Hey buddy, Good to hear from you. Let me try to respond to some of your thoughts in your last two posts.
I can understand your frustrations with these folks. The ganging up, the lies, misinformation, and personal attacks have bothered me since I first came to the list. I saw immediately that the ganging and tactics were the same as those employed in the civic association process that I had suffered through for several years. This stuff is terrible when an individual is targeted. You see the great lengths to which I go to mitigate the damage to readers. Sometimes correcting lies requires posts that push the attention and reading limits of the "Who wants to be a millionaire" generation Part of me is hoping as Kirk suggested that these folks might isolate themselves on the censorship list and unsubscribe from this public list. But there is an important reason to accept the delete key besides the slippery slope of blacklisting. It's like the bad news in the newspaper. We need to know about the bad things too. Look at the example of the FOCP leaders. Because of this list, the subscribers really had a chance to see the leaders as they truly are and not between the lines of the bullshit of their newsletters, the Quest, and the Public Record. Had we banned West and Siano, or not seen the ranting of the VP Leswing and the ad hominem announcement by West's assistant, President Snyder, the people could not have seen the truth about the character of these organizational leaders. I prefer the combination of the delete key and expository responses to the lies, misinformation and ganging up from folks like Cassidy and Melani. I could give example after example but giving these individuals the platform to expose themselves publicly was much more powerful than my lone uncorroborated truthful anecdotes. I'm bothered that so many people see fake politeness as civil while they approve the bullying tactics, lies, and misinformation. Where does the real damage and intimidation arise? I was glad to see Kimm stand up to West. Confronting these people is much better than banning them. Kimm was not being uncivil because of her tone and because confronting West might bring embarrassment to him. The embarrassment is caused by Wests' posts not because Kimm stood up to him with principals and courage. She was standing up for other neighbors who are often intimidated by the free pass given to these so called civic leaders as they gang up on any dissent with a set of tactics that is anything but civil. Forget about tone for a moment and compare the posts of Kimm and West. The lies are the source of incivility even if they try to sugar coat their language. Melani's insinuation towards me under the protection of Cassidy's censorship was a prime example. She is so sweet to her fellow BID supporter, Cassidy, while she insinuates that I am likely to do some criminal retaliation against him. As Al pointed out, Melani is constantly asserting these evil thoughts in the minds of others that she has the ability to discover through her mind reading. Is this so much more civil than calling her an idiot for making such statements? Isn't it better that the 300+ subscribers see Melani's character rather than reading her stupid quotes in every pro Penn real estate fiction printed around the world? At least we subscribers get to ask, is this the type of leader Penn anoints to rule the neighborhood? Think about the importance of letting those "leaders" show who they really are on a public unmoderated list. It makes that delete key seem like the best option for a community discussion list. Take care. Your buddy, Glenn ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Incorrigible list leaders Thank you for responding Kimm. And now for something completely different: Michael Smerconish writes in the paper today about new words "hatriolic" which he never defines but claims credit for inventing. Somehow, it sounds like a good bunch of posts here. And better, "bloviate" meaning "to speak at great length in a pompous manner." In my book, this applies to some of our top posters. Somehow, I bet none of them think I'm talking about them. For those of you with your shorts all pulled up about the new list, please take a stand: is everything fine with this list or not? If it's fine, we disagree. If its not fine, what do you propose? Paul -----Original Message----- From: Kimm Tynan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 9:04 pm Subject: Re: [UC] Incorrigible list leaders Bravo. Very well said. Kimm On 7/29/07 3:31 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Neighbors, As is typical for our list, people are tending to exaggerate on both ends of the issue: either there is no issue (characterized by the "that's what the delete button is for defense" which posits that anything goes is a suitable standard of conduct) or that the new list is anti-democratic, insular, opposed to debate and dissent, etc. It's too bad that Ross discontinued his monthly statistical report on list volume, top posters and top topics. It helped to quantify the traffic and made it easier to see what was going on conversation wise. In my view, the stats were a useful social control mechanism because the top 10 posters were publicly identified for talking so much. I had on several occasions used the stats to urge that the big talkers be more circumspect and to consider that their content didn't match their contribution; more likely, it was the opposite. So one problem with the list is that the volume is often burdensome, and that the value of the posts is steadily dropping. To those who see the delete button as the answer to volume, I completely disagree. I guess you enjoy spam, junk mail and telephone solicitation, since you can use the delete button, the recycling can or the hang up and feel fine that you have not lost any time, or felt the need to check items for lack of value before discarding them. Others have said its like going to a party and seeing a jerk there who talks too much, is rude, etc and you worry not as you can simply walk away. Me, I say if I keep going to parties and there are 5 jerks I will likely encounter and have to extricate myself from their yammering, maybe its easier to stop going to the parties, or host one myself and not invite them. As to content, I'm not so much opposed to disagreement and dialogue. What bothers me is the lack of civility especially common among many big posters. Name calling (including intentional reversal of names, use of last names or diminutives as insults, gender based attacks, etc), open hostility, personal attacks, etc., are included routinely in a lot of posts. It is also apparent that there are pairings of people who are unable to stop themselves from answering their opponents, no matter what they say or how they say it, right or wrong, etc., as if they were former romantic partners who never could forgive and forget. This also takes the form of people ceaselessly engaged in some kind of propaganda campaign to support their personal political goals, continually talking, inserting their issue in every context, caring not if they are boring everyone else to tears and being nasty to boot. These entrenched behaviors, which resist all attempts by others for moderation or change, are causing the demise of the list. One thing that bothers me the most, and should bother those who view the list as a community communication device, a democratic tool, and the embodiment of free speech, is the cumulative impact of the big talkers and the rude: they have suppressed communication from what appears to be the large majority of the list. Those members, certainly with valuable knowledge and opinions, post rarely or not at all, electing instead to hunt for the occasional post of value, like people panning for gold. They have things to say but have learned it could lead to attacks, pigeon holing, etc., which just isn't worth it to them. Who misses out from that? Our founding father evidently made a decision that he valued free communication at any cost, so he will not do much by way of setting rules of conduct or ejecting those who won't follow them. So what we have is a free for all by design. People can control themselves, or yield to group pressure in the absence of external controls. It appears that these efforts have failed. So I don't think its about content, diversity or debate, its about civility, promoting real dialogue and controlling anti-social behavior. Paul ps Wilma is not the kind of person that is the problem. She actually thinks and responds. She brings her views and is capable of changing them and even apologizing when she's wrong. And I doubt she's made it in the top 10. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.23/924 - Release Date: 7/28/2007 3:50 PM
