A strange interpretation of

A strange interpretation of advocating direct up-front  engagment with a movement to describe it as “dishonest” and “boring from within”. Perhaps you might define what you mean by the phrase since I would have guessed that historically it is associated with the Trotskyist policy of entryism which is certainly not my intention for the Socialist Party and it is to misconstrue the post as a proposal to do so. I would also have thought when I wrote “Nothing as drastic as becoming assimiliated and surrendering our independence” explains that we remain distinctly separate from  Occupy and be clearly identified as the Socialist Party and that we interact “not one that is based upon the ad-hoc impromptu interventions of party-members as individuals but co-ordinated in the name and as a policy of the party.” doesn’t say joining it as members to be in contravention of our rules. The degree and extent of our involvement with Occupy I purposefully said would have to be discussed within the party. “This has to be done within the party through discussion documents and analyses, conference resolutions.” I think it would also be up to debate within the party that involvement with Occupy in its present form would be lead to a breach of the hostility clause. It is clearly a much less political organisation than Zeitgeist Movement is and more an generalised umbrella working class protest movement. But if you wish to put that to the test, feel free to bring charges against me. It appears to me, when a post such as mine is (wilfully?) misinterpreted by yourself, then lengthy explanations are indeed going to be necessary in future just for clarity since you fail to understand even my short posts!!