10 Sep
2014
10 Sep
'14
9:50 a.m.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andrew Lowe <andrew(a)lostways.com> wrote:
I did not attend this event, but I have attended ONL
events before. ONL is a
talk show, I'm not sure why not being political enough makes them
"offensive". I mean I will let them speak for them selves, but they are an
entertainment show, why would you expect a "debate" at a talk show?
Anyway, just standing up for this show even if it isn't really my cup of tea
all the time, I think what ONL has been able to do with it is pretty
amazing, and to force them out because their show isn't radical enough in
the ways you want it to be would be a shame.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but just for the record ...
1) To bill Saturday's show as apolitical "entertainment" would be
disingenuous. They did not invite Dan Siegel the private citizen to
chat with him about his hobbies. They invited three candidates for an
upcoming election to air campaign commercials, give stump speeches and
answer token questions about their political platform. Exactly that,
no more, no less.
2) Absolutely nothing in my critique was "radical". It was barely even
liberal. Asking for substantive debate is about the most centrist
position you could possibly imagine. Has our overton window really
shifted this much?
10 Sep
10 Sep
12:55 p.m.
New subject: Agenda Item for next week's meeting: ONL is not a member collective.
My point is that whether or not the show was political or entertainment,
event producers should have some autonomy in how they run their events.
Feed back is welcome, but there was no brekaing of any collective policy
that i know of, even so it's being used as an official reason to strip a
group of it's membership. I find that unnerving, should we have to run the
content and format of all events by the collective for fear that an event
could lead to a group losing it's membership?
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:50 AM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andrew Lowe
<andrew(a)lostways.com> wrote:
--
---------
Andrew Lowe
http://www.lostways.com
I did not attend this event, but I have attended
ONL events before. ONL
is a
talk show, I'm not sure why not being
political enough makes them
"offensive". I mean I will let them speak for them selves, but they are
an
entertainment show, why would you expect a
"debate" at a talk show?
Anyway, just standing up for this show even if it isn't really my cup of
tea
all the time, I think what ONL has been able to
do with it is pretty
amazing, and to force them out because their show isn't radical enough in
the ways you want it to be would be a shame.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but just for the record ...
1) To bill Saturday's show as apolitical "entertainment" would be
disingenuous. They did not invite Dan Siegel the private citizen to
chat with him about his hobbies. They invited three candidates for an
upcoming election to air campaign commercials, give stump speeches and
answer token questions about their political platform. Exactly that,
no more, no less.
2) Absolutely nothing in my critique was "radical". It was barely even
liberal. Asking for substantive debate is about the most centrist
position you could possibly imagine. Has our overton window really
shifted this much?
1:10 p.m.
New subject: Agenda Item for next week's meeting: ONL is not a member collective.
My other larger point is that the way forward is not to fight amongst
ourselves, politicians will be politicians no mater if they are in an
debate or not. The fact that ONL invited them in a restricted format, does
make them (ONL) at fault for how manipulative the political system is.
Do you really think they don't have canned responses for pretty much any
question you could ask? If they didn't they would have never agreed to show
up. That's how politicians work. Don't blame ONL for our failed political
system, is all.
--Andrew
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Lowe <andrew(a)lostways.com> wrote:
My point is that whether or not the show was political
or entertainment,
event producers should have some autonomy in how they run their events.
Feed back is welcome, but there was no brekaing of any collective policy
that i know of, even so it's being used as an official reason to strip a
group of it's membership. I find that unnerving, should we have to run the
content and format of all events by the collective for fear that an event
could lead to a group losing it's membership?
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:50 AM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
---------
Andrew Lowe
http://www.lostways.com
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andrew Lowe
<andrew(a)lostways.com> wrote:
--
---------
Andrew Lowe
http://www.lostways.com
I did not attend this event, but I have attended
ONL events before. ONL
is a
talk show, I'm not sure why not being
political enough makes them
"offensive". I mean I will let them speak for them selves, but they are
an
entertainment show, why would you expect a
"debate" at a talk show?
Anyway, just standing up for this show even if it isn't really my cup
of tea
all the time, I think what ONL has been able to
do with it is pretty
amazing, and to force them out because their show isn't radical enough
in
the ways you want it to be would be a shame.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but just for the record ...
1) To bill Saturday's show as apolitical "entertainment" would be
disingenuous. They did not invite Dan Siegel the private citizen to
chat with him about his hobbies. They invited three candidates for an
upcoming election to air campaign commercials, give stump speeches and
answer token questions about their political platform. Exactly that,
no more, no less.
2) Absolutely nothing in my critique was "radical". It was barely even
liberal. Asking for substantive debate is about the most centrist
position you could possibly imagine. Has our overton window really
shifted this much?
1:11 p.m.
New subject: Agenda Item for next week's meeting: ONL is not a member collective.
*does not make them ... arg typo
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Andrew Lowe <andrew(a)lostways.com> wrote:
My other larger point is that the way forward is not
to fight amongst
ourselves, politicians will be politicians no mater if they are in an
debate or not. The fact that ONL invited them in a restricted format, does
make them (ONL) at fault for how manipulative the political system is.
Do you really think they don't have canned responses for pretty much any
question you could ask? If they didn't they would have never agreed to show
up. That's how politicians work. Don't blame ONL for our failed political
system, is all.
--Andrew
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Lowe <andrew(a)lostways.com> wrote:
--
---------
Andrew Lowe
http://www.lostways.com
My point is that whether or not the show was
political or entertainment,
event producers should have some autonomy in how they run their events.
Feed back is welcome, but there was no brekaing of any collective policy
that i know of, even so it's being used as an official reason to strip a
group of it's membership. I find that unnerving, should we have to run the
content and format of all events by the collective for fear that an event
could lead to a group losing it's membership?
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:50 AM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
---------
Andrew Lowe
http://www.lostways.com
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andrew Lowe
<andrew(a)lostways.com> wrote:
--
---------
Andrew Lowe
http://www.lostways.com
I did not attend this event, but I have attended
ONL events before.
ONL is a
talk show, I'm not sure why not being
political enough makes them
"offensive". I mean I will let them speak for them selves, but they
are
an
entertainment show, why would you expect a
"debate" at a talk show?
Anyway, just standing up for this show even if it isn't really my cup
of tea
all the time, I think what ONL has been able to
do with it is pretty
amazing, and to force them out because their show isn't radical enough
in
the ways you want it to be would be a shame.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but just for the record ...
1) To bill Saturday's show as apolitical "entertainment" would be
disingenuous. They did not invite Dan Siegel the private citizen to
chat with him about his hobbies. They invited three candidates for an
upcoming election to air campaign commercials, give stump speeches and
answer token questions about their political platform. Exactly that,
no more, no less.
2) Absolutely nothing in my critique was "radical". It was barely even
liberal. Asking for substantive debate is about the most centrist
position you could possibly imagine. Has our overton window really
shifted this much?
3542
days inactive
3542
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Andrew Lowe -
yar