I would guess in the host / participant hierarchical case, one way to add the drama without making the (accidental) rhetorical point at the expense of the participant is to adopt the "What to "we" really mean by X ..." language - level any hierarchy. Though again a sophisticated audience will soon see that as thin disguise for "I know better ..."

'really' like this post.

A slightly less dramatic casting of the question, (which appeals to my inability to ever have just one answer to a question) is:

"is there anything else you want to say about why you're here?"

or something like that.

Not implying a hierarchy of answers, where one is more 'real' than another, but acknowledging the multiplicity of motivation / purpose.

However, have to agree with him about EC and how bonkers their bureaucracy is. I had them as a client once (never again) and had to go to Venice. Their rules on which flights they would reimburse would have added hours to my journey as couldn't fly from closest airport but only from their approved one.

(Glad I've given up flying, even though it cuts out lots of interesting work.)

(there is some great material at www.ctlab.org BTW). The answer in these industries is expressed in terms such as resilience and 'making safety' rather than improv but making it happen ain't easy.

Trying too hard - thinking too much - being hard on myself for being such a klutz

Fuck!

It's hard to let go

Somewhere John Dewey, the american educational theorist,says the crucial thing is not to avoid mistakes, but to make sure they happen in such a way that they can be useful learning opportunities....

But we are rewarded for not making (which means covering up!) mistakes. And then we get scared of making them and....

Me, I'm a "push the fucker out the door. Next!!" kinda guy. But don't always systematically reflect/post-mortem. I try to sub-contract that out, as the owner of this very blog knows. :)

Slavery was not ended by slaves, nor child labour by children, the powerless find it very difficult to seize power and usually have to do it with serious violence. Yes the OWS people are privileged and it is their obligation as privileged people to act, in essence, because they can.

The lack of apparent structure does, and will, lead to informalised relationships that are therefore unaccountable and opaque. But the huge advantage that the lack of structure offers is that there is nobody with whom TPTB can "negotiate", nobody they can take into a smoke-filled room and bribe, blackmail or beat into submission. The only place the conversation and the negotiation can take place is in the full glare of the public space.

As long as OWS can refrain from trying to make policy or specific operational demands they will be able to remain at least reasonably public.

Their job is not to demand particular actions, it is to demand particular results. The only people who can take any action are those with the power. But they wont get any kudos for the action, only the results will matter.

SERIOUSLY interesting times.

There is a fun improv game where you have to hold a conversation where everything is a question... it's entertaining but probably not quite what you're after here!