So, who is Committeeman7? [was: Re: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job]
Tony, thank you for this thorough and important update. A question remains about the person who posted about it to our listserv. My guess, now, is that our anonymous poster, Committeeman7, is either affiliated with the Councilwoman's office or has inside information from the Councilwoman's office. Why doesn't the person simply identify him/her/self and be honest and open with us? Why operate secretly? Why didn't Jannie's office confirm their plans for the first Thursday meeting when Tony called, if they were collecting signatures and planning to ask for support? What were they hiding? Have they missed all the calls on this list for transparency and process? Melani Lamond ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: So, who is Committeeman7? [was: Re: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job]
I Googled Committeeman7 and did not find anything. Jim Cummings On 6/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tony, thank you for this thorough and important update. A question remains about the person who posted about it to our listserv. My guess, now, is that our anonymous poster, Committeeman7, is either affiliated with the Councilwoman's office or has inside information from the Councilwoman's office. Why doesn't the person simply identify him/her/self and be honest and open with us? Why operate secretly? Why didn't Jannie's office confirm their plans for the first Thursday meeting when Tony called, if they were collecting signatures and planning to ask for support? What were they hiding? Have they missed all the calls on this list for transparency and process? Melani Lamond ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- Jim Cummings 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: So, who is Committeeman7? [was: Re: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job]
I believe the Councilwoman was sincere when she said on Tuesday she had not yet made up her mind whether to attend First Thursday at all. Close of session is a very busy time for Council Persons. So while the anonymous poster may have had some connection with her organization, I don't believe he was carrying out orders from above. Most likely, the flow of events from Tuesday to Thursday pushed Blackwell into deciding to act. I know that some of the things she spoke publicly this morning have been on her mind for a long time. -- Tony West My guess, now, is that our anonymous poster, Committeeman7, is either affiliated with the Councilwoman's office or has inside information from the Councilwoman's office. Why doesn't the person simply identify him/her/self and be honest and open with us? Why operate secretly? Why didn't Jannie's office confirm their plans for the first Thursday meeting when Tony called, if they were collecting signatures and planning to ask for support? What were they hiding? Have they missed all the calls on this list for transparency and process? Melani Lamond
Re: So, who is Committeeman7? [was: Re: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job]
I prefer attribution, but I understand why someone might not want to expose themselves to the rampant paranoia, profligate speculation and general nastiness that began to swirl around the 'offending' post, long before a beginner might have twigged to list etiquette (or not) or a more adept sender might have discovered an address oversight. Many of our senders are known by insider nicknames. Some of us include to much in our signatures, others too little, some assume the E-address says it all. I'm fairly fearless, but the remarks are so awful that I'd be reluctant to admit to being the poster. One irony, the post turned out to be accurate, and still the poster is referred to as dishonest. Meanwhile, among the latest gentle requests for introduction... Cassidy wrote: I'd say it's relevant because: ... So the question why did committeeman7 make the post and then leave Glenn to fend for himself amongst the jackles? I think is relevant. And now we discover that it was probably someone who was at the meeting or who works for someone who was at the meeting Maybe it was UCD! In a message dated 6/7/2007 11:05:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Really? Our little list of over 300 University City folks who care enough about what's happening in this community to stay aboard, despite having to endure frequently nasty exchanges and messages? We don't count? We can be lied to, or spoken to anonymously by folks who refuse to reveal their identities? According to Tony's report, the first Thursday meeting ... asked that UCD policies in general be made public. What about the Councilwoman's office's policies? Shouldn't they be public also? We elect her; should her office and/or her supporters be sending anonymous emails to the listserv? Or was it sent by an anonymous supporter of John Fenton? Or somebody who just guessed about today's meeting, and just happened to be right? In any case, what is to be gained by adding new layers of secrecy to neighborhood processes? Committeeman7 knew what was going to happen today and is probably reading my questions on the list now. Who is he, or she, and why is this person afraid to identify him or herself? ... and... My guess, now, is that our anonymous poster, Committeeman7, is either affiliated with the Councilwoman's office or has inside information from the Councilwoman's office. Why doesn't the person simply identify him/her/self and be honest and open with us? Why operate secretly? Why didn't Jannie's office confirm their plans for the first Thursday meeting when Tony called, if they were collecting signatures and planning to ask for support? What were they hiding? Have they missed all the calls on this list for transparency and process? Melani Lamond Best! Liz On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:35:05 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tony, thank you for this thorough and important update. A question remains about the person who posted about it to our listserv. My guess, now, is that our anonymous poster, Committeeman7, is either affiliated with the Councilwoman's office or has inside information from the Councilwoman's office. Why doesn't the person simply identify him/her/self and be honest and open with us? Why operate secretly? Why didn't Jannie's office confirm their plans for the first Thursday meeting when Tony called, if they were collecting signatures and planning to ask for support? What were they hiding? Have they missed all the calls on this list for transparency and process? Melani Lamond
Re: So, who is Committeeman7? [was: Re: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job]
On 6/7/07, Elizabeth F Campion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I prefer attribution, but I understand why someone might not want to expose themselves to the rampant paranoia, profligate speculation and general nastiness that began to swirl around the 'offending' post, long before a beginner might have twigged to list etiquette (or not) or a more adept sender might have discovered an address oversight. Many of our senders are known by insider nicknames. Some of us include to much in our signatures, others too little, some assume the E-address says it all. Liz, I fail to understand why you're putting so much energy into defending the practice of anonymous posting, which even the most hopeless newbie realizes is a vile and scummy practice. There is absolutely no excuse for sending messages under false names to a public email list. In fact, it is technically illegal, although I can't cite the statute at the moment. WTF is wrong with you today??? -- Ross Bender http://rossbender.org/mqrtoc.html Ph.D. in Love, Columbia University D.Hon. Bob Jones University Certificate in Cognitive Science, Institute of Glottopsychiatry, University of Waterloo Chevalier, Legion d'Honneur Lt., (Ret.) Queen's African Rifles Voted Most Likely to Succeed, Goshen High School, 1967
