> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:39:57 -0500> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> UnivCity@list.purple.com> Subject: Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community
> man?> > Bullshit, Karen. You know better.
Tony,
I seem to recall you saying that you left this list because it was uncivil.
Yet, you're back here cursing at me because you disagree with me. Or apparantly
because I disagree with you.
Please show me where in any of MY (not anyone else's) discourse did I curse at
you or show you any similar disrespect. Or is the act of disagreeing with you
in itself being disrespectful?
I don't care how you or anyone else on the list talk to each other. I
personally do not curse at people, and I will not tolerate being cursed at.
Ever. I am not going to be bullied with profanity, and I am not intimidated by
verbosity.
> I urge that we all write, all the time, as if we are writing in public > --
> and read as if we are reading in private.
This from someone who just cursed at me out of the blue.
BTW: I stand by what I said. Those were not public meetings because the proper
notice did not go out, and people outside the target audience of members did
not have an opportunity to attend. Even SHCA President Cindy Roberts admitted
that the Spruce Hill meeting was not public when Chris O'Donnell challenged it
on that basis. Lussenhop cannot go before any Zoning or any other official body
that requires public meetings and claim that these meetings satisfied that
requirement. And cursing at me won't change that.
> I am a tolerant man. Every public communication medium should be > respected,
> in my view; just cut it the slack that it needs.Why are you > so hostile to
> other forms of public communication? Let's everybody get > away from this
> internet rage
What??? I don't even know what you're talking about. As far as hostility is
concerned, you're the one bringing that subject up, and you're the one cursing,
so who's hostile?
Karen Allen
> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:39:57 -0500> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> UnivCity@list.purple.com> Subject: Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community
> man?> > Bullshit, Karen. You know better.> > Lussenhop didn't "run" either of
> these meetings and I never said he did. > Other people ran them: Glenn Bryan
> at 1st Thursday and Cindy Roberts at > SHCA. Lussenhop showed up,
> disseminated information and answered > questions at them. This is a sin?> >
> These meetings were not "public" in the sense that they met the > standards
> for ZBA public meetings. But Lussenhop never claimed they did.> > They were
> "public" in exactly the same sense the UC-list publications we > are now
> reading, are "public". Well, they are and they aren't. Obviously > UC-list
> can't be fully public because its participation is restricted to > people
> with access to computers. Yet it is not wrong for Karen to write > on
> UC-list. If it is not wrong for Karen to communicate on UC-list, it > is not
> wrong for Lussenhop to communicate at 1st Thursday. You are equal > neighbors
> and you have equal right of free public speech in any forum is > available.>
> > I am a tolerant man. Every public communication medium should be >
> respected, in my view; just cut it the slack that it needs.Why are you > so
> hostile to other forms of public communication? Let's everybody get > away
> from this internet rage.> > I urge that we all write, all the time, as if we
> are writing in public > -- and read as if we are reading in private.> > --
> Tony West> > > > KAREN ALLEN wrote:> > Tony,> > > > If you are willilng to
> bear witness that Lussenhop ran "open and > > public meetings", I will bear
> witness that that is totally untrue. He > > spoke in front of a membership
> organization's election meeting, which > > was advertised only to the
> members, not to anyone who was not a > > member, and Lussenhop's presentation
> was not even on the agenda. Even > > members were excluded if they chose not
> to attend the meeting because > > they were not interested in what was stated
> on the agenda.> > > > Lussenhop spoke to those who happened to be present, or
> who had heard > > by other means that he was going to speak. I knew to show
> up because > > the project archetect told the HC that Lussenhop was going to
> a > > "public" meeting the following Tuesday.> > > > Spruce Hill did not
> extend the opportunity to all interested parties > > to hear his
> presentation. That is not public. > > > > > > > ----> 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>.
