OJ

Mission Statement Comparisons

National Call for Safe Technology

Tagline missing . . .

We provide resources to organizations, communities and individuals seeking to provide protection from wireless [microwave] radiation and to enhance collaborative efforts and sharing of information among our members to enable us to be more effective advocates. We focus on wired solutions, including fiber optics, as superior to wireless technology in performance, [energy-efficiency], security, privacy and in preserving property values and health. We propose policies and procedures that enhance wired solutions, digital inclusion and digital equity and that protect health.

Wire the Nation

Fiber Optics to all premises (FTAP)

Wire the Nation™ is a call to action as well as a citizen journalist and advocacy organization. Our mission is to preserve local control over the deployment of Wired Broadband and Wireless Telecommunications infrastructure. Localities must retain their freedom to choose the Broadband infrastructure that best serves the needs of their residents. We work at the federal, state and local levels to tame the unnecessary, dense deployment of so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) of any “G” in residential neighborhoods — infrastructure that unnecessarily spews excessive Electromagnetic Power through-the-air — far in excess of that needed for telecommunications coverage.

We focus on Wired Broadband, including fiber optics, as far superior to Wireless Broadband in performance, energy-efficiency, security and in preserving privacy, property values and public safety. We propose federal, state and local policies that are consistent with all relevant Federal Acts: including but not limited to the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act (RA).

Feb 2022 Record of Communications

Listed in chronological order, starting on Feb 3, 2022 (with names, email addresses and tels redacted).

From: P
Date: February 3, 2022 at 12:54 PM
To: O,J
CC: entire list

Subject: Follow Up from 1/28 Call

Hi, J and O.

Best of luck finishing your NTIA answers.

I recommend you upload a 1920 x 1080 jpg image to act as a billboard for the videos that the group publishes, and not rely on Google to select the billboard for you. I would prefer the following to not be the billboard for the Jan 28 call:

First, a few suggestions for full transparency:

  • Send these summary emails (and invitations) out to a fully transparent email list (transparent to all participants); that way we know to whom you are communicating.
  • These summary emails are offering an opportunity to edit out things — a lot like “meeting minutes” in any local city; to combat this editing out, I suggest including the full copy of the chat transcript in an appendix to your email summary.
  • Follow up if someone forgets to contribute something to the chat. I know I intended to add the following links to the chat, but I may have forgotten to do so. Everyone would benefit from the information at the following links

Links to share with everyone:

  1. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/bruce-kushnick/ (I will update the content on this page and repost it to https://wireamerica.org/kushnick (which is not yet there); I may even consider posting a https://wireamerica.org/oj
  2. View Bruce Kushnick telling his story in 2015 in about 15 minutes: https://youtu.be/g0zFErx514E?t=810
  3. Link to Bruce’s 2015 Book, THE BOOK OF BROKEN PROMISES: $400 BILLION BROADBAND SCANDAL
    & FREE THE NET –> http://irregulators.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BookofBrokenPromises.pdf
  4. IRREGULATORS lawsuit — a LOSS with a helpful clarification –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/irregulators-v-fcc/
  5. From https://wireamerica.org/ — video of me summarizing parcel based strategies, the subject of the funded lawsuit in CA: Parcel-based strategies — Oct 27, 2022 –> https://youtu.be/26OlmfP0qcU?t=1200 (listen from 20:00 to 27:15)

In the Jan 28 call, I don’t think you captured all of the relevant names for the group, contributed by the participants in the call. The name of the group is an important strategic decision. Our group is small; we cannot be all things to all people. We don’t have the marketing money to establish what a vague name means. That is why small groups without resources express their asks in their names — specifically.

This is not an issue for a committee to decide (From https://wireamerica.org/despair)

It sounds as if the decision of the name was somewhat pre-ordained . . .

At 41:58 in the video (https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A), O says the following:

“We have a number of selections here and any more from the floor . . .”

Q: Who came up with these names — four of the final nine?

  1. National Alliance for Advanced Technology
  2. National Coalition for Wired Technology
  3. Safe Technology Alliance for America
  4. National Call for Safe Technology (attributed to N)

After the discussion, at 59:38 in the video (https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3578), O recapped by saying the following:

“We have on the table various names . . .

  1. National Call for Safe Technology
  2. National Alliance for Wired Broadband
  3. National Alliance for Advanced Broadband
  4. National Alliance for Advanced Technology
  5. National Alliance for Advanced Wired Technology
  6. National Alliance for Advanced Wired Connectivity
  7. Safe Technology Alliance for America
  8. National Coalition for Wired Technology
  9. Coalition for Advanced Technology”

Why did O leave out the following strong contributed names with important ideas?

  1. National Alliance for Advanced Wired Connectivity at https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=2833
  2. Digital Tech Consent Alliance (or same similar flavor) at https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3207
  3. National Alliance for Broadband Choice at https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3288

Q: Do we really “want to co-0pt what the Wireless Industry is using” . . . because that’s what well-healed George Soros and Bill Gates do? https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=2884 **I don’t want to be like those sorry excuses for human beings, why would anyone?

At https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3009 . . . this is the definition of groupthink . . . beware of this approach **. . . we need to think outside the box.

“we went back and forth . . . we liked the term safe, we liked the term responsible we decided to mimic others and picked safe technology” — my point was not that there is no safe level of RF microwave radiation, as C states. My point was that the term “safe” can be endlessly debated and leads all down a blind alley — which the Wireless industry loves.

Here is an idea that can be further discussed . . . at https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3053 we could co-0pt Artificial Intelligence by initiating the People’s Intelligence as the antidote to Artificial Intelligence

And now for this contribution at https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3426

“I feel [Coalition for Advanced Technology (CAT)] can become anything that we want it to be far into the future. It’s adaptable. When we do these public campaigns and people see on their television screens the Coalition for Advanced Technology — It means everything and nothing at the same time and I think that is a strength.”

  • I understand from my training as Brand Manager at Procter & Gamble and from my subsequent jobs at Gillette and Visa USA, a name for any product, service or group has to be properly scoped. To define the meaning for a vague name takes lots of effort and money which we do not have.
  • Our target audience is what we need to crystallize here before we select a name. I think many on the call have visions of grandeur without knowing what it takes to achieve memorable brand status (lots of time and money). The likelihood of this group surviving for many years is low. There is no money to sustain it.
  • Is it the target of this group to have people see on their television screens [any group name]? I would say no.
  • Are we aiming to educate all of the public — without significant marketing communications resources? Again I would say no.

We have to get realistic and market directly to the decision-makers –> the elected officials, agency and government staffers who are shoving this down our throats because they are blindly following propaganda . . the timeframe is now — not years from now. Being successful at this herculean task requires a name that communicates our ask. Full stop.

From: P
Date: February 11, 2022 at 1:59 PM
To: O, J
CC: Entire list
Subject: Follow Up on the Group Name

Hi, O, J et al.

>>> P wrote on 2/9/22 5:35 PM:

Excellent NTIA comment, O.

Thank you!

You mentioned that you have a much larger mailing list than those who choose to participate in the calls.

That raises the following questions.

  1. How many are on the full mailing list?
  2. Should those who are on a list, but do not participate in the call have any say over the name of the group? Being on a list and not participating in the call means they are not participating in the group and therefore should have no say.
  3. If you still plan to poll these additional people, then please share the full mailing list so we have a chance to get all relevant information to them before they make a choice.

Please share the following with all:

Key Ideas in Group Names (this choice is critical — it is what we stand for) .. so get some feedback on these ideas:

  1. Broadband Choice – clearly defines the topic (broadband); choice is universally acceptable to all
  • Examples: A woman’s right to choose; ourtownourchoice.org
  1. Consent – this is a wonderful aspirational value, but one that gets gamed all the time in America
  2. Connectivity – vague; requires further definition
  3. Advanced Technology — vague; requires further definition
  4. Safe Technology — vague; requires further definition
  5. Wired Technology — clear (includes all wires: copper, coaxial or fiber optic)
  • Example: Scientists for Wired Technology (not wired tech)

The following are fairly synonymous (so the choice is not critical)

  1. Coalition = a temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states for joint action
  2. Alliance = a group of people, countries, etc., that are joined together in some activity or effort
  3. Advocates = people who argues for or supports a cause or policy

The following are also fairly synonymous (so the choice is not critical)

  1. National = of or relating to a nation (the USA, in our case)
  2. [Name] of America = either continent (North America or South America) of the western hemisphere (the USA, in our case)

Alphabetized list of Group names is too long and redundant

  1. Advocates for Wired Technology
  2. Alliance for Wired Internet
  3. Coalition for Advanced Technology
  4. Coalition for Safer Technology
  5. Digital Tech Consent Alliance
  6. National Alliance for Advanced Connectivity
  7. National Alliance for Advanced Technology
  8. National Alliance for Broadband Choice
  9. National Alliance for Responsible Technology
  10. National Alliance for Safer Technology
  11. National Alliance for Wired Connectivity
  12. National Call for Safe Technology
  13. National Coalition for Safe Technology
  14. National Coalition for Wired Technology
  15. Safe Technology Alliance of America
  16. Safe Technology of America
  17. Safer Technology Alliance

At 41:58 in the video (https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A), O says the following:

​ “We have a number of selections here and any more from the floor . . .”

Q: Who came up with these names?

  1. National Alliance for Advanced Technology
  2. National Coalition for Wired Technology
  3. Safe Technology Alliance for America
  4. National Call for Safe Technology (attributed to N)

After the discussion, at 59:38 in the video (https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3578), O recapped by saying the following:

​ “We have on the table various names . . .

  1. National Call for Safe Technology
  2. National Alliance for Wired Broadband
  3. National Alliance for Advanced Broadband
  4. National Alliance for Advanced Technology
  5. National Alliance for Advanced Wired Technology
  6. National Alliance for Advanced Wired Connectivity
  7. Safe Technology Alliance for America
  8. National Coalition for Wired Technology
  9. Coalition for Advanced Technology”

It is important to include these ideas, as well:

  1. National Alliance for Advanced Wired Connectivity at https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=2833
  2. Digital Tech Consent Alliance (or same similar flavor) at https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3207
  3. National Alliance for Broadband Choice at https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3288

Q: Do we really “want to co-opt what the Wireless Industry is using” . . . because that’s what well-healed George Soros and Bill Gates do? https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=2884 I don’t want to be like those sorry excuses for human beings, why would anyone want that?

**At https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3009 . . . this is the definition of groupthink . . . beware of this approach **. . . we need to think outside the box.

C wrote:

“we went back and forth . . . we liked the term safe, we liked the term responsible we decided to mimic others and picked safe technology” — my point was not that there is no safe level of RF microwave radiation, as C states. My point was that the term “safe” can be endlessly debated and leads all down a blind alley — which the Wireless industry loves.

Here is an idea that can be further discussed . . . at https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3053 we could co-opt Artificial Intelligence by initiating the People’s Intelligence as the antidote to Artificial Intelligence

And now for this contribution at https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A?t=3426

“I feel [Coalition for Advanced Technology (CAT)] can become anything that we want it to be far into the future. It’s adaptable. When we do these public campaigns and people see on their television screens the Coalition for Advanced Technology — it means everything and nothing at the same time and I think that is a strength.”

  • I understand from my training as Brand Manager at Procter & Gamble and from my subsequent jobs at Gillette and Visa USA, a name for any product, service or group has to be properly scoped. To define the meaning for a vague name takes lots of effort and money which we do not have.
  • Our target audience is what we need to crystallize here before we select a name. I think many on the call have visions of grandeur without knowing what it takes to achieve memorable brand status (lots of time and money). The likelihood of this group surviving for many years is low. There is no money to sustain it.
  • Is it the target of this group to have people see on their television screens [any group name]? I would say no.
  • Are we aiming to educate all of the public — without significant marketing communications resources? Again I would say no.

We have to get realistic and market directly to the decision-makers → the elected officials, agency and government staffers who are shoving this down our throats because they are blindly following propaganda . . the timeframe is now — not years from now. Being successful at this herculean task requires a name that communicates our ask. Full stop.

Will you please send all of this out to the full email list?

Thank you.

From: P
Date: February 11, 2022 at 5:06 PM
To: O, J
CC: Entire list
Subject: Follow Up on the Group Name

Hi O et al.

I don’t think you should hide the mailing list at all, O. It seems, however, O you are intent on keeping the mailing list private. That is too bad.

Will you and J at least address my simple request from last week to please change the billboard image for this video — https://youtu.be/FfUqR91EP5A? It would take J about 30-seconds to do so. I would appreciate her doing that in a timely manner.

I think everyone participating in the group should be treated equally and should have access to all information. That is among the points I have been making about inclusion/exclusion, discrimination/non-discrimination, and sharing information only on a need-to-know basis.

I am suggesting that those who do not regularly participate in the meetings, those that have attended fewer than x national calls (x could be 2 or 3, but certainly not just 1) should have no say. I see nothing wrong with that. Those that invest the time, should have the say. Full stop.

A few suggestions for full transparency that I shared with you last week:

  • Please send these summary emails (and invitations) out to a fully transparent email list (transparent to all participants); that way we know to whom you are communicating.
  • These summary emails are offering an opportunity to edit out things — a lot like “meeting minutes” in any local city; to combat this editing out, I suggest includ****ing the full copy of the chat transcript in an appendix to your email summary. I noted you chose not to do this prior to this week’s call.
  • Follow up if someone forgets to contribute something to the chat. I know I intended to add the following links to the chat, but I may have forgotten to do so. Everyone would benefit from the information at the following links

I also noted that you chose to not send out in your 2/1/22 Email, included as Appendix B, below, the following links I contributed to the group last week:

Links to share with everyone:

  1. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/bruce-kushnick/ (I will update the content on this page and repost it to https://wireamerica.org/kushnick (which is not yet there); I may even consider posting a specific page for you https://wireamerica.org/oj
  2. View Bruce Kushnick telling his story in 2015 in about 15 minutes: https://youtu.be/g0zFErx514E?t=810
  3. Link to Bruce’s 2015 Book, THE BOOK OF BROKEN PROMISES: $400 BILLION BROADBAND SCANDAL
    & FREE THE NET –> http://irregulators.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BookofBrokenPromises.pdf
  4. IRREGULATORS lawsuit — a LOSS with a helpful clarification –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/irregulators-v-fcc/
  5. From https://wireamerica.org/ — video of me summarizing parcel based strategies, the subject of the funded lawsuit in CA: Parcel-based strategies — Oct 27, 2022 –> https://youtu.be/26OlmfP0qcU?t=1200 (listen from 20:00 to 27:15)

Will you send these links out in your next summary email, please?

If you will be sending the group names to the full mailing list, then I am requesting that you also include the background information that I and others have contributed so people are not just being asked to react to a long list of names, but can also benefit from the analysis that other group members (those actively participating) have contributed.

In the end, I hope the name selection will be settled not via a popularity contest, but by meritocracy. That means names that can withstand scrutiny and can be defended with reasoned decision-making, based on whatever evidence we consider reliable or predictive, recognizing that survey results from surveys not based on demographically balanced samples of less than 100-150 people per cell are neither reliable nor predictive.

Who is the target audience? I understand it to be the elected officials, agency and government staffers who are shoving the densified 4G/5G infrastructure agenda down our throats because they are blindly following propaganda. Do you agree or not?

If not, then who do you believe is the target audience? Defining that is job one — before a name is selected.

News flash Wire Nation might work for the group and wirenation.org is available.

Assuming I have accurately described the target audience (the audience I have been targeting for the last eight years), then I know a few things about that audience from my deep experience (from both successes and failures). It pays to be for something, not against something. That gets you in the door. Many people with names like “No 5G” or “Stop 5G” or “5G Free” is advertising right up front that group is comprised of “purists” (this type is well known to professional lobbyists) who are not likely to propose or accept negotiated solutions — meaning that these gr****oups often never get in the door or asked to the table.

It was a National Organization of Woman executive in my town that said “choice” is a strong group name because everyone in America, who values freedom, generally favors choice. That gets you in the door. She coined the name mystreetmychoice.com, which I improved a year later to ourtownourchoice.org

In fact, understanding the thought behind these two brands points to the benefits of WireNation.org

  • Our Town Our Choice is a somewhat vague term that loosely means “preserve local control”; it is not specific to the problem/solution so I made it more specific in my next brand by using a verb in a call to action: to Wire
  • Wire America is a strong brand because it is both a call to action and an organization name (it is different from Wired America, which is something of which we do not have enough)
  • One benefit of the WireAmerica brand is that it can be localized to any region: WireCalifornia.org, WireIdaho.com, WireTucson.org, WirePennsylvania.org and more are live right now. Most of these Wire[Location] URLs are available. In fact, wirenation.org is available right now.

From https://wireamerica.org/about

Mission Statement: Broadband via Fiber Optics & only calls/texts via Wireless
Wire America™ is a call to action and a citizen journalist and advocacy organization. Our organization is dedicated to preserving local control over Wired Broadband and Wireless Telecommunications infrastructure. Local communities must retain the freedom to integrate the best Broadband choices for their residents. We have successfully worked at the federal, state and local levels to tame the unnecessary, dense deployment of 4G/5G so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in residential neighborhoods.

My request was to send to everyone to which you send the organization names . . . the information in Exhibit A.

Will you please do so and confirm when you have done so?

Thank you.

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/11/22 8:25 pm:

From: P
Date: February 11, 2022 at 8:25 PM
To: O, J
CC: List of others

Subject: Please retract your inaccurate statements, O

Hi, O et al.

>>> O wrote on 2/11/22 6:10 pm:

Hi P,

Thanks for your thoughts. Here are my answers.

First, you are assuming that you have a right to see the full email list.

pmg: No, that is not correct, O. Not once did I say I had a right to see the full email list. I said you should share it with everyone willingly. You hiding and “protecting” it seems to be the decision you are making.

You do not have any right to the full email list and certainly no right to demand it.

pmg: Agreed, but I never demanded anything. I requested the list be made transparent to everyone for good reasons.

People have consented to receive our emails on the conference call; they have not consented to be part of a distribution list that anyone can use to send them unwanted emails.

pmg: Where was the consent? I responded to an invitation. I am not sure I consented to anything. Is that on a web form somewhere?

You’ve been asking every which way to Sunday since we started the national call group to have the email list.

pmg: That’s a mischaracterization, O. We can all read ourselves and learn that the first time I suggested that you make email distribution list explicit and transparent to everyone was on Feb 2. See the evidence in Appendix A. No demands, just suggestions/requests. Please retract your statement “You’ve been asking every which way to Sunday since we started the national call group”. I do not want your inaccurate statement to stand. Either pony up evidence or retract your false allegation.

You are coming up with any justification you can think of, and you are also creating a false innuendo. That needs to stop.

pmg: Nothing I have written to you or others has been false. Once again, please stop making inaccurate statements.

No, you will not be getting the full email list. End of discussion. Full stop.

pmg: That I understood from your earlier email. I think you not sharing it with everyone is an interesting decision; one that I do not support. What’s the problem? What makes you think I or anyone else would send unwanted information to any of these colleagues?

Second, there is no issue of transparency, except the issue that you are creating.

pmg: My suggestions to you were for additional transparency; I sense there is not enough transparency at this time. I get no written responses to what I send to you and J. It feels you are “managing” us all and not actually treating us as equals. How could that change? More transparency, more engagement and more follow through.

These were my suggestions. There is not a demand in the following reasonable questions that you are choosing not to answer:

  1. How many are on the full mailing list? pmg: I asked on the call, but no one answered. I asked by email and no one answered Why is the number secret, O?

  2. Should those who are on a list, but do not participate in the call have any say over the name of the group? pmg: I think not; what is your justification for giving suck folks a say in the name of a group that active members of the group are volunteering their time to support? If you do give them a say, then we should know who they are. There is no need to know who they are if they have no say. I believe the following, as I wrote to you: “Being on a list and not participating in the call means they are not participating in the group and therefore should have no say.”

  3. If you still plan to poll these additional people, then please share all of the information with the full mailing list so we have a chance to get all relevant information to them before they make a choice. pmg: Here is the request. No demands here. I really don’t care who is on the mailing list. I do care that all decision-makers have all of the information that I and others have provided — not filtered out by you or J — so we can arrive at the best decision. Will you please ensure that you make that happen, then?

Third, you and I already discussed on the phone a couple of days ago that we’ll be changing the billboard thumbnail on the national conference call so that it doesn’t show your image. Did you forget?

pmg: What is taking you so long? This is a 30-second task. I requested this last week. I have taken risks and have been in Verizon’s cross-hairs. I would prefer that my image be removed today.

J and I will be using other images that we’ve chosen, instead.

pmg: Please make the switch today to any image other than my face. I did not consent to have my face be the billboard on the video.

Although, I have to say, as I told you on the phone, that is a very handsome photo of you that you could submit to GQ magazine, albeit a bit dated, as you mentioned.

pmg: GQ aside, it is Verizon’s ire that I have to manage.

Third, we will not be including the full chat. We are all inundated with information, and people appreciate our providing links and the main points covered. That is a different approach from yours which tends to be way too much, note your previous email which is entirely too lengthy.

pmg: “Too lengthy” is in the eye of the beholder/reader. The way I write is in descending order of priority. Anyone can choose to quit at any time and they have a chance to get some good information along the way. If one chooses to read it all, then they will learn valuable information. That is their choice. I am not interested in your assessment of what is “too lengthy.” You may write as you wish and I will do the same.

Fourth, thank you for the list of links. J and I will include in the summary to the group. That’s very helpful.

pmg: Good. I provided the links to you last week, thinking they would make it into the Feb 2 follow up email. I followed through in time.

Fifth, I actually like Wire Nation as a brand of some sort, not sure about the name for the group. Yes, Wire America is a great name, which can also be localized by state, as you mentioned.

pmg: If I were you, I would jump on Wire Nation. Register the domain https://wirenation.org make that the name of the group and don’t look back. That is what we want — to wire the nation — every home and business with fiber optic cable. That name couldn’t be any clearer.

Sixth, target audience — you make a good point; I have to give it some thought.

pmg: It is step one in choosing any name. We want to be invited to the table and participate in the conversations. A name either assists or hinders that, that is why I am retiring two early brands (https://mystreetmychoice.com/ and https://scientists4wiredtech.com/) and replacing them with stronger names. Who could argue with Wire Nation — that is our call to action — finish the job for which the public already paid $500 billion. We deserve at least 45 Mbps up and 45 Mbps down because that is what was in the contracts!

Seventh, good points in Ex A. J and I will discuss.

Eighth, just as a point of protocol, we welcome your suggestions, but to demand confirmation and making other demands are not acceptable.

pmg: As you are controlling the mailing list, you either choose to pass information along or you filter it out. We deserve to know what you have chosen to do, even if we are powerless to send info you choose to filter out. My suggestion is filter nothing. Let it all fly. Include text of all call chats as an Appendix to your summary emails to be fully transparent. Your argument for hiding it holds no water, but it does protect against inaccurate meeting minutes.

You may not insult anyone, or make demands or otherwise show rudeness to anyone in the group, or subject anyone to haranguing.

pmg: I have done none of those things, but the same applies to you, as well as taking responsibility for your decisions and the words you write. Please retract your false statement “You’ve been asking every which way to Sunday since we started the national call group” The evidence does not support what you wrote.

A motto: If you want something from someone, you have to be nice to them.

pmg: I am not asking you “pretty please” for anything, O. We are colleagues and the complete information can and should be shared with all so we can work together to upend this terrible national agenda. We are working together, not for each other.

Hope this answers your questions.

pmg: Some, but not all of them. Please answer the reasonable questions, above. Have a great weekend.

From: P
Date: February 11, 2022 at 9:13 PM
To: O, J
CC: Entire List
Subject: Follow Up on the Group Name

Hi, O et al.

>>>O wrote on 2/11/22 2:29 PM:

Hi P,

Thanks for your input on the names. You bring up very good points. J and I will discuss.

Regarding our mailing list, you’ve repeatedly asked for our mailing list at different times. We will not be sharing the mailing list.

pmg: I understand; I don’t support the hiding of information. Plain and simple. This email distribution list is explicit (see above). I believe all should know with whom they are discussing and by whom they are being influenced.

People do not appreciate being contacted for messages that they did not sign up for.

pmg: You can speak for all people, O? I think not.

Are you suggesting that people who are not at every single meeting be excluded?

pmg: No, O. I wrote what I thought was reasonable. Do you recall this?

>>> P wrote on 2/11/22 5:06 PM:

pmg: I am suggesting that those who do not regularly participate in the meetings, those that have attended fewer than x national calls (x could be 2 or 3, but certainly not just 1) should have no say. I see nothing wrong with that. Those that invest the time, should have the say. Full stop.

O: I am not agreeing to that. If people are not engaged, they won’t be engaged with the name either. It’s not a major issue.

pmg: I don’t follow your reasoning.

Thanks,

O

From: P
Date: February 11, 2022 at 11:24 PM
To: O, J
CC: Entire List
Subject: Follow Up on the Group Name

Hi, O et al.

I appreciate clear thinking and discourse. There is little need or benefit to get emotional about the things we are discussing. I hope you refrain from any additional making false allegations or accusations, O, as you have in several emails today.

Please do not do that; it violates your own “rules” — rules that you talk about, but rules that no one has agreed to follow. You tried to lay some rules on me during an ambush call earlier and I properly stood my ground and did not consent for you to set rules for me. I am my own person; I do fine as I am.

Now the name of the group is actually important so I am focused on that.

>>>> O wrote on 2/11/22 10:05 PM:

Hi P,

First of all, you do not set the rules for the national conference call.

pmg: That’s right. I am setting no rules. I am making suggestions and questioning some of your judgments.

J and I put this call together to facilitate discussion, support, etc. It is not your conference call. We welcome suggestions, not demands.

pmg:This is all well-understood. No need to repeat. You have received suggestions from me, not demands.

Second, who’s to decide the people who have been active? You? Who gets excluded?

pmg:You. You have a record of who participated in calls via the Zoom software.

Someone who missed 1 meeting, 5 meetings? Just how many meetings does one have to miss to be excluded?

pmg:How about those participating in two or more calls, as I suggested? Three or more would work, as well. That, of course, would be your decision as only you have that data, though I guess someone could log participation from the posted videos.

Your suggestion is impracticable.

Not at all. It keeps some who are not active in the group from overly-influencing this important decision. I don’t see how my suggestion is”Impossible to do or carry out.” I just explained how to do it.

We will send to out distribution list.

pmg: O, will you please answer this question: What, exactly, will you send out to the distribution list, all of the info you have received about the names or just the list of names? That decision makes a big difference. What is your decision?

Third, it’s not your call on whether to share the distribution list.

pmg: Yes, I get it. It is your call, O and J. I am encouraging you both to be more transparent and open — more so than you have been to date.

And your attempts at casting aspirations

pmg: Aspirations? Did you mean aspersions?

  • aspiration: a strong desire to achieve something high or great
  • aspersion: a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone’s reputation

I am doing the former, not the latter. Nothing I have written is false or misleading. I only write the truth; it is too complicated, tiring and self-defeating to track through and cover up falsehoods.

where our goal is to provide support for each other does not fit with our goal.

pmg: I am supporting the best information to be in front of the people willing to put in the work for this group. That includes you and J and many others, but not everyone on some list of which we have no idea who is on that list.

Fourth, I’m not going to subject anyone on the distribution list to this type of rudeness and haranguing.

pmg: Rudeness and haranguing, from you, O? Or are you alleging that my requesting more transparency and no filtering of information somehow qualifies as rudeness and haranguing? You are taking this far too personally, O.

I will now need your assurance that you will, from now on, politely provide suggestions,

pmg: I have politely provided suggestions. Please read what I have written; you have not accurately characterized what I have written.

without casting aspersions

pmg: Now you did mean aspersion, earlier. As I have casted no aspersions, then please stop making false statements to this group.

, blame, criticism or any other negative comment to me or to anyone else.

pmg: Wait a minute, any issue worth pursuing has to be examined carefully. One cannot accept all kinds of hearsay and label every contribution as “wonderful” if it is actually not accurate. That is just “cheerleading” and can get everyone seriously off track. We all have to work from a base of verifiable information in order to stand on solid ground.

I agree with Advocate-A. “Technology” is not a good choice for a group name; I made that mistake myself and am in the process of retiring https://scientists4wiredtech.com and moving the content over to Wire America. We should learn from past strategic errors instead of repeating them because “others like” a particular name for reasons they do not fully articulate. “Safe” is also a rookie mistake for a group’s name. Why should anyone be comfortable standing by and accepting such names when no one, other than me, has provided any solid reasons why one name is better than another.

In contrast, O, you could be writing about the merits of these names instead of attacking the messenger, which accomplishes nothing. Let’s hear the reasons why you like particular names. I am interested in your analysis about that, O and J and everyone else.

Read the emails. People are saying they like name A, B or C without comparing the merits of the other choices. We need to think this through fully.

The name for the group is an important strategic decision on many fronts. We should proceed carefully if we want to succeed at changing the trajectory of the building of the densified 4G/5G infrastructure grid in residential zones.

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/11/22 11:28 pm:

Read what I just wrote, O, a few minutes ago.

We are engaged in serious work.

I am not doing what you say I am doing in your emails. You are mischaracterizing my words, which stand on their own. Only you have made statements that require retraction. I have not.

May we please, instead, focus on selecting the name for the group. That is what matters. We should being doing much more analysis than has been done to date on such an important strategic decision. And we should not settle for a shortcut process.

Thank you.

From: P
Date: February 12, 2022 at 11:57 AM
To: C
CC: O, J and list
Subject: More Relevant Analysis for Selecting the Group’s Name — Read Appendix A

Hi, C

There is no need to butt heads. We just need to remain honest and objective and get some questions answered. We are still waiting . . .

>> C wrote on 2/12/22 9:24 AM:

O and P,

I am disappointed in both of you butting heads and obviously you both have big EGO issues!

pmg: This has nothing to do with ego; it has to do with the process of selecting a name for a group to which I am donating significant time. This is not personal, it is to ensure that we make a sound decision re: the group’s name.

Do this on your own time!!!

pmg: I did this on my own time. I only included the distribution list above because O continued to do so. I understand this is not the full list for the group. That list is unknown to us, only to J and O, apparently. I am open to taking the discussion “off line” at any time. O, give me a call [redacted]. I removed N Van Dover because she requested that.

pmg: The simple fix from your standpoint, C is to read what you want and ignore the rest. No one is forcing you to read. That is your personal decision.

I do not partake In O’s group now because of how curt and rigid you can be. Get therapy for the control issues. P sometimes your tone is impatient and sarcastic. I am sorry for my blunt and truthful words, but you need to hear it.

pmg: I have no problems with you being blunt and truthful. We need more of that.

Focus on the purpose and resolution of our mission.

pmg: That is what I am doing. I am focusing on the best process for selecting an effective name that stands out from the rest of the me-too groups out there.See a list of such groups in Appendix A.

The times we are living in is absolutely stressful and beyond and we don’t need to be drug into more stuff!

pmg: There is no need for any stress. My point is clear and correct: we need transparency, inclusion, non-discrimination, and full information at every step in this process. Accepting a list of names, without substantive analysis/discussion for any reason, including social reasons, is not smart.

We should take a vote if necessary for the group Name.

pmg: We should first discuss the reasons why some names are stronger than others, instead of collecting a bunch of votes from possibly uninformed participants.

Please take heart and have compassion for one another.

pmg: Will do.

Again, I don’t mean to be offensive to either of you and I don’t even like including everyone on the list. Enough is enough.

pmg: I hear you, C, but the issues have not yet been addressed. Let’s address them and then move forward. O?

You both have such value to bring to the whole!

pmg: I agree.

Please honor that and all of us in this situation.

pmg: You are honored by me.

Thank you and I mean this with love and peace.

pmg: Thank you and I send my love and peace back to you. That does not mean, however, that we should ignore the unaddressed issues.

Blessings,

C

Appendix A: The Groups Agreeing with Americans for Responsible Technology Content

scientists4wiredtech.com used to be listed on this page, but I had to remove the name of my organization once I read the following in ART’s model code and they were unwilling to fix it. One CANNOT recommend the Americans for Responsible Technology (ART) model ordinance, which is here –> https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/_files/ugd/2cea04_e56b24ddcf814d498af25e601d76303f.pdf

This is why: https://youtu.be/26OlmfP0qcU?t=260

The following is STILL in ART’s model code in 2022 — no changes made over the last two years, which is dumb.

ART Model Code
4.2 Order of preference – Location. The order of preference for the location of small cell
installations in the Town, from most preferred to least preferred, is:

  1. Industrial zone
  2. Commercial zone
  3. Mixed commercial and residential zone
  4. Residential zone

And here is everyone supporting such content https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/partners

From studying ART’s page, three have “Wired” in their name; none have “Wire”?

  1. Denver – Wired Schools
  2. New York – NewYorkers4WiredTech
  3. Spokane – Spokane Wired

What else do we learn?

  • About 50 have “safe” in their name; about 30 have “safe tech” or “safe technology” in their name
  • About 15 have “responsible technology” in their names (what a surprise on the ART web page)
  • About 45 have “5G” in their name, usually with “Stop” or “Free” attached
  • IMHO and experienced opinion, these names (and other names like them) are not the strongest brands for lobbying for the reasons I have already stated; we can do better.

What do this group want to do . . . swim with the other fishes or do something better?

That is the entire point.

ALASKA

Alaskans for Responsible Technology

ARIZONA

Sedona – Arizonians for 5G Awareness

ARKANSAS

Little Rock – Citizens for Safe Technology, Inc.

CALIFORNIA

COLORADO

CONNECTICUT

CT Residents for Responsible Technology

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

HAWAII

IDAHO

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

Carmel – Small Cell Safety
Fort Wayne – Americans for Responsible Technology: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Merrillville – No Smart Meters 4 Indiana/Stop 5G

IOWA

KANSAS

Lawrence Citizens for 5G Awareness

KENTUCKY

Kentucky for Responsible Technology

LOUISIANA

Hammond – Louisiana Smart Meter Opt Out and 5G Information and Discussion

MARYLAND

MASSACHUSETTS

MICHIGAN

MINNESOTA

MISSOURI

St. Louis – STL For Safe Technology

NEVADA

Nevadans for Safe Technology

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hancock – New Hampshire for Safe Technology

NEW JERSEY

NEW MEXICO

NEW YORK

NORTH CAROLINA

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

Oklahomans for 5G Safety

OREGON

PENNSYLVANIA

RHODE ISLAND

SOUTH CAROLINA

TEXAS

UTAH

Park City – Summit County for Safe Technology

VERMONT

VIRGINIA

WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON D.C.

Parents For Safe Technology

WEST VIRGINIA

North Central WV For Safe Technology

WISCONSIN

WYOMING

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/13/22 2:28 pm:

Hi, O and J.

Just because you reacted personally/demonstrated personal frustration/anger towards me for challenging this “naming of the goup” process, that does not mean that you should just shove this to the side and not engage. What I am contributing is important.

The next best move, IMHO, is to please make the time to conduct a detailed conversation (no more than 30 minutes) to share and discuss the best ideas of how to proceed in this group naming procesa — and to answer the questions you are avoiding (see the emails). I am very clear that you are maintaining that “this is your group”, but that matters little in the final analysis. What does matter is the progress we make against our collective foes.

I am suggesting that we subtract egos and discuss the merits or our respective ideas on how best to proceed, the three of us.

Fully engaging would require a thoughtful, substantive response from one or both of you and the integrity to agree to the meeting that I am requesting. We can do the meeting by phone or by Zoom, but I do not wish to record the conversation.

Will you please respond?

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/14/22 8:42 am:

Hi, O and J.

What date/time works for you? The sooner, the better.

We can discuss anything you wish in this call between you, J and me — and no one else. I saw my last call with you and others that you invited to the call as a planned ambush/intervention and I did not appreciate that effort at all, including your yelling during that call. I find people who lose their cool like that are not listening very carefully.

I am cooperating, contributing substantial information and pointing out where things are not OK. All three topics are important.

I would prefer to first talk about the content of what we doing/hoping to do that leads to action (the process of naming the group). That I think is the most important thing and deserves primary attention. Leading with your topic might prevent making progress on the most important goal. It is clear to me and others that you and I do not see eye-to-eye on how you run things, including that you you consider this collaboration “your group” and you expect to be able to set “your rules”, as if that is what is important. I think that is a personal control issue that takes priority over the group’s progress.

A spirit of cooperation to me is staying focused on the goals of the group and taking steps to defeat our common foes and their agenda to build a densified wireless 4G/5G infrastructure grid that transmits anything more powerful than what is needed for telecommunications service into any areas accessible to humans. I choose to spend my time and energy on that primarily because that is much more important than “reaching consensus” or “building harmony” by following anyone’s best-guesses about what anyone might need socially or emotionally. I feel we are doing serious work and that the focus on “cheerleading” to (falsely) communicate that every idea/contribution is equally valuable is disingenuous and often causes the actual progress against our foes to suffer.

I am not saying that people don’t have social/emotional needs. I am saying that anyone can find a better venue to meet those needs and not waste time or make less than ideal decisions by valuing such needs above our primary needs, which are executing high level lobbying campaigns that are able to achieve results.

See my other pmg comments, below.

>>> O wrote on 2/13/22 8:17 pm:

Hi P,

Yes, you’ve got great ideas and you’ve communicated them in your emails. They are important contributions. And wow, you’ve really done a lot of work on this (seeing the listing of groups). Very impressive. Done in the spirit of cooperation, that is most welcomed.

pmg: Thank you, but what does that mean for changing the trajectory of the current process of choosing a name for the group?

Before any discussion about the name, though, we’d have to talk about what the spirit of cooperation entails. It does not entail finger-pointing (remember that one finger points at someone else, but 3 fingers are pointing back at you), being accusatory, over-bearing or rude. And yet, many have complained about you with respect to those characteristics.

Would it be okay with you if we talk about this first? Otherwise, frankly, I don’t know how we can proceed. Even your email requesting a zoom meeting is such an example.

pmg: My emails are clear and to the point. The way I conduct myself does not conform to you expectations, O. So what? That does not make my efforts wrong, just different from yours. Differences are fine in America; we have freedom and I respect everyone’s freedom. I don’t have to agree or like what another is doing, but I do respect their right to live as they wish as long as they follow the laws and do not step on others to serve their own private needs.

Ironically, the naming process is supposed to create cohesion in the group, but your tone during this process is doing just the opposite.

pmg: Wow. That is the goal of the naming of the group? Don’t you see that your goal to achieve cohesion might result in a name many with which many are “happy” but it is actually a bad name, which then can forever work against achieving the most important goals? That is what I am talking about. Keeping the priorities straight.

Regardless of the mission statement, cohesion of the group is the ultimate goal.

pmg: Never is that the most ultimate goal. Defeating our common foe is the ultimate goal. The group needs a mission statement for others to agree to adopt. If the mission statement is “cohesion of the group”, then where is the beef?

The group can be a powerhouse with you in the group, with your cooperation and respect for others.

pmg: Please understand, I respect others as people, which does not mean that I agree with every action or decision that one makes. People make mistakes all the time: they overly depend on hearsay, pass around unverified information and like things that a comfortable to them and possibly much less strategic/effective rather than choosing less comfortable things that can be more strategic/effective.

It is OK to make mistakes. I think people, however, should recognize mistakes and work hard to not make similar mistakes in the future. That is very relevant to the naming of this group. Why repeat others’ mistakes all over again . . . for reasons of cohesion?

Look no further than the efforts of C. I believe she is a lovely person and conducts herself well, but I can see that she has not gotten as much done in her community or state as she could have because she primarily sells “carrot” and sees little value in selling both “carrot and stick”. I have learned that to be effective in a timely manner, you have to be willing to sell both. Perhaps her all-carrot approach might work over a longer period of time, but we don’t have the luxury of that much time. It took the USA — from the time of identifying the known hazards — 80+ years to ban lead from gasoline and 30+ years to ban smoking in most public places. That is abhorrent. We can do better.

I say, leave the belligerence for the other side. They deserve it.

pmg: You make too many baseless assumptions/conclusions, O, such as this final sentence. You labeling my efforts as an aggressive or truculent (cruel or savage) attitude, atmosphere, or disposition is wrong. Read my emails again with an open mind and check your ego/defensiveness at the door before you do. Any conversation about your proposed first topic must include a review of what I wrote in those emails and hopefully will provide answers to questions that you have not yet answered.

My suggestion for our meeting is this order:

  1. 20 minutes — next steps on process for naming the group and substantive critique of what I have written about that to date and what names you each consider the best and the rationale for that assessment (ten minutes for J/O and ten minutes for pmg)
  2. 10 minutes — social needs/group cohesion (five minutes for J/O and five minutes for pmg)

From: P
Date: February 14, 2022 at 8:07 PM
To: O, J
Subject: Requesting 30 minute Phone or Zoom Meeting with both O and J; the sooner, the better.

Hi, O and J.

>>> O wrote on 2/14/22 7:40 PM:

Hi P,

Thanks and I got what you wrote in your email. I think that you and I need to talk first.

pmg: I am happy to talk to you and J both, at any time. That was my proposal and that is my interest. Let’s make this efficient. There is no need to exclude J from the conversation. Call me at [redacted] so we can set a time for Feb 16 or Feb 17.

You’ve treated me most disrespectfully in front of your F Troupe without a scintilla of remorse or self-reflection on your part.

pmg: You have made false statements to F-Troupe, O. I clarified the truth and asked that you retract those statements.

The ends do not justify the means.

pmg: Ditto.

You are creating conflict where there was none.

pmg: How do you conclude that? You played no role in the conflict? Is your memory that selective?

That’s a talent, but not here.

pmg: ???

Please remember that this is a process that J and I initiated, and you need to respect it, not hijack it.

pmg: Yes, I hear that time and time again . . . we initiated and, therefore we will call the shots. Look, there is no formal power structure established in this group to which others have consented. Just make the most of this opportunity.

I have no interest in hi-jacking anything. I am seeking good, solid analysis and decisions by the group so we can make the maximum progress against our common foes. I am also seeking full sharing, inclusion and nondiscrimination.

I will be out tomorrow until the late afternoon. You and I can talk then.

pmg: Let’s talk on Feb 16. I am out all day tomorrow. What time is good for you and J?

Are you OK with the proposed agenda?

  1. 20 minutes — next steps on process for naming the group and substantive critique of what I have written about that to date and what names you each consider the best and the rationale for that assessment (ten minutes for J/O and ten minutes for pmg)
  2. 10 minutes — social needs/group cohesion (five minutes for J/O and five minutes for pmg)

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/14/22 8:44 pm:

Hi, O, J et al.

Let’s make this the last email of this chain, OK?

It would be a lot more efficient for you and J to call me so we can discuss these matters. My tel is at the bottom of every email I send.

>>> O wrote on 2/14/22 8:03 pm:

P,

Just wanted to clarify a few points.

Your F Troupe and the National Call group are 2 separate entities.

pmg: There are common people that participate in both the National Call and F-Troupe. F-Troupe is a subset of the National Call Group. That is the truth.

While we may share the same goals and some of the same people are in both groups, the F Troupe and the National Call group are 2 separate entities.

pmg: Why is that important to anyone?

I’m not sure why you included me and J on the F Troupe email distribution list, but please take me and J off the email distribution list.

pmg: Done, as you wish . . . after this email. We are also removing P and N from the email list, per their requests. I generally like to receive up to the minute, relevant information, but if you have no interest in this info, that is your call. Did you see the ruling in the OTARD case from Feb 11? If not, I have attached it to this email. Not very good news . . .

You can certainly discuss the “naming” process within your F Troupe—it’s your group and of course you can do as you wish.

pmg: Nice try, O, but not a chance. We are discussing the “naming” process of the larger group with you and J. I am participating in both the F-Troupe and the larger group. I believe that is true for the others as well. We are not constrained to talk about this only with other members of the F-Troupe.

It just felt like the National Call’s process that we were discussing was being taken over and turning into an argument.

pmg: Your process is being challenged with good evidence. As part of that group, I would like to participate in a more rigorous process. The others can speak for themselves.

Please respect the National Call’s process, submit choices—why you like them, etc., as you’ve done.

pmg: Please be open with whom you are sending information and if you are passing along what I am contributing or if you are filtering it out from the rest of the group . . . that is the key issue I would like clarified. What are you going to do, O?

Your contributions are welcome, but what are not welcomed are arguments or venting personal grievances to a group that has not consented to receive such communications, or to any individual who has not consented to receive such communications.

pmg: I have no interest in venting personal grievances; I have every interest in decisions being made, after careful analysis and discussion with the full information in everyone’s hands. What I am proposing is a bit more rigorous than what was communicated on the National call.

To be clear, I did not consent to receive communications of this nature and I do not consent to receive any further communications of this nature.

pmg: I did not and do not, in the future, consent to you making false statements in emails about me or what I write. So, let’s get to the bottom of this and focus on the prize: defeating our common foes through strong branding (starting with the name of the group) and a mission statement to match. That will help direct collaborative efforts going forward.

Also, boundaries are required to be observed in order to be part of the National Call group.

pmg: Sufficient boundaries are in place. I have consistently shared relevant substantive information on the National calls. I give honest assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of ideas and approaches from my experience in getting results in this field. There is no need to repeat past errors. Let’s not do that.

I’m not inviting any further communication on these issues,

pmg: Well, you got my response, anyway.

. . . except your acknowledgement that you’ve received this communication

pmg: I got your communication.

and agree to accept these boundaries,

pmg: I agree to and accept no such ill-defined boundar(ies). I agree to full participation by all members of the larger group who have good information to share and I support enabling members of the group to share their information, without discrimination, exclusion or filtering out.

i.e. that you do not send any such further communications to any group or individual who has not consented to receive them.

pmg: What are you saying . . . do you send an email to a person to ask if it is OK for you to send the eventual email? Gee, show me an example of that. I don’t think that describes reality, O. Just because you type something, it does not make it so.

O, you have no say in my communication to anyone. I should have no problem because I only email what I know to be true and I clarify whenever there is new learning sufficient to change my positions.

So . . . as I wrote to you . . . “I am happy to talk to you and J both, at any time. That was my proposal and that is my interest. Let’s make this efficient. There is no need to exclude J from the conversation. Call me at [redacted] so we can set a time for Feb 16 or Feb 17.”

Thank you.

From: P
Date: February 15, 2022 at 7:21 AM
To: O, J
Subject: Follow Up on the ruling in the OTARD case

Hi, O and J.

After yesterday’s call re: the ruling in the OTARD case, I dissected 47 U.S. Code §303: Powers and Duties of the FCC

In the green box and in highlights, I rendered some definitions, and commentary . . . the conclusion is that the FCC so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) is not consistent with the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as you can read at the following links:

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/16/22 9:21 am:

Hi, O.

I am just getting to my emails this morning, after going to bed early last night.

Trying to make sense of what you provided last night, which would be more efficiently handled by phone [redacted]

When will you, J and I speak by phone on Feb 16 or Feb 17?

O: “I’m looking for links that show that the wireless transmitters, the likes of which the police lieutenant in NY has outside his house in Astoria, Queens, are transmitters of RF and how powerful they can be.”

pmg: Do you mean so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) or something else? If the former, yes, I have metered some.

This is always a good option, similar to what I recently wrote to Mark Graham

Submit AND searches (I use DuckDuckGo)

  • wireamerica.org AND what you are seeking
  • wirecalifornia.org AND what you are seeking
  • unsafeatanyg.com AND what you are seeking
  • ourtownourchoice.org AND what you are seeking
  • scientists4wiredtech.com AND what you are seeking

You will find links to SWTF measurements from Santa Rosa on this page –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol

You will find links to SWTF measurements from Sacramento on this page –> https://wireamerica.org/swtf

You will see hazardous RF/MW radiation levels on this page –> https://wireamerica.org/rfmeters

O: I’ve been working with an 85 year old woman who left a situation where she had rooftop antennas/transmitters on top of her apartment and moved into an assisted living facility where she now has one of those black transmitters on a wire outside her window.

pmg: How do you know the black strand-mounted item it is a wireless transmitter? Did anyone meter it? People misidentify pole-mounted equipment all the time. Do you have a photo? It it is strand-mounted, it is often a Wi-Fi hotspot.

O: She’s experiencing similar bad symptoms as in her old apartment.

pmg: Those symptoms can come from many things, including the facility’s wireless routers and alert systems. Metering is necessary to identify the sources of the problem.

O: Is there any literature/pictures that I can send to the facility to show that the issue is real and poses a danger to this elderly woman?

pmg: See links above. Likely, more research is required.

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/16/22 4:30 pm:

J? O?

Will you please respond with a good time for a three-way call tomorrow Feb 17?

I am heading out for the evening.

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/17/22 8:33 am:

Who is your web host? They can help.

Also, when will you, J and I speak by phone on Feb 16 or Feb 17?

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/17/22 6:32 pm:

Hi, O and J.

>>> O wrote on 2/17/22 at 3:52 pm:

Hi P,

We rectified the situation in time to send out the recorded session. That is what you requested, and it made sense. What difference does it make what day we corrected this so long as the next recorded session had a different thumbnail? Is there an issue about that?

>>> O wrote on 2/17/22 at 5:16 pm:

Hi P,

There seems to be a blurring of boundaries here. J and I are leading this effort, but you are acting as if you are leading this effort and we should report to you and you will set the agenda, etc. etc. etc.

J and I will get back to you, but we are not going to be dictated by your time table.

Yes, O, there are issues and it is NOT about a blurring of boundaries.

I am an active contributor to the National Call/Group that is yet to be named. Any colleague with whom I work is free to suggest agendas for calls or meetings. That does not make me report to them. No one reports to me and I report to no one. The same is true for you, O. I thought that was clear. We don’t report to each other. Everybody else understands that.

I am not dictating a timetable. I have asked you to schedule a call. Plain and simple.

It is hard for me to believe that you did not understand my request from Feb 3. As such, what you wrote above, is disingenuous. The problem was my Zoom picture was the billboard image for an already posted video. It had nothing to do with any new video you were posting. I find what you write to be inaccurate too often, O, to the point of misleading people.

All you or J had to do was choose a different placeholder image suggested by Google or upload a jpeg image of your own on the already posted video from Jan 28. That didn’t have to wait for anything. I asked you to please remove my image from that video on Feb 3. I checked every day or so and reminded you again on Feb 7 and Feb 8 by email to please remove my image from the video. I also asked you to please “email me back when you have addressed this request”

You and J did nothing that I can tell from Feb 3 to Feb 17 (that is two weeks) and never notified me that it was done. Do you have any information that would refute my conclusion?

You disregarded a 30-second task until it was convenient for you and you did not even tell me that it was done. That is not cool.

Neither is sticking you head in the sand over not addressing what you wrote in a series of emails earlier this week. Once again, what you wrote in these emails to a large group was inaccurate to the point of misleading people. That is also not cool. It sounds like gaslighting to me. I requested to speak to you and J about these emails on Feb 13 and suggested a 30-minute call with the three of us on Feb 16 or Feb 17. I heard nothing back from either of you about the date/time for the call. That is why I left you voicemail messages today.

You not responding to members of the group about substantive issues is a problem, O and J. This is not the first time you have been no shows. I am trying to address this with you and J privately. That is my preference. If you are not willing to address these issues privately, then I will do so publicly. Your choices are germane to the functioning of the group.

The current issue is about this:

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/17/22 8:33 am:

Also, when will you, J and I speak by phone on Feb 16 or Feb 17 Date/Time TBD, as requested in my emails?

Will you please treat me as a colleague and show me some respect, reciprocity and reasonable responsiveness?

A return phone call, an email or tel answer to my questions and a reciprocal sharing of information . . . all that would work.

Here is a question without answer (one of many)
Are you OK with the proposed agenda? Either you are or you are not. I wrote to say that I did not want pre-call with O alone. I want to speak to both of you at the same time. I think the following works. Any needed changes?

  1. 20 minutes — next steps on process for naming the group and substantive critique of what I have written about that to date and what names you each consider the best and the rationale for that assessment (ten minutes for J/O and ten minutes for pmg)
  2. 10 minutes — social needs/group cohesion (five minutes for J/O and five minutes for pmg)

You have not been reasonable in your responsiveness, O.

You seem to be happy to take information from others and demand it immediately, but not provide information when requested of you. I don’t withhold information from you, but you are withholding information from me. That is not cool. That is one issue I would like to discuss.

In short, it is not hard to find a free half-hour, ladies. Not responding, as you have, raises red flags for me and others.

Would you like to address this directly and honestly? I would.

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/21/22 6:28 pm:

Hi, J and O.

The record of communications is now complete here https://wireamerica.org/oj/

There is no need for fuzzy memories. The written words show it all.

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/25/22 2:41 pm:

Hi, O.

>>>O wrote on 2/25/22 2:34 pm:

If you listened carefully, you will have heard that people want to formulate the mission statement, and then the name.

pmg: Right. That’s why my recommendation was complete.

J and I are in charge of the process, and the timing of it.

pmg: Got it. You are in charge of your processes and other are in charge of their own processes.

Great to have yours and others suggestions, but J and I are heading up the process. So it would be helpful for you to acknowledge that.

pmg: I acknowledge you are heading up your process. We live and operate in a multi-process world.

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/26/22 10:45 pm:

Hi, J and O.

While hearing nothing back from either of you in the last 24 hours, I did hear back from some others.

As a result, I reserved https://wirethenation.org at IONOS. I could set up a WordPress site based on the standard TwentyTwentyTwo theme in about an hour. Other domains I have already reserved include broadbandfreedom.org and fiberbridge.org (fiber optics to bridge the digital divide) and bitesizegigabits.com (for the video podcast idea from Oct 2021 the has laid dormant for the past four months).

Target Audience:
Decision-makers → the elected officials, agency and government staffers who are shoving WTFs down our throats because they are blindly following propaganda . . the timeframe to change this is now — not years from now; the target audience is NOT the general public.

Possible Mission Statement:

Wire the Nation™ is a call to action as well as a citizen journalist and advocacy organization. Our organization is dedicated to preserving local control over Wired Broadband and Wireless Telecommunications infrastructure. Local communities must retain the freedom to integrate the best Broadband options for their residents. We work at the federal, state and local levels to tame the unnecessary, dense deployment of 4G/5G so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in residential neighborhoods.

This is where too much of America is headed: 24/7 government surveillance enabled by too many antennas, cameras, and sensors constructed much too close to the ground and far too close to homes, schools, parks and medical/care facilities. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size or any “G” spew excessive amounts of Electromagnetic Power through-the-air, which has been categorized as toxic pollution.

Here are three possible taglines, starting with the shortest.

Wire the Nation
Fiber Optics to all premises

Wire the Nation
Fiber Optic is superior to Wireless for Broadband

Wire the Nation
Broadband via Fiber Optics & only calls/texts via Wireless

What do you think? Do any of these options sound good to you or will you go in a different direction?

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/26/22 10:45 pm:

So . . . what will you choose and when . . . and will people wait for it?

>>>O wrote on 2/26/22 1:36 pm:

Hi P,

Good work, but that’s not the decision of the national call. Yes, wire the freakn nation already says it succinctly, but isn’t quite the mission statement the national call was thinking about,

pmg: yeah . . . that was a joke . . . why are you commenting?

J and I will set up the timing on this and will have it as a main agenda item for the next call in 2 weeks. We’ll suggest some more fulsome mission statements.

pmg: The train is leaving the station.

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/26/22 3:30 pm:

That’s your train. There are many trains.

>>>O wrote on 2/26/22 3:26 pm:

Hi P,

J and I will be deciding when the train is leaving the station. thank you very much!

– O

>>> P wrote to O,J on 2/27/22 7:04 pm:

Hi, J/O.

>>> O wrote on 2/26/22 8:53 pm:

No, there’s only one train, and it’s the train of the national conference call which J and I are leading.

pmg: Only one train? That’s not true.

We are not concerned about any of the other “trains.”

pmg: You don’t need to be concerned about any of the other “trains”, but there a lot of things happening in this world, meaning lots of trains. You are focused on one of those trains, as you are defining it.

If you’ve got a train that’s leaving a station, then buon voyage!

pmg: We have the freedom to ride many trains in America. That doesn’t block our access to train stations or any other trains. That is what freedom is about.

It seems you might benefit from viewing the scene from a larger context.

Please send this out to the email list that you are controlling and not sharing.

Mar 2022 Record of Communications: Advocates Behaving Badly

Listed in chronological order, from Mar 25, 2022 (with names, email addresses and tels redacted).

>>> O & J wrote to P on 3/24/22 6:53 PM

Get ready! Here is the agenda and Zoom link for tomorrow’s National Call for Safe Technology at 1pm EST/10am PST and it’s a big one (all links are in the section after our signatures because this is an image):

P wrote to J&O on 3/25/22 10:29 AM:

This is more evidence of willful discrimination and exclusion, J&O. Everyone can see it plain as day.

[1] P wrote to J&O on 3/25/22 10:02 AM:

10:02 Waiting to be let in . . .

I have news/research to share.

[2] P wrote to J&O on 3/25/22 10:05 AM:

Now, it’s 10:05.

I signed out and back in. I will call shortly.

[3] P wrote to J&O on 3/25/22 10:15 AM:

Hi J&O,

What is going on?

I have been in the “waiting room” in my computer (Zoom software) and on the phone since 10:01 am; it is now 10:15 am.

Are you going to let me in?

Zoom Chat from Mar 25, 2022 Zoom Call . . .

13:05:25 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate-B has been trying to get into this meeting since 10:01 PT, but is not being allowed in. Kindly let him in.

13:12:53 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate-B is still being kept out of this meeting.

13:13:13 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Bayliss made the bumbling comment, not Advocate-B.

13:13:30 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate-B is the one that provided the scholarly information to the FCC.

13:13:33 From Advocate-C to Everyone:

I have a story to send and would love to see these “evidences of harm” stories. We’re filing a [city] Planning Commission appeal and we need lots of ammunition. The Planning Commission approved a 12 antenna macro tower yesterday right next to small businesses, homes, apartments and a kids gymnastics center where hundreds of kids go every week! Appeal will be filed next week.

13:15:14 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate-B has been trying to get into this meeting since 10:01 but is not being allowed in. Please let him in now, since you are talking about him and his excellent efforts with FCC.

13:16:44 From Advocate-D to Everyone:

13:19:26 From Advocate-E to Everyone:

California had a Safe Path of Travel for EMF disabled people 20+ years ago – Advocate-F made it happen. Public buildings had a number people called and they turned off lights & equipment so the person could enter.

13:19:45 From Advocate-C to Everyone:

Yes, yes, please send that, O!

13:21:16 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate-F did phenomenal work starting even 30 years ago for all of us! And MCS as well as EMS people! Please note that Advocate-B is still waiting to get onto this call but is being stopped from getting in. Please tell Advocate-J to let him in.

13:22:51 From Advocate-G to Advocate-A

I just asked Advocate-J to let Advocate-B in.

13:24:15 From Advocate-A to Advocate-G

Thanks!

13:24:32 From Advocate-C to Everyone

Great work, Advocate-O. We can use this language in a number of ways.

13:25:27 From Advocate-H to Everyone:

Incumbents are the big companies that created the digital divide like Verizon, ATT, Century Link. We asked for these companies to not get this grant money, rather local controlled, esp REA’s and munis.

13:25:50 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate-O, you’re talking about the important concept of allowing the community into the conversation. But right now, Advocate-J is disallowing someone you’ve mentioned as essential in the FCC-Bayliss matter, Advocate-B, from entering this call. Please have Advocate-J let Advocate-B in. Thank you.

13:26:58 From Advocate-C to Everyone:

Advocate-A, How can I get a copy of that document by Advocate-F and her work? Any links? Thank you!

13:28:09 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate-C, Approach Advocate-F directly.

13:28:31 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Meanwhile, Advocate-B has been kept out of this call for almost a half-hour. Please allow him in, Advocate-J.

13:33:50 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Meanwhile, We now know that Advocate-B is mentioned and discussed for his excellent work with the FCC, but is being denied entry to this call by O – by design. And this is supposed to be a national group?

13:36:57 From Advocate-C to Advocate-A

We all know that Advocate-B is brilliant and a deep well of knowledge. Maybe he’s not being let in because he interrupts. Don’t know, but I do miss his input on this call. Wish it was otherwise, but his tendency to interrupt derails the calls. I do appreciate him, though. His websites are amazing!

13:37:34 From Advocate-A to Advocate-H:

Thank you for your response, Advocate-H, but the accusation is FALSE and DISCRIMINATION. Specifically, O acknowledges Advocate-B’s good work and discusses it first thing on this call, but then, by design, disallows him from talking about what happened with FCC? This is terrible.

13:38:54 From Advocate-I to Everyone:

Are people aware that there will be an upcoming Regional Fiber Connect Workshop in Providence, RI on April 19, which is designed to help prepare community leaders, broadband operators, and public officials that are planning to deploy fiber or are already in the process of building fiber broadband infrastructure. One regional workshop was held Wednesday in Baton Rouge. I have the link for the agenda for that, and the registration link for the Providence workshop, if anyone is interested. One state Rep from RI will be speaking.

13:38:56 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

You can’t talk about someone who’s done some of the best work – and acknowledge his work at FCC – and then deny his entrance and participation! If you were truly worried about something, you could just mute him!

13:39:14 From Advocate-J to Everyone:

Advocate-A, thank you for your input. We will speak to Advocate-B directly, without involving others.

Wire-America: No thank you, Advocate-J. Any follow up discussion will be in front of the entire group; to correct these errors, you could choose to take responsibility for your bad behavior today, Advocate-J — or not. Either way, your decision will be character-defining.

13:39:19 Advocate-K to Everyone:

I have no idea what the reason is Advocate-B is being kept out and would love to know. I know Advocate-B tends to interrupt. It is true he could be muted.

13:40:10 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Now we know this is a group that excludes those whom they recognize do some of the best work… ?!?!

13:40:47 From Advocate-L to Everyone:

We are taking this approach in Eagle, ID. https://idahoansforsafetechnology.org/city-of-eagle-id-leading-the-with-community-owned-fiber-optic-infrastructure/ Community Owned Fiber Optic Infrastructure – This is working

13:42:11 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Hank, where did your community get many of these ideas except from Advocate-B? Whom Advocate-O and Advocate-J are refusing to allow entry?

13:42:20 From Advocate-L to Everyone:

Yes Advocate-B was huge.

13:42:29 From Advocate-K to Everyone:

By the way, nice work Advocate-O, but at the same time I’m concerned about the corruption in Massachusetts in this area as legislation does not move forward as there are too many special interests.

13:42:59 From Advocate-H to Everyone:

We can approach the State Broadband Offices directly as safe tech groups.

13:51:27 From From Advocate-L to Everyone:

Cell Tower Update from Eagle, ID: https://idahoansforsafetechnology.org/5g-cell-tower-in-eagle-causes-life-threatening-injure/

13:51:46 From Advocate-C to Everyone:

Someone has to manage disruptive influences. Those disturbing people can derail our progress, so I support Advocate-O’s decision. Advocate B, as brilliant as he is, interrupts.

13:52:04 From Advocate-L to Everyone:

Dead bees and Afib injury

13:52:53 From Advocate-N to Everyone:

There are also issues with solar power systems, and solar variants and create of magnetic fields. Not sure what you would call voltage variants. Solar power systems also may have wireless data monitoring.

13:53:30 From Advocate-L to Everyone:

Thank you, Advocate A for sticking up for Advocate-B

13:55:00 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

You’re welcome, Advocate-L. Advocate-B has been super helpful to countless communities.

13:56:14 From Advocate-H to Everyone:

Fiber Broadband Assoc has weekly free webinars on Wednesday mornings “Fiber for Breakfast”

13:56:26 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

True, Advocate-N – this is one reason never to place solar panels on rooftops! Plus, those rooftop panels, connected to the electrical grid, often have wireless components. And when the E-grid goes down, they’re worthless to the home! So only a solar-direct to device is good.

13:57:02 From Advocate-D to Everyone:

Advocate-A, thank you for that, because yes, the industry playbook likes to say that EMF’s are everywhere to justify towers. We just heard that yesterday. EMF’s may be in many places, but pulsed modulated radiofrequency microwave radiation is not! (and that is what we want to keep away from our homes)

13:59:37 From Advocate-P to Everyone:

Please don’t make it so complex as VAERS.

14:00:48 From Advocate-C to Everyone:

There is a good intake form of RFR harmed on her website “We are the Evidence.org”

14:01:24 From Advocate-P to Everyone:

Yes, a registry is a good idea. Needed.

14:01:29 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate-D, yes, that’s another technique I’d observed from the 1990s – the term “EMF” is consistently used to stop our good efforts.

14:01:58 From Advocate-L to Everyone:

Here’s what I’ve been using to track Injuries in Eagle, ID: https://idahoansforsafetechnology.org/could-cell-towers-be-the-cause-of-your-rapid-heart-rate-a-fib-a-flutter-or-tachycardia/

14:02:12 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Excellent, Advocate-L.

14:03:02 From Advocate-H to Everyone:

Significant gap in service doesn’t seem to be working in the case for Moira in Long Beach!

14:03:40 From Advocate-C to Everyone:

And whose service? AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile? Depends on what carrier.

14:07:05 From Advocate-P to Everyone:

I do not agree that pulsed modulated radiofrequency microwave radiation is not everywhere – it is, including from sats and forest service/emergency antennas; it just not be as strong, but any is too strong. One example: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2948229/space-development-agency-makes-awards-for-126-satellites-to-build-tranche-1-tra/

14:08:55 From Advocate A to Everyone:

Advocate-P, you are absolutely correct. Sadly. And more sadly yet, one of our best, most ardent and most rigorous advocates, who is also EMS, Advocate B is being stopped from participating on this call. This is WRONG.

14:08:56 From Advocate-Q to Everyone:

Gap in service is a 2nd district court decision and that may make a difference.

Wire-America: Advocate-Q, actually, significant gap in telecommunications coverage is defined in each of the 11 geographic US Courts of Appeals Circuits somewhat differently.

14:09:39 From Advocate-N to Everyone:

Advocate-A, do you know if SunPower has wireless components? They are buying up real estate and putting solar panels on homes. SunPower has told me they use the clean inverters, however there is still a debate about voltage variants, and they don’t advertise about wireless components, but do say they have data monitoring systems.

14:09:56 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Group mission must acknowledge that this is a group that chooses its members, and that some of the top people in the country can be excluded, as Advocate-B is being excluded today.

14:12:40 From Advocate-O to Everyone:

We provide resources to organizations, communities and individuals seeking to provide protection from wireless [microwave] radiation and to enhance collaborative efforts and sharing of information among our members to enable us to be more effective advocates. We focus on wired solutions, including fiber optics, as superior to wireless technology in performance, [energy-efficiency], security, privacy and in preserving property values and health. We propose policies and procedures that enhance wired solutions, digital inclusion and digital equity and that protect health.

14:14:36 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Please use “wireless microwave radiation”. Why is “health” last? The relevant federal laws cite “safety of life and property” as preeminent.

14:15:23 From Adocate-L to Everyone:

Can we have an open discussion regarding Advocate B?

14:16:58 From Adocate-L to Everyone:

“National Call for Safe Technology” is a good working name so far. Nothing has to be set in stone.

14:17:38 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Everyone should have a say in whether individuals can be excluded from this group. As Advocate B could be first, someone else could be next. It’s a terrible precedent. And on video calls, regardless, anyone can be muted. So obviously, this is not about any realistic fear of, for example, of disruption.

14:18:34 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Agreed, Advocate-R. There is no such thing as safe tech. It’s misleading out of the gate.

14:19:12 From Advocate-O to Everyone:

Advocate-A, we can’t work with disrespectful behavior. Sorry.

Wire-America: Disrespectful behavior like yours today, Advocate-O? This sounds like a dictatorial move, Advocate-O. Who in the group agreed you could dictate like this? Is this behavior in the mission statement?

14:21:22 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

That’s an accusation that may not hold up under scrutiny – and without due process. Perhaps things go both ways? Lots of work supplied to you folks, ignored as if never presented I think was also offensive from you to Advocate B. In any case, you’re either inclusive or exclusive as an organization. It’s the group’s choice, but beware of exclusion as a policy.

14:20:34 From Advocate-O to Everyone:

Many people do not feel comfortable with Advocate-B, and have been stating their discomfort with his attendance at the meetings.

Wire-America: But these alleged “many people” have not acted as adults and addressed their complaints directly to Advocate B, the very person that can actually do something about it. If one cannot air their complaint directly to Advocate B, then all should discount such cowardly complaints. Anyone is free to call Advocate B. He will listen and give them his attention.

14:23:55 From Advocate-H to Everyone:

I’m finding this chat about Advocate-B almost as disrupting as Advocate-B can be in person. I wish it would stop.

14:24:51 From Advocate-C to Everyone:

Yes, I agree. Let’s let it drop.

14:25:14 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Discomfort is a vague impression within the recipient, a characterization to which any attorney would object to as subjective. And even if it were the case, hundreds of people are not only very comfortable with Advocate B, as demonstrated and catalogued in documents, but also very appreciative of him. Therefore a simple judgment on your part alone, one which likely pertains to responses to your not having listened to his caring and arduous input, is not relevant to the GROUP as a WHOLE. Why don’t you take a group vote whether people first are “comfortable” with this person, that person, every person. That’s a good start! Since you wish to be exclusive, as if in a college sorority.

14:26:51 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate-C and Advocate-H, it’s a most critical matter – the question whether a group leader can arbitrarily exclude someone. You’re here deciding what kind of group you’re creating – this is a most essential question.

14:27:02 From Advocate-O to Everyone:

14:27:55 From Advocate-J to Everyone:

Advocate-A, you have not been involved in this situation up until now. We have spoken to Advocate-B directly once and we can speak to you directly, as well.

14:28:02 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

It’s a legal distinction for the group.That’s why it’s a matter over which the group as a whole must vote, otherwise you will have established a dictatorship. Everyone then should be involved in the decision.

14:30:51 From Advocate-O to Everyone:

Advocate-A, your comments are unacceptable.

Wire-America: This sounds dicatorial, as well . . .

14:31:20 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate H and Advocate-J, in so far as you’re objecting to conversations in which the rest of us haven’t participated, then that is a private matter, not one in which you can make an exclusion decision overarchingly that also sets a potentially horrific precedent for the group set-up.

14:32:00 From Advocate-A to Everyone:

Advocate-O, you know how much I appreciate you. But my comments are both relevant and necessary for the establishment of the organization. You can’t just wipe people out with subjective characterizations. It’s a legal matter. I am referring, to when Advocate-O makes a decision on her perception of everyone’s reactions and perceptions. That is not within any individual’s purview for exclusion. And that is indeed a subjective matter, when someone judges others’ impressions and cites that as a basis for exclusion.

P wrote to J/O on 3/25/22 at 1:02 pm:

J/O,

Your decisions today were abhorrent and not very strategic.

P wrote to S on 3/25/22 at 12:59 pm re what you wrote in chat is inaccurate hearsay and I suggest you retract it.:

I appreciate you writing below that

“You are right. I corrected my statement in the chat to say it was heresay”

. . . but the damage was already done by you choosing to pass around such false information in the first place. You understand the accusation is the damning action. I was your victim because you were piling on to support actual exclusion and actual discrimination by the organizers of this call: O and J. Excluding me, after inviting me to participate, was their willful decision and it was nothing short of abhorrent. I am shocked to see you and others support such actual exclusion and actual discrimination and lies, which it clearly was.

Disruption has both positive and negative connotations. In a field where many (including many in our movement) remain captured by the ideas introduced in the propaganda that is our main stream media (evidence: many still talk about “concerns” as opposed to substantial evidence, talk about “growing/emerging” science as opposed to established science, and about say that “xyz has not been proven safe” as if anything could be proven safe). These and many other mind-control ideas have been introduced into the vernacular to defeat us and many people do not often figure this out – – the disruption of such lazy thinking is what is needed to make progress.

In addition, people often confuse style and content. They treat personal comfort as more important than accuracy, evidence or making actual progress (which requires both carrot and stick approaches).

  • disruptive: a. disrupting or tending to disrupt some process, activity, condition, etc. : causing or tending to cause disruption
  • disrupt: a. to throw into disorder; b. to successfully challenge (established businesses, products, or services) by using an innovation (such as a new technology or business model) to gain a foothold in a marginal or new segment of the market and then fundamentally changing the nature of the market

I can admit to interrupting at times, but not disrupting a meeting that could not proceed. What I say leads to progress and results (less spinning of wheels).

P wrote to N on 3/25/22 at 5:23 pm re Final Comments:

[redacted]

pmg: Attempting to justify exclusion and discrimination is a bad move. There is a full record of today’s Zoom meeting chat. Exclusion and discrimination is always a bad move. I am disappointed in you being so closed-minded and supporting such exclusion and discrimination, which is what you did today in an attempt to “socially engineer” a colleague??? I have no interest in such ends-justifies-the-means moves. Such moves are not principled. The truth is here for all to read –> https://wireamerica.org/oj Exclusion and discrimination, of which I have strong, repeated evidence from O and J, is far worse than interrupting. Full stop.

pmg: I am convinced by evidence and logic, not wishful thinking and hearsay.

[redacted]

pmg: The mistake was J & O not letting the person into the meeting. Another mistake was O lying to the group, telling the group the person was not invited to the meeting. A third mistake was you and everyone else not standing up to O and not forcing her to let the person into the meeting. That’s a lot of mistakes.

[redacted]

pmg: I have read what you wrote. I did not see much support. I saw more “you must comply.” You were part of the “ambush” Zoom meeting that failed. Learn from that.

[redacted]

pmg: You are describing another problem created by J & O’s decision to willfully block a person’s participation to the meeting after inviting the person to the meeting via Zoom invitation. They could have simply let the person into the meeting. They were too small to do that.

[redacted]

pmg: I had good information to share about the agendized items today and the group would benefit from that information. I was also giving J & O the chance to save face. They made their choices.

[redacted]

pmg: Understand what you are saying . . . essentially, “Oh, Rosa Parks, just sit in the back of the bus . . . just accept that and go onto other things.”

[redacted]

pmg: I care about what happens to this cause nationally. It does not help to have another group peddling ineffective ideas. I have educated this group to hopefully pursue effective strategies.

[redacted]

pmg: My behavior is professional and civil. It is also direct and to the point. I don’t bury lies. I shine light on them, so they can be seen for what they are. Just as I do not accept VAX mandates and do not accept censorship, why would I accept pre-conditions for participation? I am clear on what is right and wrong. Are you? Many other people recognize where the wrongs really are, even if you do not.

P wrote to J/O on 3/25/22 at 10:36 pm:

J/O,

You created quite a problem today. I am open to discussing solutions, but only in front of the entire group at the next meeting. As leaders, you are accountable to the group as a whole.

We have to clarify if you are setting up an exclusive group or an inclusive one. Also, we need to understand the criteria for expulsion and who can make these decisions: can they be made unilaterally by the leaders or by the group as a whole? The group that is forming needs to understand this.

Read the contributions from Advocate-A at https://wireamerica.org/oj/#bad. She is arguing from principles, as we all should be.