Re: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION]
Glenn wrote: Thanks Ray, I found myself in almost complete agreement with Mr. Sexton. I want to read the entire essay. I think I've seen a print version of Currents before in the library. This is very relevant to some of the very topics discussed here. I agree that sexton's essay is relevant -- not only does it apply to the kinds of discussions on this list, but to the topic of universities in the public realm, in this case as champions of civil discourse. there's more where that came from; stay tuned! - - - - - btw, I thought it was funny that as I read sexton's essay, this is what was printed on my starbucks coffee cup: THE WAY I SEE IT #225 People don't read enough. And what reading we do is cursory, without absorbing the subtleties and nuances that lie deep within -- Wow, you've stopped paying attention, haven't you? People can't even read a coffee cup without drifting off. -- David Shore Creator and executive producer of the television drama 'House' * * * this is the author's opinion, not necessarily that of Starbucks. To read more or respond, go to www.starbucks.com/wayiseeit .. 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] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION]
KAREN ALLEN wrote: My question is this: What is meant by cilvilized an uncivilized? in my inbox today I found an interesting and relevant essay that may help answer this question. it appears in this month's Currents (a journal published by CASE, Council for Advancement and Support of Education): THE CRISIS IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE Can higher education help keep complexity and nuance alive? by John Sexton, President of New York University it's here: http://tinyurl.com/33d27a but since it requires membership to read, I'll paste the essay below. since it's also long, here's an excerpt, what I think are the core ideas: There is an urgent agenda to pursue: the genuine incubation, preservation, and creation of knowledge, the nurturing of a respect for complexity, nuance, and genuine dialogue -- not only on campus, but beyond the campus gates. Dialogue within colleges and universities is characterized by a commitment to engage and even invite, through reasoned discourse, the most powerful challenges to one's point of view. This requires attentiveness and mutual respect, accepting what is well founded in the criticisms offered by others, and defending one's own position, where appropriate, against them; it is both the offer of and the demand for argument and evidence. We must have more than information to address our problems; we must have the humility to understand that although we may arrive at wise conclusions, we will never achieve absolute certainty. - - - - - - - - THE CRISIS IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE Can higher education help keep complexity and nuance alive? by John Sexton We are witnessing today an increasingly impoverished quality of what is said by our political leaders in the public forum. Candidates for public office now relentlessly employ slogans, talking points, simplistic messages, and attack ads. Most political conversation amounts to dueling talking points. Best-selling books reinforce what folks thought when they bought them. Talk radio and opinion journals preach to the converted. Let's face it: The purpose of most political speech is not to persuade but to win, be it power, ratings, celebrity, or even cash. By contrast, marshaling a case to persuade those who start from a different position is a lost art. Honoring what's right in the other side's argument seems a superfluous thing that can only cause trouble, like an appendix. Politicos huddle with like-minded souls in opinion cocoons that seem impervious to facts. Yet the issues we face today must be viewed from multiple perspectives and do not have one single definition, let alone a single resolution. How do we provide quality health care at low cost to all citizens? What does it take to reduce the achievement gap in education? What needs to be done to overcome racism, sexism, homophobia? How should we treat new immigrants? DOGMATISM RUN AMOK As an information surplus develops in this halcyon era of Internet communications, the frequent absence of accountability combines with an absence of formal checks to make it possible for pseudo facts to spread like wildfire. This presents even the intelligent and the rigorous with a serious sorting problem. One unsurprising response to this barrage of undifferentiated information is a kind of nihilism about knowledge that leads almost inexorably to an equation of fact and opinion and the reduction of argumentation to assertion. What are these trends in our public discourse that create a wasteland of dogmatism and bode so ill for elevated and enlightened discussion? First, at least at the national level, political leaders often participate in the public discourse defensively -- that is, they worry about expressing a provocative thought at the wrong time or uttering a disastrous slip of the tongue, especially with cameras ever present to capture the controversial statement or the gaffe. The danger, of course, especially given the trend toward dogmatism, is that our national political conversations will become more and more carefully scrubbed, driven by focus-group-tested advertising campaigns. Second, in such a context, policymakers and candidates often incline even in private conversation toward stating positions in simplistic and extreme terms to avoid conceding ground as they wrestle with each other for public positioning and ultimate outcomes. When polarization becomes the rule, participants feel little trust in each other, have less faith in the willingness of others to listen, and constantly fear being caricatured as weak or indecisive. The result: a lamentable decline in the willingness of our political leaders to engage in honest, open, and probing discourse in search of public policy solutions to the most vexing issues of the day. Third, when the consequence of the binary choice is pure red or pure blue, the purest (that is, the most extreme) elements of red or blue care most intensely
Re: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION
Hey Karen, I think we should think of this new list as a trickle down policy from UCD. This is related to the three choice model you revealed on the list. Disobedience has always been punishable by exclusion. All of this civility discussion is simply another red herring. When Cassidy, Siano, and Van helder were taking a perverse pleasure publicly on this list at the murder of the homeless man, two of the other evil people had the courage to join you and stood up to that perverse glee. Ray and Al, who are attacked on this list like me, stood up to these characters. Yet these same creeps are saying ban them too because they lack civility Come to civilized discussions about the scum of little mantua where the good folks can fantasize about murder, suicides and a death ray. [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I was relatively new to the list and needed to expose the FOCP leaders ability to exclude anyone from the community, did Paul or Melani talk of civility when the gang was publicly calling for a death ray?? Was the gang civilly posting refutations about the serious matters I was bringing up? No, gang member after gang member fantasized about my death Where were the calls for civility when these people were wishing a new list member's death? Yet I'm supposed to feel bad if these civil posters end up being embarrassed Karen, this new list is a message to everyone else not to Ray, Al, and I. Like you mentioned when you revealed the need to provide 3 names to UCD, you felt that there was a threat of exclusion for not complying as happened with Squirrel Hill. This Cassidy play is about power not civility. All 300+ readers of this list are to see what happens to anyone dissenting with the powerful cronies of UCD. They will silence whomever steps out of line. I've had this done by both the UCD and FOCP before. The hand picked steering committees are another method of silencing and controlling. We are all supposed to be afraid of UCD cronies as we are of UCD. If we kiss up, we will be rewarded. If we ask questions, we will be silenced. This UCD pattern of exclusion is constant. And this civility spin is so obviously another pompous lie. I think it is time to ask Penn very very publicly for its policy supporting censorship. When Campus Philly and UCD market Cassidy's censorship list as a public list for neighbors, I'm taking Cassidy's gleeful bragging over the Penn domain directly to the media. I hope Wendell Lewis's moles read this post. Sincerely, Glenn - Original Message - From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:55 PM Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION I think the uncivility cuts both ways, and many of the people who complain of it engage in it themselves. So because the bad behavior is a two-way street, I suspect that there may also be a desire to control what is being said in the guise of controlling manners. I do make a conscious effort to not attack anyone in disagreeing with them, and to stick strictly to the merits of the discussion. I have not had a problem from most posters, except that my criticism of UCD has caused me to become an untouchable, if you will, among its supporters. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Fwd: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:55:30 -0400 I take this that you don't credit my views, and those who agree with them, that it really is the behavior and not the content.? Of course, it's difficult to define civility, but apparently most of us agree we can know it when we see it.? My question for you is, do you indeed stand in support of the uncontrolled list, viewing the poor conduct you agree has occurred as intractable or superior to the possibility that people will be restricted in some fashion is they can't act properly? You certainly have strong views on some things, and are grounded in actual involvement.? If everyone made up a list of people who are jerks on the list, I don't think you'd show up.? You say your piece without being uncivil. I don't think anyone would ban you, me or Wilma from a list for being anti-social, regardless of what we had to say. Paul -Original Message- From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 2:44 pm Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION] I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of reasons, but my primary one is this:? While Melani claims that there would be civilized conversation, what I fear it will actually be is sanitized conversation.? ? While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list, that has been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims
Fwd: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION
No, I'm not sure Frankus.? I am confident, however, that this list will not do
anything to try to get members to follow any standards, or to get the vast
majority of those who are silent members to contribute.?
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR
CIVILIZED CONVERSATION
I'll answer that as well.
Yes, an uncontrolled list is superior to a list in which ONE PERSON decides
what behavior is acceptable. It's also superior to a list in which that
decision is somehow arrived at...well, I'm not sure how they're going to do it.
Are you??
Frankus
Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible.
On Jul 30, 2007, at 08:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I take this that you don't credit my views, and those who agree with them,
that it really is the behavior and not the content.? Of course, it's difficult
to define civility, but apparently most of us agree we can know it when we see
it.? My question for you is, do you indeed stand in support of the uncontrolled
list, viewing the poor conduct you agree has occurred as intractable or
superior to the possibility that people will be restricted in some fashion is
they can't act properly?
You certainly have strong views on some things, and are grounded in actual
involvement.? If everyone made up a list of people who are jerks on the list, I
don't think you'd show up.? You say your piece without being uncivil.
I don't think anyone would ban you, me or Wilma from a list for being
anti-social, regardless of what we had to say.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 2:44 pm
Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED
CONVERSATION]
I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of reasons, but
my primary one is this:?
While Melani claims that there would be civilized conversation, what I fear
it will actually be is sanitized conversation.?
?
While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list, that has
been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims give as good as they
get, and just as often send inflammatory posts themselves: remember Serial
Liar sends misleading information? How about cheap, greedy, slumlords,
Napoleon complex frugal fanatic? A poster in this current thread,
Phillip Forrest, sent an ugly post that suggested that, rather than his own
use of the delete key, Glenn should kill himself, but somehow that was not
viewed as being part of the problem. Isn't sending information as a front for
UCD just as misleading? Couldn't the organized effort to enact the BID with
carefully planted information be just as easily labeled a conspiracy??
?
What I see as a problem is how will uncivilized be defined on the new list.
To me it seems that much of what is being claimed is uncivilized is often a
disagreement with the ideas being expressed. I make no secret of the fact that
I don't agree with the BID or with what I view as Penn and its supporters
having an undue hand in the direction of this neighborhood. That is an
unpopular view among those who want Penn's involvement or who make huge
business profits because of it. I have not been attacked on the listserv for
my opinoins, but I have already been shunned in person for taking that stance.?
?
My question is this: What is meant by cilvilized an uncivilized? Is this
REALLY a concern about the tone, or is there also a concern about the ideas
expressed?Would I be banned for posting things critical of UCD? Or for
defending John Fenton (the post-Malcolm X Park John Fenton, not the pre-Malcolm
X Park John Fenton). Or will the new list be a forum wherein like-minded people
can get together and make unchallenged claiims? Would Phillip Forrest's ugly
suggestion that Glenn kill himself get Phillip banned??
?
Karen Allen?
?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC] Since the
real reason for the new list is...?
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT?
?
?
In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:?
..Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he was being?
childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He started it
because?
the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic and
insulting.?
It's also becoming a crowded room (virtually speaking) with some loud
voices?
trying to drown out the once speaking in a normal tone. Some people do
act?
like they own this list and like to think that they can dictate and frame
the?
conversation and debates that occur here. Many people have started doing
Fwd: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION
??? I can't disagree that in some cases the uncivility cuts both ways.? Although one could argue about offensive and defensive hostility, its not likely to be worthwhile.? OTOH, you seem to concede the impossibility of reining in the anti-social conduct here.? If that be the case, the question I see is whether you see any problem with this list, and if so, whether you prefer it to the possibility of starting over on better terms with an understanding that people need to make more effort to do what you do - stick to the merits. -Original Message- From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:55 pm Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION I think the uncivility cuts both ways, and many of the people who complain of it engage in it themselves. So because the bad behavior is a two-way street, I suspect that there may also be a desire to control what is being said in the guise of controlling manners.? ? I do make a conscious effort to not attack anyone in disagreeing with them, and to stick strictly to the merits of the discussion. I have not had a problem from most posters, except that my criticism of UCD has caused me to become an untouchable, if you will, among its supporters.? ? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fwd: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION? Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:55:30 -0400? ? ? I take this that you don't credit my views, and those who agree with them, that it really is the behavior and not the content.? Of course, it's difficult to define civility, but apparently most of us agree we can know it when we see it.? My question for you is, do you indeed stand in support of the uncontrolled list, viewing the poor conduct you agree has occurred as intractable or superior to the possibility that people will be restricted in some fashion is they can't act properly?? ? You certainly have strong views on some things, and are grounded in actual involvement.? If everyone made up a list of people who are jerks on the list, I don't think you'd show up.? You say your piece without being uncivil.? I don't think anyone would ban you, me or Wilma from a list for being anti-social, regardless of what we had to say.? ? Paul? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -Original Message-? From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 2:44 pm? Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION]? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of reasons,? but my primary one is this:?? ? While Melani claims that there would be civilized conversation, what I? fear it will actually be is sanitized conversation.?? ?? ? While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list, that has? been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims give as good as? they get, and just as often send inflammatory posts themselves: remember? Serial Liar sends misleading information? How about cheap, greedy,? slumlords, Napoleon complex frugal fanatic? A poster in this? current thread, Phillip Forrest, sent an ugly post that suggested that,? rather than his own use of the delete key, Glenn should kill himself, but? somehow that was not viewed as being part of the problem. Isn't sending? information as a front for UCD just as misleading? Couldn't the organized? effort to enact the BID with carefully planted information be just as? easily labeled a conspiracy??? ?? ? What I see as a problem is how will uncivilized be defined on the new? list. To me it seems that much of what is being claimed is uncivilized is? often a disagreement with the ideas being expressed. I make no secret of? the fact that I don't agree with the BID or with what I view as Penn and its? supporters having an undue hand in the direction of this neighborhood. That? is an unpopular view among those who want Penn's involvement or who make? huge business profits because of it. I have not been attacked on the? listserv for my opinoins, but I have already been shunned in person for? taking that stance.?? ?? ? My question is this: What is meant by cilvilized an uncivilized? Is? this REALLY a concern about the tone, or is there also a concern about the? ideas expressed?Would I be banned for posting things critical of UCD?? Or for defending John Fenton (the post-Malcolm X Park John Fenton, not the? pre-Malcolm X Park John Fenton). Or will the new list be a forum wherein? like-minded people can get together and make unchallenged claiims? Would? Phillip Forrest's ugly suggestion that Glenn kill himself get Phillip? banned??? ?? ? Karen Allen?? ?? ? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? To: [EMAIL
Re: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION
I've been on a lot of mailing lists over the years, moderated and not, some with thousands of members, and that majority have always been lurkers. There are a couple of dozen daily/almost daily contributors and a few more dozen people who rarely post. The rest are silent. That's the nature of mailing lists, I think. Frank On Jul 31, 2007, at 08:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I'm not sure Frankus. I am confident, however, that this list will not do anything to try to get members to follow any standards, or to get the vast majority of those who are silent members to contribute. Paul -Original Message- From: Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 9:30 pm Subject: Re: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION I'll answer that as well. Yes, an uncontrolled list is superior to a list in which ONE PERSON decides what behavior is acceptable. It's also superior to a list in which that decision is somehow arrived at...well, I'm not sure how they're going to do it. Are you? Frankus Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible. On Jul 30, 2007, at 08:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I take this that you don't credit my views, and those who agree with them, that it really is the behavior and not the content. Of course, it's difficult to define civility, but apparently most of us agree we can know it when we see it. My question for you is, do you indeed stand in support of the uncontrolled list, viewing the poor conduct you agree has occurred as intractable or superior to the possibility that people will be restricted in some fashion is they can't act properly? You certainly have strong views on some things, and are grounded in actual involvement. If everyone made up a list of people who are jerks on the list, I don't think you'd show up. You say your piece without being uncivil. I don't think anyone would ban you, me or Wilma from a list for being anti-social, regardless of what we had to say. Paul -Original Message- From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 2:44 pm Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION] I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of reasons, but my primary one is this: While Melani claims that there would be civilized conversation, what I fear it will actually be is sanitized conversation. While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list, that has been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims give as good as they get, and just as often send inflammatory posts themselves: remember Serial Liar sends misleading information? How about cheap, greedy, slumlords, Napoleon complex frugal fanatic? A poster in this current thread, Phillip Forrest, sent an ugly post that suggested that, rather than his own use of the delete key, Glenn should kill himself, but somehow that was not viewed as being part of the problem. Isn't sending information as a front for UCD just as misleading? Couldn't the organized effort to enact the BID with carefully planted information be just as easily labeled a conspiracy? What I see as a problem is how will uncivilized be defined on the new list. To me it seems that much of what is being claimed is uncivilized is often a disagreement with the ideas being expressed. I make no secret of the fact that I don't agree with the BID or with what I view as Penn and its supporters having an undue hand in the direction of this neighborhood. That is an unpopular view among those who want Penn's involvement or who make huge business profits because of it. I have not been attacked on the listserv for my opinoins, but I have already been shunned in person for taking that stance. My question is this: What is meant by cilvilized an uncivilized? Is this REALLY a concern about the tone, or is there also a concern about the ideas expressed? Would I be banned for posting things critical of UCD? Or for defending John Fenton (the post-Malcolm X Park John Fenton, not the pre-Malcolm X Park John Fenton). Or will the new list be a forum wherein like-minded people can get together and make unchallenged claiims? Would Phillip Forrest's ugly suggestion that Glenn kill himself get Phillip banned? Karen Allen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC] Since the real reason for the new list is... Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he was being childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He started it because the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic
[UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION]
I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of reasons, but my primary one is this: While Melani claims that there would be civilized conversation, what I fear it will actually be is sanitized conversation. While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list, that has been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims give as good as they get, and just as often send inflammatory posts themselves: remember Serial Liar sends misleading information? How about cheap, greedy, slumlords, Napoleon complex frugal fanatic? A poster in this current thread, Phillip Forrest, sent an ugly post that suggested that, rather than his own use of the delete key, Glenn should kill himself, but somehow that was not viewed as being part of the problem. Isn't sending information as a front for UCD just as misleading? Couldn't the organized effort to enact the BID with carefully planted information be just as easily labeled a conspiracy? What I see as a problem is how will uncivilized be defined on the new list. To me it seems that much of what is being claimed is uncivilized is often a disagreement with the ideas being expressed. I make no secret of the fact that I don't agree with the BID or with what I view as Penn and its supporters having an undue hand in the direction of this neighborhood. That is an unpopular view among those who want Penn's involvement or who make huge business profits because of it. I have not been attacked on the listserv for my opinoins, but I have already been shunned in person for taking that stance. My question is this: What is meant by cilvilized an uncivilized? Is this REALLY a concern about the tone, or is there also a concern about the ideas expressed?Would I be banned for posting things critical of UCD? Or for defending John Fenton (the post-Malcolm X Park John Fenton, not the pre-Malcolm X Park John Fenton). Or will the new list be a forum wherein like-minded people can get together and make unchallenged claiims? Would Phillip Forrest's ugly suggestion that Glenn kill himself get Phillip banned? Karen Allen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC] Since the real reason for the new list is... Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he was being childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He started it because the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic and insulting. It's also becoming a crowded room (virtually speaking) with some loud voices trying to drown out the once speaking in a normal tone. Some people do act like they own this list and like to think that they can dictate and frame the conversation and debates that occur here. Many people have started doing the serial deleting of [UC]-labelled emails, because it's become less relevant and helpful to the average UC resident. I don't know about you, but this puts people a hair-trigger away from leaving the listserv and the community discussion that occurs here. No one is excluded or protected on Kyle's new listserv either. You can still take the conversation there, if you want to, and your bat and ball. This weekend, the heavy-handed people on the purple list found out that their readers now have the option to move away, and clearly, they don't want that to happen. So - did they offer to moderate their language and help develop a set of guidelines? No, they became even more heavy-handed! Several attacked Bruce Anderson for suggesting guidelines. Some even tried to blame Jon Herrmann, who wrote that he had not read the last 13,000 emails posted on the purple list in the last 15 months - now, that shows how involved HE is, doesn't it? Some renewed conspiracy theories, one generated new spoof posts, and as usual, a small but noisy group attacked the person who saw a need to do something and actually DID it. But, why should we be stuck with a dysfunctional list which will not change? I came in for criticism for saying it would be heaven to be on a list without one particularly voluminous ranter who has focused on me, sometimes alarmingly. Why would I want to be on a list with member who sends out fantasy emails about what he wants to have happen to me in Clark Park? Why would I recommend that the buyers and sellers I work with join a listserv where they'd read that kind of stuff with my name in it, where a neighborhood fanatic would single me out for ridicule though I've never even met the man? Is it any surprise I think it will be heaven to be on a list where that sort of email isn't likely to be tolerated? Kyle CAN ban that individual on the new list, but he won't, if the individual is civil to his fellow
RE: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION]
I agree, Karen, that the risk of having nothing but sanitized conversation is a concern, but I'm personally inclined to join the new list and see how things go. It's not like you can't be subscribed to both UC Neighbors and this list, after all, and I don't see any value in pre-judging how the new list is going to work. If it turns out that your fears are justified, well, then I'm all for pitchforks and torches. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KAREN ALLEN Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:45 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION] I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of reasons, but my primary one is this: While Melani claims that there would be civilized conversation, what I fear it will actually be is sanitized conversation. While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list, that has been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims give as good as they get, and just as often send inflammatory posts themselves: remember Serial Liar sends misleading information? How about cheap, greedy, slumlords, Napoleon complex frugal fanatic? A poster in this current thread, Phillip Forrest, sent an ugly post that suggested that, rather than his own use of the delete key, Glenn should kill himself, but somehow that was not viewed as being part of the problem. Isn't sending information as a front for UCD just as misleading? Couldn't the organized effort to enact the BID with carefully planted information be just as easily labeled a conspiracy? What I see as a problem is how will uncivilized be defined on the new list. To me it seems that much of what is being claimed is uncivilized is often a disagreement with the ideas being expressed. I make no secret of the fact that I don't agree with the BID or with what I view as Penn and its supporters having an undue hand in the direction of this neighborhood. That is an unpopular view among those who want Penn's involvement or who make huge business profits because of it. I have not been attacked on the listserv for my opinoins, but I have already been shunned in person for taking that stance. My question is this: What is meant by cilvilized an uncivilized? Is this REALLY a concern about the tone, or is there also a concern about the ideas expressed?Would I be banned for posting things critical of UCD? Or for defending John Fenton (the post-Malcolm X Park John Fenton, not the pre-Malcolm X Park John Fenton). Or will the new list be a forum wherein like-minded people can get together and make unchallenged claiims? Would Phillip Forrest's ugly suggestion that Glenn kill himself get Phillip banned? Karen Allen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC] Since the real reason for the new list is... Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he was being childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He started it because the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic and insulting. It's also becoming a crowded room (virtually speaking) with some loud voices trying to drown out the once speaking in a normal tone. Some people do act like they own this list and like to think that they can dictate and frame the conversation and debates that occur here. Many people have started doing the serial deleting of [UC]-labelled emails, because it's become less relevant and helpful to the average UC resident. I don't know about you, but this puts people a hair-trigger away from leaving the listserv and the community discussion that occurs here. No one is excluded or protected on Kyle's new listserv either. You can still take the conversation there, if you want to, and your bat and ball. This weekend, the heavy-handed people on the purple list found out that their readers now have the option to move away, and clearly, they don't want that to happen. So - did they offer to moderate their language and help develop a set of guidelines? No, they became even more heavy-handed! Several attacked Bruce Anderson for suggesting guidelines. Some even tried to blame Jon Herrmann, who wrote that he had not read the last 13,000 emails posted on the purple list in the last 15 months - now, that shows how involved HE is, doesn't it? Some renewed conspiracy theories, one generated new spoof posts, and as usual, a small but noisy group attacked the person who saw a need to do something and actually DID it. But, why should we be stuck with a dysfunctional list which will not change? I came in for criticism for saying it would
Fwd: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION
I take this that you don't credit my views, and those who agree with them, that it really is the behavior and not the content.? Of course, it's difficult to define civility, but apparently most of us agree we can know it when we see it.? My question for you is, do you indeed stand in support of the uncontrolled list, viewing the poor conduct you agree has occurred as intractable or superior to the possibility that people will be restricted in some fashion is they can't act properly? You certainly have strong views on some things, and are grounded in actual involvement.? If everyone made up a list of people who are jerks on the list, I don't think you'd show up.? You say your piece without being uncivil. I don't think anyone would ban you, me or Wilma from a list for being anti-social, regardless of what we had to say. Paul -Original Message- From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 2:44 pm Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION] I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of reasons, but my primary one is this:? While Melani claims that there would be civilized conversation, what I fear it will actually be is sanitized conversation.? ? While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list, that has been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims give as good as they get, and just as often send inflammatory posts themselves: remember Serial Liar sends misleading information? How about cheap, greedy, slumlords, Napoleon complex frugal fanatic? A poster in this current thread, Phillip Forrest, sent an ugly post that suggested that, rather than his own use of the delete key, Glenn should kill himself, but somehow that was not viewed as being part of the problem. Isn't sending information as a front for UCD just as misleading? Couldn't the organized effort to enact the BID with carefully planted information be just as easily labeled a conspiracy?? ? What I see as a problem is how will uncivilized be defined on the new list. To me it seems that much of what is being claimed is uncivilized is often a disagreement with the ideas being expressed. I make no secret of the fact that I don't agree with the BID or with what I view as Penn and its supporters having an undue hand in the direction of this neighborhood. That is an unpopular view among those who want Penn's involvement or who make huge business profits because of it. I have not been attacked on the listserv for my opinoins, but I have already been shunned in person for taking that stance.? ? My question is this: What is meant by cilvilized an uncivilized? Is this REALLY a concern about the tone, or is there also a concern about the ideas expressed?Would I be banned for posting things critical of UCD? Or for defending John Fenton (the post-Malcolm X Park John Fenton, not the pre-Malcolm X Park John Fenton). Or will the new list be a forum wherein like-minded people can get together and make unchallenged claiims? Would Phillip Forrest's ugly suggestion that Glenn kill himself get Phillip banned?? ? Karen Allen? ? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC] Since the real reason for the new list is...? Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT? ? ? In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:? ..Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he was being? childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He started it because? the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic and insulting.? It's also becoming a crowded room (virtually speaking) with some loud voices? trying to drown out the once speaking in a normal tone. Some people do act? like they own this list and like to think that they can dictate and frame the? conversation and debates that occur here. Many people have started doing the? serial deleting of [UC]-labelled emails, because it's become less relevant and? helpful to the average UC resident. I don't know about you, but this puts? people a hair-trigger away from leaving the listserv and the community? discussion that occurs here. No one is excluded or protected on Kyle's new listserv? either. You can still take the conversation there, if you want to, and your bat? and ball.? ? This weekend, the heavy-handed people on the purple list found out that their? readers now have the option to move away, and clearly, they don't want that? to happen. So - did they offer to moderate their language and help develop a? set of guidelines? No, they became even more heavy-handed! Several? attacked Bruce Anderson for suggesting guidelines. Some even tried to blame Jon? Herrmann, who wrote that he
Re: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION
I'll answer that as well. Yes, an uncontrolled list is superior to a list in which ONE PERSON decides what behavior is acceptable. It's also superior to a list in which that decision is somehow arrived at...well, I'm not sure how they're going to do it. Are you? Frankus Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible. On Jul 30, 2007, at 08:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I take this that you don't credit my views, and those who agree with them, that it really is the behavior and not the content. Of course, it's difficult to define civility, but apparently most of us agree we can know it when we see it. My question for you is, do you indeed stand in support of the uncontrolled list, viewing the poor conduct you agree has occurred as intractable or superior to the possibility that people will be restricted in some fashion is they can't act properly? You certainly have strong views on some things, and are grounded in actual involvement. If everyone made up a list of people who are jerks on the list, I don't think you'd show up. You say your piece without being uncivil. I don't think anyone would ban you, me or Wilma from a list for being anti-social, regardless of what we had to say. Paul -Original Message- From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 2:44 pm Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION] I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of reasons, but my primary one is this: While Melani claims that there would be civilized conversation, what I fear it will actually be is sanitized conversation. While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list, that has been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims give as good as they get, and just as often send inflammatory posts themselves: remember Serial Liar sends misleading information? How about cheap, greedy, slumlords, Napoleon complex frugal fanatic? A poster in this current thread, Phillip Forrest, sent an ugly post that suggested that, rather than his own use of the delete key, Glenn should kill himself, but somehow that was not viewed as being part of the problem. Isn't sending information as a front for UCD just as misleading? Couldn't the organized effort to enact the BID with carefully planted information be just as easily labeled a conspiracy? What I see as a problem is how will uncivilized be defined on the new list. To me it seems that much of what is being claimed is uncivilized is often a disagreement with the ideas being expressed. I make no secret of the fact that I don't agree with the BID or with what I view as Penn and its supporters having an undue hand in the direction of this neighborhood. That is an unpopular view among those who want Penn's involvement or who make huge business profits because of it. I have not been attacked on the listserv for my opinoins, but I have already been shunned in person for taking that stance. My question is this: What is meant by cilvilized an uncivilized? Is this REALLY a concern about the tone, or is there also a concern about the ideas expressed? Would I be banned for posting things critical of UCD? Or for defending John Fenton (the post-Malcolm X Park John Fenton, not the pre-Malcolm X Park John Fenton). Or will the new list be a forum wherein like-minded people can get together and make unchallenged claiims? Would Phillip Forrest's ugly suggestion that Glenn kill himself get Phillip banned? Karen Allen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC] Since the real reason for the new list is... Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he was being childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He started it because the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic and insulting. It's also becoming a crowded room (virtually speaking) with some loud voices trying to drown out the once speaking in a normal tone. Some people do act like they own this list and like to think that they can dictate and frame the conversation and debates that occur here. Many people have started doing the serial deleting of [UC]-labelled emails, because it's become less relevant and helpful to the average UC resident. I don't know about you, but this puts people a hair-trigger away from leaving the listserv and the community discussion that occurs here. No one is excluded or protected on Kyle's new listserv either. You can still take the conversation there, if you want to, and your bat and ball. This weekend, the heavy-handed people on the purple list found out
[UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION
I think the uncivility cuts both ways, and many of the people who complain of it engage in it themselves. So because the bad behavior is a two-way street, I suspect that there may also be a desire to control what is being said in the guise of controlling manners. I do make a conscious effort to not attack anyone in disagreeing with them, and to stick strictly to the merits of the discussion. I have not had a problem from most posters, except that my criticism of UCD has caused me to become an untouchable, if you will, among its supporters. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Fwd: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:55:30 -0400 I take this that you don't credit my views, and those who agree with them, that it really is the behavior and not the content.? Of course, it's difficult to define civility, but apparently most of us agree we can know it when we see it.? My question for you is, do you indeed stand in support of the uncontrolled list, viewing the poor conduct you agree has occurred as intractable or superior to the possibility that people will be restricted in some fashion is they can't act properly? You certainly have strong views on some things, and are grounded in actual involvement.? If everyone made up a list of people who are jerks on the list, I don't think you'd show up.? You say your piece without being uncivil. I don't think anyone would ban you, me or Wilma from a list for being anti-social, regardless of what we had to say. Paul -Original Message- From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 2:44 pm Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION] I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of reasons, but my primary one is this:? While Melani claims that there would be civilized conversation, what I fear it will actually be is sanitized conversation.? ? While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list, that has been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims give as good as they get, and just as often send inflammatory posts themselves: remember Serial Liar sends misleading information? How about cheap, greedy, slumlords, Napoleon complex frugal fanatic? A poster in this current thread, Phillip Forrest, sent an ugly post that suggested that, rather than his own use of the delete key, Glenn should kill himself, but somehow that was not viewed as being part of the problem. Isn't sending information as a front for UCD just as misleading? Couldn't the organized effort to enact the BID with carefully planted information be just as easily labeled a conspiracy?? ? What I see as a problem is how will uncivilized be defined on the new list. To me it seems that much of what is being claimed is uncivilized is often a disagreement with the ideas being expressed. I make no secret of the fact that I don't agree with the BID or with what I view as Penn and its supporters having an undue hand in the direction of this neighborhood. That is an unpopular view among those who want Penn's involvement or who make huge business profits because of it. I have not been attacked on the listserv for my opinoins, but I have already been shunned in person for taking that stance.? ? My question is this: What is meant by cilvilized an uncivilized? Is this REALLY a concern about the tone, or is there also a concern about the ideas expressed?Would I be banned for posting things critical of UCD? Or for defending John Fenton (the post-Malcolm X Park John Fenton, not the pre-Malcolm X Park John Fenton). Or will the new list be a forum wherein like-minded people can get together and make unchallenged claiims? Would Phillip Forrest's ugly suggestion that Glenn kill himself get Phillip banned?? ? Karen Allen? ? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC] Since the real reason for the new list is...? Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT? ? ? In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:? ..Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he was being? childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He started it because? the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic and insulting.? It's also becoming a crowded room (virtually speaking) with some loud voices? trying to drown out the once speaking in a normal tone. Some people do act? like they own this list and like to think that they can dictate and frame the? conversation and debates that occur here. Many people have started doing the? serial deleting of [UC]-labelled emails, because it's become less relevant and? helpful to the average
Re: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION
Wow. This is really interesting to me. Can you explain the behavior that leads you to say this? You can email me privately if you'd rather. Frankus Sleek. Edgy. Infintely flexible. On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:55 PM, KAREN ALLEN wrote: except that my criticism of UCD has caused me to become an untouchable, if you will, among its supporters. 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.
