[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00910: RE: [WDDM] Re: decisions at wider levels

From: "Nebiyu, Miraf" <mnebiyu(at)RADFORD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:43:55 -0500
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Re: decisions at wider levels

please minimize the number of emails you send out, because my mail box is completely being fluded with email
thanks

________________________________

From: Cj De Groot
Sent: Sun 1/7/2007 4:13 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Re: decisions at wider levels



May i dictate:

"An organisation will want money"

::

"People working to-gether together are organisations"

"an organisation that wants money, apparently needs a building; and the one dictating organisation on this world that 'works' listens to
those organisations"

::

how to get the dictating organisation from the people we need to build networking and relating people?
( if there is a need to relate to one another without a building :)

s'ace

Datum: 07/01/07 07:05 PM
Van: "Bernard Clayson" <bernard-clayson(at)shuartfarm.fsnet.co.uk>
Aan: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
CC:
Onderwerp : Re: [WDDM] Re: decisions at wider levels

Bruce, I suspect (at long last) your insistance about 'organisation' is a language problem, not dissimilar to your use of 'than' when the
context means 'then'.
It is also a peception problem - a group or an association can be organised, a foreman/supervisor/manager is responsible for the
organisation of staff, that does not imply they are an organisation.
You are correct when you say 'A person who makes an organization for the people, without the people, is basically a dictator'.
WDDM is a group of people, some of which want to make an organisation, and we do not have the people.We do not even have the dubious
validity of representative democracy - we are not elected to make decisions on anyones behalf.
As I have said many times before, no one knows how democracy could work, that will vary according to traditions and inclinations of the
people, that should be their choice, not the choice of any group, so how can anyone make the rules for others to comply with in order to
be called democracy.
An organisation will want money - which will be spent in ways according to the rules defined by a small group of unelected people, each
of which will have their own untested perception of what, and how, democracy should work.
An association of activists could get out there and find out how, and which, has the potential of working, then swap notes on lessons
learned.
The one snag with that is - who/where are the activists.

Regards
Bernard


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]