Tony, To my observation, Ray¹s posts are typically criticisms of institutions and their activities in the public arena, which is entirely appropriate in an open democratic society. Of course, those institutions are made up of individual people, and often criticism or analysis of the activities of those institutions necessarily involves the leaders or other participants who act for the institution, but that comes with the territory of choosing to participate in public and civic life. If people take criticism of their institutions personally, or want to play a public role without being publicly accountable for their decisions and acts, they should get out of the public arena. That¹s a very different thing than singling out an individual for a campaign of relentless, nasty, personal attacks on private matters. Characterizing Ray¹s criticisms or questioning of civic institutions as ³attacking neighbors² confuses the individual and the institution, the public realm and the private. It¹s also ³spin.²
And libel is not a ³crime.² Kimm On 7/29/07 11:43 PM, "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kimm, > > Since 2002 at least, most of Ray's posts have been directed at making false > claims about the community activities of his neighbors. He does so, in large > part, by faking printed documents that suggest his neighbors are conducting > baleful, secret activities at the behest of Ray's own employer, whenever they > attempt to improve the neighborhood by cashing a check from his employer, > which he himself does week after week. > > It's always been a one-way street, Kimm. I can't think of a single community > group that had targeted Ray, or lied about him incessantly in print, during > all those years; can you? In any case, why should non-Penn-dependent neighbors > be constantly lectured by this Penn employee about our supposed dependence on > Penn money? Ray has no sense of irony, but how about you? > > Ray has a problem with dishonesty. He likes to fake evidence against his > targets, who typically aren't doing anything that is illegal, or disrespectful > to the community, or, for the most part, doing anything, day in and day out, > that he doesn't do himself (i.e., live off Penn) as all can see. > > There's the difference between "ad hominem" and factual. If Ray never attacked > a neighbor for accepting money from Penn, nobody would ever think of attacking > him for doing it himself. The aggressive impulse has always originated in Ray. > Have you not noticed that? > > After five years of rejected courtesies, I am no model of civility. The > problem remains for all UC-list subscribers: when a fellow subscriber > repeatedly commits libel, how do we help shape a healthy communal response to > this crime? > > Your response may not be the same as mine, Kimm. In fact, we may need a > diversity of responses. > > -- Tony West > > Kimm Tynan wrote: >> Re: [UC] On name-calling >> Mmmm. I don¹t think you are doing so well in applying your standards. I¹ve >> seen you post your own share of surprisingly vicious, personal, ad hominem >> posts on this list, mostly directed at Ray, and your inclination to do so has >> not contributed to the quality of the content of this list. I¹m open to the >> prospect that anyone can lose their temper now and then. But you are no >> model of civility. I offer that fully realizing that, I may well not be >> either. >> >> Cheers! >> >> Kimm >> >> > >
