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 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 list members. Anyone can sign up, and the
archives?
>are public, so even non members can read what's written. There's no?
>conspiracy and lots of transparency.?
>?
>I'm afraid that "spoof" addresses have been posted more often than the
>actual?
>one for Kyle's new list, so I'll include it again here to counteract the?
>usual poster of misinformation.?
>?
>?http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ucneighbors?
>?
>- Melani Lamond?
>?
>?
>**************************************?
> Get a sneak peek of the?
>all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour?
?
----?
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>.?
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
