Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man?
Why do you guys (and you know who you are) have so much trouble keeping discussion non-personal, mean-spirited or calm? Cindy that is a good question. What happened to this list after the censored Penn list was set up and the founders were attempting to portray it as a good neighbors list for civil discussion ? We saw the people on this public list were able to engage in civil discourse, disagree with each other, etc. The difference was like night and day! The censored list was always intended to intimidate any real discussion. Go over to the Penn list and you will see that it provides a vehicle for spreading misinformation and the corporate agenda in a protected censored environment. This hotel is the first major test of the difference between the discussions. Where are people getting facts, putting together pieces on the issue, and discussing this process openly and honestly? Where do people come when they want a real discussion? Cindy, this list has emerged as one of the most important forums for discussion of issues in our community! Now, what is the message when those from the protected censored list come to our public discussion? We've been through this before. It is not just the personal attacks but a whole series of fallacious argumentative techniques with one purpose. Shut up, shut up, shut up is the message! Those whom want to engage in secret dealings want the rest of the busy bodies and ranters to shut up and will resort to all of the old tactics. I believe you see me fighting back without a great deal of patience with people who have been calling me names for years. It too looks hostile and I am hostile towards them. I wouldn't expect you to remember how I tried to continue for a long time with discussions to the reasonable people while I was bombarded by attacks, insults, wishes for my death, etc. As I was unwilling to be intimidated, I would be bombarded by this stuff from these characters who always engage with these tactics. We had a discussion about the free pass that seemed to be given and started exposing tactics like the ad hominem, straw man, and red-herring. When that happened the censored list was created. I always assumed that the free pass given to Melani, West, Van Helder, and Cassidy was because the majority of subscribers were intimidated by them and didn't want the same treatment as i received. Now, what are we seeing after this hotel project was outed on this list while the Penn crap was reported in the safety of a censored list? A censored list which was created with the promise of intimidating real discussion? The same cast of characters has come back to the public list with all of the same tricks and personal attacks all designed to destroy or distract the civil discourse. Cindy, if you and others on this list demand that these characters stop when they first start this stuff, I will promise you and the list not to return it to them in equal or greater portions to what they dish out. But when this started again, it just continues and there was not a loud condemnation. If we don't demand that it stops immediately, it not only seriously distracts from the real community discussion, but intimidates all of our fellow subscribers whom are intimidated from expressing their views. People don't want to be called disinterested in the community because they are out of town like Frank. Or called a busybody like Melani did to Karen, and I don't like being called supertroll speaking trogglish by a gang who never ever attempts civil discourse about issues. Thanks for standing up to this, because I don't think any of us want to return to the slinging of crap that we had before the attempt to set up a good neighbors list. When you and others stand up when these clowns start with supertroll comments against individuals engaged with important discussions, the target of the attack does not have to fight back and turn the clock back. You will have my cooperation for now if others stand up too. But I won't keep trying to correct misinformation and wasting time if these clowns persist. They will get one chance and if I then need to call them liars, etc.; I will do so, but I will offer support for why the particular name is appropriate! Thanks again for raising the issue. Sincerely, Glenn - Original Message - From: Cindy Miller To: univcity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man? Really.apologies to Frank. Why do you guys (and you know who you are) have so much trouble keeping discussion non-personal, mean-spirited or calm? I DO have interest in staying informed about this hotel issue, I like to read the various debates, and back-and-forth--but I'm getting ready to start with the Delete key again! Melon Melani ...Super-trollliars Ugh...chill! -cm `·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸º
[UC] An on-line petition and statement of concern, not a survey
Please accept my apology if there's been any confusion on something I posted the other day. I announced (or thought I did) this list that I had put a petition on line, for people in the community to use to express concerns about the proposal for the extended-stay hotel at 40th Pine/Baltimore. (It's at _http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kQBIJJQA5FvBVjpvgKR_2bCg_3d_3d_ (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kQBIJJQA5FvBVjpvgKR_2bCg_3d_3d) if you want to look at and -- at your option -- complete and submit it). This was not meant to be a survey in the sense of getting an indication of pro and con. It uses the survey monkey format for convenience, and I'm sorry if this has caused confusion. Although I'm not against creative uses of the property in question, I strongly oppose the project as presented. The on-line petition is intended to support that opposition. Always at your service ready for a dialog, Al Krigman PS: The University City Review has a very basic for-uncommitted-against survey at their website, for those who want to be counted in this manner. It's on the bottom left-hand corner of _http://www.ucreview.com/_ (http://www.ucreview.com/) ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [UC] the video knows
Anyone on the list have any intuitions about where pressure to change or clarify the rules would best be applied? Andrew, I completely agree with you! PHC does not make transcripts only a synopsis. And I am still waiting for Mr. Farnham to call back to schedule a time for me and a reporter to listen to those tapes. This policy is outrageous. I have been coming to the conclusion that the courts need to be involved as government turns more of the power over to the corporate consortium. I'm thinking a phone call to ACLU is the place. Babbette Josephs is on the Board and I would be happy to connect you off-line to her office. She just placed a letter in the UC Review about the efforts to deal with information at the state level. At the full commission Nov 9, Farnham interrupted the proceedings to announce that the public could have discovered the changes to the Penn plan by coming to his office and asking. Some folks chuckled and Sklaroff said, how would the public know. I made two trips on Tuesday to get what they call transcripts and finally got my hands on the pathetic synopsis for Oct. 23. Except for those tapes which seem to be unavailable without a fight, they intend that synopsis to be the public record! I hope the tape hasn't been shredded! This is about freedom of information and there is no way this could be legal. And something is seriously wrong if the public, you, can't do this job that should be done by the commission staff. My gosh, what if a historic designation had been imposed here to kick poor and lower middle class people out of the neighborhood? Thanks for standing up, Glenn - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 6:07 PM Subject: Re: [UC] the video knows As I noted in passing just after the Architectural Review Committee meeting, I was prevented from making either a video or audio recording of the proceedings. The chairman of the committee had someone check with his legal department in issuing the denial, and I wasn't prepared to push it at that point. My sense was that they may never have faced such a request before, but for public proceedings like that, it seems like a constitutionally indefensible policy. Anyone on the list have any intuitions about where pressure to change or clarify the rules would best be applied? You can take it off-list, and I'll summarize if you prefer. Andrew Quoting UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Anthony West wrote: the architect from Atkin Olshin Schade had a slide of exactly what the new skyline would look like, from Baltimore Ave. You can contact Lussenhop and ask if you can see it. let's see ALL the slides, while we're at it! they could be posted on a (free) publicly-accessible website somewhere (or are they already?) meanwhile, if anyone wants to get a rough idea of the height/scale of what's involved, they can take a walk over to the 3900 block of walnut street, where the radian is being built. it's currently 12 stories tall now (counting the mezzanine as 2 stories) and it butts right up against a 3-story victorian twin (which sits up about 1/2 a story above street-level). so, if you stand on the NE corner of 40th and walnut and look east, you'll get some idea of what an 11-story hotel and a 3 story mansion look like, side by side, and how high up in the sky 11 stories is as you walk away. I don't see how anyone looking at that will then say that's appropriate for 40th and pine, but go see for yourself. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West Ray's falsehoods are more sophisticated, more believable -- Tony West __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ 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. 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date: 11/14/2007 9:27 AM 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.
[UC] An Apology
OK, I am sorry to have impugned our neighbors to the North, the refuge of Loyalists, (Why did they hate General Washington and his rag tag army of patriots?) And for my penance my spiritual director, in his words wants me to write oat a list of all the great Canadians who have enriched our culture while not having the good fortune to have been born under our flag. OK, so here it goes in no special order: Neil Young Joni Mitchell Leonard Cohen Martin Short Robbie Robertson Richard Manuel Garth Hudson Rick Moranis Dave Thomas (not the Wendy's; he's ours) Gordon Lightfoot Bruce Cockburn Paul Schaeffer Rick Danko Bryan Adams Long John Baldry David Clayton Thomas Burton Cummings Celine Dion Michael Buble Denny Doherty Gil Evans Maynard Ferguson Glenn Gould Dallas Green (not the X Phillies Manager) Daniel Lanois Avril LaVigne Guy Lombardo (my mom's rolling in her grave) Alannis Morisette Jim Carey Dan Akroyd Mike Myers Michael J. Fox Phil Hartman Eugene Levy Bernard Lonergan Andrea Martin Atom Egoyan Norm MacDonald Lorne Michaels Leslie Neilson Catherine O'Hara Steve Smith Patti LaBelle (not our singer; the insult comic) George Foreman (not our, the puppeteer) Elvis Presley (the balloon artist, not the King) Barbara Streisand (the nobel physicist, not the singer) Frank Rizzo (the choreographer, not the enforcer) Arnold Schwartznegger (the olymic ice skater, not the Guvernator) Lassie (the scottish dance troupe, not our girl) Lenny Bruce (the ventriloquists, not - you know) Ronald Reagan (the rap artist, not #40) Ronald McDonald (the bag piper, not...) Spike Lee (the violinist, not the...) Vince Fumo(the magician, not...) Evil Kneival (the Dadaist, not) Topo Gigo Ed Sullivan (the bob sled king, not) Bobby Rydell (glass harmonica, not...) Hy Lit (impressionist, not...) Jimmy Hoffa(the lounge singer not...) Beanie Seigal (the poet, not) Renee Chenault-Fattah(Olympic curler, not...) The Philly Phanatic (hall of fame goalie 1966, not) Meryl Lynch (the balloon artist, not...) Frank Sinatra(drummer for the Mutilattos, famous Toronto punk band, not ...the patron Saint of South Philadelphia) my spriitual director said I can stop now. Joe (mea maxima culpa) Clarke 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.
Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man?
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he also tell
the DP that he had already participated in open and public meetings on
this project?
Frank,
Let me confirm. Anything you get from UCD operatives will likely be
unmitigated bullshit!
The Penn team has twice told city officials in public testimony that the
Spruce Hill Zoning committee held open and public forums. Melani, Andrew,
Karen, Lew and I from the list were present when this was first done Oct.
23. Also present were Barry Grossbach of that zoning committee and Chris
O'Donnell. I immediately sent an e-mail, Oct. 26, to SHCA for information
about these reported forums and posted that letter to the list. I NEVER GOT
A RESPONSE.
At the Nov 9, full commission meeting the Penn team added the lie that
another public meeting was planned for this week for the Spruce Hill
neighborhood. We know now that this trick with SHCA was at the center of
that lie. Mike Hardy, Lindsay Johnston, Dan Deritis, Melani, Karen, Mary G
and I were present.
Because we have an active public list, several of us put information
together over the holiday weekend and discovered that SHCA was absolutely in
collusion by planning this without any notification to the public. SHCA
could have notified the public and its members after the Oct 23 astroturfing
was confirmed and before the Nov 13 attempt to give the Penn team cover.
There is no mistake with the dates here.
The fact that West is trying to spin the SHCA trickery as a great public
meeting is to be expected. He is on two UCD committees. Melani and
Lussenhop are also representing the community on UCD committees.
The thing about these lies is that we can rule out a mistake by any
newspaper reporter too. The lies were recorded testimony. While we
couldn't be at the SHCA collaboration supporting these lies, it sounds as
though Chris O'Donnell, who witnessed the lies Oct 23 by the Penn team, and
perhaps others present made sure that SHCA was confronted and confirmed
publicly, Tues was NOT a public meeting.
SHCA tried so hard to keep silent about this that they did not even disclose
Lussenhop's scheduled Tuesday appearance to their own members!! Again there
is no mistake because Barry Grossbach of SHCA was present when the false
testimony was first given Oct. 23. I assume he heard me tell the committee
then that these claims were false. As far as I am concerned, there is no
longer a question whether SHCA was used by Penn or is a full partner in
covering these lies to be used as evidence of false community engagement.
We are now in the phase when members of the barking cheese gang will come to
our list and call me and others liars. I and others will be nut cases
ranting about the hard volunteer work of SHCA which no one wants to hear.
Melani started immediately with her, no one wants to hear from the busy
bodies routine. And the great intellectual West (the bullshit King) is
supporting that Penn presented gobs of information like they had for 17
public meetings about the UCD policy for Clark Park.
You, I and all other little people have a duty to give SHCA $20, watch daily
for all their meetings at the last minute, and be willing to cancel all
plans at the last minute if we discover trickery. We are supposed to accept
that it is our duty to catch them when it all boils down to simple
notification. I don't know if you remember that Tony's hard working FOCP
volunteers were repeatedly too stupid to announce meetings about a complete
redesign of the park last fall! This was to be ignored and what became the
barking cheese gang focused on my unwanted uncivil ranting that no one
wanted to hear. The pattern is always the same.
If the public had found out about the Tues scheme, SHCA would have
rescheduled their meeting for Lussenhop. The no show at Friends of 40th was
an example of an announced meeting being avoided. (It is the only meeting
that was ever announced in the UC Review so Lussenhop didn't show.) {When I
was on the Quality of Life Task Force, I was out of the state when I was
found guilty, a new policy was established, and the Task force was ended!
Outgoing SHCA President Cindy Roberts happened to be involved with that
leading that task force in 2001-2002.}
I wonder how long the public is going to continue to allow this pattern to
continue? Have Penn and the civic association leaders become so bold
because the people are afraid of Penn and barking cheese intimidation? How
can we allow this to continue without standing together as a community?
Take care,
Glenn
- Original Message -
From: Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man?
And we all know he did exactly the opposite when he tried to get the
property de-listed. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he also tell the
DP that he had already participated in open
Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man?
Really.apologies to Frank. Why do you guys (and you know who you are) have so much trouble keeping discussion non-personal, mean-spirited or calm? I DO have interest in staying informed about this hotel issue, I like to read the various debates, and back-and-forth--but I'm getting ready to start with the Delete key again! Melon Melani ...Super-trollliars Ugh...chill! -cm `·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸º On Nov 16, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Frank wrote: Tony, This is the last message I will ever address to you. I don't understand why you and your group always have to make these things personal. I am in Atlanta staying again with a good friend who is having chemotherapy over the course of 4 months. That is more important to me right now than any neighborhood issue. How dare you use that as the basis of a snide comment. It's despicable. The rest of your message is unmitigated bullshit. Frank On Nov 15, 2007, at 11:25 PM, Anthony West wrote: I have no idea what he told the DP, which I don't have a regular chance to read. And I have deeply no idea what the difference is between what he told the DP and what the DP wrote. Writing to fit space is an unavoidable act of analysis, which no one practises perfectly. In my experience -- which we have studied on UC-list, thanks to Ray -- DP journalism is student journalism and is less reliable than most journalism when it strays off campus and attempts to grapple with adult life issues its reporters have not yet had any experience with. In any event, as we all know, open and public is a loose term that means all sorts of different things in all sorts of different contexts. Your criticism is jejune unless you can specify the context. The back bar at Dahlak is properly described as open and public in certain contexts, but not in others. I bear witness that Lussenhop has participated in open and public meetings. I have no idea if these meetings, or any others, meet HC standards for open and public, or even if HC has any standards for its deliberations. All I can say is, he's out there. He's not in Atlanta all the time. -- Tony West And we all know he did exactly the opposite when he tried to get the property de-listed. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he also tell the DP that he had already participated in open and public meetings on this project? Frankus Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible. 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. 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.
[UC] help at Curio Theatre
We are in need of a puppeteer for the run of our holiday show, The Nutcracker. No experience is necessary, teen or adult. The following is a list of rehearsals and perfromance dates. It is a great opportunity to watch a production unfold and be an integral part of the company. If interested please contact Paul Kuhn or Jared Reed at 215-525-1350 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] thank you Monday, November 26, 2007 7-10pm Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7-10pm Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7-10pm Thursday, November 29, 2007 Thanksgiving Friday, November 30, 2007 7-10pm Saturday, December 01, 2007 1-4pm Monday, December 03, 2007 7-10pm Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7-10pm Wednesday, December 05, 2007 7-10pm Thursday, December 06, 2007 7-10pm Friday, December 07, 2007 7pm performance OPENING Saturday, December 08, 2007 2pm and 7pm performances Saturday, December 15, 2007 2pm and 7pm performances Friday, December 21, 2007 7pm performance Saturday, December 22, 2007 2pm and 7pm performances Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7pm performance Thursday, December 27, 2007 7pm performance Friday, December 28, 2007 7pm performance Saturday, December 29, 2007 2pm and 7pm performaces Gay Carducci-Kuhn Education Director Curio Theatre Company 815 S. 48th St. Philadelphia,Pa. 19143 office 215-525-1350 cell 610-368-4450 www.curiotheatre.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment. Buddha - Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.
[UC] Participation on the censored list
Dear neighbors, I understand that some neighbors want announcements to go out to the most people but I would like people to consider the implications of supporting the censored Penn list called UC Neighbors. The problems: The censored list is linked throughout the Penn network. It cloaks the fact that this is a censored list. It hides the list of subscribers and new people referred to it from the extensive Penn network would believe that the printed standards for the use of Penn electronic resources would be true. They would not know why they disappeared or could not subscribe to it. The world would read it and believe it to be a real discussion by neighborhood residents expressing sentiments representative of the general public. Penn may eventually have to either support the UC Neighbors list censorship or cut it off and reprimand or punish the employees involved. Read the rules for the use of electronic resources and you will see how UC Neighbors is both cloaked by these and seriously antithetical to the principals and appropriate standards. When barking cheese was founded, Cassidy and melani claimed civility as the cause. But the founders of barking cheese were the cause of the majority of incivility here. Their return to this list is very powerful evidence. When the founders of the censored list left temporarily to establish a good neighbor's list, civility here was immediately restored. As they return to destroy the discussion about the secret hotel project and intimidate our list mates, incivility on the list is immediately restored. This is a powerful type of evidence. And why were the 5 or 6 to be banned never identified? We might immediately think it is only based on the civility issue. Of course, how could those claiming the need for the power to censor compare themselves to those to be banned? Of course, they could not on the basis of civility. So, we give them a free pass on that lie, OK. But the even more important part is that they sent the message to everyone that you better not cross the gang ideology. Don't you see that 5 or 6 ranters claim is a changing group. Otherwise, all 5 or 6 would have been identified and the posts cited! The message is clear what will happen if any one out there expresses anything contrary to the ideology of those in charge. Intimidation by ideology demands that those 5 or 6 people be left unidentified and without support of wrongdoing. It's a dishonest tactic to intimidate, period. That I am explaining what is actually occurring rather than putting this in some dark ages fantasy fiction is horrifying. Some years ago, I would have thought this serious issue obvious to the vast majority of American citizens. OK. Some folks want to go back and forth between the public list but post their announcements on the censored list too. I don't mean it disrespectfully, but please consider how you are sending support for censorship and abuse of power by doing so. Look at this quote from the beginning of the cloaked censored discussion list: Actually, 370 as of today. Impossible to tell how many of those subscriber addresses are still active. On 7/27/07, Kyle Cassidy kcassidy at asc.upenn.edu wrote:there are three of us on it now. there are only 300 people on the uc list. i don't think 600 would be difficult to get. OK. Cassidy and Melani want to compete and displace one of the most important respected forums for discussion of local area issues. But they are not using a yahoo or myspace account to attempt this. THEY ARE USING THE POWER OF THE U OF P COMPUTER NETWORK THEORETICALLY GUIDED BY THE RULES FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY ELECTRONIC RESOURCES. The entire existence of this censored list is to create a safe environment for astroturfing and spreading misinformation not be an alternative for civil discussion and community announcements. That's the use it is disguised to provide, the cover. Isn't the gang's willful destruction of the discussion of community issues apparent to everyone at this point?? The set-up of this censored list as a good neighbor list is an obvious fraud. And we should be enough aware of the meaning of free speech and our society principals to condemn it All of the members of the community aware of these details need to consider your participation with a censored Penn list. I kid you not, there may come a time that you regret making cross posts and supporting it. The problems with barking cheese are tremendous. I like many of the individuals trying to make these cross posts and trying to support this censorship list. Please, please reconsider participating with it. Let's remember what history has shown us about being blind at the beginnings of these terrible signs in our midst. Just because everyone is ignoring principal and joining these movements does not always mean that individuals escape culpability or collaboration accusations when the movement is discredited. Please
RE: [UC] Participation on the censored list
*deep breath* *points* *laughs* *laughs* *laughs* *pause* *deep breath* *points* *laughs* *laughs* *laughs* -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 4:24 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Participation on the censored list Dear neighbors, I understand that some neighbors want announcements to go out to the most people but I would like people to consider the implications of supporting the censored Penn list called UC Neighbors. The problems: The censored list is linked throughout the Penn network. It cloaks the fact that this is a censored list. It hides the list of subscribers and new people referred to it from the extensive Penn network would believe that the printed standards for the use of Penn electronic resources would be true. They would not know why they disappeared or could not subscribe to it. The world would read it and believe it to be a real discussion by neighborhood residents expressing sentiments representative of the general public. Penn may eventually have to either support the UC Neighbors list censorship or cut it off and reprimand or punish the employees involved. Read the rules for the use of electronic resources and you will see how UC Neighbors is both cloaked by these and seriously antithetical to the principals and appropriate standards. When barking cheese was founded, Cassidy and melani claimed civility as the cause. But the founders of barking cheese were the cause of the majority of incivility here. Their return to this list is very powerful evidence. When the founders of the censored list left temporarily to establish a good neighbor's list, civility here was immediately restored. As they return to destroy the discussion about the secret hotel project and intimidate our list mates, incivility on the list is immediately restored. This is a powerful type of evidence. And why were the 5 or 6 to be banned never identified? We might immediately think it is only based on the civility issue. Of course, how could those claiming the need for the power to censor compare themselves to those to be banned? Of course, they could not on the basis of civility. So, we give them a free pass on that lie, OK. But the even more important part is that they sent the message to everyone that you better not cross the gang ideology. Don't you see that 5 or 6 ranters claim is a changing group. Otherwise, all 5 or 6 would have been identified and the posts cited! The message is clear what will happen if any one out there expresses anything contrary to the ideology of those in charge. Intimidation by ideology demands that those 5 or 6 people be left unidentified and without support of wrongdoing. It's a dishonest tactic to intimidate, period. That I am explaining what is actually occurring rather than putting this in some dark ages fantasy fiction is horrifying. Some years ago, I would have thought this serious issue obvious to the vast majority of American citizens. OK. Some folks want to go back and forth between the public list but post their announcements on the censored list too. I don't mean it disrespectfully, but please consider how you are sending support for censorship and abuse of power by doing so. Look at this quote from the beginning of the cloaked censored discussion list: Actually, 370 as of today. Impossible to tell how many of those subscriber addresses are still active. On 7/27/07, Kyle Cassidy http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ucneighbors kcassidy at asc.upenn.edu wrote:there are three of us on it now. there are only 300 people on the uc list. i don't think 600 would be difficult to get. OK. Cassidy and Melani want to compete and displace one of the most important respected forums for discussion of local area issues. But they are not using a yahoo or myspace account to attempt this. THEY ARE USING THE POWER OF THE U OF P COMPUTER NETWORK THEORETICALLY GUIDED BY THE RULES FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY ELECTRONIC RESOURCES. The entire existence of this censored list is to create a safe environment for astroturfing and spreading misinformation not be an alternative for civil discussion and community announcements. That's the use it is disguised to provide, the cover. Isn't the gang's willful destruction of the discussion of community issues apparent to everyone at this point?? The set-up of this censored list as a good neighbor list is an obvious fraud. And we should be enough aware of the meaning of free speech and our society principals to condemn it All of the members of the community aware of these details need to consider your participation with a censored Penn list. I kid you not, there may come a time that you regret making cross posts and supporting it. The problems with barking cheese are tremendous. I like many of the individuals trying to make these cross posts and trying to support this censorship list. Please, please reconsider
[UC] Abbraccio - 5- 7 PM tonight
Cynthia Preston One volunteer, encouraging many volunteers and creating 3,023 smiles (just this year). Photos from the Squirrel Hill Town Watch and Police SubStation Halloween Haunted Garden 2007 will be on display at ABBRACCIO from November 16 to December 13, 2007. Opening with light refreshments at Abbraccio - 5- 7 PM tonight. Note: Many of the participants are not known to me, so please encourage anyone whose photo is up, to stop in and check out the exhibit and the Restaurant.
Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man?
Frank, I am terribly sorry your friend is so ill. This must be a terribly painful time for you. -- Tony West Tony, This is the last message I will ever address to you. I don't understand why you and your group always have to make these things personal. I am in Atlanta staying again with a good friend who is having chemotherapy over the course of 4 months. That is more important to me right now than any neighborhood issue. How dare you use that as the basis of a snide comment. It's despicable. The rest of your message is unmitigated bullshit. Frank 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.
Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man?
Glenn's statement I false. I sit on no UCD committees and never have. -- Tony West . The fact that West is trying to spin the SHCA trickery as a great public meeting is to be expected. He is on two UCD committees. 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.
[UC] Whose committee? (Was: What you mean 'public', community man?)
Well, I'll be hornswoggled. Glenn's statement is still false, but it's not his fault. A friend directed me to UCD's website and there, in bright lights, are two committees I do sit on: the Clark Park Partnership Committee and the Clark Park Party Planning Fundraising Committee. They are on a webpage entitled University City District Committees. I wouldn't have described them that way, because both committees are partnerships. That is, they are working groups among organizational equals, in which UCD is one participant. The Clark Park Partnership Committee is chaired by Paul Bonfanti of the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. It consists of representatives of the Recreation Dept., the Water Dept., USP, UCD, UCGreen, as the list indicates. Councilwoman Blackwell's office is omitted from the list, although her representative also sits on that committee. As for the Party Planning Committee, the person who usually chairs that is Mark Byerley, the professional party planner who organizes the affair for us. Oddly, his name and organization are also omitted from the list! (Of course, I can't recall his company's name either at this Senior Moment.) To me, a committee implies an internal, hierarchical structure. In other words, the House Ways Means Committee is part of the House of Representatives, is composed of members of the House, reports to the House and serves the House. Ditto in Friends of Clark Park, where the Outreach Committee is an arm of the Board of Directors, the President and the Membership. At first glance, none of these UCD committees are like that. Very few committee members report to or obey UCD. I suspect many participants don't view them as UCD committees. But it's UCD's website. Its participation is appreciated and it can describe these committees any way it wants on its own page -- that's my view. PHS is equally entitled to portray its participation in the CPPC as its own baby. If you scoot over to its website, you'll find Clark Park among the 70-odd beneficiaries of the Philadelphia Green Parks Revitalization Project, which actually launched the Clark Park Partnership. I know, I was there. The Rec Dept.'s internet presence absolutely sucks, so researchers with poor people skills will never be able to figure out its true role in policy planning for Clark Park. It is, of course, decisive because it actually owns and manages the real estate. This year it did put out a brochure in which it presented many of the wondrous events in Clark Park. All those events, without exception, were conceived and organized by other agents. So who cares, really? The first lesson I'd extract is that anybody who thinks he can grasp complex public policy solely by googling stuff is a fool. Excuse my French: a fool. That's how I'd put it to anyone who writes for me. I google for a living and it's an amazing tool. But to understand anything really, you can't just surf around a search-engine potpourri. Because anything can be put on a webpage, anything. To arrive at sound judgements, you really have to talk to people who are involved. And pay attention. -- Tony West Glenn's statement I false. I sit on no UCD committees and never have. -- Tony West . The fact that West is trying to spin the SHCA trickery as a great public meeting is to be expected. He is on two UCD committees. 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.
RE: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man?
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. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:35:39 -0500 To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Tony, This is the last message I will ever address to you. I don't understand why you and your group always have to make these things personal. I am in Atlanta staying again with a good friend who is having chemotherapy over the course of 4 months. That is more important to me right now than any neighborhood issue. How dare you use that as the basis of a snide comment. It's despicable. The rest of your message is unmitigated bullshit. Frank On Nov 15, 2007, at 11:25 PM, Anthony West wrote: I have no idea what he told the DP, which I don't have a regular chance to read. And I have deeply no idea what the difference is between what he told the DP and what the DP wrote. Writing to fit space is an unavoidable act of analysis, which no one practises perfectly. In my experience -- which we have studied on UC-list, thanks to Ray -- DP journalism is student journalism and is less reliable than most journalism when it strays off campus and attempts to grapple with adult life issues its reporters have not yet had any experience with. In any event, as we all know, open and public is a loose term that means all sorts of different things in all sorts of different contexts. Your criticism is jejune unless you can specify the context. The back bar at Dahlak is properly described as open and public in certain contexts, but not in others. I bear witness that Lussenhop has participated in open and public meetings. I have no idea if these meetings, or any others, meet HC standards for open and public, or even if HC has any standards for its deliberations. All I can say is, he's out there. He's not in Atlanta all the time. -- Tony WestAnd we all know he did exactly the opposite when he tried to get the property de-listed. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he also tell the DP that he had already participated in open and public meetings on this project? Frankus Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible. 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. 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.
[UC] Lussenhop's Public Meetings
The common thread in all of Lussenhop's so-called public meetings has been that (as far as the public knows) he just shows up at events: Spruce Hill, Historical Society, First Thursday. Showing up without announcing well in advance is not public. Showing up so that only those who happen to attend, or who know to appear because they have some sort of inside knowledge, is not public. Public means everyone, not just the members of Spruce Hill, or the Board of the Historical Society, or whoever happens to show up at First Thursday. And it means that everyone has the knowledge of an impending event sufficiently far in advance so that he or she can make an intellegent decision as to whether or not to attend. This whole thing is so obviously contrived, it's pathetic.
Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man?
KAREN ALLEN wrote: Tony, That is not public. exactly. there have been no real efforts here to have a public community-wide meeting about this proposed hotel. lussenhop's 'appearances' thus far (once at an 8 am first thursday meeting where melani said he didn't have much time, once at an 8 am meeting at the old folks room on market st. where there was confusion about the date, once at an shca election meeting where it wasn't announced to the members, wasn't on the agenda) -- each of tom's 3 presentations have been conducted 'under the radar', as though he's somehow embarrassed or bored or inconvenienced by his project, not at all like a developer who's enthusiastic or impassioned about informing as many neighbors as he can about his 11-story hotel at 40th and pine yet lussenhop and his suits have told the architecture committee (oct 23) that they'd already had 2 open and public forums (as glenn and andy witnessed), and lussenhop co. reiterated that claim at the philly historic commission hearing on nov 9. moreover, lussenhop's behind-the-scenes attempt to delist the property, his private invitations to selected individuals for cups of coffee, and his non-public participation on this list have been anything but open and public. isn't it time we gave tom your friendly neighborhood developer the public stage he so obviously seeks and deserves? why doesn't tony west organize a public meeting? I'd help him publicize it. someone else could bring the mini-muffins. brian siano could videotape it. - - - - - anyway, for those still playing at home, here's the timeline so far (corrections welcome): WED OCT 10 | UC REVIEW'S FIRST PUBLIC ARTICLE ABOUT HOTEL. it's revealed that lussenhop has tried to get the mansion delisted earlier in the summer but was overruled by phc july 13. lussenhop says 'I wanted to get it de-listed to have greater choices, but once I realized the sentiment of the historical committee and neighborhood, I said 'fine, I'll work around it.' in that same article, barry grossbach says the shca zoning committee has met with lussenhop, but that no (public) zoning application has been made -- ie, no public discussion of zoning has taken place. additionally, there has been no mention of this hotel project in penn's dp, nor on ucd's website/publications, even though penn and ucd are (publicly) invested in developing 40th street. WED OCT 23 | THE ARCHITECT COMMITTEE HEARING. lussenhop's men testify that '2 open public forums' have taken place (glenn and andy witness this and report this onlist, and no one onlist who was also at that hearing denies it). the architect committee rules against the hotel proposal 4 to 2. that decision is to be forwarded to the philly historic commisssion's hearing, scheduled nov 9 FRI OCT 26 | THE OFFICIAL DATE SET BY PENN PRAXIS for lussenhop to meet with friends of 40th street (8 am). inexplicably, lussenhop is a no-show and instead meets with friends on monday oct 29 (8 am?) THUR NOV 1 | FIRST THURSDAY MEETING (8 am) at walnut st library. melani reports on kyle's list that lussenhop didn't have much time to present, there were so many other things on the agenda (It was a long First Thursday meeting, packed with agenda items, and Tom had only a few minutes to make his presentation.) FRI NOV 9 | PHILLY HISTORIC COMMISSION HEARING phc approves hotel proposal 'in concept'. lussenhop's hotel is now 11 stories tall, without approval by architect committee. again lussenhop's men testify that lussehop has met with 'the spruce hill community', and mysteriously, TUE NOV 13 | SHCA'S ANNUAL ELECTION MEETING (7:30 pm) at shca's annual election meeting for shca members, lussenhop presents proposal to about 45 people. shca members have not been informed that the hotel will be on the agenda, and in fact, it isn't. nor has the meeting been announced in the uc review in advance, the usual practice for community association meetings. - - - - - .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West Ray's falsehoods are more sophisticated, more believable -- Tony West 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.
Re: [UC] Whose committee? (Was: What you mean 'public', community man?)
Anthony West wrote: Well, I'll be hornswoggled. Glenn's statement is still false, but it's not his fault. no, glenn's statement is true, and now you're trying to spin what a ucd committee is. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West Ray's falsehoods are more sophisticated, more believable -- Tony West 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.
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.
Re: [UC] What you mean 'public', community man?
That is correct, Ray. Since there will never be any proposed hotel without such community meetings -- what's your rush? Are you rushing to erect this hotel? Your internet publications sound anti-hotel for the most part -- but your paycheck looks pro-hotel. Which are we to take more seriously, your mouth or your wallet? Personally, I don't care. Somebody will schedule these meetings eventually. When they happen, they'll happen. In the meantime, all factions should get their ducks in line and the rest of us should continue to study the issue. -- Tony West UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: exactly. there have been no real efforts here to have a public community-wide meeting about this proposed hotel. isn't it time we gave tom your friendly neighborhood developer the public stage he so obviously seeks and deserves? why doesn't tony west organize a public meeting? I'd help him publicize it. someone else could bring the mini-muffins. brian siano could videotape it. 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.
Re: [UC] Whose committee? (Was: What you mean 'public', community man?)
Ray, how could you possibly know what a UCD committee is? You've never sat on one, right? You have no experience with what you're writing about. You are spinning. I'm living. -- Tony West no, glenn's statement is true, and now you're trying to spin what a ucd committee is. [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. 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.
