----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:31 PM
Subject: Integrity [was: Re: [UC] Surveys]
In a message dated 3/7/08 11:23:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It’s like asking a group of freshman, should Mr. Smith receive heart
surgery or antibiotics? The sample may have many reasons for their choice
including flipping a coin. The only right answer is that forming an opinion on
the basis of this information has no value and pretending it does is
irresponsible. Statistics are only relevant if you know what opinion you’re
measuring and if the sample has sufficient and accurate information.
I agree, Glenn, and I would suggest that the signed petitions opposing the
hotel project also have this same flaw: we don't know what information was
given to the signers before they put their names on the paper.
Lamond, you don’t even know what I’m talking about. But you are grasping at
straws attempting your trademark attempt to discredit your opponents with
nothing.
Individuals could always provide false information before collecting petition
signatures or surveys. Any other comparison between presenting petitions and
presenting research evidence is ridiculous. It would be like comparing apples
and snakes. You wouldn't understand.
Your attempt to suggest that someone misled a signator, because of not having
a discussion of each part of a dog and pony show by an outfit with no
credibility, wouldn’t hold up even if someone trustworthy presented it. The
dramatization, the probing questions with your friend, and your interpretation
would be called grasping at straws. But the account would need to be given by
someone with credibility or it would just look like another dishonest
manufactured attempt to personally attack the opposition.
Of course, you immediately think of your neighbors providing dishonest
information because dishonest information is the usual technique of you and the
anointed, as is generalizing and asserting your agendas as the community goals.
I’ve never heard the anti-hotel petition gatherers ever claim to speak for the
community like the anointed do.
I believe your discovery of a "flaw" is partly psychological projection based
on your own devotion to misinformation. And of course, your willingness to make
unfounded personal attacks.
Credibility and integrity:
July 30, 2007, Melani writes about [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
"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..."
And you write,
"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?"
You were wrong about every part of this!
You were part of a group that attempted to intimidate the entire public list
by leaving "uncivil conduct" undefined, as well as the identities of the
uncivil ranters, other than me, unidentified. Your justifications for barking
cheese were obviously a personal attack to intimidate/embarrass a few of us for
dissent against gang rule. And you tried to intimidate everyone with your
gang’s power over dissent through your connection to the powerful Penn computer
system.
But others and I also explained, that from our experience, your gang was
setting up a protected environment.
All of you would be able to continue to launch your usual uncivil attempts to
destroy discussion on the real public list while having a protected environment
to spread misinformation to new subscribers recruited from Penn and
disingenuously point to your protected "good neighbor" misinformation as
support for projects like the hotel.
Mysteriously, as soon as the hotel issue heats up, poor Kyle has trouble with
Spam. Why didn’t any other Annenberg lists described as "public" close their
archives at that time? You are causing a potential embarrassment for Annenberg
which is advertising your protected good neighbor environment as public.
It is laughable for you to accuse any of the petition gatherers of a lack of
integrity. Several of us ranters tried to explain to you personally that one
day we would be vindicated and you would be a laughing stock if you kept this
behavior. That day has arrived!
"If only all of our neighbors would show that amount of honesty and
integrity!"
This statement, coming from you, is called hypocrisy! You should have paid
attention to Roger.
You have never attempted to engage me or others in honest civil debate or
discussion. I will treat you the way you deserve until you stop the
personal attacks, apologize to the list and the community for your consistent
and obvious betrayal, and stop your uncivil obfuscatory tactics.
Laughing at you,
Mr. Moyer
For example, I received a phone call from a friend who had been asked to
sign, and knew that I didn't oppose the project. So she wanted to get another
viewpoint before committing. How many folks take the time to do that, seek out
other points of view to see if they, too, have some validity?
She said she'd been told that the petition circulator was concerned about the
shadows the tall building would cause.
Yes, I said, the developer's shadow study indicated that there would indeed
be shadows in winter - but not at other times of the year.
There was silence from her end of the phone.
I asked if the petition circulator had said that she or he DIDN'T BELIEVE the
developer's shadow study results.
The silence on her end continued.
Didn't they TELL you about the shadow study? I asked.
No, she replied.
So, if she'd signed the petition based on a concern about shadows, she'd have
been signing without full information, without an honest explanation of the
pros and cons of the situation.
When he was president of Cedar Park Neighbors, Roger Harman made a great
impression on me with his habit of always giving both sides of the picture,
even when he was hoping to promote one rather than the other. He always stated
the case he hoped would prevail, but then continued, saying "ON THE OTHER
HAND," and launching into an explanation of the other point of view.
If only all of our neighbors would show that amount of honesty and integrity!
- Melani Lamond
Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax 215-222-1101
**************
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
(http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1317 - Release Date: 3/7/2008
8:15 AM
