Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN writes: I think what sharreiff was getting at, above, is that there are ways for an organization to behave responsibly, publicly, as an organization, and when it doesn't, the person in charge is most responsible, ultimately responsible. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Ray, what would you have done, to behave responsibly? I'm not asking you what you think Lewis did or didn't do; I'm asking, what would YOU have done? Specifically, that is - answering I would have behaved responsibly won't give us any practical suggestions. well, for starters, I would have published both ucd statements (what we've been calling press releases) on ucd's website, as ucd publications (what other available ucd published venues would logically do? they're between issues of their newsletter, right?) I pointed this out earlier, with the first press release: ucd must make its statements publicly available, must own them, outright and wholly, and not merely rely on having them read aloud at different times at different community meetings or being quoted in whole or in part--or ignored entirely--by news editors, or being published as direct quotations given during a conversation. I guess that's what I mean by behaving responsibly: taking responsibility, taking ownership. right now we have a situation where ucd appears not to be communicating while in fact it is allowing its statements to be selectively made public. they have confused publicity with advertising -- while mishandling both. I'll stop there for now. (I'm not being paid to do someone else's job! ;-)) - - - - meanwhile, you haven't answered: when did you provide your quotes for tony's article, and at the time did you know about ucd's second press release? the article where tony wrote: The investigation is slow in part because Fenton is not cooperating. UCD has made numerous documented attempts to contact John Fenton asking him to respond to the matter under investigation. Our calls and letters have gone unanswered, Wendell explained later. .. 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 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] Press release or Wendell statement?
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: haha you really haven't the foggiest idea what we've been talking about, do you? Anthony West wrote: Other than the paranoid part, no, I don't, Ray. I see no evidence posted on this thread, or any other you've chimed in on lately, that anyone else understands what you're talking about, to yourself in public. Who else is engaging you in conversation on list? At least I've tried. I'm not trying to rag on you and refute you, just give you a kindly heads-up, as when someone reminds me: Psst! XYZ, Tony. see, you've not tried to engage in conversation with me, but rather with arguing with me. and when you argue that what prevents a letter to the editor from appearing on www.phillyrecord.com is an environmentalist's concern about trees, well then I think you not only lose your argument but you lose everyone else reading. btw playing the paranoid card is not conversation, either; it's arguing. :-) .. 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 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] Press release or Wendell statement?
Wait a minute, Ray, I asked you what you would have done - not what you think UCD did wrong. So, in the situation where a valuable employee is accused in the newspaper of having done something improper, for starters, you'd put press releases on your organization's web site? Not sure how this would get to the root of the problem or satisfy the conflicting demands of diverse constituencies. What would you do after posting the press releases? Melani Lamond In a message dated 6/17/07 10:35:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN writes: I think what sharreiff was getting at, above, is that there are ways for an organization to behave responsibly, publicly, as an organization, and when it doesn't, the person in charge is most responsible, ultimately responsible. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Ray, what would you have done, to behave responsibly? I'm not asking you what you think Lewis did or didn't do; I'm asking, what would YOU have done? Specifically, that is - answering I would have behaved responsibly won't give us any practical suggestions. well, for starters, I would have published both ucd statements (what we've been calling press releases) on ucd's website, as ucd publications (what other available ucd published venues would logically do? they're between issues of their newsletter, right?) I pointed this out earlier, with the first press release: ucd must make its statements publicly available, must own them, outright and wholly, and not merely rely on having them read aloud at different times at different community meetings or being quoted in whole or in part--or ignored entirely--by news editors, or being published as direct quotations given during a conversation. I guess that's what I mean by behaving responsibly: taking responsibility, taking ownership. right now we have a situation where ucd appears not to be communicating while in fact it is allowing its statements to be selectively made public. they have confused publicity with advertising -- while mishandling both. I'll stop there for now. (I'm not being paid to do someone else's job! ;-)) 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 2006 recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards: - Diamond award for over $8 million in sales, and ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards: - Top Lister - Top Seller - Top Overall Combined Volume - Top Listing Units by Area - Top Selling Units by Area - Top Overall Combined Units by Area ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
Ross Bender wrote: While I enjoy the surrealistic air, paranoid ambiance, and Rashomon-like fog of this UC Village listserve, Tony West is as far as I know the only professional journalist contributing to this list. That's why I was gratified to see his immediate summary of the events at the First Thursday meeting, filed directly to this list, and even more to read his articulate piece in the Philadelphia Public Record. I'm very much looking forward to his series of articles on other neighborhoods and other UCD-like entities. I expect it will give some valuable perspective on similar situations throughout the city, and in the process shed light on our own local tempest in a teapot. fade-in to computer screen, the faint sound of rain gradually rising to that of a tapping keyboard THE ARTICLE YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ IS THE FIRST IN AN EXCITING NEW 'NOT-NEWSWORTHY-ENOUGH' SERIES. IT BEGINS, THRILLINGLY ENOUGH, AS A BIASED REPORT OF WHAT HAPPENED AT MALCOLM X PARK AND WHAT HAPPENED AT THE FIRST THURSDAY MEETING. THEN, ARTFULLY WRAPPING ITSELF IN AN ATTEMPTED APPEARANCE OF NON-BIAS, IT STUDIOUSLY QUOTES TWO OPPOSING NEIGHBORHOOD STAKEHOLDERS WHO SEEM TO BE WEIGHING IN EQUALLY ABOUT UCD AND SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS. OVER THIS APPARENT NEUTRALITY YOU'LL THEN DISCOVER THAT UCD'S 2ND PRESS RELEASE -- MADE PUBLIC FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME! -- WAS THREADING ITSELF IN AND TYING THINGS UP IN A PRETTY LITTLE BOW. AH! A GIFT! BUT WAIT -- A GIFT FOR WHOM? AT WHOSE EXPENSE? cue cheesy soap opera organ music WHAT WILL ARRIVE NEXT IN THIS 'NOT-NEWSWORTHY-ENOUGH' SERIES? A HARD-HITTING LOOK AT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS? THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS? A THIRD PRESS RELEASE, COMPLIMENTS OF UCD? STAY TUNED, AS OUR INTREPID REPORTER AND TRUSTY FOCP BOARD MEMBER CONTINUES TO KEEP HIMSELF FROM BEING PERSONALLY INVOLVED! pan out to gothic mansion, flashing lightning, etc. .. 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 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: New information [was: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?]
Sharrieff, your long reply from last night (copied below) seems to say it wasn't new information, I'm just guessing. Is that what it says? Have you made your allegations against Lewis Wendell and asked him to resign on the basis of just guessing? If not, from what sources did you obtain the information you sent to the list yesterday as fact, saying that: In a message dated 6/16/07 2:20:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lewis acted without Board consent and made a catastrophic decision to suspend John Fenton without any real evidence, just based on an allegation. After John spoke with Lewis about what happened, Lewis made a unilateral decision which now calls into question his management, public relations skills, and overall executive judgment,. - Melani Lamond In a message dated 6/16/07 11:08:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wasn’t avoiding your question, I was out all day and off-line. Melani, I just examine all the information reported so far by the press and UCD. 1. There was no “emergency Board Meeting” to decide what to do about John. 2. There were no reports from UCD community representatives about a special meeting. 3. No one else had the power to put John on paid leave besides Wendell. 4. John was debriefed by Wendell evidenced by the statements Wendell made to the community service worker recounting the events and saying he had “no knowledge”. 1. Lewis Wendell had to speak with John to put him on paid leave. The big question is: How would suspending John facilitate an internal investigation? Now, the UCD needs to speak with John to further discuss the issue and in the new press release, they say their unable to get a response. You do the math. 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 2006 recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards: - Diamond award for over $8 million in sales, and ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards: - Top Lister - Top Seller - Top Overall Combined Volume - Top Listing Units by Area - Top Selling Units by Area - Top Overall Combined Units by Area ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[UC] RE: New information [was: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?]
No. S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: New information [was: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?] Sharrieff, your long reply from last night (copied below) seems to say it wasn't new information, I'm just guessing. Is that what it says? Have you made your allegations against Lewis Wendell and asked him to resign on the basis of just guessing? If not, from what sources did you obtain the information you sent to the list yesterday as fact, saying that: In a message dated 6/16/07 2:20:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lewis acted without Board consent and made a catastrophic decision to suspend John Fenton without any real evidence, just based on an allegation. After John spoke with Lewis about what happened, Lewis made a unilateral decision which now calls into question his management, public relations skills, and overall executive judgment,. - Melani Lamond In a message dated 6/16/07 11:08:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wasnt avoiding your question, I was out all day and off-line. Melani, I just examine all the information reported so far by the press and UCD. 1. There was no emergency Board Meeting to decide what to do about John. 2. There were no reports from UCD community representatives about a special meeting. 3. No one else had the power to put John on paid leave besides Wendell. 4. John was debriefed by Wendell evidenced by the statements Wendell made to the community service worker recounting the events and saying he had no knowledge. 1. Lewis Wendell had to speak with John to put him on paid leave. The big question is: How would suspending John facilitate an internal investigation? Now, the UCD needs to speak with John to further discuss the issue and in the new press release, they say their unable to get a response. You do the math. 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 2006 recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards: - Diamond award for over $8 million in sales, and ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards: - Top Lister - Top Seller - Top Overall Combined Volume - Top Listing Units by Area - Top Selling Units by Area - Top Overall Combined Units by Area ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[UC] RE: New information [was: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?]
Im not the one guessing around. It only seems like new information to you because you havent been paying attention. and BTW, it is not my responsibility to tell anyone anything. S -Original Message- From: S. Sharrieff Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:39 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'univcity@list.purple.com' Subject: RE: New information [was: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?] No. S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: New information [was: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?] Sharrieff, your long reply from last night (copied below) seems to say it wasn't new information, I'm just guessing. Is that what it says? Have you made your allegations against Lewis Wendell and asked him to resign on the basis of just guessing? If not, from what sources did you obtain the information you sent to the list yesterday as fact, saying that: In a message dated 6/16/07 2:20:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lewis acted without Board consent and made a catastrophic decision to suspend John Fenton without any real evidence, just based on an allegation. After John spoke with Lewis about what happened, Lewis made a unilateral decision which now calls into question his management, public relations skills, and overall executive judgment,. - Melani Lamond In a message dated 6/16/07 11:08:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wasnt avoiding your question, I was out all day and off-line. Melani, I just examine all the information reported so far by the press and UCD. 1. There was no emergency Board Meeting to decide what to do about John. 2. There were no reports from UCD community representatives about a special meeting. 3. No one else had the power to put John on paid leave besides Wendell. 4. John was debriefed by Wendell evidenced by the statements Wendell made to the community service worker recounting the events and saying he had no knowledge. 1. Lewis Wendell had to speak with John to put him on paid leave. The big question is: How would suspending John facilitate an internal investigation? Now, the UCD needs to speak with John to further discuss the issue and in the new press release, they say their unable to get a response. You do the math. 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 2006 recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards: - Diamond award for over $8 million in sales, and ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards: - Top Lister - Top Seller - Top Overall Combined Volume - Top Listing Units by Area - Top Selling Units by Area - Top Overall Combined Units by Area ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 10:42 PM Subject: Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? I may not have been clear. It's not about other people being personally involved, its about one person being personally involved, who happens to be a reporter - Tony. The others were not writing newspaper articles. Tony is totally involved in the UCD issue, at least in the list world. His interest and bias were not disclosed in the newspaper. I'm generally a UCD supporter, I admit it. But c'mon, the article is hard to classify as neutral. Paul I don't want to frighten you, but we appear to agree about something and I respected your admission of a mistake. So, I even came up with a new name to call you. Paul, Point of fact: Mr. West introduced himself as the representative of the Friends of Clark Park at the much-discussed Penn meeting. At no time at the public meeting, did he identify himself as a reporter from the Public Record. The FOCP leadership/UCD relationship represents, perhaps, the biggest secret planning taking place at this time between a civic association and UCD. There is an enormous redesign of Clark Park planned with city money and other money. The orchestra alone is an enormously expensive deal under way. I saw somewhere that just the fee alone for these park concert marketing schemes approaches $100,000. Then advertising, set-up,etc. are added. Having a hatchet job orchestrated, then published as news, by the FOCP leader would be the most inappropriate unethical type of conflict of interest we could have here in the village. West appears to his readers that he is a reporter for the Public Record. West told the assembly at the Penn meeting that he was there as representative of the very UCD involved, Friends of Clark Park. Paul, like the other quotes in the article this quote is false. It never happened: John Fenton and UCD did what they do, she said. I work with Penn and UCD. But somebody decided to lie on him. I'm very disappointed. Blackwell spoke at length during the meeting. This characterization that she whimpered and made this, lie on him error are completely false. The few quotes chosen or made-up serve to characterize her presentation, and it is completely misleading. She used statements like: I'm furious; How dare the UCD; This is wrong wrong wrong. She at no time said, .lie on him. I'm very disappointed. So not only has this reporter not identified himself appropriately at either end of his handiwork, has an undisclosed tremendous conflict of interest; but he also makes up quotes that together constitute a clear hatchet job aimed at Blackwell. I hope that information clears up the misidentification. There was absolutely no reporter from The Public Record identified at the Bryan meeting. The only media organization with an identified representative was the UC Review. The Public Record article was reported and written by the Friends of Clark Park representative who was present, Tony West. This identification issue should be recorded in the minutes of the Bryan meeting. Also, we were all asked to sign a sheet identifying ourselves and any affiliation. I requested action against this FOCP representative by the FOCP Board concerning misinformation in Mr. West's listserv posts. The Public Record hatchet job simply adds to the record of conduct. Sincerely, Glenn PS: Siano is West's assistant at the FOCP. His job is to back-up his leader and insult FOCP critics, not engage in reasonable discussions with you. Just wanted my opinion disclosed. -Original Message- From: Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 2:51 pm Subject: Re: Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the article, to the contrary, suggests that Tony obtained the quote about John not cooperating later which would explain why people at the meeting didn't hear it said. The prior reference sounds like it was taken from the statement he read at the meeting. Bigger question, for me, is the inappropriateness of a reporter being involved personally in a story he's covering. I thought that was contrary to journalist's ethics. (Likewise, I thought it odd if the UC Review was going to get involved in running community meetings on UCD.) I'll leave it to the constitutional scholars on the list to wonder about the intersection of free press and free speech rights in the First Amendment. There's nothing inappropriate about it, actually-- so long as the reporter's interest and biases are known and the reporting is accurate. Then there's the matter of how personally involved one is. Blackwell, Fenton, Lewis Wendell, and some employees of UCD are, verifiably, personally involved. Tony's role
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
To the Friends of Clark Park news representative, Tony. Given the shortage of competent ethical reporters in the village, I’d like to take the opportunity to publish an opinion piece about ethics and journalism. I think the FOCP/UCD newsletter, The Public Record, would be an excellent publication in which to publish the work. I think as a follow-up to the excellent example of your Blackwell thingy, the timing couldn’t be more serendipitous. What is the deadline for next week’s FOCP newsletter? Sincerely, Glenn Moyer President, Founder, and Membership The Village Society For Reestablishing Ethics - Original Message - From: Anthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:27 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? This is a fair question. At my company, we take news wherever we find it. We can't afford to turn good stories away just because somebody already knows somebody. We make our living by knowing people. A larger company like PNH might apply rules like what you're proposing, though. Even there, though, there is more flexibility than you might think. Reporters get story ideas based on their own real-life involvements all the time; they just write them out of the story (as I did). You won't find out about those connections unless you're chatting with the writer. I also think the smaller the social scale of a news story, the fuzzier these lines become. University City is too small a world to sustain a large pool of writers about community issues who are paid full-time to just study them and report on them. In a small world, people who know about things and people who do things often are one and the same. -- Tony West Bigger question, for me, is the inappropriateness of a reporter being involved personally in a story he's covering. I thought that was contrary to journalist's ethics. (Likewise, I thought it odd if the UC Review was going to get involved in running community meetings on UCD.) I'll leave it to the constitutional scholars on the list to wonder about the intersection of free press and free speech rights in the First Amendment. Paul 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date: 6/15/2007 11:31 AM 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] Press release or Wendell statement?
In a message dated 6/15/07 8:26:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Generally the question is : “Why is Lewis Wendell more responsible? Well..the answer is if it was a Board decision to suspend John then I guess we would have all known about it from the meeting held by our community representatives on the UCD Board. Let's see: you're running an organization, Sharrieff, and one day you read in the paper that someone has accused one of your employees, a very popular one, of doing something improper. You have no advance notice; everybody else who reads the paper finds out at the same time you do, and they all start calling and second guessing and making conflicting demands. So you ask the employee, hey, what happened?, and you don't get any answer. Instead, his powerful friends start badmouthing YOU! What do you do? Melani Lamond ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Generally the question is : “Why is Lewis Wendell more responsible?  Well..the answer is if it was a Board decision to suspend John then I guess we would have all known about it from the meeting held by our community representatives on the UCD Board. Let's see: you're running an organization, Sharrieff, and one day you read in the paper that someone has accused one of your employees, a very popular one, of doing something improper. You have no advance notice; everybody else who reads the paper finds out at the same time you do, and they all start calling and second guessing and making conflicting demands. So you ask the employee, hey, what happened?, and you don't get any answer. Instead, his powerful friends start badmouthing YOU! What do you do? (but wait, are you saying that's how it actually happened? according to ucd? how do we know? is it the full story? for example, has wendell asked the other ucd employees who were also involved with the malcolm x park incident? how would we know? because ucd would tell us or because you would tell us? etc. etc.) yes, the situation is difficult, but wendell is ultimately responsible. ucd's existence as a non-profit, its credibility, its relationship with the community, with blackwell, with penn, the justification for a nid -- these and more are all at stake. responsible leadership is crucial. what, indeed, do you do? for example, was releasing a 2nd press release about fenton in the form of a quotation he knew/didn't know would be publicized in tony's article the best way for wendell to behave responsibly? to use your words: let's see... you work at an organization, and one day you read in the paper that someone, your employer, has accused you of doing something improper... I think what sharreiff was getting at, above, is that there are ways for an organization to behave responsibly, publicly, as an organization, and when it doesn't, the person in charge is most responsible, ultimately responsible. .. 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 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] Press release or Wendell statement?
Anthony West wrote: My company would be delighted to discuss with your company the sorts of services we could provide each other for free. You, as representative of the University of Pennsylvania, and I, as representative of the Philadelphia Public Record, together could forge a new era of cooperation and partnership between our two institutions, which together can do so much to encapsulate the civic vision of University City and the Delaware Valley region as a whole. Until we have concluded those discussions, however, anything you want to say in the Public Record in the form of a paid advertisement you may have, at the rate of $16 / column inch. We do not sell on-line ads separately from newsprint ads. If you want the on-line ad, there's a $2 service charge on top of your newsprint ad. Sorry, those are our rules. If you want us to create special on-line posting services for you for a fee, discuss them with me off-line. If you wish to tell the editor how to edit his paper, I will be glad to offer you one free hour during which you, Ray Rorke, can edit my publication. Yes, you are the lucky winner! Only one condition: first, I get to come to your office and muck around with all its computers for one free hour. No fair making backups, either! haha you really haven't the foggiest idea what we've been talking about, do you? .. 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 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] Press release or Wendell statement?
In a message dated 6/16/07 11:17:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think what sharreiff was getting at, above, is that there are ways for an organization to behave responsibly, publicly, as an organization, and when it doesn't, the person in charge is most responsible, ultimately responsible. So, Ray, what would you have done, to behave responsibly? I'm not asking you what you think Lewis did or didn't do; I'm asking, what would YOU have done? Specifically, that is - answering I would have behaved responsibly won't give us any practical suggestions. Thanks, Melani Lamond ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; univcity@list.purple.com Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? In a message dated 6/15/07 8:26:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Generally the question is : “Why is Lewis Wendell more responsible? Well..the answer is if it was a Board decision to suspend John then I guess we would have all known about it from the meeting held by our community representatives on the UCD Board. Let's see: you're running an organization, Sharrieff, and one day you read in the paper that someone has accused one of your employees, a very popular one, of doing something improper. You have no advance notice; everybody else who reads the paper finds out at the same time you do, and they all start calling and second guessing and making conflicting demands. So you ask the employee, hey, what happened?, and you don't get any answer. Instead, his powerful friends start badmouthing YOU! What do you do? Melani Lamond Melani, I'm glad you asked! I'm a little cconcerned, but it seems easy to fix. I haven't been able to find a record of the second press release signed by any UCD spokesperson except your post. I know Mr. Lewis Wendell was quoted making a public announcement of Fenton's obstruction of the internal investigation at the public much-discussed Penn meeting. I've been reading some listserv exchanges, and I know you have a lot of potential legal issues. I'd feel a lot better if I could find one published dated record of the second official UCD press release with either Lewis Wendell's signature, or the UCD Board signatures, or the signature of a highly paid UCD flackette. I checked and neither press release is on the UCD web site. Please send me the easiest way that I can find a record of the dated signed press release. Thanks. Here is what you posted Thursday: The UCD released a second press release on Friday. It seems not to have been picked up by the media. I became aware of it through another listserv member, and I've received an OK to put it on the list: June 8, 2007 University City District has made numerous documented attempts to contact John Fenton asking him to respond to the matter under investigation. Our calls and letters have gone unanswered. He still remains on paid administrative leave. Your concerned friend and ethics advocate, Glenn ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date: 6/15/2007 11:31 AM
RE: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
Great question Melani. Well, Number 1.. it didn't happen the way you describe it. Q: So what do you do? I would have done what Rudy did in NY, DONT PANIC!. The real reason everyone has been so enamored with Rudy is the way he handled a pressurized situation. He was thoughtful and was able to give himself time to assess the situation, get some good advise, and consider the possible fallout. Lewis Wendell thought it was important to call the community service worker and apologize for something.as Lewis put it. I had no knowledge of, and as it turns out, it was the truth. Lewis acted without Board consent and made a catastrophic decision to suspend John Fenton without any real evidence, just based on an allegation. After John spoke with Lewis about what happened, Lewis made a unilateral decision which now calls into question his management, public relations skills, and overall executive judgment, not unlike Brown at FEMA. To answer your question, I would have tried to remain level headed and based on what I know about John Fenton's reputation, I would have been armed with concrete evidence before I removed him from his post, if for no other reason.. self preservation. I would have issued a statement saying the UCD would follow-up on any formal complaints but at this time, because they are just allegations, the UCD is standing by their Director of Operations. Taking a position as I described would do a few things for me as Director: 1) Deflect criticism from the loud-mouthed community residents. 2) Allow time to pass and have the issue blow over as air-cover for UCD. 3) Protect the overall staff productivity and moral needed to continue with the organizations mission. So..that is what you do. S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 9:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? In a message dated 6/15/07 8:26:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Generally the question is : Why is Lewis Wendell more responsible? Well..the answer is if it was a Board decision to suspend John then I guess we would have all known about it from the meeting held by our community representatives on the UCD Board. Let's see: you're running an organization, Sharrieff, and one day you read in the paper that someone has accused one of your employees, a very popular one, of doing something improper. You have no advance notice; everybody else who reads the paper finds out at the same time you do, and they all start calling and second guessing and making conflicting demands. So you ask the employee, hey, what happened?, and you don't get any answer. Instead, his powerful friends start badmouthing YOU! What do you do? Melani Lamond ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
New information [was: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?]
In a message dated 6/16/07 2:20:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lewis acted without Board consent and made a catastrophic decision to suspend John Fenton without any real evidence, just based on an allegation. After John spoke with Lewis about what happened, Lewis made a unilateral decision which now calls into question his management, public relations skills, and overall executive judgment,. Sharrieff, this is new information. Why didn't you share it with us before? How did you find this out? What did John say when he spoke with Lewis about what happened? Melani Lamond ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
Just a heads up Glenn, so you don't go mis-making a federal case: I've seen a good number of press releases, and they have never been signed. They usually do have a contact person listed, but its not in the form of a letter. Did you ask UCD for the releases? Hint: don't call her flackette or by her last name when you write. She might get the wrong impression about you. Paul -Original Message- From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; univcity@list.purple.com Sent: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:50 am Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; univcity@list.purple.com Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? In a message dated 6/15/07 8:26:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Generally the question is : “Why is Lewis Wendell more responsible? Well..the answer is if it was a Board decision to suspend John then I guess we would have all known about it from the meeting held by our community representatives on the UCD Board. Let's see: you're running an organization, Sharrieff, and one day you read in the paper that someone has accused one of your employees, a very popular one, of doing something improper. You have no advance notice; everybody else who reads the paper finds out at the same time you do, and they all start calling and second guessing and making conflicting demands. So you ask the employee, hey, what happened?, and you don't get any answer. Instead, his powerful friends start badmouthing YOU! What do you do? Melani Lamond Melani, I'm glad you asked! I'm a little cconcerned, but it seems easy to fix. I haven't been able to find a record of the second press release signed by any UCD spokesperson except your post. I know Mr. Lewis Wendell was quoted making a public announcement of Fenton's obstruction of the internal investigation at the public much-discussed Penn meeting. I've been reading some listserv exchanges, and I know you have a lot of potential legal issues. I'd feel a lot better if I could find one published dated record of the second official UCD press release with either Lewis Wendell's signature, or the UCD Board signatures, or the signature of a highly paid UCD flackette. I checked and neither press release is on the UCD web site. Please send me the easiest way that I can find a record of the dated signed press release. Thanks. Here is what you posted Thursday: The UCD released a second press release on Friday. It seems not to have been picked up by the media. I became aware of it through another listserv member, and I've received an OK to put it on the list: June 8, 2007 University City District has made numerous documented attempts to contact John Fenton asking him to respond to the matter under investigation. Our calls and letters have gone unanswered. He still remains on paid administrative leave. Your concerned friend and ethics advocate, Glenn ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date: 6/15/2007 11:31 AM AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
Other than the paranoid part, no, I don't, Ray. I see no evidence posted on this thread, or any other you've chimed in on lately, that anyone else understands what you're talking about, to yourself in public. Who else is engaging you in conversation on list? At least I've tried. I'm not trying to rag on you and refute you, just give you a kindly heads-up, as when someone reminds me: Psst! XYZ, Tony. -- Tony West haha you really haven't the foggiest idea what we've been talking about, do you? [aka ray] 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: New information [was: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?]
I wasn't avoiding your question, I was out all day and off-line. Melani, I just examine all the information reported so far by the press and UCD. 1. There was no emergency Board Meeting to decide what to do about John. 2. There were no reports from UCD community representatives about a special meeting. 3. No one else had the power to put John on paid leave besides Wendell. 4. John was debriefed by Wendell evidenced by the statements Wendell made to the community service worker recounting the events and saying he had no knowledge. 5. Lewis Wendell had to speak with John to put him on paid leave. The big question is: How would suspending John facilitate an internal investigation? Now, the UCD needs to speak with John to further discuss the issue and in the new press release, they say their unable to get a response. You do the math. S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 2:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; univcity@list.purple.com Subject: New information [was: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?] In a message dated 6/16/07 2:20:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lewis acted without Board consent and made a catastrophic decision to suspend John Fenton without any real evidence, just based on an allegation. After John spoke with Lewis about what happened, Lewis made a unilateral decision which now calls into question his management, public relations skills, and overall executive judgment,. Sharrieff, this is new information. Why didn't you share it with us before? How did you find this out? What did John say when he spoke with Lewis about what happened? Melani Lamond ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
It's unclear what Melani/Ucd are doing with this June 8th secret press release and who else is involved. The Public Record reports that Lewis Wendell first provided the latest Fenton information in a public spoken refutation and explanation on June 7th at the public University of Pennsylvania meeting. Read closely: '...She charged Fenton had been dismissed by UCD. Not so, replied UCD Executive Director Lewis Wendell, who attended the meeting. Fenton is on paid administrative leave pending the results of the internal investigation. The UCD leadership is reviewing the matter and will determine an appropriate course of action once all the facts are known, he added. The investigation is slow in part because Fenton is not cooperating. 'UCD has made numerous documented attempts to contact John Fenton asking him to respond to the matter under investigation. Our calls and letters have gone unanswered, Wendell explained later.' Not so, replied.. and Wendell explained later Folks, this is reported as supposedly given as a direct and public contradiction to Councilwoman Blackwell's spoken statements on June 7th, not cited from a June 8 press release. But, Wendell never made any thing like such a statement! A large number of people were at the reported meeting. West is not reporting that this information came from a press release after the fact, but was clearly explained by Wendell. Remember in the list posts, West wrote, clearly stated.. West is enclosing part of the non-existent quotes and not other parts. I suspect that is the reason to assert this secret June 8th press release. Little mistakes here? I think not; the intention of the report is clear. Readers are clearly led to believe this spoken exchange occurred! Liz, Matt, Sharrieff, Freda, did anyone of you hear this explanation given by Mr. Wendell last Thursday? Did Mr. Wendell explain that Mr. Fenton was refusing to cooperate with the investigation? Did anyone hear that UCD calls and letters were unanswered? Did anyone hear about numerous documented attempts? Is it in any way believable that all of us whom have reported about the meeting missed this? Did West hear this statement, hold back on clarifying all of our incorrect listserv reports, and now; he reports these very important quotes and clear statements alone? This report is the most unbelievable attack to date upon our elected representative. It is a very very bold lie. Other attendees, please help confirm the meeting statements. There is an announced UC Review report coming next week and the Penn meetings are supposed to have minutes. Thanks, Glenn
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
I already posted, to the best of my much distracted knowledge (it was an agitated political circus), Lewis Wendell's only contribution to the meeting was to read a prepared statement. I thought Lewis acted with remarkable forbearance to an intense degree of attack, some too personal and some way off the track. I felt he could (and perhaps should) have responded to some of the comments and questions that were not directly related to the John Fenton matter, but... it was not a UCD meeting, and Lewis may have been attempting to show some respect for Glenn Bryan's (PENN's) Agenda. Certainly no one else in the room, including myself, was interested in much more than the hijacking the meeting. Lewis Wendell, his lovely wife and beautiful children are our neighbors. They are good neighbors. We should not lose sight of this connectedness as we pursue remedies. Days after the meeting, I bumped into John Fenton at a retail establishment, and he would not discuss the matter, no matter how hard I pried. I forced a brief monolog of my sympathy and support, on him. All he would say was Thank you. Both men continue to behave in ways that lead me to believe they would be better Allies than Enemies. Glenn, I find many of your posts confusing. I am not sure when nuance or sarcasm are in play. I am not sure where they dilute or confuse your message or turn away me (and other readers). Can you keep them simpler? Best! Liz On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:59:39 -0400 Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Its unclear what Melani/Ucd are doing with this June 8th secret press release and who else is involved. The Public Record reports that Lewis Wendell first provided the latest Fenton information in a public spoken refutation and explanation on June 7th at the public University of Pennsylvania meeting. Read closely: '...She charged Fenton had been dismissed by UCD. Not so, replied UCD Executive Director Lewis Wendell, who attended the meeting. Fenton is on paid administrative leave pending the results of the internal investigation. The UCD leadership is reviewing the matter and will determine an appropriate course of action once all the facts are known, he added. The investigation is slow in part because Fenton is not cooperating. UCD has made numerous documented attempts to contact John Fenton asking him to respond to the matter under investigation. Our calls and letters have gone unanswered, Wendell explained later. Not so, replied.. and Wendell explained later Folks, this is reported as supposedly given as a direct and public contradiction to Councilwoman Blackwells spoken statements on June 7th, not cited from a June 8 press release. But, Wendell never made any thing like such a statement! A large number of people were at the reported meeting. West is not reporting that this information came from a press release after the fact, but was clearly explained by Wendell. Remember in the list posts, West wrote, clearly stated.. West is enclosing part of the non-existent quotes and not other parts. I suspect that is the reason to assert this secret June 8th press release. Little mistakes here? I think not; the intention of the report is clear. Readers are clearly led to believe this spoken exchange occurred! Liz, Matt, Sharrieff, Freda, did anyone of you hear this explanation given by Mr. Wendell last Thursday? Did Mr. Wendell explain that Mr. Fenton was refusing to cooperate with the investigation? Did anyone hear that UCD calls and letters were unanswered? Did anyone hear about numerous documented attempts? Is it in any way believable that all of us whom have reported about the meeting missed this? Did West hear this statement, hold back on clarifying all of our incorrect listserv reports, and now; he reports these very important quotes and clear statements alone? This report is the most unbelievable attack to date upon our elected representative. It is a very very bold lie. Other attendees, please help confirm the meeting statements. There is an announced UC Review report coming next week and the Penn meetings are supposed to have minutes. Thanks, Glenn Elizabeth Campion Cell Phone: 215-880-2930 215-546-0550 Main, -546-9871 fax, Desk + VM: 215-790-5653 PRUDENTIAL, FOX ROACH REALTORS, LLC Please read Consumer Notice enjoy HOME PILOT tools at www.PruFoxRoach.com
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
I already posted, to the best of my much distracted knowledge (it was an agitated political circus), Lewis Wendell's only contribution to the meeting was to read a prepared statement. Thanks for your best recollection, it is very confusing because of the misinformation. Liz, please read the Public Record article closely. This published report MAKES CLEAR that Mr. Lewis Wendell gave the report about Mr. Fenton's refusal to cooperate with the investigation in response to Councilwoman Blackewell's verbal account. These are quotes reported as taking place at the meeting. There is no doubt about what is in this published, Public Record, report about events that occurred at this June 7th meeting. It's right there for all to see. Now, Melani has a secret official press release dated June 8th. You confirmed, that to the best of your knowledge, no refutation and explanation was given by Mr. Wendell revealing Mr. Fenton's refusal to cooperate with the investigation. Councilwoman Blackwell clearly told us that Mr. Fenton is not permitted to speak to anyone. This Public Record report asserts that Wendell refuted that aspect of this issue on the spot. These Wendell QUOTES have been said to be, clearly stated, explanations and replies. These false quotes never occurred. This false reporting calls Councilwoman B a liar. This false report of events was about a meeting witnessed by many people. This is a very serious issue. Thanks, Glenn - Original Message - From: Elizabeth F Campion To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? I already posted, to the best of my much distracted knowledge (it was an agitated political circus), Lewis Wendell's only contribution to the meeting was to read a prepared statement. I thought Lewis acted with remarkable forbearance to an intense degree of attack, some too personal and some way off the track. I felt he could (and perhaps should) have responded to some of the comments and questions that were not directly related to the John Fenton matter, but... it was not a UCD meeting, and Lewis may have been attempting to show some respect for Glenn Bryan's (PENN's) Agenda. Certainly no one else in the room, including myself, was interested in much more than the hijacking the meeting. Lewis Wendell, his lovely wife and beautiful children are our neighbors. They are good neighbors. We should not lose sight of this connectedness as we pursue remedies. Days after the meeting, I bumped into John Fenton at a retail establishment, and he would not discuss the matter, no matter how hard I pried. I forced a brief monolog of my sympathy and support, on him. All he would say was Thank you. Both men continue to behave in ways that lead me to believe they would be better Allies than Enemies. Glenn, I find many of your posts confusing. I am not sure when nuance or sarcasm are in play. I am not sure where they dilute or confuse your message or turn away me (and other readers). Can you keep them simpler? Best! Liz On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:59:39 -0400 Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's unclear what Melani/Ucd are doing with this June 8th secret press release and who else is involved. The Public Record reports that Lewis Wendell first provided the latest Fenton information in a public spoken refutation and explanation on June 7th at the public University of Pennsylvania meeting. Read closely: '...She charged Fenton had been dismissed by UCD. Not so, replied UCD Executive Director Lewis Wendell, who attended the meeting. Fenton is on paid administrative leave pending the results of the internal investigation. The UCD leadership is reviewing the matter and will determine an appropriate course of action once all the facts are known, he added. The investigation is slow in part because Fenton is not cooperating. 'UCD has made numerous documented attempts to contact John Fenton asking him to respond to the matter under investigation. Our calls and letters have gone unanswered, Wendell explained later.' Not so, replied.. and Wendell explained later Folks, this is reported as supposedly given as a direct and public contradiction to Councilwoman Blackwell's spoken statements on June 7th, not cited from a June 8 press release. But, Wendell never made any thing like such a statement! A large number of people were at the reported meeting. West is not reporting that this information came from a press release after the fact, but was clearly explained by Wendell. Remember in the list posts, West wrote, clearly stated.. West is enclosing part of the non-existent quotes and not other parts. I suspect that is the reason to assert this secret June 8th press release. Little mistakes here? I think not; the intention of the report is clear. Readers are clearly led to believe
Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
I think the article, to the contrary, suggests that Tony obtained the quote about John not cooperating later which would explain why people at the meeting didn't hear it said. The prior reference sounds like it was taken from the statement he read at the meeting. Bigger question, for me, is the inappropriateness of a reporter being involved personally in a story he's covering. I thought that was contrary to journalist's ethics. (Likewise, I thought it odd if the UC Review was going to get involved in running community meetings on UCD.) I'll leave it to the constitutional scholars on the list to wonder about the intersection of free press and free speech rights in the First Amendment. Paul -Original Message- From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Elizabeth F Campion [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:39 am Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? I already posted, to the best of my much distracted knowledge (it was an agitated political circus), Lewis Wendell's only contribution to the meeting was to read a prepared statement. Thanks for your best recollection, it is very confusing because of the misinformation. Liz, please read the Public Record article closely. This published report MAKES CLEAR that Mr. Lewis Wendell gave the report about Mr. Fenton's refusal to cooperate with the investigation in response to Councilwoman Blackewell's verbal account. These are quotes reported as taking place at the meeting. There is no doubt about what is in this published, Public Record, report about events that occurred at this June 7th meeting. It's right there for all to see. Now, Melani has a secret official press release dated June 8th. You confirmed, that to the best of your knowledge, no refutation and explanation was given by Mr. Wendell revealing Mr. Fenton's refusal to cooperate with the investigation. Councilwoman Blackwell clearly told us that Mr. Fenton is not permitted to speak to anyone. This Public Record report asserts that Wendell refuted that aspect of this issue on the spot. These Wendell QUOTES have been said to be, clearly stated, explanations and replies. These false quotes never occurred. This false reporting calls Councilwoman B a liar. This false report of events was about a meeting witnessed by many people. This is a very serious issue. Thanks, Glenn - Original Message - From: Elizabeth F Campion To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? I already posted, to the best of my much distracted knowledge (it was an agitated political circus), Lewis Wendell's only contribution to the meeting was to read a prepared statement. I thought Lewis acted with remarkable forbearance to an intense degree of attack, some too personal and some way off the track. I felt he could (and perhaps should) have responded to some of the comments and questions that were not directly related to the John Fenton matter, but... it was not a UCD meeting, and Lewis may have been attempting to show some respect for Glenn Bryan's (PENN's) Agenda. Certainly no one else in the room, including myself, was interested in much more than the hijacking the meeting. Lewis Wendell, his lovely wife and beautiful children are our neighbors. They are good neighbors. We should not lose sight of this connectedness as we pursue remedies. Days after the meeting, I bumped into John Fenton at a retail establishment, and he would not discuss the matter, no matter how hard I pried. I forced a brief monolog of my sympathy and support, on him. All he would say was Thank you. Both men continue to behave in ways that lead me to believe they would be better Allies than Enemies. Glenn, I find many of your posts confusing. I am not sure when nuance or sarcasm are in play. I am not sure where they dilute or confuse your message or turn away me (and other readers). Can you keep them simpler? Best! Liz On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:59:39 -0400 Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It’s unclear what Melani/Ucd are doing with this June 8th secret press release and who else is involved. The Public Record reports that Lewis Wendell first provided the latest Fenton information in a public spoken refutation and explanation on June 7th at the public University of Pennsylvania meeting. Read closely: '...She charged Fenton had been dismissed by UCD. Not so, replied UCD Executive Director Lewis Wendell, who attended the meeting. Fenton is on paid administrative leave pending the results of the internal investigation. The UCD leadership is reviewing the matter and will determine an appropriate course of action once all the facts are known, he added. The investigation is slow in part because Fenton is not cooperating. ‘UCD has made numerous
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
I think the article, to the contrary, suggests that Tony obtained the quote about John not cooperating later which would explain why people at the meeting didn't hear it said. Didn't Tony also get Liz's quote later? Isn't it common for journalists to question speakers after a meeting to get clarification and comments? It seems to me that what's important is that more information has been released in an effort to clarify the situation. Unfortunately that information seems to be getting lost in the continued dissection of exactly how the information came to light. Cheers, Baldy Doc On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the article, to the contrary, suggests that Tony obtained the quote about John not cooperating later which would explain why people at the meeting didn't hear it said. The prior reference sounds like it was taken from the statement he read at the meeting. Bigger question, for me, is the inappropriateness of a reporter being involved personally in a story he's covering. I thought that was contrary to journalist's ethics. (Likewise, I thought it odd if the UC Review was going to get involved in running community meetings on UCD.) I'll leave it to the constitutional scholars on the list to wonder about the intersection of free press and free speech rights in the First Amendment. Paul -Original Message- From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Elizabeth F Campion [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:39 am Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? I already posted, to the best of my much distracted knowledge (it was an agitated political circus), Lewis Wendell's only contribution to the meeting was to read a prepared statement. Thanks foryour best recollection, it isvery confusing because of the misinformation. Liz, please read the Public Record article closely. This published reportMAKES CLEARthat Mr. Lewis Wendell gave the report about Mr. Fenton's refusal to cooperate with the investigation in response to Councilwoman Blackewell's verbal account.These are quotes reportedas taking place atthe meeting. There is no doubt aboutwhat is in thispublished, Public Record,report about events that occurred at this June 7th meeting. It's right there for all to see. Now, Melani has a secret official press release dated June 8th. You confirmed, that to the best of your knowledge, no refutation and explanationwas given by Mr. Wendellrevealing Mr. Fenton's refusal to cooperate with the investigation. Councilwoman Blackwell clearly told us that Mr. Fenton is not permitted to speak to anyone. This Public Record report asserts that Wendell refuted that aspect of this issue on the spot. These WendellQUOTES have been said to be, clearly stated, explanations and replies. These false quotes never occurred. This false reporting calls Councilwoman B a liar. This false report of events was about a meeting witnessed by many people. This is a very serious issue. Thanks, Glenn - Original Message - From: Elizabeth F Campion To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? I already posted, to the best of my much distracted knowledge (it was an agitated political circus), Lewis Wendell's only contribution to the meeting was to read a prepared statement. I thought Lewis acted with remarkable forbearance to an intense degree of attack, some too personal and some way off the track. I felt he could (and perhaps should) have responded to some of the comments and questions that were notdirectly related tothe John Fenton matter, but... it was not a UCD meeting, andLewis may have been attempting to show some respect for Glenn Bryan's (PENN's) Agenda. Certainly no one else in the room, including myself, was interested in much more than the hijacking the meeting. Lewis Wendell, his lovely wife and beautiful children are our neighbors. They are good neighbors. We should not lose sight of this connectedness as we pursue remedies. Days after the meeting, I bumped into John Fentonat a retail establishment, and he would not discuss the matter, no matter how hard I pried. Iforced a briefmonolog of my sympathy and support, on him. All he would say was Thank you. Both men continue to behave in ways that lead me to believe they would be better Allies than Enemies. Glenn, I find many of your posts confusing. I am not sure whennuance or sarcasm are in play. I am not sure where they dilute or confuse your message or turn away me (and other readers). Can you keep them simpler? Best! Liz On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:59:39 -0400 Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's unclear what Melani/Ucd are doing with this June 8th secret press release and who else is involved.The Public Recordreports that Lewis Wendell first provided the latest Fenton information in a public spokenrefutation and explanation
Re: Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bigger question, for me, is the inappropriateness of a reporter being involved personally in a story he's covering. the ucd/malcolm x park incident of may 11-12 wasn't mentioned in the philly public record prior to tony's june 14 story, was it? .. 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 http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
In a message dated 6/15/2007 3:44:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that what's important is that more information has been released in an effort to clarify the situation. Unfortunately that information seems to be getting lost in the continued dissection of exactly how the information came to light. Cheers, Baldy Doc I think this is a very important point. Folks on this list were very eager for more information, an update, an explanation for the delay. The June 8th second press release is informative. Instead of anyone reacting to the reason for the delay, several folks are now reacting to the press release delivery. Glenn called it a secret press release. How, when it has been released to the entire list, can it be called secret? You all have it now - does anyone have any constructive ideas for next steps? Next steps for John Fenton, the UCD, the Councilwoman, Glenn Bryan, Sharrieff's planning group, the Weekly Press, or the list? Melani Lamond ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
Doc Baldy wrote: Didn't Tony also get Liz's quote later? Isn't it common for journalists to question speakers after a meeting to get clarification and comments? It seems to me that what's important is that more information has been released in an effort to clarify the situation. Unfortunately that information seems to be getting lost in the continued dissection of exactly how the information came to light. did either liz or melani know they would be quoted in an article about blackwell when they spoke with tony? did either of them know of ucd's 2nd press release when they spoke with tony? do either liz or melani agree with being portrayed in the article as the polar ends of the 'controversies' over ucd? will liz's clarification ever appear in philly public record (online)? blah blah etc. etc. good thing we can get feedback, right here online! .. 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 http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
No. Not newsworthy enough, from our perspective. -- Tony West the ucd/malcolm x park incident of may 11-12 wasn't mentioned in the philly public record prior to tony's june 14 story, was it? [aka ray] 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] Press release or Wendell statement?
To answer: did either liz or melani know they would be quoted in an article about blackwell when they spoke with tony? Yes. did either of them know of ucd's 2nd press release when they spoke with tony? I don't know. do either liz or melani agree with being portrayed in the article as the polar ends of the 'controversies' over ucd? I made it clear I was seeking a supporter of Blackwell's position and a defender of UCD. will liz's clarification ever appear in philly public record (online)? blah blah etc. etc. No. Publisher's deep love of trees, etc., plus intention to move on to next story. You can, however, purchase advertising space to carry their clarification if you wish. That will overcome publisher's environmentalist sentiments. $16/column inch. good thing we can get feedback, right here online! As long as the feeder-backer feels like it. [aka ray] -- 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.
RE: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
Melani: I have announced our plans for the community planning committee, and public forums, please don't call it Sharrieff's Group. I think the plans are constructive and already have multiple voices and opinions attached. The idea of a planning committee and public process was voted on by everyone in the room at the First Thursday meeting (approximately 60 people), 20 people signed up to get involved, all from a motion from the floor being presided over by Councilwoman Blackwell. The purpose of the committee and the forums are to allow everyone to have their opinions heard and debated and to do so in a forum which is off-line and accessible to most people and their schedules. Again, bring your comments to the committee or forums. John Fenton will have our support no matter what, but we may not be able to impact his circumstances in a way which will both satisfy him and what may be the popular desires of those of us who have become accustomed to his support and services through UCD. The real question remains: How did UCD allow themselves to jeopardize their only solid relationship with community stakeholders and simultaneously bring pounds of scrutiny upon their agency and management? The fact is, Lewis Wendell as Director of the UCD is responsible for this mess with John which could have been avoided regardless of any questions raised about the appropriateness of contact with political figures, there was much more at stake for our community, namely John Fenton. If Lewis didn't realize the reaction their decisions would achieve, I would then say he is completely out of touch. I believe the disregarding of the level of affection we all have for John Fenton by UCD is at the core of the public outrage and also a large reason John is now unable or willing to respond to the UCD. The UCD is responsible for their polices and actions in our community and there is no place to hide. When is enough..enough? ..and what are you prepared to do about it? S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? In a message dated 6/15/2007 3:44:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that what's important is that more information has been released in an effort to clarify the situation. Unfortunately that information seems to be getting lost in the continued dissection of exactly how the information came to light. Cheers, Baldy Doc I think this is a very important point. Folks on this list were very eager for more information, an update, an explanation for the delay. The June 8th second press release is informative. Instead of anyone reacting to the reason for the delay, several folks are now reacting to the press release delivery. Glenn called it a secret press release. How, when it has been released to the entire list, can it be called secret? You all have it now - does anyone have any constructive ideas for next steps? Next steps for John Fenton, the UCD, the Councilwoman, Glenn Bryan, Sharrieff's planning group, the Weekly Press, or the list? Melani Lamond _ See what's free at AOL.com http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF0002000503 .
RE: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
Melani: I have announced our plans for the community planning committee, and public forums, please don't call it Sharrieff's Group. I think the plans are constructive and already have multiple voices and opinions attached. The idea of a planning committee and public process was voted on by everyone in the room at the First Thursday meeting (approximately 60 people), 20 people signed up to get involved, all from a motion from the floor being presided over by Councilwoman Blackwell. The purpose of the committee and the forums are to allow everyone to have their opinions heard and debated and to do so in a forum which is off-line and accessible to most people and their schedules. Again, bring your comments to the committee or forums. John Fenton will have our support no matter what, but we may not be able to impact his circumstances in a way which will both satisfy him and what may be the popular desires of those of us who have become accustomed to his support and services through UCD. The real question remains: How did UCD allow themselves to jeopardize their only solid relationship with community stakeholders and simultaneously bring pounds of scrutiny upon their agency and management? The fact is, Lewis Wendell as Director of the UCD is responsible for this mess with John which could have been avoided regardless of any questions raised about the appropriateness of contact with political figures, there was much more at stake for our community, namely John Fenton. If Lewis didn't realize the reaction their decisions would achieve, I would then say he is completely out of touch. I believe the disregarding of the level of affection we all have for John Fenton by UCD is at the core of the public outrage and also a large reason John is now unable or willing to respond to the UCD. The UCD is responsible for their polices and actions in our community and there is no place to hide. When is enough..enough? ..and what are you prepared to do about it? S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? In a message dated 6/15/2007 3:44:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that what's important is that more information has been released in an effort to clarify the situation. Unfortunately that information seems to be getting lost in the continued dissection of exactly how the information came to light. Cheers, Baldy Doc I think this is a very important point. Folks on this list were very eager for more information, an update, an explanation for the delay. The June 8th second press release is informative. Instead of anyone reacting to the reason for the delay, several folks are now reacting to the press release delivery. Glenn called it a secret press release. How, when it has been released to the entire list, can it be called secret? You all have it now - does anyone have any constructive ideas for next steps? Next steps for John Fenton, the UCD, the Councilwoman, Glenn Bryan, Sharrieff's planning group, the Weekly Press, or the list? Melani Lamond _ See what's free at AOL.com http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF0002000503 .
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
Dear Ray, While my conversation with Tony was an unscheduled convergence of neighbors at the busy intersection of 43rd and Baltimore, I know him as a writer and editor. As a grownup, I was forewarned and chatted anyway. I enjoyed talking with Tony. He told me he might put some of my ideas into an article he was writing. Ultimately isn't all publicity good publicity? (I write it with a grain of salt.) I am forthright, and usually say what I mean. If I were to be embarrassed by my choices I would probably work toward change (in either my behavior or associates). I was not aware of the 2nd Press release when I spoke with Tony. He may not have been aware of it either. I like Tony, I like Ray and I think Ray and Tony are even more polarized than Melani and I. Can't we all just get along? (In my case, by keeping a healthy distance from the 'nails on a chalkboard' sensory overload, I experience near Ms. Lamond.) ;-) Liz On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:25:27 -0400 UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doc Baldy wrote: Didn't Tony also get Liz's quote later? Isn't it common for journalists to question speakers after a meeting to get clarification and comments? It seems to me that what's important is that more information has been released in an effort to clarify the situation. Unfortunately that information seems to be getting lost in the continued dissection of exactly how the information came to light. did either liz or melani know they would be quoted in an article about blackwell when they spoke with tony? did either of them know of ucd's 2nd press release when they spoke with tony? do either liz or melani agree with being portrayed in the article as the polar ends of the 'controversies' over ucd? will liz's clarification ever appear in philly public record (online)? blah blah etc. etc. good thing we can get feedback, right here online! .. 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 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] Press release or Wendell statement?
On 6/15/07, Elizabeth F Campion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Ray, While my conversation with Tony was an unscheduled convergence of neighbors at the busy intersection of 43rd and Baltimore, I know him as a writer and editor. As a grownup, I was forewarned and chatted anyway. Just as my good friend Angelina Jolie always does, before I *ever* agree to talk to a reporter I make them sign a statement promising that they will only interview me about my latest movie and WILL NOT ask any questions about my personal life. The agreement stipulates that if they get off track and wanna know what deodorant I use, or if I could be a tree, what tree would I be, or what is my favorite color, I am entitled simply to clam up and walk away. Some paranoid dingbats who shall remain nameless, although many of them are employed by Faux News, see this as an infringement of their First Amendment rights. To them I simply respond: Get stuffed, chuckleheads. -- Ross Bender http://rossbender.org
RE: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
I am posting this response publicly although it is in response to a few off-list post. Generally the question is : Why is Lewis Wendell more responsible? Well..the answer is if it was a Board decision to suspend John then I guess we would have all known about it from the meeting held by our community representatives on the UCD Board. S
Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
??? I may not have been clear.? It's not about other people being personally involved, its about one person being personally involved, who happens to be a reporter - Tony.? The others were not writing newspaper articles.? Tony is totally involved in the UCD issue, at least in the list world.? His interest and bias were not disclosed in the newspaper.? ??? I'm generally a UCD supporter, I admit it.? But c'mon, the article is hard to classify as neutral.? Paul -Original Message- From: Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 2:51 pm Subject: Re: Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:? I think the article, to the contrary, suggests that Tony obtained the quote about John not cooperating later which would explain why people at the meeting didn't hear it said. The prior reference sounds like it was taken from the statement he read at the meeting.? ? Bigger question, for me, is the inappropriateness of a reporter being involved personally in a story he's covering. I thought that was contrary to journalist's ethics. (Likewise, I thought it odd if the UC Review was going to get involved in running community meetings on UCD.) I'll leave it to the constitutional scholars on the list to wonder about the intersection of free press and free speech rights in the First Amendment.? There's nothing inappropriate about it, actually-- so long as the reporter's interest and biases are known and the reporting is accurate. Then there's the matter of how personally involved one is. Blackwell, Fenton, Lewis Wendell, and some employees of UCD are, verifiably, personally involved. Tony's role as a board member of the FoCP puts him on the outer periphery of involved, which isn't much more involved than any other resident of UCD. And it doesn't seem to have influenced his reporting in any substantive way;? ? ? 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.? AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
This is a fair question. At my company, we take news wherever we find it. We can't afford to turn good stories away just because somebody already knows somebody. We make our living by knowing people. A larger company like PNH might apply rules like what you're proposing, though. Even there, though, there is more flexibility than you might think. Reporters get story ideas based on their own real-life involvements all the time; they just write them out of the story (as I did). You won't find out about those connections unless you're chatting with the writer. I also think the smaller the social scale of a news story, the fuzzier these lines become. University City is too small a world to sustain a large pool of writers about community issues who are paid full-time to just study them and report on them. In a small world, people who know about things and people who do things often are one and the same. -- Tony West Bigger question, for me, is the inappropriateness of a reporter being involved personally in a story he's covering. I thought that was contrary to journalist's ethics. (Likewise, I thought it odd if the UC Review was going to get involved in running community meetings on UCD.) I'll leave it to the constitutional scholars on the list to wonder about the intersection of free press and free speech rights in the First Amendment. Paul 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: Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bigger question, for me, is the inappropriateness of a reporter being involved personally in a story he's covering. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN asked: the ucd/malcolm x park incident of may 11-12 wasn't mentioned in the philly public record prior to tony's june 14 story, was it? Anthony West wrote: No. Not newsworthy enough, from our perspective. thanks. that helps clarify what I was asking paul about: now that we know the article you wrote was the first mention you or your paper made about the ucd incident since it happened a month ago (rather than an ongoing story you or your paper were covering), paul's question becomes one about the appropriateness of yourself, as a reporter, being personally involved in the article you wrote. (for example, was your involvement with uclist over this incident as a reporter? as focp board member?) [do I have that right, paul?] and the question becomes more interesting, when we consider what you mean by 'newsworthy': in your article, was the news of the ucd incident a pretext for your writing about special service districts, or was writing about special service districts a pretext for your presenting, as a publicist, ucd's 2nd press release about the ucd incident? or--? .. 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 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] Press release or Wendell statement?
Anthony West wrote: To answer: will liz's clarification ever appear in philly public record (online)? blah blah etc. etc. No. Publisher's deep love of trees, etc., plus intention to move on to next story. You can, however, purchase advertising space to carry their clarification if you wish. That will overcome publisher's environmentalist sentiments. $16/column inch. really? see, I was asking about philly public record (online). how do trees and column inches figure into it? have you seen this page: http://www.phillyrecord.com/2007/0614/letters.html liz's clarifications could easily appear there, no trees would be destroyed: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] like I say: good thing we can get feedback, right here online! As long as the feeder-backer feels like it. [true, and that's feedback, too! ;-)] .. 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 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: Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
I gotta disagree with you on this one, Ray. The question becomes less interesting. -- Tony West and the question becomes more interesting, when we consider what you mean by 'newsworthy': in your article, was the news of the ucd incident a pretext for your writing about special service districts, or was writing about special service districts a pretext for your presenting, as a publicist, ucd's 2nd press release about the ucd incident? or--? [aka ray] 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] Press release or Wendell statement?
Ray, My company would be delighted to discuss with your company the sorts of services we could provide each other for free. You, as representative of the University of Pennsylvania, and I, as representative of the Philadelphia Public Record, together could forge a new era of cooperation and partnership between our two institutions, which together can do so much to encapsulate the civic vision of University City and the Delaware Valley region as a whole. Until we have concluded those discussions, however, anything you want to say in the Public Record in the form of a paid advertisement you may have, at the rate of $16 / column inch. We do not sell on-line ads separately from newsprint ads. If you want the on-line ad, there's a $2 service charge on top of your newsprint ad. Sorry, those are our rules. If you want us to create special on-line posting services for you for a fee, discuss them with me off-line. If you wish to tell the editor how to edit his paper, I will be glad to offer you one free hour during which you, Ray Rorke, can edit my publication. Yes, you are the lucky winner! Only one condition: first, I get to come to your office and muck around with all its computers for one free hour. No fair making backups, either! -- Tony West - Original Message - From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement? Anthony West wrote: To answer: will liz's clarification ever appear in philly public record (online)? blah blah etc. etc. No. Publisher's deep love of trees, etc., plus intention to move on to next story. You can, however, purchase advertising space to carry their clarification if you wish. That will overcome publisher's environmentalist sentiments. $16/column inch. really? see, I was asking about philly public record (online). how do trees and column inches figure into it? have you seen this page: http://www.phillyrecord.com/2007/0614/letters.html liz's clarifications could easily appear there, no trees would be destroyed: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] like I say: good thing we can get feedback, right here online! As long as the feeder-backer feels like it. [true, and that's feedback, too! ;-)] .. 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 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: Fwd: [UC] Press release or Wendell statement?
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: and the question becomes more interesting, when we consider what you mean by 'newsworthy': in your article, was the news of the ucd incident a pretext for your writing about special service districts, or was writing about special service districts a pretext for your presenting, as a publicist, ucd's 2nd press release about the ucd incident? or--? Anthony West wrote: I gotta disagree with you on this one, Ray. The question becomes less interesting. see, now you've gone and made it even more interesting! ;-) .. 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 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.
