundary, which means there’s a perimeter, and not everyone belongs in that perimeter. There are other groups, for other people to join if they don’t qualify to fit in this one.

    For a more complete analysis if Principle of Inclusion Exclusion, see my co-athored mathematical lecture regarding this, :) http://onlinemathcircle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/21-pie.pdf

  8. Chris O'Donnell

    Food isn’t going to be able to stop feeding certain individuals no matter what the GA or SC says. So, please take out the bit about food. It isn’t within our capability or our mission. When volunteers show up to serve food (something the cooks usually avoid since we’ve already spent the last few hours working) they will most likely be completely unaware of who is on the “ban” list, and even if they do know, asking them to not serve someone puts them in an uncomfortable situation at the least, and a dangerous one at the most.
    I mean, jeeze. I support the need for a system of accountability. I was giving out metrocards the night of the scuffle at spokes and still blocked the proposal on behalf of food for the reasons I listed above. But the food that we work so hard to make everyday isn’t something you get as a “benefit” to being a member of OWS. Anyone is welcome to it. And the worst part is you would already know all of this if you’d taken the time to ask us about it instead of just throwing it in your proposal.
    As I said to Jeff the night of the SC emergency proposal to ban William, either everybody eats or we stop serving food in public areas. If this were to pass, with the food language still in it, don’t expect any cooperation from the kitchen.

  9. image

    difficult topic

    how to create agreed upon order

    OWS NYC appears as a group of fiercely independent folks who instinctively distrust social control

    now some are asking for social control

    if social control is not established, then the group becomes collectively mired in unproductive internal distractions like worrying if by attending a meeting one’s head may get stomped on, or by attending a meeting one has to endure witnessing and experincing the emotional torture of clashing ego, or bodies.

    on the other hand

    if social control is sought by attempting to establish tools like shunning, then does that freeze the shunee into a permanent state of unchangability, not only not promoting growth but perhaps locking the shunee into a perceivied inability to change, perceived not just by the shunner but also the shunee ?

    What is someone deemed shunned is not shunned by one or more other members of ows?
    Are those who do not join the shunning now guilty of not upholding the principles agreed on, and as such subject to also being put on the shit list, and they too are to be shunned, excluded etc……

    In short, if someone is deemed to have kooties, and you or i decide they don’t, do we automatically become kottiefied cause we touch, kiss, fondle,or engage in one or more forms of intercourse with the shunned ?

    **********************************************************************************************************
    i have only questions at this point.
    no answers.

    wish i did have a bright idea.

    just seems to be a bit of wheel spinning and too focused on stuff that seems loaded with more negative blowback than just waiting a bit to see if the spring dilutes the % of folks perecieved as ” the bad guys ” with sunnier faces without axes to grind.

    • DirekConek (aka Dallas)

      Bingo.

      While I’m glad that quite a few of us did tough out the raid, the chaos and BS at meetings, the police harassment, houselessness, etc. and make it to the American Spring :D – the kind of person that keeps showing up to violent chaotic meetings in the freezing cold is likely much more hardheaded than the average bear.

  10. image

    Regarding “bingo”:

    There was a farmer who had a dog,
    And Bingo was his name-o.
    B-I-N-G-O
    B-I-N-G-O
    B-I-N-G-O
    And Bingo was his name-o.

    There was a farmer who had a dog,
    And Bingo was his name-o.
    (clap)-I-N-G-O
    (clap)-I-N-G-O
    (clap)-I-N-G-O
    And Bingo was his name-o.

    There was a farmer who had a dog,
    And Bingo was his name-o.
    (clap)-(clap)-N-G-O
    (clap)-(clap)-N-G-O
    (clap)-(clap)-N-G-O
    And Bingo was his name-o.

    There was a farmer who had a dog,
    And Bingo was his name-o.
    (clap)-(clap)-(clap)-G-O
    (clap)-(clap)-(clap)-G-O
    (clap)-(clap)-(clap)-G-O
    And Bingo was his name-o.

    There was a farmer who had a dog,
    And Bingo was his name-o.
    (clap)-(clap)-(clap)-(clap)-O
    (clap)-(clap)-(clap)-(clap)-O
    (clap)-(clap)-(clap)-(clap)-O
    And Bingo was his name-o.

    There was a farmer who had a dog,
    And Bingo was his name-o.
    (clap)-(clap)-(clap)-(clap)-(clap)
    (clap)-(clap)-(clap)-(clap)-(clap)
    (clap)-(clap)-(clap)-(clap)-(clap)
    And Bingo was his name-o.

    I trust that clarifies things.
    “I”

    • Dean Taylor

      “I trust that clarifies things.”

      Not so fast young man. The figure of ‘Bingo’ alluded to in your post–are we to construe this as an obscurantist, cryptic endorsement of ‘games of chance’?

      Really? Well, that’s a fine ‘how do you do’! Here we are attempting to implement a prodigious change in the socio-economic construct and you (via linguistic ‘sleight-of-hand’, no less!) would that a focused activism be displaced by…by…a frenzied cohort of rustics motivated by ill-gotten gain, to wit:

      “Alternative methods of play try to increase participation by creating excitement” [Wiki].

      Have we not enough excitement in place already without the wanton infusion of same by heathen roughnecks bent on nothing less than dissipation, debauchery and a dubious dogmatism demanding dog-eared doo doo-ism?

      I would suggest, then, that any future appeals to that base instinct for wagering be tempered by, well…temperance.

      Good day to you Sir!

  11. image

    My response appears as CAPITAL LETTERS STRUNG TOGETHER IN WHAT WILL APPEAR AS “words”.

    Dean Taylor said on March 16, 2012
    “I trust that clarifies things.”
    THE WORD BINGO WHEN WRTTEN BY DC , WHOSE POST APPEARS ABOVE THE LYRICS OF THE SONG BINGO IS THE FIRST USE OF THE WORD BINGO IN THIS PORTION OF THIS THREAD.
    I UNDERSTOOD THAT HIS USE OF THE WORD BINGO WAS EQUALIVENT OF OTHER TERMS SUCH AS RIGHT ON, OR YES, ALL INDICATING AGREEMENT WITH SOME OR ALL OF MY POST WHICH DOES NOT MAKE USE OF THE WORD BINGO.
    WHEN I READ HIS USE OF THE WORD BINGO IT TRIGGERED THE MELODY IN MY MIND OF THE SONG BINGO.
    I NOTICED DC MENTIONED A BEAR, AS IN SMARTER THAN THE AVERAGE BEAR. I PICTURED FOR SOME REASON A SMALL ANIMAL CARTOON FIGURE IN CIRCUS MILTARY ATTIRE ON A UNICYCE JUGGLING, AND WONDERED IF I RECALLED A FIGURE OF BINGO, WHICH SEEMED BEAR LIKE.
    I USED GOOGLE, AND PICKED THE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY AS MY FIRST READ…THEN RAN ACROSS LYRICS…WHICH WERE OF THE SONG AND LO AND BEHOLD SPOKE OF A DOG, NOT A BEAR.
    SMARTER THAN THE AVERAGE DOG DIDN’T SEEM TO FIT ANY USE IF HUMOUR, OR POLITCAL COMMENTRY …SO I DECIDED TO SUGGEST THE SONG TRIGGER BY COPYING AND PASTING THE ENTRY AND FOLLOWED UP WITH THE SOURCE REFERANCE DIRECTLY AFTER THE LYRIC POST IN WHICH I ALSO EXPRESSED IN WHAT WAS INTENDED AS NON SEQUITAR, ABSURDIST , AND ESSENTALLY SILLY, DUMB, IMMATURE HUMOUR WITH THE PHRASE I HOPED IT CLARIFIED THINGS.

    Not so fast young man.

    I AM SURPRISED YOU REFER TO ME BASED ON CHRONOLOGICAL AS WELL AS GENDER BASED INDENTIFICATION.

    I AM CURIOUS.

    WHY DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE CHOSEN YOUNG AND MAN?

    The figure of ‘Bingo’ alluded to in your post–are
    AS I INDICATE ABOVE IT WAS DC, NOT MYSELF WHO INTRODUCED BINGO INTO THIS THREAD
    we to construe this as an obscurantist, cryptic endorsement of ‘games of chance’?
    I HAVE DOUBTS, SINCE I INTERPRETED DCS USE OF BINGO AS AGREEMENT WITH MY POST.

    Really?

    NO.

    Well, that’s a fine ‘how do you do’!

    AND HOW DO YOU DO.

    Here we are attempting to implement a prodigious change in the socio-economic construct

    ACTALLY IMPLEMENT INDICATES THE ABILITY TO IMPEMENT, WHICH IS UNLIKELY.

    FACILITATE I THINK WOULD BE A MORE ACCURATE RECOGNITION OF WHATS REALLY OCURRING.

    and you (via linguistic ‘sleight-of-hand’, no less!) would that a focused activism be displaced by…by…a frenzied cohort of rustics motivated by ill-gotten gain

    I NEVER THOUGHT OF BINGO AS PRODUCING ILL GOTTON GAIN

    WHEN PLAYING IT AS A CHILD NO MONEY WAS INVOLVED.

    JUST A METAL ARROW MOUNTED ON CARDBOARD WHICH WAS SPUN

    TO DETERMINE WHERE WOODEN MARKERS WERE PLACED ON CARDBARD PLAY CARDS.

    , to wit:

    “Alternative methods of play try to increase participation by creating excitement” [Wiki].

    UNLESS YOU MEANT GAIN NOT IN MONEY BUT RATHER THE RELEASE OF ENDORPHINS UPON WINNING AND ANNOUNCING THE WIN BY SHOUTING BINGO.

    Have we not enough excitement in place already without the wanton infusion of same by heathen roughnecks bent on nothing less than dissipation, debauchery and a dubious dogmatism demanding dog-eared doo doo-ism?

    NO.
    SQUARE DANCING WOULD BE RUSTIC, AND MIGHT FIT YOUR DESCRIPTION.

    I would suggest, then, that any future appeals to that base instinct for wagering be tempered by, well…temperance.

    I DO NOT CONSUME ALCOHOL, BUT I DO NOT ADVOCATE THE IMPOSITION OF TEMPERANCE ON OTHERS.

    Good day to you Sir!

    SIR.
    MALE.
    SEXISM.

    SIR
    DENOTING TITLE USUALLY CONFERED BY ROTALTY.

    SIR
    ALSO AN INDICATION OF AGEISM.
    OLDER PERSON, MALE.

    WHAT IF I AM A FIFTEEN YEAR OLD HERMAPHRODITE TRANSGENDERED MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY OF THE NETHERLENDS CHOSING TO IDENTIFY HERSELF AS WITHOUT GENDER?

    I TRUST THIS CLARIFIES THINGS, EXCEPT THE SQUARE DANCING THING OF COURSE.

    REMEMBER MARCH SEVENTEENTH IS A GOOD DAY TO BE OUT AND ABOUT, TO MARCH IN MARCH, TO JOIN IN LIBERTY SQUARE AT ELEVEN FOURTY FIVE FOR A SHARED MEAL, AND THEN LATER TO EXECERISE FREE SPEECH, THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY, AND NON VIOLENCE.

    USE IT OR LOSE IT.

    “I”