We invite your feedback regarding calls and your overall experience with Occupy Cafe.  

It's helpful to hear what you love and what works so we can amplify and expand in those areas.

It's also important for us to hear ways in which you feel we can improve your experience with Occupy Cafe.  

If there's something that isn't working for you, let us know.  At the same time, please offer a suggestion for making it better.  Let this be part of our collective learning to empower ourselves by speaking in terms of solutions.

Thank you for taking your valuable time to make your voice heard!

Please email your thoughts to us, or add your comments below.


You need to be a member of Occupy Cafe to add comments!

Join Occupy Cafe

Comment by Kasha Baxter on July 3, 2012 at 12:48pm

please help me register for the Fem GA

the link led me to the natgat 9am est  Call InfoWednesday, July 4, 2012 6:00am PT / 9:00am ET - 3 hours

Phone number: +1 (408) 
Your PIN: ....12#
Comment by Mark E. Smith on January 4, 2012 at 7:45pm

I did respond to your comment, poforpeace, here:

You were heard and responded to. You chose not to continue the discussion. Feedback is not the place to discuss various topics. If you wish to discuss either topic, an election boycott, or polling candidates to see what campaign lies they're telling, I'll be happy to. I'll post a response in your topic right now.

Comment by poforpeace on January 4, 2012 at 7:16pm

I see Mark Smith and I have the same problem - wanting to be heard.

if holding back your voting is a platform idea for OWS then - let him take up the gauntlet - I for one envison the OWS movement being a critical force for sharing the knowledge and information about Corporations and their Social behaviours - maybe we both are right - maybe we both are wrong.  I see no value in not voting - I see value in the intention of people as they express their values - we vote for people according to their values - we might ask each candidate their perspective on the "intention" of the ISO 26000.  this is real an operable - asking people to not vote - leaves us in the same position weI really  are in.  Let OWS decide which is the sensible thing to do - not by voting or not voting - by their actions.   I will not refuse to discuss with Mark - after he expresses his opinion on what I am professing to do.

Comment by Mark E. Smith on January 4, 2012 at 7:01pm

In addition to rejecting the dictionary definition of words, NDT has now rejected English grammar as well:

The discussion is not about courts of chancery or natural law, it is about an election boycott, something NDT refuses to discuss.

Rather than expressing an opposing view, such as saying that he is opposed to an election boycott, NDT is saying that a discussion about an election boycott is really a discussion about courts of chancery and natural law, which are the only things he will discuss and are totally off-topic.

By chastising me for not engaging in dialogue, and calling my consistent attempts to keep the discussion on topic a "debate," Ben is critizing me for failing to do something he will not allow me any means of doing, I cannot engage in a discussion about a topic unless I have some means of keeping the discussion on topic.

Comment by Mark E. Smith on January 4, 2012 at 12:18am

Due to Ben's hostility toward me, first in refusing to tell me to just let him know when the people who came here to attack me, actually did so, and instead saying he didn't want to be bothered, and now in saying that I should be more hospitable to people like NDT who absolutely refuses to discuss the topic, except to say that words don't mean what the dictionary says and that under non-dictionary definitions of words, other topics which have nothing to do it are the same as the topic under discussion, I am unable to keep my hosted discussion on topic.

I have posted several summaries, but I didn't label them summaries and since Ben didn't read them, he doesn't think they exist. My latest summary of the discussion is of the various ways in which NDT refuses to engage in any discussion of the topic and has continued to disrupt the topic.

Giving me an obligation but denying me any means by which I could fulfill it, is cruel.

NDT is now repeating the false assertion that litigation within the court system is "not participating" in the system, that refusal to participate in government is the same as revoking power and authority from government, and now has a new definition, that governments don't derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, as the Declaration of Independence states, but from people deriving some benefit from government. Many people derived much benefit from the genocide against Native Americans, but deriving benefits from something does not establish a government nor grant it the legitimacy of the consent of the governed, which can only be done through elections and therefore can only be revoked by withholding that consent.

I'd like a mediator, please. Preferably somebody who is not hostile toward me, can be equitable, and who accepts the dictionary definitions of words.

Comment by Mark E. Smith on January 1, 2012 at 3:38pm

The person who make the "poke yourself in the eye" comment seems to have left the discussion. He only came here at the request of someone on another website who asked people to come here and attack me, something I was aware of before it happened and asked you for help with. Your response was, "I have no interest in spending much time keeping the peace here, like a father supervising a bunch of rowdy kids," and that I shouldn't take personal attacks personally. As no help was forthcoming, so I was left to cope as best I could.

The discussion with NDT is not about substantive issues. It is about the meaning of the word "delegitimize." NDT does not accept the dictionary definition, and has some definition of his own that he will not state and which is apparently not in any dictionary.

Imagine if you started a topic about organic gardening, and somebody posted a comment there about using toxic chemical fertilizers. When you say that toxic chemical fertilizers have nothing to do with organic gardening and are off topic, they say that "organic" really means the use of toxic chemical fertilizers, and that therefore their suggestion to use toxic chemical fertilizers is on topic and appropriate.

It is NDT's refusal to accept the dictionary definition of "delegitimize" that is the problem, not any substantive issue.

Comment by Ben Roberts on January 1, 2012 at 1:31pm

I think your idea of having some wort of mediating body is a fine one. I don't particularly enjoy getting into the middle of these kinds of battles, nor do I feel that it is the best use of my time. As we expand the oerating infrastructure of Occupy Cafe in coming months, we will have that on our list of needs/issues.

As far as your dissatisfaction with my efforts in that role to date, I was unaware of the rather nasty comments you quote below beginning with "poke yourslef in the eye..." Those clearly cross the line into personal attacks which is our main standard for discourse here. If you message me a link to the comment, I will take action to warn that person that any further attacks will result in suspension (we do give people one warning as a rule).

The situation with NDT seems quite different to me. I have warned you both against personal attacks. But the main aspect of this situation appears to be a rather vigorous disagreement on substantive issues, which you have both chosen to carry on for some time, even allowing it to spill over into the Feedback comments on this page! I would like to think that you two can come to some resolution between you regarding an end to your debate, and perhaps that has already happened.
Comment by Mark E. Smith on January 1, 2012 at 6:29am

The Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments derive their just powers, i.e., their legitimacy, from the consent of the governed. Governments do not derive their legitimacy from case specific court rulings with regard to the status of non-persons fighting minor infractions, so such court actions cannot delegitimize governments.

Comment by Mark E. Smith on January 1, 2012 at 6:21am

Please, before you spam my topic again, explain to everyone how going to court to fight a minor infraction and declaring that you're not a person can delegitimize government. When I asked you, you replied, "The delegitimization of government arises from the fraud comitted by the court being seen by the public and from the understanding of the nature of the fraud," but you don't believe that the Occupy Wall Street List of Demands could do that because they aren't case specific, and you don't agree with the dictionary definition of "delegitimize" as to revoke power and authority from. I explained clearly how you need to retain, rather than delegitimize, the power and authority of government in order to have a judiciary system with the power and authority to rule on your status as a non-person. I tried to be as patient as I could.

Comment by NDT on January 1, 2012 at 2:20am

My argument with Mark was over the existence of an alternative means of nonviolently delegitimizing a government. Anyone interested in this issue is invited to post on the thread itself.

Comment by Mark E. Smith on January 1, 2012 at 1:41am

My comment got cut off, so here's the rest of it:

Without the ability to delete off-topic and/or offensive comments, or remove people who are disruptive and off-topic, a host cannot possibly fulfill the obligation to keep a discussion on topic.

Happy New Year to all Occupiers and to all persons of good will. As for those who do not consider themselves persons, I'm afraid I don't know how to relate to them.

Comment by Mark E. Smith on January 1, 2012 at 1:38am

'd like a mediator for people hosting discussions.

Ben Roberts invited me to host a discussion but also asked that I not post about my ideas in other discussions. Not wishing to be disruptive, I agreed.

Then there was a call on another website for people to come here to attack me. I emailed Ben but he wasn't helpful. Only two people showed up, one of them, who was already registered here, soon stopped attacking me and began engaging in the discussion, while the other continued to attack and I was left with several off-topic, personal attacks in the discussion, such as questioning my name, my avatar, and one post that includes the phrases, "...poke yourself in the eye with a stick, or masturbate with sandpaper on quaaludes, or become a Wall Street executive, or open a Walmart, or become a lobbyist for the Keystone pipeline, or blow Tom Delay, or join a bridge club with Sharon Angle, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin, or epoxy yourself to the inside of a lightbulb...," which I believe is particularly offensive to readers, is most definitely off-topic, but which I cannot delete.

Knowing that I cannot rely on Ben for assistance, when NDT first entered my discussion and wrote, "An alternative way of nonviolently delegitimizing a government is through judicial boycott," I was immediately aware that NDT did not know what the words "delegitimizing" or "boycott" meant.

So I tried to explain. but it turns out that NDT doesn't accept the dictionary definitions of words and believes that the meaning of words should be whatever he wants them to be. He continues putting words in my mouth and making nonsensical arguments, such as that appearing in court is a way to boycott the judicial system, or that having a judge rule in your favor is a way to delegitimize government. Since his comments had nothing to do with my topic, I asked him to please start a topic of his own, but he refused and wrote, "Yes, starting my own topic would be civil, which, strangely enough, is a reason for me to continue to argue with you. By pursuing the argument, weaknesses in your position can be shown, and this information is useful for people who want to compare the relative merits of the positions that are presented here."

But he has never attempted to show weaknesses in any argument I made, just to insist that his topic is more important and that therefore he would continue to disrupt my topic by discussing his topic. How can I keep a discussion on topic, when somebody can continue to post about a totally different topic?

NDT's topic is about a courtroom procedure that should only be used, according to his website, in civil cases involving minor infractions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any type of boycott, no less with withholding consent or delegitimizing the government. It is about a way to claim that a particular court in a civil case over a minor infraction does not have jurisdiction by refusing to plead and instead insisting that the court is trying a "person" while NDT is not a person but is a "free man or woman."

After a couple of pages of this, I did lose my temper, and NDT asked Ben to censure me. Since Ben is hostile to my ideas, he didn't bother to read or try to understand what was going on, but said that I was not being a a hospitable host and was "snarky," and moved my discussion from hosted to member initiated, which is fine with me as being a host gave me no power whatsoever to keep the discussion on topic.

NDT also posted something to another discussion where he referred to Occupiers as "them" and mentioned what he believed would happen to "their" counterculture. He is not an Occupier, he is hostile toward Occupy and considers it "them," rather than "us," and thinks it is a counterculture.

Without the ability to delete off-topic and/or offensive comments, or remove people who are disruptive and off-topic, a host cannot possibly fulfill the obligation to keep a discussion o

Comment by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 23, 2011 at 1:01pm



Sorry to write this now as we are all pre occupied with winter storms, holiday parries, last minute gifts and all the joyful bustle of this season but I di some furher reaserch on Americans Elect.  can't go into it right now but it willlight up for you as well if you look at who is aheda on their poll (Ron Paul), carefully read the website of the Reason Foundation who are referenced on the front page of AE's website and then carefully consider the framing of question sin their survey.

More later but I am very alarmed. AE is already on the ballot in California.It is very clear to me this is a creature of the plutonony representingthe exactopposite of everything we here at Occupy refer to with hope...and with a very mainuplative decption..getting people like us, harnessing the 99% movement as if they were about those issues to gather the momentum they need to take this ountry in a very opposite direction..totally harnessed to the plutonomy


We have to somehhow start a campaign directed at the 99% to withdraw their membership and set up some sort of way to keep a central tally of that .


This is URGENT!!!!!



Comment by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 22, 2011 at 12:36pm

Hey Stewards..Jitendra, Tom. Ben.Gary ( anyone else??)

For all my haranguing, pushing pulling nudging objecting I want to express my thnaks to you for providing thi s unique space for folk to gather to tak about "the 99% movement", Occupy's place in it, and to explore ways in which we might at this unique moment in our history  co-create a whole new world, nation by nation.  

Because this is so much about governance, democracy, human rights, human dignity, freedom..while my usual place TED Conversations is not primarily about that, even though Itry to use it that way,  I especxilaly do value this forum.  This is my work..unwinding the plutonomy, creating "conviviocracy".

Thnak you all so much for creating this unique forum and trying to help its users make the best use of it..the most constructive use of it.

Bright Blessings on your work..each of you



Comment by poforpeace on December 13, 2011 at 6:08pm

which pin # to use today?????  help??

Comment by Pat on November 21, 2011 at 1:35pm

David Eggleton - press 6 on your phone, or the Skype pad, to mute yourself.

Comment by Paul Bernstein, Ph.D. on November 19, 2011 at 11:12pm

Thanks for posting the audio files from Nov. 7th's conversations.  How soon will you have the audio files froom Nov. 14th's?  Many people are asking me for that.



Comment by Steve Letsfixit on November 19, 2011 at 5:31am

A couple quickies.

1.  I started a discussion in the Strategy Group, but found no way to cross post it to the Forum.   Not having the option to do so reduces the value of either the Forum or a Group.  It also makes it more difficult for OC members to pull together discussions on a particular topic.

2.  As more people become competent on the Maestro Console, it would be nice for qualified organizers to be able to schedule calls on particular subjects.

Thanks, Steve

Comment by Jitendra Darling on November 16, 2011 at 2:10am

Hi David-there is no off switch for the live feed that I'm aware of, HOWEVER, if you open this site in the Chrome browser, it's just a static link.

Comment by David Eggleton on November 14, 2011 at 1:43pm

Is there a switch one can use to turn off/on the Occupy Live feed?

Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT

"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Clay Forsberg posted a blog post

"Happy Birthday Occupy Wall Street ... thoughts on Year One"

Fifteen years ago, I ran across a book, "100 Most Influential People in History," during one of my dalliances to my local Marin County bookstore. "Influential People" was one man's assessment on exactly that. But how he determined his rankings was the interesting part. They weren't always the reasons you would think. But after thinking about it, they made complete sense. For example:George Washington was ranked in the top 40 of all time. Understandable. But the reason why ... not so much. You…See More
Sep 20, 2012
Clay Forsberg is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Sep 20, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a group

Leadership Ecology

When a Leadership Ecology occurs, a web of relationships emerges revealing each person’s authentic leadership qualities through the transfer of their power to others. When done in a conscious way – a shared collaborative awakening happens.See More
Feb 6, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a blog post
Feb 3, 2012


  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service