Re: [UC] Civility
Wilma de Soto wrote: € I agree with you that the planned community approach has nothing to with a listserv and that is my point; especially in an area with so many different types of people that live and work in UC. speaking of civility and the tensions between control and diversity, penn is hosting a forum next tuesday at 5 pm called The Polarized Polis: Public Debate in the United States. details here: http://www.upenn.edu/president/silfenforum/ ...If public debate is indeed in trouble, from a democratic perspective, who or what is to blame? Whatever the causes, what remedies are available given America's historic commitments to broad civic participation and free expression? if you can't make it to the event, it'll be webcast live: http://www.upenn.edu/president/silfenforum/webcast.html ironically (or not) the forum is being held at annenberg's new public policy center -- annenberg school for communication (asc) is/was the host for kyle's list: http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ucneighbors .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility
Tony, In your response to Kimm with the term pro-decay forces, is a fine example of the mindset behind the forming of the UCNeighbors listserv. Let me say that derision of the UnivCity listserv is not the primary reason for many of the subscribers to UCNeighbors, but it is for the founder and several people close to him. Kyle's motives were anything but inscutable. I cannot forget the comments such as, were civilized over here, there's nothing but crazies at the purple listserv. Right on up to the latest comments about higher neighborhood input versus lower neighborhood input, pro-decay forces. In fairness, I have to acknowledge my reticence to join UCNeighbors may be a question of cultural differences. I have lived in the city my entire life. I have no personal experience with planned communities, or suburban communities whose make-up is much less diverse and who seek to ban the other from their midst. Those sorts of communities that are deliberately set up to exclude certain types of people for whatever reasons are incompatible to my existence and cultural mindset. However, the people who formed UCNeighbors may have had experience with these sort of communities and actually like them and prefer them to the takes all kinds approach of the purple listserv. The fact they closed their archives from the public did not suggest neighborliness to me at its onset. UCNeighbors may have evolved into just stimulating community discussion now and I say good. Its original premise as well as the continued disparagement of people on this listserv is the reason why I, in good conscious, cannot join them no matter how many nice people are subscribed there. My apologies for my viewpoint and shortcomings on this topic. On 4/2/10 1:27 AM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: So our knowable neighbor Kyle may have had some inscrutable motive for creating a better community listserve than currently existed in his neighborhood, when the existing model was unpleasantly dominated by posts from some crazy persons on Purple. Perhaps, as you say, he cannot deal with disagreements. But nobody - neither you nor me - can dispute that Kyle sets clear and simple limits on what he decides, whereas what Purple decides is a perpetual mystery to everyone. Purple in no way reflects the concerns of ordinary West Philadelphians, because it lacks any form of control, whereas most West Philadelphians live under control.. -- Tony West If I remember correctlyand I'm sure that I doKyle started his personal listserv less than a week before his book was released. I always suspected that he did it to avoid any discussion about the book's subject matter. In that sense I agree with you. I don't think he can easily deal with disagreements. I could be wrong. Frank You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility
Wilma, As far as I know, nobody on UCNeighbors ever disparages anybody who posts on Purple. It's only people on Purple who disparage people who post on Purple, or on any other list for that matter. This is the only listserve where neighbors disparage neighbors at times. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Your remarks about planned communities don't seem to have any bearing on a listserve. If you go into Dahlak for a drink, you are entering a planned community. Rude public behavior is discouraged and can in theory be enforced. In practice, everybody gets along well there. How's that for city life? -- Tony West On 4/2/2010 8:36 AM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Tony, In your response to Kimm with the term pro-decay forces, is a fine example of the mindset behind the forming of the UCNeighbors listserv. Let me say that derision of the UnivCity listserv is not the primary reason for many of the subscribers to UCNeighbors, but it is for the founder and several people close to him. Kyle's motives were anything but inscutable. I cannot forget the comments such as, were civilized over here, there's nothing but crazies at the purple listserv. Right on up to the latest comments about higher neighborhood input versus lower neighborhood input, pro-decay forces. In fairness, I have to acknowledge my reticence to join UCNeighbors may be a question of cultural differences. I have lived in the city my entire life. I have no personal experience with planned communities, or suburban communities whose make-up is much less diverse and who seek to ban the other from their midst. Those sorts of communities that are deliberately set up to exclude certain types of people for whatever reasons are incompatible to my existence and cultural mindset. However, the people who formed UCNeighbors may have had experience with these sort of communities and actually like them and prefer them to the takes all kinds approach of the purple listserv. The fact they closed their archives from the public did not suggest neighborliness to me at its onset. UCNeighbors may have evolved into just stimulating community discussion now and I say good. Its original premise as well as the continued disparagement of people on this listserv is the reason why I, in good conscious, cannot join them no matter how many nice people are subscribed there. My apologies for my viewpoint and shortcomings on this topic. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Frank, I'll make you a bet: that in the very near future, people on this list will take your I think he did it to avoid discussion of his book speculation, and treat it as a given fact. On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Frank Carroll fcarr...@pobox.com wrote: If I remember correctly—and I'm sure that I do—Kyle started his personal listserv less than a week before his book was released. I always suspected that he did it to avoid any discussion about the book's subject matter. In that sense I agree with you. I don't think he can easily deal with disagreements. I could be wrong. Frank PS. For those of you not subscribed to UCNeighbors, that listserv is now a Google Group and is no longer hosted by or affiliated with Penn. On Apr 1, 2010, at 08:59 PM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: Wilma de Soto wrote: As an original member of the SHCA Listserv and its subsequent UnivCity Listserv, I will never believe UCNeighbors was not formed in order to discredit and shut down the UnivCity Listserv@ purple. kyle set up his listserv towards the end of july 2007 after being on this list for years. though it's convenient for some to think this list upmanship has all been a question of civility, kyle's free-wheeling posting style here was certainly no model of civility; while he was on this list he behaved at times as badly as (if not worse than) those he (and others) accused of behaving badly. his leaving was not about the civility of this list, but about the inability of everyone on this list to agree. many people countered his arguments and points of view with the same free-wheeling style he used. some who did agree with him (while matching his free-wheeling style) left to join his list at the same time he did; in fact, they were posting on his new list before kyle posted the news here that he had set up his new list. on july 27 the following free-wheeling exchange happened between he and melani on his new list: In a message dated 7/27/07 6:49:04 PM, kcassidy at asc.upenn.eduwrites: the cool thing about this software is that i can pre-ban glenn! to which melani replied: This will be heaven. But, I hope he doesn't know where you live. Melani and then on july 28, kyle announced on this list that he had set up his new list. one difference between kyle's list and this list: unlike kyle's list, this list's archive can be viewed by ANYONE, whether they are subscribed or not. the above exchange, in fact, is archived here: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18895.html and from there anyone can explore what kyle and others posted over the years -- good, bad, or ugly -- and the discussions that followed his leaving: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18858.html .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Frank Carroll wrote: If I remember correctly—and I'm sure that I do—Kyle started his personal listserv less than a week before his book was released. I always suspected that he did it to avoid any discussion about the book's subject matter. In that sense I agree with you. I don't think he can easily deal with disagreements. I could be wrong. when kyle announced his new list on june 28 2007, it was also during a time when there was a lot of discussion on this list about the newspaper reports of the ucd scandal over john fenton. here's kyle discussing it on jun 27: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18162.html these discussions were also tied to discussions about the scandal's negative impact on ucd and its proposed nid, which had been a long ongoing topic on this list and which kyle actively took part in. over the years, and even today, many discussions on this list reveal a lot of things that organizations (like shca, uchs, fopc, ucd) would, understandably, not like to be publicly available. that's the thing about this list: it has a publicly accessible archive. here's kyle on jun 28, announcing his new list and his intention to unsubscribe from this list: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18858.html and here's kyle later that same day, asking if we could stop talking about ucd and fenton: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18194.html . . . but the nice thing about this list's archive: any reader can access the context and behaviors of the people posting, and see and judge for themselves their degree of civility, their taking sides, forming cliques -- or not -- and how such an archive makes disgusting pieces of revisionist history impossible. it also shows how people like to hear themselves validated on a list, by like-minded people. for example, just before kyle formed his new list, here he was, with ross, mike vanhelder and brian, laughing together over a murder that had occurred at 49th and locust: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg17995.html and here was al calling attention to that: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18016.html .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility
So people who like to reread 3-year-old neighborhood quarrels can do so on Purple. That's true, I suppose. It is hard to imagine why any organization would care about these archives, though. Just because one finds something on the Web doesn't make it true, and it doesn't get truer the longer it sits around. Anyway, old rage and old anger aren't that important. It is Good Friday. Peace to everyone on this list, and all my neighbors. -- Tony West On 4/2/2010 9:02 AM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: when kyle announced his new list on june 28 2007, it was also during a time when there was a lot of discussion on this list about the newspaper reports of the ucd scandal over john fenton. here's kyle discussing it on jun 27: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18162.html these discussions were also tied to discussions about the scandal's negative impact on ucd and its proposed nid, which had been a long ongoing topic on this list and which kyle actively took part in. over the years, and even today, many discussions on this list reveal a lot of things that organizations (like shca, uchs, fopc, ucd) would, understandably, not like to be publicly available. that's the thing about this list: it has a publicly accessible archive. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility
Tony, I promised myself I would not speak on this again, but at the risk of gainsaying my own principles I need to clarify things. I already stated the disparaging of the purple listserv is not the purpuse or reason may subscribers to UCNeighbors post or subscribe to the list. However, the founder and those either close to him or agree with him forming the listserv do. The phrases, we're civilized over here, there's nothing but crazies at the purple listserv, pro-decay forces, higher neighborhood input, lower neighborhood input, to wit those who post on UnivCity listserv versus those on UCNeighbors, did not come from me or anyone else who recalls the environment that led to the new listserv. Remarks by the UCNeighbors listserv founder such as, I can pre-ban Glenn and the accompanying chortles about this are considered to be rude behavior by me. Pre-banning people in the community, making UCNeighbors archives private etc. and the subsequent weak-kneed justifications of this policy remind me of the practices of restricted communities. Perhaps it's just me, as I said before, by having a different cultural experience, but I can almost hear phrases such as, We're not prejudiced here; we just like to keep our community a certain way. In my experience, right or wrong, if your gut tells you something it's for a reason and that's the reaction I felt when UCNeighbors was born. I agree with you that the planned community approach has nothing to with a listserv and that is my point; especially in an area with so many different types of people that live and work in UC. None of the above has anything to do with Dahlak or any other business in the area, which although I have not been there for a while, would still be open for me to patronize as a customer. I too dislike rude behavior in public places as well as in my own home. If it were my home or place of business, you can be certain I would enforce standards of decorum. On 4/2/10 10:01 AM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: Wilma, As far as I know, nobody on UCNeighbors ever disparages anybody who posts on Purple. It's only people on Purple who disparage people who post on Purple, or on any other list for that matter. This is the only listserve where neighbors disparage neighbors at times. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Your remarks about planned communities don't seem to have any bearing on a listserve. If you go into Dahlak for a drink, you are entering a planned community. Rude public behavior is discouraged and can in theory be enforced. In practice, everybody gets along well there. How's that for city life? -- Tony West On 4/2/2010 8:36 AM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Tony, In your response to Kimm with the term pro-decay forces, is a fine example of the mindset behind the forming of the UCNeighbors listserv. Let me say that derision of the UnivCity listserv is not the primary reason for many of the subscribers to UCNeighbors, but it is for the founder and several people close to him. Kyle's motives were anything but inscutable. I cannot forget the comments such as, were civilized over here, there's nothing but crazies at the purple listserv. Right on up to the latest comments about higher neighborhood input versus lower neighborhood input, pro-decay forces. In fairness, I have to acknowledge my reticence to join UCNeighbors may be a question of cultural differences. I have lived in the city my entire life. I have no personal experience with planned communities, or suburban communities whose make-up is much less diverse and who seek to ban the other from their midst. Those sorts of communities that are deliberately set up to exclude certain types of people for whatever reasons are incompatible to my existence and cultural mindset. However, the people who formed UCNeighbors may have had experience with these sort of communities and actually like them and prefer them to the takes all kinds approach of the purple listserv. The fact they closed their archives from the public did not suggest neighborliness to me at its onset. UCNeighbors may have evolved into just stimulating community discussion now and I say good. Its original premise as well as the continued disparagement of people on this listserv is the reason why I, in good conscious, cannot join them no matter how many nice people are subscribed there. My apologies for my viewpoint and shortcomings on this topic. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility
Thank you, Wilma. -- Tony West On 4/2/2010 12:01 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Tony, I promised myself I would not speak on this again, but at the risk of gainsaying my own principles I need to clarify things. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Maybe but I have said this a few times in the past—when UCNeighbors was first started, in fact—and it has not happened yet. F On Apr 2, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Brian Siano wrote: Frank, I'll make you a bet: that in the very near future, people on this list will take your I think he did it to avoid discussion of his book speculation, and treat it as a given fact. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
I remember that!! I think I called attention to the incident on the list after seeing it on Andrew's Malcolm X. Park blog and the Daily News. (Andrew later apologized for causing trouble.) Kyle may not have thought it was important enough to discuss but Fenton was eventually fired over it, so I suppose it wasn't so trivial. F PS. I *like* John Fenton and I'm sorry the whole thing happened. I hope he's satisfied and doing the neighborhood some good in his present position. On Apr 2, 2010, at 10:02 AM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: when kyle announced his new list on june 28 2007, it was also during a time when there was a lot of discussion on this list about the newspaper reports of the ucd scandal over john fenton. here's kyle discussing it on jun 27: You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility
John has been working hard for the community on Councilwoman Blackwell's staff ever since. It was a pretty big deal at the time for those who were directly involved. -- Tony West I remember that!! I think I called attention to the incident on the list after seeing it on Andrew's Malcolm X. Park blog and the Daily News. (Andrew later apologized for causing trouble.) Kyle may not have thought it was important enough to discuss but Fenton was eventually fired over it, so I suppose it wasn't so trivial. F PS. I *like* John Fenton and I'm sorry the whole thing happened. I hope he's satisfied and doing the neighborhood some good in his present position. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] Civility
Pease be with you as well Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:57:36 -0500 From: anthony_w...@earthlink.net To: univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Civility So people who like to reread 3-year-old neighborhood quarrels can do so on Purple. That's true, I suppose. It is hard to imagine why any organization would care about these archives, though. Just because one finds something on the Web doesn't make it true, and it doesn't get truer the longer it sits around. Anyway, old rage and old anger aren't that important. It is Good Friday. Peace to everyone on this list, and all my neighbors. -- Tony West On 4/2/2010 9:02 AM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: when kyle announced his new list on june 28 2007, it was also during a time when there was a lot of discussion on this list about the newspaper reports of the ucd scandal over john fenton. here's kyle discussing it on jun 27: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18162.html these discussions were also tied to discussions about the scandal's negative impact on ucd and its proposed nid, which had been a long ongoing topic on this list and which kyle actively took part in. over the years, and even today, many discussions on this list reveal a lot of things that organizations (like shca, uchs, fopc, ucd) would, understandably, not like to be publicly available. that's the thing about this list: it has a publicly accessible archive. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. _ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendarocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
[UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Wilma, Since a lot of people, like myself, subscribe to both lists (actually I'm on four neighborhood lists), there's no they vs. we. There are just two different products out there, for any of us to patronize as we choose. Some people don't want to subscribe to multiple listserves for the same community. (They'd rather not see their inbox flooded by the same post in three different emails, for instance.) In that case, the listserve with the greater traffic -- particularly traffic about the neighborhood -- is surely the more useful. Almost by definition, it represents the neighborhood better. One might still keep a membership on the less-popular listserve, if it gives information not available on the more-popular listserve -- particularly if it facilitates a specific kind of neighborhood communication that is hard to get on the more-popular one. In this case, having read both Kyle Cassidy's UC list and Villanova's UC list for a few years now, my take is the purple list reliably fosters personal attack, intentional misinformation and extremist hysteria on neighborhood issues. It's more about the process than the people. The same people, writing on the same issues on UCNeighbors, write with more gentleness, more receptivity and more nuance than they do on Purple. I include myself in this criticism. Listserves generally die with a whimper, not a bang, and that's how Purple seems to be dying. I still see, from time to time, useful threads about household services that don't appear on UCNeighbors. But I see more useful threads about household services overall on UCNeighbors now than I do on Purple. The only threads that flourish on Purple rather than UCNeighbors are those that favor querulous complaints about how bad A is or B is. Thus, in this recent statistic-boosting spate, I note that I made a nasty comment about Glenn (en passant) and that Kimm made a nasty comment about Tom (in yo face) and that Wilma induces a global nasty comment by me about all Purple readers (not there at all) ... par for the course. Anyone who prefers to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find Purple more congenial than UCNeighbors. Anyone who does not prefer to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find UCNeighbors more congenial than Purple, in my estimation. So I do think this product is broken and I have no idea how to fix it, unless it's willing to bite the bullet and appoint a moderator of its own. But I'll continue to read it and post on it, if I think I can make a comment that is helpful. I always appreciate your posts, Wilma. -- Tony West On 3/31/2010 9:54 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Wow! THAT'S a slap in the face. Thank you kindly for showing us who the better people are who have higher-quality neighborhood input. Since I have been a member of this listserv since its inception, apparently I can rest assured that I would not be considered as such; especially since I am not a member of the UCNeighbors listserv. Mogadishu, indeed! Perhaps it was not your intent to appear hurtful, elitist and disrespectful amongst other things, especially in light of the subject of civility raised earlier, but I do perceive it this way because there is not much room for benefit of the doubt anymore. Snide remarks about the persons who belong to this listserv, since the formation of UCNeighbors has gone a bit too far in my opinion. You have UCNeighbors...fine! Isn't that enough without denigrating this listserv or are we all just supposed to not post, drop dead or leave the neighborhood? What IS it they want from us? Come front street with it once and for all.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Title: Re: [UC] Drug pushers in the NYTimes Wilma,I agree with Tony. I belong to both listservs (univcity and UCNeighbors), but find univcity less and less useful or civil. UCNeighbors is more active and I find the dialog more engaging and community-oriented.Please come join us.Margie Apr 1, 2010 03:32:44 PM, anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: Wilma, Since a lot of people, like myself, subscribe to both lists (actually I'm on four neighborhood lists), there's no "they" vs. "we". There are just two different products out there, for any of us to patronize as we choose. Some people don't want to subscribe to multiple listserves for the same community. (They'd rather not see their inbox flooded by the same post in three different emails, for instance.) In that case, the listserve with the greater traffic -- particularly traffic about the neighborhood -- is surely the more useful. Almost by definition, it represents the neighborhood better. One might still keep a membership on the less-popular listserve, if it gives information not available on the more-popular listserve -- particularly if it facilitates a specific kind of neighborhood communication that is hard to get on the more-popular one. In this case, having read both Kyle Cassidy's UC list and Villanova's UC list for a few years now, my take is the "purple" list reliably fosters personal attack, intentional misinformation and extremist hysteria on neighborhood issues. It's more about the process than the people. The same people, writing on the same issues on UCNeighbors, write with more gentleness, more receptivity and more nuance than they do on Purple. I include myself in this criticism. Listserves generally die with a whimper, not a bang, and that's how Purple seems to be dying. I still see, from time to time, useful threads about household services that don't appear on UCNeighbors. But I see more useful threads about household services overall on UCNeighbors now than I do on Purple. The only threads that flourish on Purple rather than UCNeighbors are those that favor querulous complaints about how bad A is or B is. Thus, in this recent statistic-boosting spate, I note that I made a nasty comment about Glenn (en passant) and that Kimm made a nasty comment about Tom (in yo face) and that Wilma induces a global nasty comment by me about all Purple readers (not there at all) ... par for the course. Anyone who prefers to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find Purple more congenial than UCNeighbors. Anyone who does not prefer to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find UCNeighbors more congenial than Purple, in my estimation. So I do think this product is broken and I have no idea how to fix it, unless it's willing to bite the bullet and appoint a moderator of its own. But I'll continue to read it and post on it, if I think I can make a comment that is helpful. I always appreciate your posts, Wilma. -- Tony West On 3/31/2010 9:54 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Wow! THAT’S a slap in the face. Thank you kindly for showing us who the better people are who have higher-quality neighborhood input. Since I have been a member of this listserv since its inception, apparently I can rest assured that I would not be considered as such; especially since I am not a member of the UCNeighbors listserv. Mogadishu, indeed! Perhaps it was not your intent to appear hurtful, elitist and disrespectful amongst other things, especially in light of the subject of civility raised earlier, but I do perceive it this way because there is not much room for benefit of the doubt anymore. Snide remarks about the persons who belong to this listserv, since the formation of UCNeighbors has gone a bit too far in my opinion. You have UCNeighbors...fine! Isn’t that enough without denigrating this listserv or are we all just supposed to not post, drop dead or leave the neighborhood? What IS it they want from us? Come front street with it once and for all. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Dear Tony, Did you write to me in order to inform me that you belong to many listservs as do I, or try to convince me that UCNeighbors REALLY wanted me to join when I was told otherwise after I called them out when they originally formed the other listserv. Perhaps you are trying to convince me about how to be neighborly. I know how to be neighborly and have been so through many lower-input community initiatives. However, this does not negate the rationale for forming another listserv AND calling it UCNeighbors. As an original member of the SHCA Listserv and its subsequent UnivCity Listserv, I will never believe UCNeighbors was not formed in order to discredit and shut down the UnivCity Listserv@ purple. Unfortunately, the mystery of the domain UnivCity Listserv resides in some nebulous place at Villanova, while more people web search University City and will find this forum before UCNeighbors. I have stated my case and stood my ground on many difficult neighborhood issues, but I have never resorted to the sniping sort of comments if I could at ALL help it no matter how I was approached. I shall always strive to be civil. -Wilma On 4/1/10 4:26 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: Wilma, Since a lot of people, like myself, subscribe to both lists (actually I'm on four neighborhood lists), there's no they vs. we. There are just two different products out there, for any of us to patronize as we choose. Some people don't want to subscribe to multiple listserves for the same community. (They'd rather not see their inbox flooded by the same post in three different emails, for instance.) In that case, the listserve with the greater traffic -- particularly traffic about the neighborhood -- is surely the more useful. Almost by definition, it represents the neighborhood better. One might still keep a membership on the less-popular listserve, if it gives information not available on the more-popular listserve -- particularly if it facilitates a specific kind of neighborhood communication that is hard to get on the more-popular one. In this case, having read both Kyle Cassidy's UC list and Villanova's UC list for a few years now, my take is the purple list reliably fosters personal attack, intentional misinformation and extremist hysteria on neighborhood issues. It's more about the process than the people. The same people, writing on the same issues on UCNeighbors, write with more gentleness, more receptivity and more nuance than they do on Purple. I include myself in this criticism. Listserves generally die with a whimper, not a bang, and that's how Purple seems to be dying. I still see, from time to time, useful threads about household services that don't appear on UCNeighbors. But I see more useful threads about household services overall on UCNeighbors now than I do on Purple. The only threads that flourish on Purple rather than UCNeighbors are those that favor querulous complaints about how bad A is or B is. Thus, in this recent statistic-boosting spate, I note that I made a nasty comment about Glenn (en passant) and that Kimm made a nasty comment about Tom (in yo face) and that Wilma induces a global nasty comment by me about all Purple readers (not there at all) ... par for the course. Anyone who prefers to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find Purple more congenial than UCNeighbors. Anyone who does not prefer to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find UCNeighbors more congenial than Purple, in my estimation. So I do think this product is broken and I have no idea how to fix it, unless it's willing to bite the bullet and appoint a moderator of its own. But I'll continue to read it and post on it, if I think I can make a comment that is helpful. I always appreciate your posts, Wilma. -- Tony West On 3/31/2010 9:54 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Re: [UC] Drug pushers in the NYTimes Wow! THAT¹S a slap in the face. Thank you kindly for showing us who the better people are who have higher-quality neighborhood input. Since I have been a member of this listserv since its inception, apparently I can rest assured that I would not be considered as such; especially since I am not a member of the UCNeighbors listserv. Mogadishu, indeed! Perhaps it was not your intent to appear hurtful, elitist and disrespectful amongst other things, especially in light of the subject of civility raised earlier, but I do perceive it this way because there is not much room for benefit of the doubt anymore. Snide remarks about the persons who belong to this listserv, since the formation of UCNeighbors has gone a bit too far in my opinion. You have UCNeighbors...fine! Isn¹t that enough without denigrating this listserv or are we all just supposed to not post, drop dead or leave the neighborhood? What IS it they want from us? Come front street with it once and for all.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
This is as disgusting a piece of revisionist history as I've ever seen. Kyle's style may be freewheeling, but it certainly never reached anything like the insults and angry invective that many others have used on _this_ list. As I recall it, Kyle attempted to reply to Glenn's points calmly and rationally; Glenn accused him of being a Penn apologist in thrall to corporate ideology. (Many of you seem to give Glenn a wiiide margin of error, but if anyone takes offense, suddenly _they're_ accused of bad behavior.) So Kyle founded another list. Why shouldn't he ban Glenn, who'd pretty much chased him away? But Glenn has recited that quote as a indictment of what he mechanically calls the censored Penn list. Many of you seem to forget this-- which is interesting, since you seem to have such _good_ memories of when _you_ feel insulted or hurt. I've been on both lists since Kyle founded his. I don't see insults over there. I see a lot of commentary from interesting neighbors. I don't see them insulting each other. I have not yet heard of _anyone_ who's resigned from that list. But over here, I have seen _many_ people asking to be taken off, trying to find the unsubscribe command, and complaining about having the lengthy, angry screeds dumped in their mailbox. On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:59 PM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN laserb...@speedymail.org wrote: Wilma de Soto wrote: As an original member of the SHCA Listserv and its subsequent UnivCity Listserv, I will never believe UCNeighbors was not formed in order to discredit and shut down the UnivCity Listserv@ purple. kyle set up his listserv towards the end of july 2007 after being on this list for years. though it's convenient for some to think this list upmanship has all been a question of civility, kyle's free-wheeling posting style here was certainly no model of civility; while he was on this list he behaved at times as badly as (if not worse than) those he (and others) accused of behaving badly. his leaving was not about the civility of this list, but about the inability of everyone on this list to agree. many people countered his arguments and points of view with the same free-wheeling style he used. some who did agree with him (while matching his free-wheeling style) left to join his list at the same time he did; in fact, they were posting on his new list before kyle posted the news here that he had set up his new list. on july 27 the following free-wheeling exchange happened between he and melani on his new list: In a message dated 7/27/07 6:49:04 PM, kcassidy at asc.upenn.edu writes: the cool thing about this software is that i can pre-ban glenn! to which melani replied: This will be heaven. But, I hope he doesn't know where you live. Melani and then on july 28, kyle announced on this list that he had set up his new list. one difference between kyle's list and this list: unlike kyle's list, this list's archive can be viewed by ANYONE, whether they are subscribed or not. the above exchange, in fact, is archived here: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18895.html and from there anyone can explore what kyle and others posted over the years -- good, bad, or ugly -- and the discussions that followed his leaving: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18858.html .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Tony, Wow you think what I said was nasty? Snide, maybe, but in that case I¹d better stay over here. Given the turmoil he put this community through, I think it was pretty mild. There¹s a difference between ³conflict and confrontation² and ³nastiness and incivility.² But those distinctions get lost on a lot of people. And just for the record: (1) I said nothing about Tom Lussenhop, only about his hotel, and (2) I went to a fair amount of trouble to actually give him an answer to his question. One private commenter thought I was too generous. Kimm On 4/1/10 4:26 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: Wilma, Since a lot of people, like myself, subscribe to both lists (actually I'm on four neighborhood lists), there's no they vs. we. There are just two different products out there, for any of us to patronize as we choose. Some people don't want to subscribe to multiple listserves for the same community. (They'd rather not see their inbox flooded by the same post in three different emails, for instance.) In that case, the listserve with the greater traffic -- particularly traffic about the neighborhood -- is surely the more useful. Almost by definition, it represents the neighborhood better. One might still keep a membership on the less-popular listserve, if it gives information not available on the more-popular listserve -- particularly if it facilitates a specific kind of neighborhood communication that is hard to get on the more-popular one. In this case, having read both Kyle Cassidy's UC list and Villanova's UC list for a few years now, my take is the purple list reliably fosters personal attack, intentional misinformation and extremist hysteria on neighborhood issues. It's more about the process than the people. The same people, writing on the same issues on UCNeighbors, write with more gentleness, more receptivity and more nuance than they do on Purple. I include myself in this criticism. Listserves generally die with a whimper, not a bang, and that's how Purple seems to be dying. I still see, from time to time, useful threads about household services that don't appear on UCNeighbors. But I see more useful threads about household services overall on UCNeighbors now than I do on Purple. The only threads that flourish on Purple rather than UCNeighbors are those that favor querulous complaints about how bad A is or B is. Thus, in this recent statistic-boosting spate, I note that I made a nasty comment about Glenn (en passant) and that Kimm made a nasty comment about Tom (in yo face) and that Wilma induces a global nasty comment by me about all Purple readers (not there at all) ... par for the course. Anyone who prefers to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find Purple more congenial than UCNeighbors. Anyone who does not prefer to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find UCNeighbors more congenial than Purple, in my estimation. So I do think this product is broken and I have no idea how to fix it, unless it's willing to bite the bullet and appoint a moderator of its own. But I'll continue to read it and post on it, if I think I can make a comment that is helpful. I always appreciate your posts, Wilma. -- Tony West On 3/31/2010 9:54 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Re: [UC] Drug pushers in the NYTimes Wow! THAT¹S a slap in the face. Thank you kindly for showing us who the better people are who have higher-quality neighborhood input. Since I have been a member of this listserv since its inception, apparently I can rest assured that I would not be considered as such; especially since I am not a member of the UCNeighbors listserv. Mogadishu, indeed! Perhaps it was not your intent to appear hurtful, elitist and disrespectful amongst other things, especially in light of the subject of civility raised earlier, but I do perceive it this way because there is not much room for benefit of the doubt anymore. Snide remarks about the persons who belong to this listserv, since the formation of UCNeighbors has gone a bit too far in my opinion. You have UCNeighbors...fine! Isn¹t that enough without denigrating this listserv or are we all just supposed to not post, drop dead or leave the neighborhood? What IS it they want from us? Come front street with it once and for all.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Sure, Kimm. Snide is good enough. He didn't put the community through turmoil that I could see. The community (specifically the community around 40th Pine, not your community or mine) was faced with a stark choice between Tom Lussenhop's mediocre highrise hotel and your ugly, crumbling derelict building. Tom came up with one way to deal with this problem property; you preferred that it stay as it is. You won. Decay now rules that block and will do so for the indefinite future. So maybe it's time for the pro-decay forces to quit making snide comments about the guy's hotel, which apparently will now go up on another site, about four blocks away.You got your decay. Show a little graciousness now! He wants off this listserve. Who can blame him? Many other persons have requested help in escaping Purple. It's not like he's being weird, to want to quit reading Purple. -- Tony West On 4/1/2010 8:45 PM, Kimm Tynan wrote: Tony, Wow -- you think what I said was nasty? Snide, maybe, but in that case I'd better stay over here. Given the turmoil he put this community through, I think it was pretty mild. There's a difference between conflict and confrontation and nastiness and incivility. But those distinctions get lost on a lot of people. And just for the record: (1) I said nothing about Tom Lussenhop, only about his hotel, and (2) I went to a fair amount of trouble to actually give him an answer to his question. One private commenter thought I was too generous. Kimm
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
If I remember correctly—and I'm sure that I do—Kyle started his personal listserv less than a week before his book was released. I always suspected that he did it to avoid any discussion about the book's subject matter. In that sense I agree with you. I don't think he can easily deal with disagreements. I could be wrong. Frank PS. For those of you not subscribed to UCNeighbors, that listserv is now a Google Group and is no longer hosted by or affiliated with Penn. On Apr 1, 2010, at 08:59 PM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: Wilma de Soto wrote: As an original member of the SHCA Listserv and its subsequent UnivCity Listserv, I will never believe UCNeighbors was not formed in order to discredit and shut down the UnivCity Listserv@ purple. kyle set up his listserv towards the end of july 2007 after being on this list for years. though it's convenient for some to think this list upmanship has all been a question of civility, kyle's free-wheeling posting style here was certainly no model of civility; while he was on this list he behaved at times as badly as (if not worse than) those he (and others) accused of behaving badly. his leaving was not about the civility of this list, but about the inability of everyone on this list to agree. many people countered his arguments and points of view with the same free-wheeling style he used. some who did agree with him (while matching his free-wheeling style) left to join his list at the same time he did; in fact, they were posting on his new list before kyle posted the news here that he had set up his new list. on july 27 the following free-wheeling exchange happened between he and melani on his new list: In a message dated 7/27/07 6:49:04 PM, kcassidy at asc.upenn.edu writes: the cool thing about this software is that i can pre-ban glenn! to which melani replied: This will be heaven. But, I hope he doesn't know where you live. Melani and then on july 28, kyle announced on this list that he had set up his new list. one difference between kyle's list and this list: unlike kyle's list, this list's archive can be viewed by ANYONE, whether they are subscribed or not. the above exchange, in fact, is archived here: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18895.html and from there anyone can explore what kyle and others posted over the years -- good, bad, or ugly -- and the discussions that followed his leaving: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18858.html .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility on and off the web
Frank wrote: I think part of the problem is that some people take it upon themselves to speak for others by saying things like the hairs on the back of your neck when they really mean the hairs on the back of my neck, or You are reading danger instead of I am reading danger. I know it's a common way people express themselves these days but I believe there's a reason for it. I don't think people want to take ownership of their thoughts and feelings and want to believe everyone else feels the same way. Careful speech is valuable on demand. But for a general readership, I think it's okay to assert, On a clear night you can see the Big Dipper in the night sky in the country, even though it may not apply if you are blind, or have been bricked up inside a farmhouse basement by a rural psycho. I'm also offended by being told what behavior is healthier or more natural. As I see it, the ways humans interact and communicate have always evolved and are now doing so pretty rapidly. Some people adapt well to those changes, others don't. Technology evolves quickly; biology less so. Internet communities are heavily dependent on physical-space metaphors, so I think it fair to say that online interactions still solve most social problems with analogs, at least, of physical societies. Some individuals may have difficulties that make it hard for them to handle face-to-face contacts (the autism disorders spring to mind); it's hard to imagine this could be anything less than a disorder. I prefer not to speak of a provocateur who can't look his target in the eye as differently abled. Such behavior is never a good sign and rarely even a morally neutral sign. So I will stick my neck out and say that the hairs on its back are pretty normal human hairs in this case, and I encourage other readers to heed similar responses if they feel them.. You have a fair amount of experience in online communities, Frank. I'd be interested to hear practical accounts of how they've handled trolls. Still, I submitted to you before that an online community *all about a geographical community*, which UC-list is, seems a particularly unlikely place to come up with new rules that reject physical contact. The whole point of UC-list is we share the same physical space, bump into the same things -- including each other -- on the street. -- Tony West You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
[UC] Civility on and off the web
Beautifully said, Joe. Purely on-line communications can be civil. But when they do cross the line, and then stay out of line, an ordinary physical encounter is the natural way to move toward a resolution that yields real progress, real change, real accomplishment, real harmony. Human beings evolved around face-to-face interactions; we are healthiest when we engage in them. It is easier to find agreement face to face, also easier to kill your opponent face to face; either way, society moves on more nimbly as a result. The true internet sickos are the trolls. They love to whale away at fellow human beings on the anonymity of the internet, while they shrewdly avoid face-to-face interaction with the people they're assailing. They are the kind of person who, given the right technology, could push a button that launches a missile that slaughters a city. Freed from the instinctual social constraints of face-to-face interaction, they find they can say anything. A few of them will move on to the further discovery they can do anything, to victims they never have to look in the eye. Yes, as a class they are dangerous. That's why the hairs on the back of your neck stand up when you read a troll's unmoderated post. You are reading danger and your body is telling you so. Internet communities need strong social standards that condemn and reject troll behavior whenever it appears. It is the only way to maintain a civil community. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: Joe Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that the truth is not necessarily to be found in the center but that the process by which we arrive there is essential to the integrity of the answer. So, I don't think that we can find it without some real human, face to face, encounter with the holder of the opposing view. I agree that the Internet makes it easy to sound off at some anonymous citizen at a safe, depersonalizing distance. One of the first electronic or virtual communities on the net is/was the Well in San Francisco. They found that they needed to meet each other on a monthly basis for a barbecue or other social gathering in order to maintain civility between individuals - many with strongly held beliefs - in the arena of discourse. After all the society of others does have a limiting effect on some of our outbursts of anger. If we never have to come face to face with the person on the other end of the communiqué, it is much easier to let it rip. I think that listening to the other side, really listening with suspended judgment of the person and their opinions, is an act of humility and great conviction. Humility because it is a genuine openness to be transformed by the exchange, and conviction because, paradoxically, you have to have a great deal of trust in your own beliefs in order to engage them in such risky but honest exchange. The underlying fear that your position may be wrong creates the need to be rigid and intolerant of the opposing view. Most of us are not aware that we have such fears. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Civility on and off the web
On May 10, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Anthony West wrote: That's why the hairs on the back of your neck stand up when you read a troll's unmoderated post. You are reading danger and your body is telling you so. MY neck? Not usually. I think part of the problem is that some people take it upon themselves to speak for others by saying things like the hairs on the back of your neck when they really mean the hairs on the back of my neck, or You are reading danger instead of I am reading danger. I know it's a common way people express themselves these days but I believe there's a reason for it. I don't think people want to take ownership of their thoughts and feelings and want to believe everyone else feels the same way. Call me old-fashioned but I believe the words people use are important. I'm also offended by being told what behavior is healthier or more natural. As I see it, the ways humans interact and communicate have always evolved and are now doing so pretty rapidly. Some people adapt well to those changes, others don't. I've heard it said that the ability to express anonymously online the parts of a person's personality that would otherwise be stifled by social conventions is healthy and liberating for some people. Obviously, it's just license to be an asshole for some others. For the record, I think civility barely exists anywhere anymore, online or face-to-face. Social isolation through the internet, cell phones and iPods could be part of the cause. Those things could also be seen as refuge from the constant assault of noise and rudeness I feel being on the street these days. They could be both or neither of those things for different people. Frank You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
