Re: [UC] A UCD world record

[Dan Myers]

Words, words, words
I hear words all day long,
First from you, now from him
Is that all you blight-hearts can do?

Why not think before writing? Yes, the pen is mightier than the sword. But
Silence is golden. I tried complimenting you, but your tone, still
unwavering, is coming off as rude, arrogant and even very angry. (I don't
think you took a breath Glenn.) You still can.

As far as my knowledge of anything you know, I'll admit is close to
insignificant. I like my neighborhood diversity, which is what makes us all
a little inquisitive. And being the curious cat, I think I would like to get
to know you better, but I don't know how to approach the delicate task
without a waiver or lawyer present. See, I want to agree with you, but your
"voice" on this listserv is utterly deterring. (Note: Calling anybody a
jackal is a personal attack)

So I guess I will listen to you rant about trees, the "corrupt" UCD, and
West/Cassidy. And you can listen to me verbose about streets being repaved,
biannual pizza tastings, and stapling posts to trees. I take any "News in
the 'hood" (either from this List or any newspaper review) with a grain of
salt, because salt makes almost any dish taste a little better.

Dan Myers

PS Mike V-- I love the poetry---Culture is an excellent way to express this
talent! (I'm surprised Bender isn't saying this)


On 7/10/07, Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 Well, sorry if I made your head spin like the exorcist chick. I hope you
didn't get that green stuff coming out too.

I'm happy for you that you agree with most of my opinions. However, you
clearly don't agree with my assessments of the damage to communication that
can be done with what we might politely call fallacious argument strategies.
The character attacks or ad hominem strategy against individuals who voice
their opinions or relevant stories is mean and also destructive to the type
of communication required among citizens in a republic.

It is the predominant goal of the red herring and Cassidy/West favorite,
straw man technique, to obfuscate someone's position or opinion deliberately
rather than offer any credible refutation. Although it is generally done
pathetically, this is done by cowards and bullies to silence dissent. Done
by a pack of jackals, it can be extremely intimidating to those not so
seasoned at receiving these..

Have you noticed that the full participation of the group I call the
listserv jackals has temporarily slowed since some of us deconstructed these
techniques on the list so that the techniques can be more easily spotted?

As I've said before, no one is intimidated by me because they think I will
satirize them for simply stating their opinions. But what is truly
intimidating is to watch the list jackals attack an individual with nothing
credible and make it almost impossible to enter into a civilized discussion
with other mature adults.

It was amazing to watch the free pass given to those that will dishonor
themselves deliberately employing these mean obfuscation strategies because
they don't have credible arguments to offer. Then, to watch the indignant
sensibilities come out of those whom refuse to confront the seriously
damaging posts. You might not see it as such, but I see this as a terrible
problem effecting our society and list.  Van Helder is such an obvious punk
that he can be ignored, but West and Cassidy should be ridiculed by citizens
and not just avoided like Van Helder.

Sometimes a macroexample better demonstrates the seriousness of the
problem. It's similar to attempting to silence a peace advocate by
immediately insisting that his views prove his cowardice. It's not a message
designed to convince the peace activist but is a serious message to confuse
and intimidate the majority watching.

We've seen that particular argument help lead to the culpability of so
many neighbors in the initial illegal invasion of Iraq still haunting us. I
almost got myself beaten up just before the war by standing behind my
principals asserting politely that it was a fallacious argument to call
peace activists cowards.

It looks as if you don't think I should have taken a tone with Cassidy in
which I treat him like an immature brat. Well, it's my opinion that humorous
literary techniques become more effective the more voyeuristic and the more
ignorant or unsophisticated the audience. Not that they are not also fun to
read or write at any time, but sometimes the technique is much more
effective when conveying the essence of the relevant problem. On the list,
we've already covered with exposition what a straw man strategy involves and
Cassidy still relies on it like the addict relies on heroin.  It also
hasn't lead to a flurry of posts discouraging the strategy by folks who
understand the destructiveness and intimidation it causes.

Cassidy and others need to see how pathetic and disingenuous the strategy
becomes and how it will lead to a lack of credibility. Swift could have
written ignored volumes about prope

Re: [UC] BID and the Public Record

[John Ellingsworth]

I think the response to Lomb21 highlights one of the reasons why:

a) people lurk on this list and don't post;
b) posters prefer to keep their names away from the dialogue;
c) sometimes knowing your neighbor isn't really all that great

All too often, one risks ridicule by the self-righteous and the 
self-aggrandizing for asking basic or 'simple' questions on this list. 
A humiliating, and cowardly tactic, IMO.


BTW - I am sure the NID/BID Lomb21 was referring to was the one here, in 
University City.


I look forward to being corrected.

Regards,

John Ellingsworth

Anthony West wrote:

Lomb21,

Do you have an ordinary name? If so, could you please include it in your 
neighborhood posts from now on?


You keep talking about "the NID/BID" in a way that leads me to suspect you are 
another one of these notoriously isolated, parochial University City persons who 
don't acknowledge the existence of the rest of Philadelphia. Please be specific. 
Which NID/BID are you talking about? There are at least a dozen in Philadelphia 
today.


I neither support nor oppose the creation of a BID in University City at this 
time. I don't know enough to pass judgement on the merits of UCD's local 
offerings. Maybe after I've studied a half dozen more in other parts of town, I 
might venture an opinion. Talk to me in the fall.


I think you admitted your true name before. Guy Laren, is that it? Just as an 
aside, why do you fake your ID on a neighborhood listserve? I don't get it. Why 
do you wish to conceal your identity from your neighbors, on a listserve 
dedicated to communicating with your neighbors?


I'm not saying you're nuts or dishonest, Guy. But most people who who post under 
pseudonyms on UC-list have proved to be malicious crackpots. Why not just be 
yourself? I don't get this urge to secrecy, on the part of healthy and 
respectable persons.


-- Tony West



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] BID and the Public Record

[Anthony West]

Lomb21,

Do you have an ordinary name? If so, could you please include it in
your neighborhood posts from now on?

You keep talking about "the NID/BID" in a way that leads me to suspect
you are another one of these notoriously isolated, parochial University
City persons who don't acknowledge the existence of the rest of
Philadelphia. Please be specific. Which NID/BID are you talking about?
There are at least a dozen in Philadelphia today.

I neither support nor oppose the creation of a BID in University City
at this time. I don't know enough to pass judgement on the merits of
UCD's local offerings. Maybe after I've studied a half dozen more in
other parts of town, I might venture an opinion. Talk to me in the fall.

I think you admitted your true name before. Guy Laren, is that it? Just
as an aside, why do you fake your ID on a neighborhood listserve? I
don't get it. Why do you wish to conceal your identity from your
neighbors, on a listserve dedicated to communicating with your
neighbors?

I'm not saying you're nuts or dishonest, Guy. But most people who who
post under pseudonyms on UC-list have proved to be malicious crackpots.
Why not just be yourself? I don't get this urge to secrecy, on the part
of healthy and respectable persons.

-- Tony West

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  Tony,
   
  I respect most of the posts that you contribute to this
Listserv.  However, I must say that when I read your comments regarding
the NID/BID that you sound to me like the Husband in the marriage
therapy session who's answer to each of his wife's issues is "But I
bought you a diamond ring last week."
   
  I believe that the objections of people from the area that the
NID/BID would operate in are based on the fact that they want the new
NID/BID to be truly representative of the people that it will serve. 
The example of the Mt Airy BID sounds like one that might fly here. 
It's expenses are tightly run and it has a clearly defined and somewhat
homogeneous group that it represents.  There is very little middle
management and there are a few clear mandates that it follows.  
   
  I agree with you that some people just seem unwilling to want to
pay anything additional for clean and safe services, but that is not
true of many (or most) of the opposers to the NID/BID.
   
  The NID/BID proposal has been created from the top down. The UCD
was created by the large institutions complete with a complicated
mission (including marketing, bus services, and heavy middle
management).  Many people feel that the NID/BID proposal is merely a
means of compelling the payments for this UCD type machine from the
"smaller guys" who might otherwise feel uncomfortable contributing
heavily to a large complicated entity. after all they already send
lots of money to a large, poorly organized big entity: the City of
Phila and they feel that their money disappears and is wasted.
   
  I guess what I'm saying to you Tony, is that I hear you putting
down those that object to the NID/BID for reasons that don't
seem sensitive to the objections from those that disagree with you.
much like the Husband that keeps telling his Wife about her new diamond
ring.
  
  
  
  
  See what's free at AOL.com.
  






You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] BID and the Public Record

[Lomb21]

Tony,
 
I respect most of the posts that you contribute to this Listserv.   However, 
I must say that when I read your comments regarding the NID/BID that  you 
sound to me like the Husband in the marriage therapy session who's answer  to 
each 
of his wife's issues is "But I bought you a diamond ring last  week."
 
I believe that the objections of people from the area that the NID/BID  would 
operate in are based on the fact that they want the new NID/BID to be  truly 
representative of the people that it will serve.  The example of the  Mt Airy 
BID sounds like one that might fly here.  It's expenses are tightly  run and 
it has a clearly defined and somewhat homogeneous group that it  represents.  
There is very little middle management and there are a few  clear mandates that 
it follows.  
 
I agree with you that some people just seem unwilling to want to pay  
anything additional for clean and safe services, but that is not true of many  
(or 
most) of the opposers to the NID/BID.
 
The NID/BID proposal has been created from the top down. The UCD was  created 
by the large institutions complete with a complicated mission (including  
marketing, bus services, and heavy middle management).  Many people feel  that 
the NID/BID proposal is merely a means of compelling the payments for this  UCD 
type machine from the "smaller guys" who might otherwise feel uncomfortable  
contributing heavily to a large complicated entity. after all they already  
send lots of money to a large, poorly organized big entity: the City of Phila 
 and they feel that their money disappears and is wasted.
 
I guess what I'm saying to you Tony, is that I hear you putting down those  
that object to the NID/BID for reasons that don't seem sensitive  to the 
objections from those that disagree with you. much like the  Husband that 
keeps 
telling his Wife about her new diamond  ring.



** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[UC] Have you seen this car?

[Mike V.]

http://community.livejournal.com/west_philly/372095.html
 
Long story short, a friend of mine was parked where they were doing road
work.  Her car has disappeared, but whether it was moved by the road
crews, stolen, or moved then stolen, she doesn't know.  It was at 43rd
and Chester.  Hopefully it's still within a few blocks of there.  The
vehicle is a turquoise 1993 Ford Tempo missing a lot of paint.  You can
read more or see a picture of that model Ford at the link above.
 
Cheers,
 
- Mike V.

Re: [UC] BID and the Public Record

[Anthony West]

Karen,

I would rather receive your criticism than another's approbation.

I don't have an ultimate answer to the "free-rider question" at this 
time. But clearly it is central to the judging of any SSD/NID/BID operation.


What I've learned so far is that different neighborhoods differ wildly 
in their valuation of different concerns. Shortly after you posted, I 
was talking with Cicely Peterman-Mangum of Mt. Airy USA. She was curious 
about BID news in our part of town. I told her the 4-unit rental cutoff, 
the exemption for homeowners and petty landlords, that has caused so 
much controversy in University City, is actually less than the 5-unit 
cutoff for the new Mt. Airy BID, which didn't lead her constituents to 
bat an eyelid. Mt. Airy did bat a lot of eyelids in the course of 
swallowing its BID proposal -- but not over that issue.


I do accept this issue matters in this neighborhood. What this 
neighborhood in turn must accept, though, is that its particular 
concerns are not universal, but parochial. This issue may ring like a 
gong on UC-list without resonating citywide.


Yet the nature of SSD/BID/NIDs is that they can be tailor-cut to their 
communities. There is no mold they must be forced into, for statutory or 
economic reasons.


-- Tony West

KAREN ALLEN wrote:

From: Anthony West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: [UC] BID and the Public Record

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:14:14 -0400

Well ... I have to say it happens all the time, that people receive 
government benefits without paying equally into the system. Just 
about every tax you can name exempts some classes of citizen from 
paying it. They still get the benefits, if benefits there are.

...
So obsessing over whether somebody, somewhere might be getting a 
benefit they didn't pay for seems like a fruitless way to worry about 
our neighborhood. -- Tony West


Tony, Im going to have to jump in and strenuously disagree with your 
point above.  I happen to agree with Dan, as he has captured in a 
nutshell my opposition to the BID:  "Why" some (landlords) are being 
assessed while others (homeowners) are not.  "Why" homeowners, who 
would benefit greatly, are being courted to "support" a service they 
don't have to pay for, while landlords are being demonized as cheap 
greedy slumlords for not wanting to pay the freight.


My answer to the question "Why" is that the powers-that-wanna-be know 
that the idea would go down in flames if it were to be proposed across 
the board.  Therefore it's easier to use a divide and conquer strategy 
to get the homeowners on board with the promise of a free service, and 
then hold the landlords up for derision for not going along with the 
demand that they pay their supposed "fair share". The other part of 
"Why" is who would control the decision-making process of the BID: if 
the entire neighborhood were to be taxed, homeowners would be in the 
majority, and would therefore be in control;  if it were just 
landlords, the large corporate landlords and/or other  people with 
business interests with Penn would control it.


So I am VERY concerned about "why" some are being asked to pay and 
others are not, and my conceern is based on a knowledge of the 
workings of the real world, not on an obsession.


Karen Allen



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.






You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Tree removals in Clark Park

[Margie Politzer]

Sometimes I can't help myself and I read Glenn's messages...
> 
> It's much more likely given these facts and UCD's established tactics that
> UCD was involved with this "removal" and is lying about it.  Let's be real,
> would anything be done by the city in Clark Park without UCD's involvement?

YES. Do you really believe city entities to be capable and accountable? Come
on... mostly they just "do their job" without regard to any other entity or
even logic. Consider as an example the current resurfacing of perfectly good
streets.
> 
> I can believe that some of you believe this story about the city operating
> alone. No one would be more accepting of the city's "judgment" than I would
> if the city unequivocally stated that it would no longer work with the FOCP
> or UCD because these entities act against the public interest. I don't
> believe that is the case yet.

Wow, you have a lot of faith in city departments Glenn.
> 
> When the FOCP refused to correct or retract West's false information about
> the number of public meetings designed for the community to participate in
> the future of Clark Park, the credibility of FOCP suffered. When the FOCP
> leadership relies on character attacks and fallacious arguments when
> blocking discussion and participation with the FOCP, the credibility of the
> FOCP suffered.

I don't think it was FOCP's credibility that suffered by your insistence on
the importance of Tony's statements about the number of public meetings.
> 
> I wish you luck with FOCP. I continue to hold both the UCD and the FOCP
> directly responsible for this tree killing tragedy.

You are misguided in doing so. You know that I am not a supporter of UCD.
But not everything can be blamed on them, even though it would help the
argument against them.
> 
> Lew, please reconsider my request to the FOCP and remove Mr. West as your
> leader. There are many people in this community like myself that would help
> FOCP if it would function as a responsible entity. But it can't keep going
> on its current path and hold any credibility with the people.  Reform is
> completely possible but it requires action from board members with courage.

Tony had nothing to do with the tree killing, and is not FOCP's leader.
I believe that you don't have a clue about FOCP's "current path."

Margie
(I know I'll regret posting this...)

> 
> Please consider this.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Glenn
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lewis Mellman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 2:17 PM
> Subject: [UC] Tree removals in Clark Park
> 
> 
>> A number of people have asked me about the recent tree removals in Clark
>> Park, particularly the decision to remove the tulip poplar at the NW corner
>> of the bowl that had a hollow at the base.
>> My understanding is that the Department of Recreation no longer has
>> arborists or tree removal crews on staff, and that Rec has turned
>> responsibiltiy for trees over to the Fairmount Park Commission who
>> subcontacts out their removal work.
>> The Friends of Clark Park had been advocating for the removal of the 4
>> dead London Plane trees for some time.  These trees had no leaves and had
>> been dropping large branches.  Their time was up, they had to go.
>> The Friends of Clark Park, the Department of Recreation and the UCD had
>> been assured by FPC that these 4 trees were on the removal list, along
>> with a number of others that were in declining condition and would be
>> removed as a group.  We believed that the Tulip Poplar had been removed
>> from the removal list based on Morris Arboretum's assessment and pruning
>> recommendations, which we followed.  However, I've been told that FPC
>> operates differently than Rec and does not work closely with Rec Park
>> Friends groups, like Rec does.   In this instance, it meant that we would
>> simply have to wait, and the trees that FPC evaluated as hazardous would
>> be removed on their timetable.
>> Councilwoman Blackwell's office was instrumental in getting FPC to
>> recongize that these trees needed to be removed sooner and was able to
>> convince FPC to take care of them last week.
>> It is unfortunate that the Tulip Poplar that seemed so vibrant and healthy
>> was removed, but I know for a fact that this decision was made by FPC,
>> based on its own criteria and was not a UCD or Friends of Clark Park
>> decision.
>> The bad thing is that an apparently healthy tree was removed by FPC.  The
>> good thing is that 4 very dangerous trees were removed and the FoCP Tree
>> Committee continues to do great work planting new trees and caring for
>> existing trees.   We planted 4 TPs near the site of the old, gone one that
>> are thriving.  They should be blooming soon.
>> If people would like to support the work of the CP Tree Committee, we have
>> a Memorial Tree program where you can donate to the Tree Endowment and
>> dedicate a tree to a human, living or dead, of your choice.  We also
>> encourage people to take the P

Re: Serial Liar sends misleading allegation [was: [UC] BID and the Public Record]

[MLamond]

In a message dated 7/10/07 5:07:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> HAHA thanks melani! now we see what our neighborhood's
> proposed bid looks like, compared to mt. airy's bid. you
> couldn't have made my point any more nicely!
> 
> 
> 
And your point was?   When caught providing false information, resort to fake 
laughter and pretend something else occurred?   If this email of yours just 
made any other point, can you please spell it out?

Thanks, 

Melani Lamond




Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax 215-222-1101



**
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

RE: [UC] Tree removals in Clark Park

[Mike V.]

Oh, I doubt that.

- Mike V.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:42 PM
To: Lewis Mellman; UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Tree removals in Clark Park

... There are many people in this community like myself ...


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] A UCD world record

[Kyle Cassidy]

So, when you post that UCD cut down some trees, and you hear back from
_three_ sources who were there that it was, in fact, Park and Rec, with
help from Councilwoman Blackwell's office and the Fairmount Park
Commission, that cut down the trees, based on a report from the Morris
Arboretum's arborist, and you _continue_ to post that UCD cut down the
trees, this is you being "attacked" "with nothing credible" by
"jackals"?

You could save all of us, yourself as well, a lot of aggravation if
you'd just pick up the phone and call Park and Rec and ask them who cut
down the trees instead of posting mountains of previously refuted
conspiracy theories. If they say that UCD cut down the trees, then let
us know. Otherwise, you can get back to work on your giant sign.


kc



Glenn said:

Please understand, I may not be able to help Cassidy and have nearly
given up, but by treating him disrespectfully I may help others not be
intimidated by him.



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: Serial Liar sends misleading allegation [was: [UC] BID and the Public Record]

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

/
In a message dated 7/10/07 12:03:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
/

/speaking of apples and oranges, did the article say anything
about how the mt. airy bid was the brainchild of a large
nearby university? or about how the mt. airy bid boundaries
included *a large nearby university which wouldn't be
assessed? or about how those boundaries included 24 acres of
undeveloped real estate, owned by a large nearby university?*/


If you are suggesting that this is the case in University City, you are 
speaking of apples and cheesteaks, not anything so close as oranges, Ray. 

Under the proposed University City BID, Penn's for-profit operations - 
commercial properties and rental properties - would be assessed the same 
as anyone else's for-profit operations.  When Penn develops the "postal 
lands," all for-profit business and rental properties there would also 
pay, bringing additional funds to the BID. 




HAHA thanks melani! now we see what our neighborhood's 
proposed bid looks like, compared to mt. airy's bid. you 
couldn't have made my point any more nicely!



..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
[aka laserbeam®]
[aka ray]
SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES.
  "It is very clear on this listserve who
   these people are. Ray has admitted being
   connected to this forger."  -- Tony West













































































__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] A UCD world record

[Mike V.]

I do not know what windings in the waste 
Of those strange sea-lanes brought me home once more, 
But on my porch I trembled, white with haste 
To get inside and bolt the heavy door. 
I had the book that told the hidden way 
Across the void and through the space-hung screens 
That hold the undimensioned worlds at bay, 
And keep lost aeons to their own demesnes.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:38 PM
To: Dan Myers
Cc: Kyle Cassidy; UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] A UCD world record


Well, sorry if I made your head spin like the exorcist chick. I hope you
didn't get that green stuff coming out too.

I'm happy for you that you agree with most of my opinions. However, you
clearly don't agree with my assessments of the damage to communication
that can be done with what we might politely call fallacious argument
strategies. The character attacks or ad hominem strategy against
individuals who voice their opinions or relevant stories is mean and
also destructive to the type of communication required among citizens in
a republic. 

It is the predominant goal of the red herring and Cassidy/West favorite,
straw man technique, to obfuscate someone's position or opinion
deliberately rather than offer any credible refutation. Although it is
generally done pathetically, this is done by cowards and bullies to
silence dissent. Done by a pack of jackals, it can be extremely
intimidating to those not so seasoned at receiving these..

Have you noticed that the full participation of the group I call the
listserv jackals has temporarily slowed since some of us deconstructed
these techniques on the list so that the techniques can be more easily
spotted?

As I've said before, no one is intimidated by me because they think I
will satirize them for simply stating their opinions. But what is truly
intimidating is to watch the list jackals attack an individual with
nothing credible and make it almost impossible to enter into a civilized
discussion with other mature adults.

It was amazing to watch the free pass given to those that will dishonor
themselves deliberately employing these mean obfuscation strategies
because they don't have credible arguments to offer. Then, to watch the
indignant sensibilities come out of those whom refuse to confront the
seriously damaging posts. You might not see it as such, but I see this
as a terrible problem effecting our society and list.  Van Helder is
such an obvious punk that he can be ignored, but West and Cassidy should
be ridiculed by citizens and not just avoided like Van Helder.

Sometimes a macroexample better demonstrates the seriousness of the
problem. It's similar to attempting to silence a peace advocate by
immediately insisting that his views prove his cowardice. It's not a
message designed to convince the peace activist but is a serious message
to confuse and intimidate the majority watching.

We've seen that particular argument help lead to the culpability of so
many neighbors in the initial illegal invasion of Iraq still haunting
us. I almost got myself beaten up just before the war by standing behind
my principals asserting politely that it was a fallacious argument to
call peace activists cowards. 

It looks as if you don't think I should have taken a tone with Cassidy
in which I treat him like an immature brat. Well, it's my opinion that
humorous literary techniques become more effective the more voyeuristic
and the more ignorant or unsophisticated the audience. Not that they are
not also fun to read or write at any time, but sometimes the technique
is much more effective when conveying the essence of the relevant
problem. On the list, we've already covered with exposition what a straw
man strategy involves and Cassidy still relies on it like the addict
relies on heroin.  It also hasn't lead to a flurry of posts discouraging
the strategy by folks who understand the destructiveness and
intimidation it causes.

Cassidy and others need to see how pathetic and disingenuous the
strategy becomes and how it will lead to a lack of credibility. Swift
could have written ignored volumes about proper treatment of the Irish
but he attacked the principals of the oppressors best when he proposed
eating the Irish instead. 

Please understand, I may not be able to help Cassidy and have nearly
given up, but by treating him disrespectfully I may help others not be
intimidated by him.

Consider this post and you'll find yourself agreeing with me again.

Glenn

Re: [UC] A UCD world record

[Glenn]

Well, sorry if I made your head spin like the exorcist chick. I hope you didn’t 
get that green stuff coming out too.

I’m happy for you that you agree with most of my opinions. However, you clearly 
don’t agree with my assessments of the damage to communication that can be done 
with what we might politely call fallacious argument strategies. The character 
attacks or ad hominem strategy against individuals who voice their opinions or 
relevant stories is mean and also destructive to the type of communication 
required among citizens in a republic. 

It is the predominant goal of the red herring and Cassidy/West favorite, straw 
man technique, to obfuscate someone’s position or opinion deliberately rather 
than offer any credible refutation. Although it is generally done pathetically, 
this is done by cowards and bullies to silence dissent. Done by a pack of 
jackals, it can be extremely intimidating to those not so seasoned at receiving 
these..

Have you noticed that the full participation of the group I call the listserv 
jackals has temporarily slowed since some of us deconstructed these techniques 
on the list so that the techniques can be more easily spotted?

As I’ve said before, no one is intimidated by me because they think I will 
satirize them for simply stating their opinions. But what is truly intimidating 
is to watch the list jackals attack an individual with nothing credible and 
make it almost impossible to enter into a civilized discussion with other 
mature adults.

It was amazing to watch the free pass given to those that will dishonor 
themselves deliberately employing these mean obfuscation strategies because 
they don’t have credible arguments to offer. Then, to watch the indignant 
sensibilities come out of those whom refuse to confront the seriously damaging 
posts. You might not see it as such, but I see this as a terrible problem 
effecting our society and list.  Van Helder is such an obvious punk that he can 
be ignored, but West and Cassidy should be ridiculed by citizens and not just 
avoided like Van Helder.

Sometimes a macroexample better demonstrates the seriousness of the problem. 
It’s similar to attempting to silence a peace advocate by immediately insisting 
that his views prove his cowardice. It’s not a message designed to convince the 
peace activist but is a serious message to confuse and intimidate the majority 
watching.

We’ve seen that particular argument help lead to the culpability of so many 
neighbors in the initial illegal invasion of Iraq still haunting us. I almost 
got myself beaten up just before the war by standing behind my principals 
asserting politely that it was a fallacious argument to call peace activists 
cowards. 

It looks as if you don’t think I should have taken a tone with Cassidy in which 
I treat him like an immature brat. Well, it’s my opinion that humorous literary 
techniques become more effective the more voyeuristic and the more ignorant or 
unsophisticated the audience. Not that they are not also fun to read or write 
at any time, but sometimes the technique is much more effective when conveying 
the essence of the relevant problem. On the list, we’ve already covered with 
exposition what a straw man strategy involves and Cassidy still relies on it 
like the addict relies on heroin.  It also hasn't lead to a flurry of posts 
discouraging the strategy by folks who understand the destructiveness and 
intimidation it causes.

Cassidy and others need to see how pathetic and disingenuous the strategy 
becomes and how it will lead to a lack of credibility. Swift could have written 
ignored volumes about proper treatment of the Irish but he attacked the 
principals of the oppressors best when he proposed eating the Irish instead. 

Please understand, I may not be able to help Cassidy and have nearly given up, 
but by treating him disrespectfully I may help others not be intimidated by him.

Consider this post and you’ll find yourself agreeing with me again.

Glenn 

  - Original Message - 
  From: Dan Myers 
  To: Glenn 
  Cc: Kyle Cassidy ; UnivCity@list.purple.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [UC] A UCD world record


  Boys, boys, boys,

  Lets all breathe a bit, all right?

  In..Out.

  Ok better? No? Go back up a line and start again until you are. Good.

  Glenn will you ever face the reality that when you rant it makes my head 
spin? And not in a good way. I do understand  (I think) where you are coming 
from Glenn. And dare I say it, agree with you on most of your opinions. 
However, your forceful tactic "voice" doesn't always deliver in a positive way 
(and that seems sad, because, if anything else, I think you want to do good in 
the neighborhood). 

  Kyle has a good point on distraction. Most politicians have a good knack of 
distraction, and I think 46th was definitely a plan to do as such. There was no 
rhyme or reason. And when I did inquire, I received no indication what was 
goi

[UC] In home daycare

[Cynthia Kwan Dukes]

Anyone know or can recommend a person to provide daycare in home?  They will
need referrals.  My schedule is pretty flexible in that I would need them to
be here several hours a day 5 days a week or several full days (2-3) a week.
This would be until about January (2008).

Please send to me off list.

Thanks,

Cindy Kwan


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] Tree removals in Clark Park

[Mike V.]

No one had seen me take the thing - but still
A blank laugh echoed in my whirling head,
And I could guess what nighted worlds of ill
Lurked in that volume I had coveted.
The way grew strange - the walls alike and madding -
And far behind me, unseen feet were padding.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:42 PM
To: Lewis Mellman; UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Tree removals in Clark Park


Thanks for your explanation. I can believe that you are sincerely
conveying 
what you believe about this tree killing. Before I speak about the 
credibility of the FOCP and UCD, let me remind you of a few issues.

UCD has had that tree on its hit list since the unpopular Clark Park 
revitalization was first pushed in 2001. This unpopular plan was put on
hold 
until last year when it was championed by FOCP while secrecy about
details 
was demanded. Now, UCD is preparing for the orchestra.

UCD is widely known as an unethical entity that fronts for Penn's real 
estate interests. It is not interested or accountable to the people of
this 
community. It has been known to wait out an unpopular agenda and strike 
later while pretending that the action was always popular and approved
by 
its partners like the FOCP.

It's much more likely given these facts and UCD's established tactics
that 
UCD was involved with this "removal" and is lying about it.  Let's be
real, 
would anything be done by the city in Clark Park without UCD's
involvement?

There are two possibilities. Perhaps, Penn/UCD has recently decided to
push 
ahead on its own while escalating contempt for little people in the
civic 
associations. Perhaps, it believes the UCD culture is so addicted to its

rule that it will beg Penn to continue towards plutocracy even now after

fentonization has helped expose the thing that UCD is.

I believe that the outing of the "3 choice" model for approving the 
"community representatives" has become widely known.  It may indeed mark
the 
turning point in the inevitable dumping of the associations. Several of
us 
who have understood the UCD have understood that civic associations were

being used to turn power over to UCD but would eventually be fentonized
too. 
There are lots of indicators that Penn has "pulled off the gloves" and
has 
thick brass knuckles waiting.

It's perfectly believable that UCD did not include any one from the 
leadership of the Board of FOCP in this tree killing operation. I
believe 
that Penn/UCD will begin using the same arguments against orgs like FOCP
and 
SHCA as I have. These are "just little clubs" and "not representative of
the 
community." Haven't these orgs been cited for years when UCD/Penn is 
spinning that the community unanimously supports corporate rule? Is it
time 
for UCD to ditch the spent civic gangs especially if they resist?

However, there is another possibility. I have always stressed the
difference 
in my FOCP literature between the membership, the board, and the leaders
of 
the board of FOCP. In my opinion, it's broadly recognized in the
community 
at large that civic association boards do not represent their members or
the 
community as claimed.

What I don't think is so widely known is that much of the civic
association 
policy enacted during this UCD era is not understood by even the members
of 
the civic association's own board. That is part of the reason it is 
difficult to level appropriate criticism of these association boards
without 
confusing or angering the reasonable but passive ones among them. It
also 
explains why I could believe that your account of the tree killing is 
hopeful and sincere but yet not true.

I can believe that some of you believe this story about the city
operating 
alone. No one would be more accepting of the city's "judgment" than I
would 
if the city unequivocally stated that it would no longer work with the
FOCP 
or UCD because these entities act against the public interest. I don't 
believe that is the case yet.

I believe a few from your FOCP could have been involved with approving
the 
tree killing yet have spun this tale to the rest of you about the city 
acting unilaterally. I've seen this before. It comes with the defects
with 
the real purposes that direct the civic associations. Years ago, you
didn't 
know what your leaders were attempting against park users until I told
you. 
To your credit, you did speak up against these continued occurrences
once I 
made them known.

At times like this tree killing is when the overall credibility of the
FOCP 
comes into play. I feel bad for all of you who might try to build up the

FOCP while others burn its credibility.

Civic associations could be service organizations for those whom would
like 
to organize things for the general benefit of the community. These also
can 
evolve into lobbying organizations pushing agendas on behalf of the few.

When this happens, the boards give spin to their members, a

Re: [UC] Tree removals in Clark Park

[Glenn]

Thanks for your explanation. I can believe that you are sincerely conveying 
what you believe about this tree killing. Before I speak about the 
credibility of the FOCP and UCD, let me remind you of a few issues.


UCD has had that tree on its hit list since the unpopular Clark Park 
revitalization was first pushed in 2001. This unpopular plan was put on hold 
until last year when it was championed by FOCP while secrecy about details 
was demanded. Now, UCD is preparing for the orchestra.


UCD is widely known as an unethical entity that fronts for Penn's real 
estate interests. It is not interested or accountable to the people of this 
community. It has been known to wait out an unpopular agenda and strike 
later while pretending that the action was always popular and approved by 
its partners like the FOCP.


It's much more likely given these facts and UCD's established tactics that 
UCD was involved with this "removal" and is lying about it.  Let's be real, 
would anything be done by the city in Clark Park without UCD's involvement?


There are two possibilities. Perhaps, Penn/UCD has recently decided to push 
ahead on its own while escalating contempt for little people in the civic 
associations. Perhaps, it believes the UCD culture is so addicted to its 
rule that it will beg Penn to continue towards plutocracy even now after 
fentonization has helped expose the thing that UCD is.


I believe that the outing of the "3 choice" model for approving the 
"community representatives" has become widely known.  It may indeed mark the 
turning point in the inevitable dumping of the associations. Several of us 
who have understood the UCD have understood that civic associations were 
being used to turn power over to UCD but would eventually be fentonized too. 
There are lots of indicators that Penn has "pulled off the gloves" and has 
thick brass knuckles waiting.


It's perfectly believable that UCD did not include any one from the 
leadership of the Board of FOCP in this tree killing operation. I believe 
that Penn/UCD will begin using the same arguments against orgs like FOCP and 
SHCA as I have. These are "just little clubs" and "not representative of the 
community." Haven't these orgs been cited for years when UCD/Penn is 
spinning that the community unanimously supports corporate rule? Is it time 
for UCD to ditch the spent civic gangs especially if they resist?


However, there is another possibility. I have always stressed the difference 
in my FOCP literature between the membership, the board, and the leaders of 
the board of FOCP. In my opinion, it's broadly recognized in the community 
at large that civic association boards do not represent their members or the 
community as claimed.


What I don't think is so widely known is that much of the civic association 
policy enacted during this UCD era is not understood by even the members of 
the civic association's own board. That is part of the reason it is 
difficult to level appropriate criticism of these association boards without 
confusing or angering the reasonable but passive ones among them. It also 
explains why I could believe that your account of the tree killing is 
hopeful and sincere but yet not true.


I can believe that some of you believe this story about the city operating 
alone. No one would be more accepting of the city's "judgment" than I would 
if the city unequivocally stated that it would no longer work with the FOCP 
or UCD because these entities act against the public interest. I don't 
believe that is the case yet.


I believe a few from your FOCP could have been involved with approving the 
tree killing yet have spun this tale to the rest of you about the city 
acting unilaterally. I've seen this before. It comes with the defects with 
the real purposes that direct the civic associations. Years ago, you didn't 
know what your leaders were attempting against park users until I told you. 
To your credit, you did speak up against these continued occurrences once I 
made them known.


At times like this tree killing is when the overall credibility of the FOCP 
comes into play. I feel bad for all of you who might try to build up the 
FOCP while others burn its credibility.


Civic associations could be service organizations for those whom would like 
to organize things for the general benefit of the community. These also can 
evolve into lobbying organizations pushing agendas on behalf of the few. 
When this happens, the boards give spin to their members, and the leaders of 
the boards give spin to the boards. That is the accepted process and series 
of spins.


When the FOCP refused to correct or retract West's false information about 
the number of public meetings designed for the community to participate in 
the future of Clark Park, the credibility of FOCP suffered. When the FOCP 
leadership relies on character attacks and fallacious arguments when 
blocking discussion and participation with the FOCP, the credibility of the 

Serial Liar sends misleading allegation [was: [UC] BID and the Public Record]

[MLamond]

In a message dated 7/10/07 12:03:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> speaking of apples and oranges, did the article say anything
> about how the mt. airy bid was the brainchild of a large
> nearby university? or about how the mt. airy bid boundaries
> included a large nearby university which wouldn't be
> assessed? or about how those boundaries included 24 acres of
> undeveloped real estate, owned by a large nearby university?
> 
If you are suggesting that this is the case in University City, you are 
speaking of apples and cheesteaks, not anything so close as oranges, Ray.   

Under the proposed University City BID, Penn's for-profit operations - 
commercial properties and rental properties - would be assessed the same as 
anyone 
else's for-profit operations.   When Penn develops the "postal lands," all 
for-profit business and rental properties there would also pay, bringing 
additional funds to the BID.   

I know you sign your emails "serial liar," but I hope that this allegation 
was a misunderstanding on your part, not a deliberate attempt to mislead 
readers 
of the listserv.

Melani Lamond




Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax 215-222-1101


**
 See what's free 
at http://www.aol.com.

Re: [UC] BID and the Public Record

[KAREN ALLEN]

Dan Myers wrote:

I'm still on the fence on this (as many of us might be)
And even though the BID (or NID or DID) has limited benefits. ...
Maybe I still don't quite understand how imposing a tax to those who don't 
directly benefit from the benefits works when some people who are getting 
the benefits aren't paying a dime.


Dan Myers



From: Anthony West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: [UC] BID and the Public Record

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:14:14 -0400

Well ... I have to say it happens all the time, that people receive 
government benefits without paying equally into the system. Just about 
every tax you can name exempts some classes of citizen from paying it. They 
still get the benefits, if benefits there are.

...
So obsessing over whether somebody, somewhere might be getting a benefit 
they didn't pay for seems like a fruitless way to worry about our 
neighborhood. -- Tony West




Tony, Im going to have to jump in and strenuously disagree with your point 
above.  I happen to agree with Dan, as he has captured in a nutshell my 
opposition to the BID:  "Why" some (landlords) are being assessed while 
others (homeowners) are not.  "Why" homeowners, who would benefit greatly, 
are being courted to "support" a service they don't have to pay for, while 
landlords are being demonized as cheap greedy slumlords for not wanting to 
pay the freight.


My answer to the question "Why" is that the powers-that-wanna-be know that 
the idea would go down in flames if it were to be proposed across the board. 
 Therefore it's easier to use a divide and conquer strategy to get the 
homeowners on board with the promise of a free service, and then hold the 
landlords up for derision for not going along with the demand that they pay 
their supposed "fair share". The other part of "Why" is who would control 
the decision-making process of the BID: if the entire neighborhood were to 
be taxed, homeowners would be in the majority, and would therefore be in 
control;  if it were just landlords, the large corporate landlords and/or 
other  people with business interests with Penn would control it.


So I am VERY concerned about "why" some are being asked to pay and others 
are not, and my conceern is based on a knowledge of the workings of the real 
world, not on an obsession.


Karen Allen



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] BID and the Public Record

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

Doc Baldy wrote:

What I found remarkable was this:
  "the Mt. Airy BID won its election without a single dissenting vote"

I can't imagine anything ever happening in our hood with complete 
consensus...




Al Krigman wrote:

So, by all indications, this is a true "business improvement district" and
one that focuses on sidewalk cleaning in front of commercial occupancies.
Nothing at all like the now defunct UCD initiative for UC in which
"apartments" were arbitrarily and contrary to the stature identified as
businesses.







speaking of apples and oranges, did the article say anything 
about how the mt. airy bid was the brainchild of a large 
nearby university? or about how the mt. airy bid boundaries 
included a large nearby university which wouldn't be 
assessed? or about how those boundaries included 24 acres of 
undeveloped real estate, owned by a large nearby university?



..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
[aka laserbeam®]
[aka ray]
SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES.
  "It is very clear on this listserve who
   these people are. Ray has admitted being
   connected to this forger."  -- Tony West











































__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] BID and the Public Record

[Krfapt]

 
In a message dated 7/10/2007 1:44:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I'm  still on the fence on this (as many of us might  be)



The fence has fallen down.
 
The NID as advanced by UCD, Wendell's claim in his UCReview "interview"  
notwithstanding, is a dead issue. There's even a possibility that somewhere in  
the Ivory Tower from which most of the UCD money comes, the light has dawned  
that this organization has harmed what Penn wants desperately to think is a  
wonderful model for a relationship between an urban university and its  
neighbors. In which case, the new Modern Prometheus it created may come  out of 
this as 
a radically different organization than it is still trying to  be.
 
The latest installment of Tony West's series in The Public Record is quite  
telling. A BID along Germantown Ave that a) truly reflects what the state law  
defines as "Business" in "Business Improvement District -- even given a small  
number of rather large apartment-only buildings interspersed among the stores 
 but integral to the business corridor, b) a focus on what, apparently, the  
overwhelming majority of stakeholders are willing to fund as an auxiliary to  
city services -- viz., litter and trash removal along the strip, c) a limited  
and relatively homogeneous "district" served, d) a grassroots governance  
structure with neither featherbedders nor people trying to build an empire for  
their own personal welfare.
 
It's doubtful that UCD, as presently structured, could suddenly start doing  
what it's been incapable of doing since the getgo. That is, go back to square  
one and propose either one or more BIDs for the commercial strips in the  
neighborhood (principally Lancaster and Baltimore Avenues and the 4000 block of 
 
Market Street, maybe 40th Street although nobody knows what this will be like 
a  year from now. But, were such a thing done, and done with true community  
participation and involvement (implying a lot more than another meeting at the  
Christian School)  -- UCD providing facilitation but not direction -- the  
idea might rise again in an acceptable way. Alternately, if UCD could provide  
the facilitation for the neighborhood in general to develop a "clean and safe"  
plan for a NID (as opposed to a BID), with every property owner contributing, 
 something positive could arise. This would also require a totally 
restructured  UCD or, otherwise, the pretentious, extravagant, and dubiously 
effective  
marketing and development efforts would be kept going with surtax money by the 
 bookkeeping ruse of having the NID pay for clean and safe while the 
"voluntary"  contributions were used for these other functions.  

Always at  your service & ready for a dialog,
Al (call me Mr Helpful)  Krigman




** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[UC] 3rd time's a charm

[Lewis Mellman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j84m_GumrVU



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

[UC] Opps, wrong link last time

[Lewis Mellman]

This should be the right link.
Leave the volume up.
-Lew

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4949431608758613669&q=keep+em+seperated&total=55&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.