Nima wrote:   
   > OWS was not about Guy   
   > Fawkes,    
      
   Certainly not exclusively. But it was nonetheless the case that there were   
   many people wearing Guido Fawkes masks there. And barely anyone who did, that   
   I spoke to, seemed to know what the historical Guido Fawkes was about (e.g.   
   what his actual goals and    
   motivations were), which I certainly found humorous and ironic.   
      
   Nima continued:   
   > It was about economic inequality    
   > and the system that facilitates    
   > and undergirds it,    
      
   Yes, I know. I was actually there. I didn’t merely read about it on the   
   Internet (unlike a lot of folks who tried to treat it as a mere receptacle for   
   their fantasies rather than having direct familiarity with what was actually   
   happening on the ground).   
    And the original slogan, from the very beginning, was “we are the 99%”.   
   There was originally an attempt to unify everyone under the richest 1%,   
   irrespective of ideology. Of course, that was always at risk of disintegrating   
   into something akin to    
   ideological sectarianism (the earliest sign of which I recall were people   
   trying to oppose Ron Paul supporters, on the grounds that Paul is, according   
   to the signs, “anti-choice” [ironically, I even saw a couple people with   
   Fawkes masks daring to    
   object to those who were “anti-choice” 🙄]). Nonetheless, 99% of the   
   population would presumably include religious folks, even folks with   
   theocratic leanings (who certainly have something to say about Wall street’s   
   veritable industrialization and    
   idolization of usury).   
      
   Nima wrote:   
   > hence the name: OCCUPY    
   > WALLSTREET.    
      
   More specifically Cedar and Liberty streets. They never actually physically   
   made it onto Wall street (which was literally the original plan, but the   
   police successfully blocked that from the very start). But again, those who   
   only experienced it via the    
   Internet might have missed that.   
      
   Nima wrote:   
   > You went there trolling it    
      
   Not at all. But I did reserve the right to comment on the phenomenon of people   
   (including fiercely “pro-choice” people) who wore Guido Fawkes masks,   
   without grasping what it was that Fawkes fought for. I did so (i.e. I   
   commented) via a single playful    
   image posted on social media. But of course, my presence there was not limited   
   to that image (you might struggle with grasping that, as your familiarity with   
   what actually occurred in lower Manhattan then was limited to what you saw   
   online).   
      
   As someone who was actually there, I see no reason to consider that to have   
   been out of bounds, as there was quite a theatrical flair among a subset of   
   the population, and there were a bunch of folks satirizing (and even   
   polemicizing against) other folks.   
    The slogan “we are the 99%” did not preclude such from occurring, and my   
   objections to Wall Street never required me to put aside all misgivings about   
   “pro-choice” (and anti-theocratic) Guy Fawkes impersonators.    
      
   I’m sorry if that doesn’t mesh well with the imaginary sacred calf which   
   was birthed in your mind as you read about it online, but, believe it or not,   
   someone who was actually physically there might have a different perception   
   from you.   
      
   Nima declared:    
   > Fuck you, Papist   
      
   I hope you weren’t wearing a sacred Guido Fawkes masks while typing that!   
   Not a fan of 400+ year old attempts at regime change in King James’ England,   
   I’m guessing? Will you be lighting a bonfire this coming November (or worse,   
   May!)? It was once a    
   popular tradition out there in Oz...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)