*deep breath* *points* *laughs* *laughs* *laughs* *pause* *deep breath* *points* *laughs* *laughs* *laughs* -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 4:24 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Participation on the censored list
Dear neighbors, I understand that some neighbors want announcements to go out to the most people but I would like people to consider the implications of supporting the censored Penn list called UC Neighbors. The problems: The censored list is linked throughout the Penn network. It cloaks the fact that this is a censored list. It hides the list of subscribers and new people referred to it from the extensive Penn network would believe that the printed standards for the use of Penn electronic resources would be true. They would not know why they disappeared or could not subscribe to it. The world would read it and believe it to be a real discussion by neighborhood residents expressing sentiments representative of the general public. Penn may eventually have to either support the UC Neighbors list censorship or cut it off and reprimand or punish the employees involved. Read the rules for the use of electronic resources and you will see how UC Neighbors is both cloaked by these and seriously antithetical to the principals and appropriate standards. When barking cheese was founded, Cassidy and melani claimed civility as the cause. But the founders of barking cheese were the cause of the majority of incivility here. Their return to this list is very powerful evidence. When the founders of the censored list left temporarily to establish a good neighbor's list, civility here was immediately restored. As they return to destroy the discussion about the secret hotel project and intimidate our list mates, incivility on the list is immediately restored. This is a powerful type of evidence. And why were the 5 or 6 to be banned never identified? We might immediately think it is only based on the civility issue. Of course, how could those claiming the need for the power to censor compare themselves to those to be banned? Of course, they could not on the basis of civility. So, we give them a free pass on that lie, OK. But the even more important part is that they sent the message to everyone that you better not cross the gang ideology. Don't you see that "5 or 6 ranters" claim is a changing group. Otherwise, all 5 or 6 would have been identified and the posts cited! The message is clear what will happen if any one out there expresses anything contrary to the ideology of those in charge. Intimidation by ideology demands that those 5 or 6 people be left unidentified and without support of wrongdoing. It's a dishonest tactic to intimidate, period. That I am explaining what is actually occurring rather than putting this in some dark ages fantasy fiction is horrifying. Some years ago, I would have thought this serious issue obvious to the vast majority of American citizens. OK. Some folks want to go back and forth between the public list but post their announcements on the censored list too. I don't mean it disrespectfully, but please consider how you are sending support for censorship and abuse of power by doing so. Look at this quote from the beginning of the cloaked censored "discussion" list: "Actually, 370 as of today. Impossible to tell how many of those subscriber addresses are still active. On 7/27/07, Kyle Cassidy < <http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ucneighbors> kcassidy at asc.upenn.edu> wrote: > > > there are three of us on it now. there are only 300 people on the uc > list. i don't think 600 would be difficult to get. > >" OK. Cassidy and Melani want to compete and displace one of the most important respected forums for discussion of local area issues. But they are not using a yahoo or myspace account to attempt this. THEY ARE USING THE POWER OF THE U OF P COMPUTER NETWORK THEORETICALLY GUIDED BY THE RULES FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY ELECTRONIC RESOURCES. The entire existence of this censored list is to create a safe environment for astroturfing and spreading misinformation not be an alternative for civil discussion and community announcements. That's the use it is disguised to provide, the cover. Isn't the gang's willful destruction of the discussion of community issues apparent to everyone at this point?? The set-up of this censored list as a good neighbor list is an obvious fraud. And we should be enough aware of the meaning of free speech and our society principals to condemn it All of the members of the community aware of these details need to consider your participation with a censored Penn list. I kid you not, there may come a time that you regret making cross posts and supporting it. The problems with barking cheese are tremendous. I like many of the individuals trying to make these cross posts and trying to support this censorship list. Please, please reconsider participating with it. Let's remember what history has shown us about being blind at the beginnings of these terrible signs in our midst. Just because everyone is ignoring principal and joining these movements does not always mean that individuals escape culpability or collaboration accusations when the movement is discredited. Please think seriously about the censorship and participation. I offer this with all due respect and seriousness. Your neighbor, Glenn
