BB's Home Page > alt.gathering.rainbow > Part 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7
A meeting in San Francisco - part 7
From: garrick (garr...@nets.com)
Subject: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 00:38:42 PST
GARRICK BECK
930 Baca Street #10
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Ph./Fx.: 505-820-7764
Dear Jeff,
I thought I should share a few thoughts with you.
First, commendations for bringing together the people you did in San Francisco. Despite whatever remarkable views may have been expressed, and despite however far from what you may have dreamed of, that meeting was no doubt a valuable step.
Last year, in going through the permit process, there were agreements given to me and accepted by me in good faith, put in writing and spoken clearly as recorded agreements. Most of these were lived up to. In general things like the traffic, public safety, health, and environmental protection went extremely well.
But there were certain major commitments that were not kept to, and in particular these I bring up here have cost us much goodwill.
The first of these is that the Incident Command Team treated me endlessly like the only person they could go to talk to about dozens of issues they knew could only be resolved by the people working in those areas (medical, traffic, water, kitchens, etc.) Despite the Undersecretary's letter which declares bluntly that a signer attains no capacity as an officer, the IC Team put me de facto in that position.
In the same vein, the Operating Plan itself was not put together by onsite volunteers and Forest Service personnel as agreed; no, it was unilaterally prepared and delivered to me, without discussion with any onsite workers/planners/volunteers. Several problems that occurred could or would have been avoided if that operating plan had been worked out with participants.
Eventually the FS resource people began communicating directly with the people involved, and that contributed to an excellent cleanup. From my first written contact I requested - and it was agreed - that the cleanup crew specifically would receive a letter from the Ranger District indicating that the rehab work was successfully completed, and this be given to the crew on departure.
This letter was delayed two months, and then only after repeated written, phone and faxed requests was such a letter sent, to who? To me. Not even the courtesy extended to the hundreds souls who did the hardest job of the whole Gathering, by addressing this "cleanup" letter to them. This was no mistake, not after all the discussion specifically on this point; nor for a moment do I think it was the hard-working District Ranger who determined that it just couldn't be addressed to the people who did the beautiful job.
The fourth assent was that given a legal (permitted) event and a cooperative process, we would see a reduction in law enforcement throughout the Gathering. That's not what we saw. And the reason is that the IC Team didn't believe the permit would be granted even if applied for. Why not? Because they themselves were working to invoke inapplicable Utah State Laws, in order to keep the Gathering illegal.
And they found themselves at the last with a huge posse of Special Agents, already brought in, already arranged and paid for...with a legal Gathering to attend to. And we saw people torn from their cars and searched for no reason but DWR (Driving While Rainbow); rogue officers spreading patently untrue sexual allegations that they fabricated; officers ticketing people who put down their dog's leash for a moment to shoulder their own pack, federally deputized horses peeing and pooping in kitchens, children's areas, bakeries, and the mounted officers atop them threatening arrest for "interfering" to anyone who dared so much as speak up about this, etc.
These are what has made it impossible for me to find so much as two persons willing to come forward and follow the permit course. I approached that task last year with as much positivity and hope and deep thought and hard work as I could to make that permit process work; I felt I kept my parts of the bargain I signed.
But it is up to the people who watched it happen to decide for themselves whether this is a workable process, or to continue to try to change the way things are.
I think that if the government had addressed the various volunteers at the event regarding all the processes of the event; if the government had prepared the operating plan with participants; if the government had delivered the cleanup letter to the cleanup crew as promised; and if the government had shown an appropriate level of law enforcement at a lawful event, there would be a line of people ready to be the next signers. Everyone gave me a fair chance to show how the process works, or could work. I continued thru with the process even when - along the way - there were obvious indications that Incident Command wasn't honoring agreements made by Administrative Staff. We are - for better or worse - on the road these actions have brought us to. Maybe, by the final order not to address a simple letter like the cleanup letter as agreed, the IC thought they were adding the final straw to alienating the participants from wanting to participate in the permit process, and maybe, in that, they were right. I can only hope that intelligent minds like Regional Forester Blackwell, his administrative superiors, his staff, and those they can count on, will see some way to work this out with the real volunteers who come forward to prepare the upcoming Gathering. I think everyone is willing to work together in the field(s and hills) to make a fine Gathering. It's on the papers and in the fine print that it's more difficult.
When, briefly, I met Mark at the Gathering during the 5th of July Brunch, we spoke about a get together to talk sometime later in the fall. I do have some regrets about not attending, after helping in many ways to arrange the meeting, but the actions I've just described put me in a corner where the only way I could be sure to see the Agency talking and listening to those other than myself was by my absence. I hope no one, you especially, takes any personal offence at this, but it seemed the only way to be clear about where people really stand.
Again, I've heard many renditions of the Park Branch Library Meeting, and I know you suffered much watching it. But it was a brave thing to instigate and in the end after the catcalls subside the real value of what you did will be clear.
Garrick
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 06:13:07 PST
"garrick" <garr...@nets.com> wrote in message news:cefffc72.0401300038.2b673...@posting.google.com...
> I think that if the government had addressed the various volunteers at the event regarding all the processes of the event; if the goverment had prepared the operating plan with participants; if the government had delivered the cleanup letter to the cleanup crew as promised; and if the government had shown an appropriate level of law enforcement at a lawful event, there would be a line of people ready to be the next signers.
Hmmm.... I wonder when 'the government' has become honest enough to mean what they say?
"Get it in writing!"
-Judge Judy
Hello? It's the oldest trick in the book: Placate you while verbally assenting to all your concerns, agreeing to all your needs, whilst making you *sign* for *theirs*.
Read the fine print and between the lines.
Lucy: "Don't worry, Charlie Brown, I promise I'll hold the football until you kick it so you won't fall flat on your back."
> in the end after the catcalls subside
There's that ubiquitous dismissal again....
> the real value of what you did will be clear.
One wonders why it's not clear now? Hmmmm......
Ah, the intrigue!
> Garrick
Reduce LEO budget? Don't send any cops.
1 + 1 = 2 (still a knowable value)
Crunching the numbers
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 06:28:07 PST
"garrick" <garr...@nets.com> wrote in message news:cefffc72.0401300038.2b673...@posting.google.com...
Another quick note is that after reading the line in your letter regarding how "after the catcalls subside, the value of what you did will become clear", I was reminded of all these politicos out on the national campaign trail, who have nothing to say with any substance. For example, "We're doing everything we can..." or, "We should do everything we can...." or "What America needs now is *true* leadership...."
...But not a word about the issues which might reveal intentions. A real value should easily hold up under scrutiny or criticism.
So tell me, (if you can afford the time) - What *is* the value you decline to mention, and why do you decline to mention it? I have put my honest feelings and ideas about the meeting out here - where's yours?
Are the rest of us just not sufficiently endowed with the necessary wisdom to understand the value so you don't mention it?
"The value "will become" apparent....", sounds too much like all the prophecies handed down through the ages....
From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 07:03:09 PST
garrick wrote:
> GARRICK BECK
> 930 Baca Street #10
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> Ph./Fx.: 505-820-7764
> January 24, 2004
> Dear Jeff,
> I thought I should share a few thoughts with you.
> First, commendations for bringing together the people you did in San Francisco. Despite whatever remarkable views may have been expressed, and despite however far from what you may have dreamed of, that meeting was no doubt a valuable step.
Towards what?
> Last year, in going through the permit process, there were agreements given to me and accepted by me in good faith,
A lie. If Garrick had been acting "in good faith" he could never have made agreements and contracts for others without their consent.
> put in writing and spoken clearly as recorded agreements. Most of these were lived up to. In general things like the traffic, public safety,
Garrick is NOT a public officer charged with public safety, neither is he elected or appointed by the community.
> health, and environmental protection went extremely well.
> But there were certain major commitments that were not kept to, and in particular these I bring up here have cost us much goodwill.
"us"? Garrick does not understand the distinction between individuality and group identity. Garrick speaks for others whether they like it or not.
> The first of these is that the Incident Command Team treated me endlessly like the only person they could go to talk to about dozens of issues they knew could only be resolved by the people working in those areas (medical, traffic, water, kitchens, etc.) Despite the Undersecretary's letter which declares bluntly that a signer attains no capacity as an officer, the IC Team put me de facto in that position.
Garrick expected different? Years of speaking for Rainbow against the vehement opposition of many, with like results, and Garrick still hasn't learned? Hey, try listening to and caring about what others say, and respecting the rights of others, and you won't have that problem Garrick....
> In the same vein, the Operating Plan itself was not put together by onsite volunteers and Forest Service personnel as agreed; no, it was unilaterally prepared and delivered to me, without discussion with any onsite workers/planners/volunteers. Several problems that occurred could or would have been avoided if that operating plan had been worked out with participants.
Garrick himself took the matter away from the Counsel Circle, and now he wants to lay the blame for the fruits of his actions on others. Think that ought to fly Garrick? Think it will? I don't.
> Eventually the FS resource people began communicating directly with the people involved, and that contributed to an excellent cleanup.
> From my first written contact I requested - and it was agreed - that the cleanup crew specifically would receive a letter from the Ranger District indicating that the rehab work was successfully completed, and this be given to the crew on departure.
> This letter was delayed two months, and then only after repeated written, phone and faxed requests was such a letter sent, to who? To me. Not even the courtesy extended to the hundreds souls who did the hardest job of the whole Gathering, by addressing this "cleanup" letter to them. This was no mistake, not after all the discussion specifically on this point; nor for a moment do I think it was the hard-working District Ranger who determined that it just couldn't be addressed to the people who did the beautiful job.
You made yourself Spokesman/Leader Garrick, and had no reason to expect the FS to behave differently.
> The fourth assent was that given a legal (permitted) event and a cooperative process, we would see a reduction in law enforcement throughout the Gathering. That's not what we saw. And the reason is that the IC Team didn't believe the permit would be granted even if applied for. Why not? Because they themselves were working to invoke innapplicable Utah State Laws, in order to keep the Gathing illegal.
Had to justify their existence somehow didn't they?
> And they found themselves at the last with a huge posse of Special Agents, already brought in, already arranged and paid for...with a legal Gathering to attend to. And we saw people torn from their cars and searched for no reason but DWR (Driving While Rainbow); rogue officers spreading patently untrue sexual allegations that they fabricated; officers ticketing people who put down their dog's leash for a moment to shoulder their own pack, federally deputized horses peeing and pooping in kitchens, children's areas, bakeries, and the mounted officers atop them threatening arrest for "interfereing" to anyone who dared so much as speak up about this, etc.
I wanna see lots of pictures.
> These are what has made it impossible for me to find so much as two persons willing to come forward and follow the permit course.
NO PERMITS! America's Framers complained about having to house Redcoats. History repeats.
> I approached that task last year with as much positivity and hope and deep thought and hard work as I could to make that permit process work; I felt I kept my parts of the bargain I signed.
Garrick signed for the whole of humanity. Bargained for everyone. Represented all without even asking permission. Avoided the counsel of others because he knew he could never get approval for his infamy.
> But it is up to the people who watched it happen to decide for themselves whether this is a workable process, or to continue to try to change the way things are.
I, personally, think it would be nice if Garrick would stop telling people what to do altogether.....
> I think that if the government had addressed the various volunteers at the event regarding all the processes of the event; if the goverment had prepared the operating plan with participants; if the government had delivered the cleanup letter to the cleanup crew as promised; and if the government had shown an appropriate level of law enforcement at a lawful event, there would be a line of people ready to be the next signers.
Already is a line of people anxious to be paper chiefs way I hear it. That's why I'm sitting 2004 out in the Ozarks. :^)
> Everyone gave me a fair chance to show how the process works, or could work.
Fuck you Garrick. You avoided the counsel process and foisted your agenda on everyone.
> I continued thru with the process even when - along the way - there were obvious indications that Incident Command wasn't honoring agreements made by Administrative Staff.
You avoided the counsel process.
> We are - for better or worse - on the road these actions have brought us to.
Brought YOU to Garrick. I think it's time you dined on what you cooked up instead of shoving it down the throats of others. Take responsibility for your actions, huh?
> Maybe, by the final order not to address a simple letter like the cleanup letter as agreed, the IC thought they were adding the final straw to alienating the participants from wanting to participate in the permit process, and maybe, in that, they were right.
Maybe it was your decision to represent others without asking and against their wills that was the last straw Garrick. Take responsibility for your actions, huh?
> I can only hope that intelligent minds like Regional Forester Blackwell, his administrative superiors, his staff, and those they can count on, will see some way to work this out with the real volunteers who come forward to prepare the upcoming Gathering. I think everyone is willing to work together in the field(s and hills) to make a fine Gathering. It's on the papers and in the fine print that it's more difficult.
The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is not "fine print," just a fine idea....
> When, briefly, I met Mark at the Gathering during the 5th of July Brunch, we spoke about a get together to talk sometime later in the fall. I do have some regrets about not attending, after helping in many ways to arrange the meeting, but the actions I've just described put me in a corner where the only way I could be sure to see the Agency talking and listening to those other than myself was by my absence. I hope no one, you especially, takes any personal offence at this, but it seemed the only way to be clear about where people really stand.
Garrick, because of you and your clique of self appointed high holy idiots, I "stand" in the Ozarks, alone if need be but FREE of your parenting in any case. When you say what you think is a good path to follow, all well and good, it is your right to voice an opinion; but you had and have NO RIGHT to impose your will on me, 'for my own good' or for any other excuse!
Sanity [Wash your hands!] :^)
> Again, I've heard many renditions of the Park Branch Library Meeting, and I know you suffered much watching it. But it was a brave thing to instigate and in the end after the catcalls subside the real value of what you did will be clear.
> Garrick
From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 07:06:01 PST
"Thunder" <thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kRtSb.17957$3V7....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> "garrick" <garr...@nets.com> wrote in message news:cefffc72.0401300038.2b673...@posting.google.com..
>> Another quick note is that after reading the line in your letter regarding how "after the catcalls subside, the value of
...
> "The value "will become" apparent....", sounds too much like all the prophecies handed down through the ages....
Do you really expect him to engage in actual dialogue now here on AGR? I might voice my opinion on the substance of the letter, and he might even read it, but I would be surprised if he actually replied. When I was younger (ALOT younger) I had much respect for him. I think the only way he could even begin to regain my respect (which it is doubtful he sees any value in my respecting him) would be to admit to us peons that he lied to us saying the permit he signed was soley for himself only- when in fact, and him knowingly gambling thousands of people's lives and interests, had the audacity to call it a Rainbow Gathering he was signing for. He didn't respond here to the many warnings posted. He had people like Karin boasting of his big balls and all, only to take the biggest punch in the face and family flop yet. The only way out would to genuinely appologize to the family and totally renounce the permit strategy- as well as reiterating the old tradition of "no one speaks for rainbow". If it was soley his own individual experiment to test where the gummint stands in it's integrity that would have been a very different matter- but the fact is that this whole family's ideals and hopes were gambled away in an experiment that failed miserably.
However, in spite of all the footsey playing with the US gummint and dancing around the political snakepit there still exists a spirit among the majority of the people who have attended gatherings that shines through the fog. To think that if last years experiment were a success there would have been " a line of people" wanting to sign a permit, but having failed, there can now be no doubt rainbow gatherings are under attack because of the weapons of mass gathering. -woodstock-
--
Hey man- check out Hip eBay :
http://www.hipebay.hipplanet.com
From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 07:12:06 PST
Thunder wrote:
> "garrick" <garr...@nets.com> wrote in message news:cefffc72.0401300038.2b673...@posting.google.com..
> >Another quick note is that after reading the line in your letter regarding how "after the catcalls subside, the value of...
> "The value "will become" apparent....", sounds too much like all the prophecies handed down through the ages....
I'm beginning to understand your M-O Thunder. The fact that Garrick won't answer honestly and directly will show his stripe.
Good thinking.
Sanity
From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 07:17:43 PST
woodstock wrote:
...
> However, in spite of all the footsey playing with the US gummint and dancing around the political snakepit there still exists a spirit among the majority of the people who have attended gatherings that shines through the fog. To think that if last years experiment were a success there would have been " a line of people" wanting to sign a permit, but having failed, there can now be no doubt rainbow gatherings are under attack because of the weapons of mass gathering. -woodstock-
HO!
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 07:31:07 PST
"woodstock" <thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:spuSb.2129$IF1.1...@fed1read01...
> Do you really expect him to engage in actual dialogue now here on AGR?
I dunno. But it's not necessarily the point, anyway. I try to put the things out there that get overlooked, or glossed over. What someone does with that is their choice, and also IMO, reveals something about sincerity (or not).
> The only way out would to genuinely appologize to the family and totally renounce the permit strategy- as well as reiterating the old tradition of "no one speaks for rainbow".
It sounded like back-pedaling away from the idea of signing permits, placing all the responsibility for the way things turned out on the FS. Maybe it *was* an apology of sorts. Humble pie can be hard to swallow.
From: Karin Zirk (kz...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 07:45:35 PST
Thanks to Garrick for continuing to try to solve an ongoing problem in the way he thinks will enact change.
Can't say I know what will create the change we want to see so I fall back on my long held belief that individuals working in different ways to create change will eventually cause change to happen.
I truly believe that change happens not from any one action, but from an orchestra of different actions rising to a crescendo.
Karin
From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 08:06:57 PST
"Thunder" <thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:PMuSb.7815$5J4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> "woodstock" <thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:spuSb.2129$IF1.1...@fed1read01...
> > Do you really expect him to engage in actual dialogue now here on AGR?
> I dunno. But it's not necessarily the point, anyway.
I realize your reply was for public consumption and not necessarily in anticipation of an actual reply from garrick- but there was a point in my asking the question.
>I try to put the things out there that get overlooked, or glossed over.
Yes- and you do an excellent job of that on most accounts.
>What someone does with that is their choice, and also IMO, reveals something about sincerity (or not).
The point in posing the question was to provoke a response from garrick and to provide food for thought to the lurkers. I'm glad he posted this letter to Jeff so that the folly of the permit as well as the consequences of speaking for rainbow be known. -woodstock- ps: Swan & I loved the Charlie Brown analogy.
From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 08:10:49 PST
"Karin Zirk" <kz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:401A7C1C.3...@earthlink.net...
> Thanks to Garrick for continuing to try to solve an ongoing problem in the way he thinks will enact change.
This is one example of stupid stuff you say at times. Do you ever disagree with him? -woodstock-
> Can't say I know what will create the change we want to see so I fall back on my long held belief that
...
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 08:51:07 PST
...
> I realize your reply was for public consumption and not necessarily in anticipation of an actual reply from garrick- but there was a point in my asking the question.
> >I try to put the things out there that get overlooked, or glossed over.
> Yes- and you do an excellent job of that on most accounts.
Why thanks Woodstock!
> >What someone does with that is their choice, and also IMO, reveals something about sincerity (or not).
> The point in posing the question was to provoke a response from garrick and to provide food for thought to the lurkers. I'm glad he posted this letter to Jeff so that the folly of the permit as well as the consequences of speaking for rainbow be known. -woodstock- ps: Swan & I loved the Charlie Brown analogy.
I'm glad he did too, but I'm a bit disappointed at the <omitted>-like dismissive reference to 'catcalls'. I guess some people think only *their* opinions are worth considering, or maybe they're just too busy with important decision-making to be bogged down in such mundane and irrelevant things as other people's concerns. You know - the stuff of humanity.
Let's see what develops.
From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 09:04:43 PST
"Thunder" <thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QXvSb.19669$Ql2.14...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
...
> I'm glad he did too, but I'm a bit disappointed at the <omitted>-like dismissive reference to 'catcalls'. I guess some people think only *their* opinions are worth considering, or maybe they're just too busy with important decision-making to be bogged down in such mundane and irrelevant things as other people's concerns. You know - the stuff of humanity.
> Let's see what develops.
Little Brother is Watching!....
-woodstock-
From: Marty (mart...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 10:44:02 PST
Sanity-Clause wrote:
> "us"? Garrick does not understand the distinction between individuality and group identity. Garrick speaks for others whether they like it or not.
That's the heart of the matter. He still doesn't get it. He still pretends that he did nothing wrong. He's still not accountable to anyone.
It's not good enough.
Marty
From: Rbeccacake (rbeccac...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 11:17:20 PST
What Garrick did was Wrong but I won't condemn him for it. I believe this latest post is some sort of apology from an ego that can't humble himself to actually say it. He admits he was wrong. He implies that resistance and peacefully standing your ground might be the only way to "work with" the feds from the House on the Hill. Hell, even I know you can't play their game and win, but his ego needed to see that for himself. I can picture an Indian chief saying, "he may make a great leader some day." Y'all might say I'm crazy but perhaps he'll stop meddling for a bit and chill. He knows there are others creating "dialogue" out there and perhaps he will trust them, send out his love and prayers and not sign any more permits. Anyone operating in a focalizer role will find his/herself bumping into feds and creating dialogue, making promises, planning. I did it in the Utah woods, too. Busy me.
Loving you,
Becca
From: SpunDance (SpunDa...@Alien.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 11:42:33 PST
"woodstock" <thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:amvSb.2135$IF1.1...@fed1read01...
> "Karin Zirk" <kz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:401A7C1C.3...@earthlink.net...
> > Thanks to Garrick for continuing to try to solve an ongoing problem in the way he thinks will enact change.
> This is one example of stupid stuff you say at times. Do you ever disagree with him?
-woodstock-
> > Can't say I know what will create the change we want to see so I fall back on my long held belief that individuals working in different ways to create change will eventually cause change to happen.
> > I truly believe that change happens not from any one action, but from an orchestra of different actions rising to a crescendo.
> > Karin
this is the problem Ive noticed, also. to many leo's. busting folkz for no reason. looking for anything to take us down. those who know of my HIGH-TECH radio and scanner skills. have seen the logs ive made, of folkz pulled over before they got to the gate, and and in the parking lots 1000's of them in 1 gathering, Cameras Put in trees, that look like Bird nests, late night Seeding of spring heads, with E -coli..and other BIO-tox. substances. to have it break out the next day in the village...with 100's sick and boiling the water...Now with the Permit they have a Signed ticket
to countinue to violate out Civil rights. I have been a target of the forest service for years, Playing cat and mouse with there agents, looking for my bus, or RV of High tech gear for de-scrambling their freq.and listening to their secret tranmissions, . and always stayed 1 step ahead of them. by, cutting, dying, shaving my beard or hair. and using diffrent vehicles every time to bring radio and other electronics in.
at one point they tried to get me to sign, and come along on this permit ride. due to the fact I had constant communiations with all kitchens, and radio personal. and many a time, I would talk to them(leos) on their own freq. to report situations that needed Leo assistance. fire, injury, etc..but, i saw this has a trap to be a informent to Illeagal Rainbow activitys. And packed up one year never to return. to a gathering again.....with the High tech scanners, and radio gear. I know alot more about them, than they tell..from just listening........and hacking there transmissons.. they are trying to take down the family gathering. not help us Make happen.I will not attend a signed gathering. and figured this is the best bet. Sell all the 1000's of dollars worth of Radio and scanner gear, and use the Money for a down payment on Land, and have my own rainbow family Gathering, Me, the Wife and kids, 4 ever.on land I OWN..lol on the Permit. its a waste of time and will bring us all down in the end.. ....peace out
www.spundance.com
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 12:27:08 PST
"SpunDance" <SpunDa...@Alien.net> wrote in message news:HsySb.22625$wL6.1992929...@twister2.starband.net...
> this is the problem Ive noticed, also. to many leo's. busting folkz for no reason. looking for anything to take us down.
Yup. Used to be, back in the bad old days of the wild west, when there were some lawless folks around preying upon others enjoying their freedom, the Lawman was a welcome sight in many a burg and village. Can you imagine Wyatt Earp galloping up to some sodbuster coming to town for supplies and demanding he sign a friggin' permit to be there? Not hardly. These wannabe lawpeople these days ain't got a clue about what they are sworn to uphold, thinking the law is their deity rather than the people are their rightful employers. And these compliant, obsequious do-gooders who sign permits without authority do more harm than good.
They're just pulling the same-old, same-old. A few of the real old-time chiefs got tired of seeing their families destroyed, murdered in cold blood and pulled down, so they signed - and what has it got them? Their lives spared from the murderous freedom folks and their nation a memory?
Long live Palestine!
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 12:27:08 PST
"Rbeccacake" <rbeccac...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040130141647.19027.00001...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> What Garrick did was Wrong but I won't condemn him for it. I believe this latest post is some sort of apology from an ego that can't humble himself to actually say it. He admits he was wrong.
I kinda thunk so too.
> He implies that resistance and peacefully standing your ground might be the only way to "work with" the feds from the
...
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 12:27:08 PST
"Marty" <mart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SBxSb.3387$GO6.2...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
...
> That's the heart of the matter. He still doesn't get it. He still pretends that he did nothing wrong. He's still not accountable to anyone.
> It's not good enough.
> Marty
Hey! How you cats doing?
From: Marty (mart...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 12:38:17 PST
Thunder wrote:
> Hey! How you cats doing?
What's it to you how my cat's doing?
From: Marty (mart...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 13:06:11 PST
Thunder wrote:
> "Rbeccacake" <rbeccac...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040130141647.19027.00001...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>>What Garrick did was Wrong but I won't condemn him for it. I believe thislatest post is some sort of apology from an ego that can't humble himself toactually say it. He admits he was wrong.
> I kinda thunk so too.
Since you enjoy quizzing me about my cat..
So what do you believe?
a: he can't apologize
b: he admits he was wrong
c: both a and b (i.e. Beck is schizophrenic)
Marty
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 13:18:06 PST
"Marty" <mart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7HzSb.3589$GO6.2...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
...
> Since you enjoy quizzing me about my cat..
> So what do you believe?
> a: he can't apologize
> b: he admits he was wrong
> c: both a and b (i.e. Beck is schizophrenic)
> Marty
d. he's a hepcat, daddy-o. And all that jazz.
Alternately, I don't think it's all that black and white. I don't know him well enuf to know if he'd actually apologize for real, or even if he thinks he was wrong, it just seems like it was the beginnings of an apology to me.
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 13:18:06 PST
"Marty" <mart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:YgzSb.3562$GO6.1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Thunder wrote:
> > Hey! How you cats doing?
> What's it to you how my cat's doing?
<chuckle> It was an oblique reference to catcalls. Like,
"How are you cats doing?"
Meo-o-o-o-w-w-w-w-
From: Marty (mart...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 13:59:57 PST
Thunder wrote:
> Alternately, I don't think it's all that black and white.
It's pretty black and white that a permit was signed. The betrayal, false representation, violation of rights, deception, etc... Those were all pretty black and white in my opinion.
Likewise it's black and white that an effective apology requires admitting guilt, not a bunch of blame shifting and self-justification.
Marty
From: Marty (mart...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 14:06:28 PST
Thunder wrote:
> "Marty" <mart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:YgzSb.3562$GO6.1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
...
> <chuckle> It was an oblique reference to catcalls. Like, "How are you cats doing?"
> Meo-o-o-o-w-w-w-w-
Oh that. I'm slow on the uptake. Let me reinterpret: catcalls are the reactions of people who have the audacity to complain when you step all over them. The mice are those who just submit as they should, without even a squeak of complaint.
Marty
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 14:20:04 PST
"Marty" <mart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xtASb.3623$GO6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Thunder wrote:
> > Alternately, I don't think it's all that black and white.
> It's pretty black and white that a permit was signed. The betrayal, false representation, violation of rights, deception, etc... Those were all pretty black and white in my opinion.
> Likewise it's black and white that an effective apology requires admitting guilt, not a bunch of blame shifting and self-justification.
> Marty
I happen to agree, but that wasn't what you asked me, which was what did *I* think, which I answered. I did already note the evident blame-shift as a sort of weak lateral attempt at apology, or maybe an off-kilter denial of responsibility.
As a sort of a side note regarding blame-shifting, responsibilities, and admissions of guilt, I made note this morning of the plea the young man in Florida agreed to in trying to help set aside his life sentence for 'murdering' a playmate when he was 12 years. The kid was much bigger than the girl who died, and they were horsing around - he practicing wrestling moves like on TV. Anyone who has seen the grief-stricken tears running down that young man's face who still believes he intentionally killed the girl is a fool or worse. At 12 years of age, he was (IMO on the basis of racial bias) sentenced to life in prison. He's now been in there for 4 years, and is 16 years old or so, and has done the only thing he can to get himself out of this onerous sentence, and that is to plead guilty to 2nd degree murder in return for a reduced sentence. Everyone involved knows the young man does not believe he's actually guilty, despite effectively forcing him to agree that he is under no coercion, so later they can wring their hands and declare, "If he wasn't guilty, why then did he admit to it?"
How in God's name can that pass for anything like justice?
It's just another example of the expediency routine which routinely substitutes for what might otherwise be called justice in the US, and all the prosecutors, das and judges involved are corrupt lying bastards, knowing nothing of what is just and what isn't.
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 14:22:02 PST
"Marty" <mart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:DzASb.3627$GO6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Thunder wrote:
> > Meo-o-o-o-w-w-w-w-
> Oh that. I'm slow on the uptake. Let me reinterpret: catcalls are the reactions of people who have the audacity to complain when you step all over them. The mice are those who just submit as they should, without even a squeak of complaint.
> Marty
Ah yes. But of course...
G-r-r-r-r-r-r-o-o-o-o-w-w-w-w-l-l-l-l
From: bodhi (The_Psychedelic_Tour...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 15:27:37 PST
Garrick;
Here are some snippets from your letter and my comments:
> Last year, in going through the permit process, there were agreements given to me and accepted by me in good faith, put in writing and spoken clearly as recorded agreements. B ut there were certain major commitments that were not kept to, and in particular these I bring up here have cost us much goodwill.
There were many folks (including myself) that were willing to see what happens at a permitted gathering. To see if the "Forked Tongues" in Washington could be trusted. Maybe we were expecting a miracle, maybe we were hoping the impass could be over and we could enjoy a safe and legal gathering. There were alot of hopes and expectations riding on this to work. But the Forest Service had to show what bumbling bureaucrates they are.
> The fourth assent was that given a legal (permitted) event and a cooperative process, we would see a reduction in law enforcement throughout the Gathering. That's not what we saw. And the reason is that the IC Team didn't believe the permit would be granted even if applied for. Why not? Because they themselves were working to invoke innapplicable Utah State Laws, in order to keep the Gathing illegal.
Let's be reminded of the vast amount of Taxpayer's money that Bush earmarked to the Federal agencies for his "War On Terror". All that money went to the Forest Service's Law Enforcement Divison - which has hated our guts for years. Like giving the wolves the keys to the henhouse.
> And they found themselves at the last with a huge posse of Special Agents, already brought in, already arranged and paid for...with a legal Gathering to attend to. And we saw people torn from their cars and searched for no reason but DWR (Driving While Rainbow); rogue officers spreading patently untrue sexual allegations that they fabricated; officers ticketing people who put down their dog's leash for a moment to shoulder their own pack, federally deputized horses peeing and pooping in kitchens, children's areas, bakeries, and the mounted officers atop them threatening arrest for "interfereing" to anyone who dared so much as speak up about this, etc.
Which we've seen for years - and worse. The LEOs are running the show and all your talks with Resources was wasted. Follow the Money and you will find the Power. There are bridges and roads in the forest that the FS claim they don't have the money to fix, but yet the LEOs are strutting around in new equiptment. O.K. so now we know who's running the show.
> These are what has made it impossible for me to find so much as two persons willing to come forward and follow the permit course. I approached that task last year with as much positivity and hope and deep thought and hard work as I could to make that permit process work; I felt I kept my parts of the bargain I signed.
Garrick, you're a good brother and i have respected for you years. i appreciate you trying to resolve this. But as Dylan once said "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the winds blow." Well, the wind out of Washington is blowing foul. It's time now to circle the wagons and batten down the hatches....
> But it is up to the people who watched it happen to decide for themselves whether this is a workable process, or to continue to try to change the way things are.
To the Forest Service i say:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Or as the Who sang:
"Won't be fooled again."
The FS had their chance last year - they blew it. Now it's time for "Plan B" - not trying to revise "Plan A"
> I think that if the government had addressed the various volunteers at the event regarding all the processes of the event; if the goverment had prepared the operating plan with participants; if the government had delivered the cleanup letter to the cleanup crew as promised; and if the government had shown an appropriate level of law enforcement at a lawful event, there would be a line of people ready to be the next signers.
Yeah, and if pigs had wings....
> Everyone gave me a fair chance to show how the process works, or could work. I continued thru with the process even when - along the way - there were obvious indications that Incident Command wasn't honoring agreements made by Administrative Staff.
Follow the Money. There was a lot of money to lose if we became Legal. The LEOs fucked over Resource which fucked over us. Pretty soon you get tired of bending over.
> We are - for better or worse - on the road these actions have brought us to. Maybe, by the final order not to address a simple letter like the cleanup letter as agreed, the IC thought they were adding the final straw to alienating the participants from wanting to participate in the permit process, and maybe, in that, they were right.
Bingo!
Garrick, it had always been my intention of seeing what this experiment of yours in cooperating with the Forest Service would lead. i supported you because i didn't want to be a "naysayer" and not see what would happen..... "What If"??...What if the Permit was signed? Would it be any different? i had hoped things would've gone differently because as you know these are not the best of times to be an Outlaw. i lost friends and was harrassed on this NG by uncouth assholes for years. If you check Google Images for pictures of the Rainbow Family you will find a picture of me with the words "Sold out the Family" underneath!!! i wanted to believe this could work because i didn't want to imagine the alternatives. The alternative is that there are many kidz in the Family that will stand up and fight back injustice - whether it be in the streets or in the forest. We are Rainbow Warriors. With courtsey i gave the Forest Service a chance. i listened to them and i listened to you. The Permit has cause a huge divison in the Rainbow Family with many calling for a wide division of participation. Alot was gambled on your decision and like the loser in Las Vegas you crapped out. i will not see this Family that i love divided in bitterness because of empty promises by the FS. The next Annual i'm going to will be an Unpermited one in California. The Forest Service had their chance to do right by us - they became greedy and stupid and failed. Hopefully there will be nobody in the Rainbow Family stupid enuff to give these bastards another chance and even consider signing the Permit this summer.
With Lovin' Regards to you, my friend,
Namaste;
bodhi
From: Marty (mart...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 16:01:15 PST
Another example of transparent blame shifting is Bush blaming the Iraq war on "intelligence failure." Oh wait, maybe he's got a real point there.
Marty
From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 16:19:28 PST
Marty wrote:
> Thunder wrote:
> > Hey! How you cats doing?
> What's it to you how my cat's doing?
Cat? I don't have a cat.
- Berkano
_________________________________________________
Git yer permits here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/permit/
From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 16:19:49 PST
--
Hey man- check out Hip eBay :
http://www.hipebay.hipplanet.com
"bodhi" <The_Psychedelic_Tour...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6f352af3.0401301527.7baf2...@posting.google.com...
> Garrick;
> Here are some snippets from your letter and my comments:
...
Dude, you may as well be writing Santa Clause if you think he's going to have a public discussion here with you or anyone else. WTF!
-woodstock-
From: William O'Leary (wole...@compu-savers.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 16:31:07 PST
My cat is doing fine.... I have a pure bred choclate point Siamese.... pictures of Mr. Ed can be seen in my pesonal web gallery on my website http://www.eliyahusimchah.info
I have had him for 6 years now.... we are growing old together.
Marty wrote:
> Thunder wrote:
>> Hey! How you cats doing?
> What's it to you how my cat's doing?
--
All the best for LESS !!!
Compu-Savers
http://www.compu-savers.net
From: gary (rainbowcrystalkitchen2...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 16:32:17 PST
SpunDance" <SpunDa...@Alien.net> wrote in message news:<HsySb.22625$wL6.1992929...@twister2.starband.net>...
> this is the problem Ive noticed, also. to many leo's. busting folkz for no reason. looking for anything to take us
...
ok..so maybe he doesnt get it...or maybe he does but cant admit it\....whatI do find important from this letter is that he clearly see's now that the permit didnt do the gathering anygood.....and it appears to me that hes certainly woldnt do it again.... which should aleave the fears of those who continuually state that gerrick intends to sign a permit for calif .....seems from reading this that he doesnt... and I would think that most o ther folks have learned an important leason from gerricks expericnes and find the prospect of sgning one themselves less then worth it...I think this has been made clear this year to the goverment...that it was signed last year and aint no body going to make that mistake again...so now they have to deal....this is why I feel that they will find a way to their cercomvent the reg..or reinterpret the reg and find a way to issue a permit without a signatuer
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 18:18:02 PST
"Marty" <mart...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:ffCSb.3774$GO6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Another example of transparent blame shifting is Bush blaming the Iraq war on "intelligence failure." Oh wait, maybe he's got a real point there.
> Marty
By George, I think he's got it!
From: Butterfly Bill (farfallab...@myappendixisp.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-30 23:05:32 PST
rainbowcrystalkitchen2...@yahoo.com (gary) wrote:
> ok..so maybe he doesnt get it...or maybe he does but cant admit it\....whatI do find important from this letter is
...
It seems to me that he does get it, and all you other people ragging on him don't see how what he did now gives most of you solid facts on just how well any permit will really work. The experiment was made, the results were less than satisfactory, few knowledgeable people will now want to sign another one having seen what he ultimately had to go thru (http://members.isp.com/farfallab...@isp.com/l/UTIndex.htm), all of you now have something to show to the FS when they demand another one. As hard as he tried not to be regarded as the Leader of the Rainbow, he was treated as one by the FS, and he certainly did not revel in this role. His non-action of not attending the recent meeting demonstrated this. A lot of you can't see thru your O'Learicism long enough to see how he has really helped your cause.
Garrick said to me last year at the gathering that he wants to set up a lemonade stand at this year's and not interact with the FS at all. I just might help him with the squeezing.
-BB
From: Berkano (berk...@netzero.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-31 03:55:02 PST
"SpunDance" <SpunDa...@Alien.net> wrote in messagenews:HsySb.22625$wL6.1992929...@twister2.starband.net...
> this is the problem Ive noticed, also. to many leo's. busting folkz for no reason. looking for anything to take us down.
...
OWN..lol on the Permit. its a waste of time and will bring us all down in the end.. ....peace out www.spundance.com
Somebody finally got it! Somebody finally understands. It is about family!
May you have your land soon.
--
- Berkano
____________________________________________
Git yer permits here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/permit/
From: Berkano (berk...@netzero.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-31 04:00:03 PST
Butterfly Bill,
http://members.isp.com/farfallab...@isp.com/l/UTIndex.htm
This link did not work. Is there one that does?
- Berkano
____________________________________________
Git yer permits here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/permit/
From: Marty (mart...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-31 07:20:52 PST
Butterfly Bill wrote:
> It seems to me that he does get it, and all you other people ragging on him don't see how what he did now gives most of you solid facts on just how well any permit will really work.
You don't get it.
Even if it the permit had "worked" it would have been wrong. He thinks all you have to do is sweeten the prize and people will gladly betray each other. He thinks like a Fed, and maybe he's right -- there is a crowd waiting in the wings to sign permits, like a whole bunch of Sacharow wannabes (what a horrific thought). That would have been the best possible outcome for the Feds, and Beck is clearly on their side. After all it's not their rights he violates, when he signs a permit.
The problem is, if I know gatherers, they're not all falling all over themselves to sell each other out. They're not quaking in their boots. They're not a bunch of Judases each looking for their own 30 pieces of silver. They understand that the Rainbow Gathering is about mutual respect, among other things. They know the cost of freedom is buried in the ground.
Maybe I'm wrong, but call it an illusion I still want to hang onto.
Marty
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-31 07:43:10 PST
"Butterfly Bill" <farfallab...@myappendixisp.com> wrote in message news:Xns9481B04ECAAAfarfallab...@65.100.3.61...
> It seems to me that he does get it, and all you other people ragging on him don't see how what he did now gives most of you solid facts on just how well any permit will really work.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. What part of the permit being targeted directly at Rainbow Gatherings don't you understand?
90 fucking days in jail for meeting friends in the forest? Bullshit. The permit is an artifice, upheld by unthinking thugs toting firearms, and maybe that should've given Garrick some solid facts on just how well any permit will really work.
The 'ragging' you speak of began with Garrick's characterization of other people's opinions in advance, as 'catcalls'. Now you choose to rag similarly. I'm surprised. I wanted him to explain a nebulous pie-in-the-sky response, so clearly representative of one who would parent, to wit:
"... in the end after the catcalls subside the real value of what you did will be clear."
Of course, it's only clear now to certain individuals.
It was announced here in advance that the meeting would entail no discussion of the permit. How in the world has it come to this now?
It sounds suspiciously political. Oh, that's right. It's *all* politics.
From: Butterfly Bill (farfallab...@myappendixisp.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-31 11:01:49 PST
"Berkano" <berk...@netzero.com> wrote:
> Butterfly Bill,
> http://members.isp.com/farfallab...@isp.com/l/UTIndex.htm
>This link did not work. Is there one that does?
Try http://members.isp.com/farfallab...@isp.com/UTIndex.htm
-BB
[This was a collection of over 50 letters and other items of correspondence that Garrick exchanged with various FS officials in the months leading up to and including the gathering. It was on the servers of one of my previous ISPs. – BB]
From: gary (rainbowcrystalkitchen2...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-01-31 11:48:40 PST
Butterfly Bill <farfallab...@myappendixisp.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9481B04ECAAAfarfallab...@65.100.3.61>...
> rainbowcrystalkitchen2...@yahoo.com (gary) wrote:
...>> >> find a way to their cercomvent the reg..or reinterpret the reg and find a way to issue a permit without a signatuer
> Garrick said to me last year at the gathering that he wants to set up a lemonade stand at this year's and not interact with the FS at all. I just might help him with the squeezing.
> -BB
I promised gerrick that if he di open a lemonade stand thatI would get him a box of lemons...and sauggested that no that malcom is retired that he and malocm should open the stand together
From: garrick (garr...@nets.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-02-02 00:37:48 PST
"Thunder" <thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<kRtSb.17957$3V7....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> Another quick note is that after reading the line in your letter regarding how "after the catcalls subside, the value of what you did will become clear", I was reminded of all these politicos out on the national campaign trail, who have nothing to say with any substance. For example, "We're doing everything we can..." or, "We should do everything we can...."
> or "What America needs now is *true* leadership...."
> ...But not a word about the issues which might reveal intentions. A real value should easily hold up under scrutiny or criticism.
> So tell me, (if you can afford the time) - What *is* the value you decline to mention, and why do you decline to mention it? I have put my honest feelings and ideas about the meeting out here - where's yours?
> Are the rest of us just not sufficiently endowed with the necessary wisdom to understand the value so you don't mention it?
> "The value "will become" apparent....", sounds too much like all the prophecies handed down through the ages....
i think the real value is that people communicating honestly is a good thing. i think a lot of what was said to the fs at the meeting will go a long way toward helping gatherings regain some of the rights of public assembly that the CFR-251 regulation has tried to take away. So, the "real value" refers to bringing the five people from the fs (and ag dept.) together with the (approx 40) rainbows who attended so their thoughts could be voiced in a way that might be heard. Sometimes in the thick of interactions it's hard to see how the efforts can be beneficial...but after time it become apparent because things advance and then the positive effects can be more easily seen. i do believe that much good will come from this san francisco get together despite all the differences of opinion.
maybe i should have spelled that out better in the letter.
This year at the gathering i'll be making lemonade...the gathering has needed a lemonade stand for a long, long time, and i just feel inspired to build one, and to cut, squeeze, sweeten, mix and serve such a lovely concoction. bring yer hand squeezers and juicers (and your lemons and limes) and join the fun!
garrick
From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-02-02 02:03:08 PST
"garrick" <garr...@nets.com> wrote in message news:cefffc72.0402020037.62d0f...@posting.google.com...
...
> i think the real value is that people communicating honestly is a good thing.
So do you admit that wasn't the way it was last year? Saying you were signing for yourself only and then we read long before Spring Council that you & the FS already picked the area for the Rainbow gathering? How is that honest communication?
...
> This year at the gathering i'll be making lemonade...the gathering has needed a lemonade stand for a long, long time, and i just feel inspired to build one, and to cut, squeeze, sweeten, mix and serve such a lovely concoction. bring yer hand squeezers and juicers (and your lemons and limes) and join the fun!
> garrick
Amazing. Do you already know where this lemonade stand will be?
-woodstock-
--
Hey man- check out Hip eBay :
http://www.hipebay.hipplanet.com
From: Butterfly Bill (farfallab...@myappendixisp.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-02-02 07:33:16 PST
"woodstock" <thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Amazing. Do you already know where this lemonade stand will be?
It won't be far from Info, if I have anything to do with it.
-BB
From: Thunder (thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-02-02 08:08:07 PST
"garrick" <garr...@nets.com> wrote in message news:cefffc72.0402020037.62d0f...@posting.google.com...
...
> i think the real value is that people communicating honestly is a good thing. i think a lot of what was said to the fs at the meeting will go a long way toward helping gatherings regain some of the rights of public assembly that the CFR-251 regulation has tried to take away. So, the "real value" refers to bringing the five people from the fs (and ag dept.) together with the (approx 40) rainbows who attended so their thoughts could be voiced in a way that might be heard. Sometimes in the thick of interactions it's hard to see how the efforts can be beneficial...but after time it become apparent because things advance and then the positive effects can be more easily seen. i do believe that much good will come from this san francisco get together despite all the differences of opinion.
I can't say since I didn't attend, because it was reported here in advance that there would be no discussion of the permit there and that the focus was the FS's desire to find ways of reducing the LE costs. Maybe it was a face-saving gesture on their part in order to seemingly justify an already reduced budget? As the reduction of rights vis a vis Gatherings is directly interconnected with the permit, I don't see how a discussion that excludes permit considerations will be constructive in the restoration of rights. Now I know you're trying to explain this, but so far I haven't discerned it, so how about a more detailed explanation of these issues you addreess peripherally? Most of us here are as able as others to understand, once hearing an explanation. Now I do agree with you that when in the thick of something, it can be hard to see all the details, but the meeting is over and I'm all ears for hearing of this positive direction, so how about spilling the beans? I'd love to know how these seemingly at odds circumstances can have resulted in a positive change. I did read some of the meeting notes, and remembered that Melle said the gathering can't happen without a permit. See, there's always the reality they want and the reality that actually is. She expressed the reality they want, but the actual reality is that her statement fails to acknowledge that gatherings work just fine with no permit. It's a question of viewpoint. Also, when you have a holder named 'individuals assembling', and the holder is specifically held liable for potential money damages, how can gov't bureaucrats rather than courts decide that no one will be liable as Rey suggested? I am reminded of the fine-print disclaimers one sees on a sales contract that states that "...under no circumstances will any statement made by any sales representive contrary to the terms of this agreement, be enforceable".
Anyhow thanks for getting back to me on that.
Thunder
> maybe i should have spelled that out better in the letter.
> This year at the gathering i'll be making lemonade...the gathering has needed a lemonade stand for a long, long time
...
From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-02-02 10:02:31 PST
Thunder wrote:
> ... representive contrary to the terms of this agreement, be enforceable".
> Anyhow thanks for getting back to me on that.
LOL!
Sanity
From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-02-02 11:04:58 PST
"Butterfly Bill" <farfallab...@myappendixisp.com> wrote in message news:Xns948361286B59Dfarfallab...@65.100.3.61...
> "woodstock" <thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Amazing. Do you already know where this lemonade stand will be?
> It won't be far from Info, if I have anything to do with it.
> -BB
Cute.... but I think you're smarter than that BB. Why don't you let everyone in on it? I'll bet you feel all special 'cuz you work with Garrick. A camp could use some organic lemonade and limeade for the Margaritas. (schmirk)
-woodstock-
From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-02-02 11:17:25 PST
"Sanity-Clause" <Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:401E3BC2.61F30...@worldnet.att.net...
...
> > Anyhow thanks for getting back to me on that.
> LOL!
> Sanity
Yeah, I'm surprised he broke the silence! An actual response to an actual post even! Wonders never cease.
-woodstock-
From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-02-02 21:56:45 PST
garrick wrote:
> "Thunder" <thunder5200nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<kRtSb.17957$3V7....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "garrick" <garr...@nets.com> wrote in message news:cefffc72.0401300038.2b673...@posting.google.com...
> > Another quick note is that after reading the line in your letter regarding how "after the catcalls subside, the value of what you did will become clear", I was reminded of all these politicos out on the national campaign trail, who have nothing to say with any substance. For example, "We're doing everything we can..." or, "We should do everything we can...."
> i think the real value is that people communicating honestly is a good thing.
I agree, but don't quite feel that the folks from the USFS, in particular Ann Melle were communicating honestly.
From: Berkano (berk...@netzero.com)
Subject: Re: Letter About The San Francisco Meeting
Date: 2004-02-03 08:21:07 PST
"garrick" <garr...@nets.com> wrote in message news:cefffc72.0402020037.62d0f...@posting.google.com...
...
> This year at the gathering i'll be making lemonade...the gathering has needed a lemonade stand for a long, long time, and i just feel inspired to build one, and to cut, squeeze, sweeten, mix and serve such a lovely concoction. bring yer hand squeezers and juicers (and your lemons and limes) and join the fun!
A wise man once told me, "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade."
- Berkano
_________________________________________________
Git yer permits here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/permit/
THE END
Google Advanced Group Search can be accessed by first calling up a group name in Google Groups (alt.gathering.rainbow is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.gathering.rainbow) and then clicking on the little black arrowhead inside the search window at the top of the page – at the extreme right, just to the left of the blue magnifying glass search button).
Not all posts can be found in Google’s archive; posters had the option of putting “X-No-Archive” in their headers, and some other posts are apparently completely lost for other reasons. Using their search engine is also hit and miss; I sometimes had to try several combinations of words to find some posts. The originals of all of these posts can most easily be found by enclosing the thread name in quotation marks in the Subject: box.
BB's Home Page > alt.gathering.rainbow > Part 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 |