On 4/29/2011 12:30 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part, however the general
tone of most of Glenn's emails is that the public is excluded from use
of the park, of which I have seen little evidence
Darco,
You just did it again. Maybe if you would work on your reading skills,
you would not be so annoyed and annoying. This is completely untrue!
I have reported for the past 10 years that the public, and park user
groups, have been intentionally excluded from the park planning meetings
and the backroom deals regarding major changes to Clark Park. Why do
you continue to seriously misrepresent my positions and then get annoyed
at the false positions?
If you agree with my big picture view, as you say, you would know that I
am committed to the principals of democratic societies. Transparency
and inclusion are the most fundamental principles of a republic, and
when a society abandons these they will always lose their rights. Those
principles and rights are not just vital for national issues but also
for local issues. The idea that these principles can be abandoned in
hopes of trickle down corporate money, and brought back when it's
"really important" is absurd. That is the stupidity that caused the
collapsing of America, and the evil that is being done to my oppressed
brothers and sisters around the planet !
This slippery slope of part time principles, that you seem to have faith
in, was rampant in this neighborhood. It compelled me to stand up to the
mad rush for plutocracy, which was obvious under the Penn gentrification
model ten years ago. I knew that I would be abused for taking a
principled stand and for trying to get our sleepwalking neighbors to
wake up! I happened to be quite involved with Clark Park when Penn
decided to "save" the neighborhood, and called me and my neighbors
criminals! I was in the position to "blow the whistle" and have always
considered it my duty.
"I grow weary of his long rants and little factual evidence regarding
the local conspiracy."
What annoyed others, who've told me to shut up, was the incredible body
of evidence that I made public using this listserv! Each time I
publicly demanded the time, date, and location of secret meetings, I was
in fact providing evidence that the public was excluded!
Other readers could watch and see that West, Siano, etc. never ever gave
the meeting information, but instead responded with a blitz of mean
spirited comments attacking my character. They could look at the
University City Review and see that the meetings, which should have been
announced by order of the members of FOCP, were never there! And they
were able to know that secret meetings were taking place at which they
were unwelcome. The readers on this list have watched this evidence for
years. I've continuously proved that these meetings were not public.
Today, the Clark Park Partnership calls this exclusion, "invitation only
meetings." It's fact and if you don't believe me then you need to do a
little work.
What other evidence can I show you from secret meetings which none of us
attended? Some people have recently thanked me for my dedication to
blowing the whistle, and others who are not on this list, told me that
they didn't know that these abuses were occurring. BUT THEY WISHED THEY HAD
How do you respond to important evidence?
Darco writes: "My point is, the best evidence that Glenn can come up
with is his denial to be on the dog committee. I can fully understand
that, since I've rarely seen evidence of Glenn being compromising."
So your response to evidence is nothing more than ad hominem! Ad
hominem is a fallacy of logic too. For the past few years, FOCP leaders
have claimed that their members can always join any committee, and I
alone was unwelcome because I'm selfish. I provided you evidence that
proved that was not true, whether or not you have the ability to
understand it. It also proved that FOCP leaders continued to lie about
inclusion continuously over many years. Why should I look for more
evidence for you, when you can't understand it, and simply dismiss it as
proof of my bad character?
Regarding FOCP leaders, I'm not having a debate with reasonable mature
neighbors. I've concentrated on exposing bullying, lies, processes
unacceptable to any neighborhood in a democratic society, etc. Under
these conditions, compromising is an absurd choice for your words. How
exactly does one compromise when power is abused to bully? How did I
organize Clark Park festivals, volleyball, and work on a world class
health care research team, if I don't have the ability to work well with
mature reasonable adults?
Darco writes: "Does Penn have an idea of what they want to see in Clark
Park, the neighborhood, and the City? Of course they do -- they have a
vested interest in all of that. Are they not supposed to voice their
opinions?"
Here we go again. Who ever suggested that Penn shouldn't have a voice?
I have maintained that Penn has no right to make backroom deals while
intentionally excluding all of our voices! Can't you understand the
difference? The parks belong to all the people of Philadelphia not
Penn. The department of Recreation works for the taxpayers and is
required to protect the rights of all citizens as directed by the US
Constitution.
How is demanding the right for all to participate and receive honest
information "misinterpreted" as a demand to exclude Penn's voice?
"Now Glenn will surely say I am being assimilated and will shortly
become a puppet of the evil FOCP."
No, Glenn will say, stop acting like those jerks, if you want to have
serious discussions with reasonable people. I can't accept an apology
starting with a falsehood.
