tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1991402668327441142.post6971565062099892048..comments2024-01-29T15:41:12.310-08:00Comments on Rich Puchalsky's blog: Occupy (II)Rich Puchalskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10543499708727953026noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1991402668327441142.post-8206439837600332622012-09-28T05:42:18.230-07:002012-09-28T05:42:18.230-07:00This is both a description and an argument. There...This is both a description and an argument. There are plenty of people in Occupy who wouldn't agree with me about the centrality of the encampments. So what I stated baldly in the first post I have to explain with some extended reasoning later, so that people who disagree know why I think what I do. That means a certain amount of repetition.Rich Puchalskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565210317964576866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1991402668327441142.post-43924707883063660292012-09-28T04:59:07.581-07:002012-09-28T04:59:07.581-07:00> Were the encampments necessary for Occupy to ...> Were the encampments necessary for Occupy to work?<br /><br />Well, in part (I) you said "Instead, Occupy settled on an existential challenge. They would break out of normal life and settle in the public square until the system was forced to recognize them".<br /><br />So in a way the encampments were All, at least according to you. So you've pretty well already answered your question.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com