Joey, I am referencing the G20 protests, and I am not sure what you are suggesting, other than putting up a poster for a large, public anti-glob demo and stating only certain groups are invited and excluding others?

What if members of the excluded group show up anyway, does someone from the original group then step up and act as a police or bouncer and turn them away? Ask them to leave? Forcable eject them? Hand them over the the police as a pre-emtive strike against any demonstrator who might look like "a troublemaker"?

No one should be allowed to crash someone else's party...that's why the concept of diversity of tactics is so important. No one says you can't have two simultaneous protests happening in two different parts of the same city on the same day, with diverse missions/statements. One is not bad and the other is good, simply because someone moans that one actions might "steal the thunder" from the other, or "steal" the media's focus.

I'm suggesting that constructive dialogue where both sides are allowed to present their opinions regarding tactics and where no side is belittled or dismissed would be better (belittled either by being called reformist or called violent yahoos).

Of course, the nature and flow and background to a protest should be respected, even more so in smaller, more "intimate" actions.

But if people want to make sweeping negative generalizations about "violent" uprisings because of their own morality, then they might as well re-write all of history while they are at it.