|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 3, 2012 21:06:08 GMT -5
the personal facebook page login is the99declaration@gmail.com and it's name is ninety-nine declaration. michael pollok cannot use this to post from if he is resigned from the group as he has his own fb personal page which has his real name. he cannot trick the public into thinking he is who he doesn't belong to
|
|
|
|
Post by karliecole on Feb 3, 2012 21:06:57 GMT -5
You are welcome to ask him - though he's pretty fed up with being grilled. It is a hissy fit. I'm just trying to provide some facts. I have an opinion so I may not be coming off as completely neutral. But the facts I state, you can verify - it is publicly available right now. You can private message MP on that Ninety-Nine Declaration friend page on FB if you like.
Personally, I don't think the donor has a right to be anonymous when their donation comes with a bunch of their own agenda and strings attached. But I will not say who it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 3, 2012 21:07:42 GMT -5
and danie, wouldn't you think that if volunteers are disgruntled...that there may be a reason for it. and why volunteers have quit...over and over again. and that reason is always michael p and karlie? ALWAYS. and also the reason ows doesn't respect us is bc of him. don't you see a pattern? are all these people lying???
|
|
|
|
Post by forbesmb on Feb 3, 2012 21:09:01 GMT -5
Here's my issue. We have a board in order to function as a non-profit.
That board makes decisions, one of which, as has been posted by them, was to no longer use Facebook Polls. Now, a board member has resigned and is going against the ruling, even though there was initial agreement to use the consensus system... like every other group out there in the 99%/Occupy.
If you want to support the people's voice, then you have to use the people's system and abide by the rulings, whether or not you agree with them. You can work to change them, but if we're going to be consensus, then that's what it means with a direct democracy or a "people's voice". Don't like it? Tough... I don't like it either, but that's how we're doing this.
|
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 3, 2012 21:11:24 GMT -5
thank you matt
|
|
|
|
Post by karliecole on Feb 3, 2012 21:14:06 GMT -5
Are all these people lying? No - they have been told what to think by some people who got upset a long enough time ago you'd think it'd be over with by now, hence, group think.
The facts are there to verify for yourself. Oh except for the donor - who acts from behind the veil of anonymity while the rest of us deal without protection of anonymity.
|
|
|
|
Post by peedropaula on Feb 3, 2012 21:16:02 GMT -5
Yes, Karlie, I've seen several polls since mid-November when I joined the group, but I've seen many more unilateral decisions made my Michael not to mention silencing the voice of the members by repeated deletions of posts and comments.
Danie, you yourself were calling on Michael to resign two weeks ago for the good of the group. What changed your mind?
|
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 3, 2012 21:17:45 GMT -5
yea, and the facilitation committee did not feel that the fb poll was a good representation of the people's voice. we have other means to get a bigger pool of the voices.
|
|
|
|
Post by karliecole on Feb 3, 2012 21:18:13 GMT -5
That small group has dragged Michael P's good name through the mud. He was the visionary of this movement and they now try to silence his voice. Negative rumors, gossip, accusations and lies repeated often enough do not make them true - but apparently does get people to believe them which personally amazes me.
For standing up to that, I am lumped in as another who should be silenced.
Please consider what you know and decide for yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by forbesmb on Feb 3, 2012 21:19:00 GMT -5
Can I suggest, before I head out, that the admins of the various sites repost the link to this forum. Danie did make a good point about it not being as readily findable as it should be for all of the members on Facebook.
|
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 3, 2012 21:20:24 GMT -5
because karlie, they were told what to think by a couple people and not the group as a whole majority. the group has been put in place structurely and now those that could say what to do don't have that authority anymore because the group makes the rules. not a couple.
|
|
|
|
Post by peneloperose on Feb 3, 2012 21:20:50 GMT -5
I am Board Member.
Karlie you are running very close to the edge here with giving out information about the donor. I respectfully suggest you stop now.
And everyone you really need to stop spreading rumors and half truths.
|
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 3, 2012 21:22:58 GMT -5
lol, small group of people. it's the whole facilitation committee minus two! LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by peneloperose on Feb 3, 2012 21:23:03 GMT -5
If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to answer, within my legal limits of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by karliecole on Feb 3, 2012 21:24:07 GMT -5
Unilateral decisions - there's that refrain again. Again untrue. Also, most reasonable people understand the need to moderate a public space like FB and realize that some posts may warrant deletion as well as some people may need to be banned. And that is now the policy which was adopted. So what did Michael do wrong there? James, as admin on the FB Group Page, spent a lot of time making sure all negative voices were not only posted but enhanced - all the while proclaiming unilateral decision making, lack of transparency, accusations of lying and protesting how badly treated he was. Plenty went on behind the scenes as well, stirring up dissent. And here we are today.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. While I doubt that James is one, a government troll could not have done a better job of defeating this movement.
|
|
