[UC] RE: [Ucneighbors] Another Manhole Cover BLOWS UP!!!!!
I've got two guesses: Either Mole Man and his dread Subterraneans are testing their invasion plans, or all the rain we've been having lately is shorting out SEPTA's underground transformers. -Original Message- From: Mark Krull mkrullr...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:48 AM To: uclist univcity@list.purple.com; ucneighb...@lists.asc.upenn.edu ucneighb...@hector.asc.upenn.edu Subject: [Ucneighbors] Another Manhole Cover BLOWS UP! After I dropped off the car at Central City Toyota around 10:15 am, I was taking the 21 BUS going West on Walnut Street at 52nd when a LOUD BOOM occurred. The manhold cover was blown off. Geez, what the heck is going on... -- We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately Ben Franklin
[UC] Easter Egg Hunt on April 3rd
The Parents from the Clark Park Tot Lot will be hosting an Easter Egg Hunt for the kids at Woodland Cemetery, 40th and Woodland Ave., on Sunday, April 3rd. It starts at 4 p.m. sharp, at the Historic Mansion on the cemetery grounds. It's free, but donations are certainly welcome.
[UC-Announce] Outdoor Stations of the Cross
Hi, Everyone, At 12 noon tomorrow, Good Friday, you are invited to join your neighbors in walking around the neighborhood praying the Stations of the Cross. We shall meet in front of St. Francis de Sales Church, 47th and Springfield Ave., at noon. At 3 pm, a Good Friday service will take place in St. Francis de Sales Church. Please extend this invitation to your friends and neighbors. Fran
[UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Wilma, Since a lot of people, like myself, subscribe to both lists (actually I'm on four neighborhood lists), there's no they vs. we. There are just two different products out there, for any of us to patronize as we choose. Some people don't want to subscribe to multiple listserves for the same community. (They'd rather not see their inbox flooded by the same post in three different emails, for instance.) In that case, the listserve with the greater traffic -- particularly traffic about the neighborhood -- is surely the more useful. Almost by definition, it represents the neighborhood better. One might still keep a membership on the less-popular listserve, if it gives information not available on the more-popular listserve -- particularly if it facilitates a specific kind of neighborhood communication that is hard to get on the more-popular one. In this case, having read both Kyle Cassidy's UC list and Villanova's UC list for a few years now, my take is the purple list reliably fosters personal attack, intentional misinformation and extremist hysteria on neighborhood issues. It's more about the process than the people. The same people, writing on the same issues on UCNeighbors, write with more gentleness, more receptivity and more nuance than they do on Purple. I include myself in this criticism. Listserves generally die with a whimper, not a bang, and that's how Purple seems to be dying. I still see, from time to time, useful threads about household services that don't appear on UCNeighbors. But I see more useful threads about household services overall on UCNeighbors now than I do on Purple. The only threads that flourish on Purple rather than UCNeighbors are those that favor querulous complaints about how bad A is or B is. Thus, in this recent statistic-boosting spate, I note that I made a nasty comment about Glenn (en passant) and that Kimm made a nasty comment about Tom (in yo face) and that Wilma induces a global nasty comment by me about all Purple readers (not there at all) ... par for the course. Anyone who prefers to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find Purple more congenial than UCNeighbors. Anyone who does not prefer to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find UCNeighbors more congenial than Purple, in my estimation. So I do think this product is broken and I have no idea how to fix it, unless it's willing to bite the bullet and appoint a moderator of its own. But I'll continue to read it and post on it, if I think I can make a comment that is helpful. I always appreciate your posts, Wilma. -- Tony West On 3/31/2010 9:54 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Wow! THAT'S a slap in the face. Thank you kindly for showing us who the better people are who have higher-quality neighborhood input. Since I have been a member of this listserv since its inception, apparently I can rest assured that I would not be considered as such; especially since I am not a member of the UCNeighbors listserv. Mogadishu, indeed! Perhaps it was not your intent to appear hurtful, elitist and disrespectful amongst other things, especially in light of the subject of civility raised earlier, but I do perceive it this way because there is not much room for benefit of the doubt anymore. Snide remarks about the persons who belong to this listserv, since the formation of UCNeighbors has gone a bit too far in my opinion. You have UCNeighbors...fine! Isn't that enough without denigrating this listserv or are we all just supposed to not post, drop dead or leave the neighborhood? What IS it they want from us? Come front street with it once and for all.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Title: Re: [UC] Drug pushers in the NYTimes Wilma,I agree with Tony. I belong to both listservs (univcity and UCNeighbors), but find univcity less and less useful or civil. UCNeighbors is more active and I find the dialog more engaging and community-oriented.Please come join us.Margie Apr 1, 2010 03:32:44 PM, anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: Wilma, Since a lot of people, like myself, subscribe to both lists (actually I'm on four neighborhood lists), there's no "they" vs. "we". There are just two different products out there, for any of us to patronize as we choose. Some people don't want to subscribe to multiple listserves for the same community. (They'd rather not see their inbox flooded by the same post in three different emails, for instance.) In that case, the listserve with the greater traffic -- particularly traffic about the neighborhood -- is surely the more useful. Almost by definition, it represents the neighborhood better. One might still keep a membership on the less-popular listserve, if it gives information not available on the more-popular listserve -- particularly if it facilitates a specific kind of neighborhood communication that is hard to get on the more-popular one. In this case, having read both Kyle Cassidy's UC list and Villanova's UC list for a few years now, my take is the "purple" list reliably fosters personal attack, intentional misinformation and extremist hysteria on neighborhood issues. It's more about the process than the people. The same people, writing on the same issues on UCNeighbors, write with more gentleness, more receptivity and more nuance than they do on Purple. I include myself in this criticism. Listserves generally die with a whimper, not a bang, and that's how Purple seems to be dying. I still see, from time to time, useful threads about household services that don't appear on UCNeighbors. But I see more useful threads about household services overall on UCNeighbors now than I do on Purple. The only threads that flourish on Purple rather than UCNeighbors are those that favor querulous complaints about how bad A is or B is. Thus, in this recent statistic-boosting spate, I note that I made a nasty comment about Glenn (en passant) and that Kimm made a nasty comment about Tom (in yo face) and that Wilma induces a global nasty comment by me about all Purple readers (not there at all) ... par for the course. Anyone who prefers to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find Purple more congenial than UCNeighbors. Anyone who does not prefer to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find UCNeighbors more congenial than Purple, in my estimation. So I do think this product is broken and I have no idea how to fix it, unless it's willing to bite the bullet and appoint a moderator of its own. But I'll continue to read it and post on it, if I think I can make a comment that is helpful. I always appreciate your posts, Wilma. -- Tony West On 3/31/2010 9:54 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Wow! THAT’S a slap in the face. Thank you kindly for showing us who the better people are who have higher-quality neighborhood input. Since I have been a member of this listserv since its inception, apparently I can rest assured that I would not be considered as such; especially since I am not a member of the UCNeighbors listserv. Mogadishu, indeed! Perhaps it was not your intent to appear hurtful, elitist and disrespectful amongst other things, especially in light of the subject of civility raised earlier, but I do perceive it this way because there is not much room for benefit of the doubt anymore. Snide remarks about the persons who belong to this listserv, since the formation of UCNeighbors has gone a bit too far in my opinion. You have UCNeighbors...fine! Isn’t that enough without denigrating this listserv or are we all just supposed to not post, drop dead or leave the neighborhood? What IS it they want from us? Come front street with it once and for all. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Dear Tony, Did you write to me in order to inform me that you belong to many listservs as do I, or try to convince me that UCNeighbors REALLY wanted me to join when I was told otherwise after I called them out when they originally formed the other listserv. Perhaps you are trying to convince me about how to be neighborly. I know how to be neighborly and have been so through many lower-input community initiatives. However, this does not negate the rationale for forming another listserv AND calling it UCNeighbors. As an original member of the SHCA Listserv and its subsequent UnivCity Listserv, I will never believe UCNeighbors was not formed in order to discredit and shut down the UnivCity Listserv@ purple. Unfortunately, the mystery of the domain UnivCity Listserv resides in some nebulous place at Villanova, while more people web search University City and will find this forum before UCNeighbors. I have stated my case and stood my ground on many difficult neighborhood issues, but I have never resorted to the sniping sort of comments if I could at ALL help it no matter how I was approached. I shall always strive to be civil. -Wilma On 4/1/10 4:26 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: Wilma, Since a lot of people, like myself, subscribe to both lists (actually I'm on four neighborhood lists), there's no they vs. we. There are just two different products out there, for any of us to patronize as we choose. Some people don't want to subscribe to multiple listserves for the same community. (They'd rather not see their inbox flooded by the same post in three different emails, for instance.) In that case, the listserve with the greater traffic -- particularly traffic about the neighborhood -- is surely the more useful. Almost by definition, it represents the neighborhood better. One might still keep a membership on the less-popular listserve, if it gives information not available on the more-popular listserve -- particularly if it facilitates a specific kind of neighborhood communication that is hard to get on the more-popular one. In this case, having read both Kyle Cassidy's UC list and Villanova's UC list for a few years now, my take is the purple list reliably fosters personal attack, intentional misinformation and extremist hysteria on neighborhood issues. It's more about the process than the people. The same people, writing on the same issues on UCNeighbors, write with more gentleness, more receptivity and more nuance than they do on Purple. I include myself in this criticism. Listserves generally die with a whimper, not a bang, and that's how Purple seems to be dying. I still see, from time to time, useful threads about household services that don't appear on UCNeighbors. But I see more useful threads about household services overall on UCNeighbors now than I do on Purple. The only threads that flourish on Purple rather than UCNeighbors are those that favor querulous complaints about how bad A is or B is. Thus, in this recent statistic-boosting spate, I note that I made a nasty comment about Glenn (en passant) and that Kimm made a nasty comment about Tom (in yo face) and that Wilma induces a global nasty comment by me about all Purple readers (not there at all) ... par for the course. Anyone who prefers to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find Purple more congenial than UCNeighbors. Anyone who does not prefer to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find UCNeighbors more congenial than Purple, in my estimation. So I do think this product is broken and I have no idea how to fix it, unless it's willing to bite the bullet and appoint a moderator of its own. But I'll continue to read it and post on it, if I think I can make a comment that is helpful. I always appreciate your posts, Wilma. -- Tony West On 3/31/2010 9:54 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Re: [UC] Drug pushers in the NYTimes Wow! THAT¹S a slap in the face. Thank you kindly for showing us who the better people are who have higher-quality neighborhood input. Since I have been a member of this listserv since its inception, apparently I can rest assured that I would not be considered as such; especially since I am not a member of the UCNeighbors listserv. Mogadishu, indeed! Perhaps it was not your intent to appear hurtful, elitist and disrespectful amongst other things, especially in light of the subject of civility raised earlier, but I do perceive it this way because there is not much room for benefit of the doubt anymore. Snide remarks about the persons who belong to this listserv, since the formation of UCNeighbors has gone a bit too far in my opinion. You have UCNeighbors...fine! Isn¹t that enough without denigrating this listserv or are we all just supposed to not post, drop dead or leave the neighborhood? What IS it they want from us? Come front street with it once and for all.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
This is as disgusting a piece of revisionist history as I've ever seen. Kyle's style may be freewheeling, but it certainly never reached anything like the insults and angry invective that many others have used on _this_ list. As I recall it, Kyle attempted to reply to Glenn's points calmly and rationally; Glenn accused him of being a Penn apologist in thrall to corporate ideology. (Many of you seem to give Glenn a wiiide margin of error, but if anyone takes offense, suddenly _they're_ accused of bad behavior.) So Kyle founded another list. Why shouldn't he ban Glenn, who'd pretty much chased him away? But Glenn has recited that quote as a indictment of what he mechanically calls the censored Penn list. Many of you seem to forget this-- which is interesting, since you seem to have such _good_ memories of when _you_ feel insulted or hurt. I've been on both lists since Kyle founded his. I don't see insults over there. I see a lot of commentary from interesting neighbors. I don't see them insulting each other. I have not yet heard of _anyone_ who's resigned from that list. But over here, I have seen _many_ people asking to be taken off, trying to find the unsubscribe command, and complaining about having the lengthy, angry screeds dumped in their mailbox. On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:59 PM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN laserb...@speedymail.org wrote: Wilma de Soto wrote: As an original member of the SHCA Listserv and its subsequent UnivCity Listserv, I will never believe UCNeighbors was not formed in order to discredit and shut down the UnivCity Listserv@ purple. kyle set up his listserv towards the end of july 2007 after being on this list for years. though it's convenient for some to think this list upmanship has all been a question of civility, kyle's free-wheeling posting style here was certainly no model of civility; while he was on this list he behaved at times as badly as (if not worse than) those he (and others) accused of behaving badly. his leaving was not about the civility of this list, but about the inability of everyone on this list to agree. many people countered his arguments and points of view with the same free-wheeling style he used. some who did agree with him (while matching his free-wheeling style) left to join his list at the same time he did; in fact, they were posting on his new list before kyle posted the news here that he had set up his new list. on july 27 the following free-wheeling exchange happened between he and melani on his new list: In a message dated 7/27/07 6:49:04 PM, kcassidy at asc.upenn.edu writes: the cool thing about this software is that i can pre-ban glenn! to which melani replied: This will be heaven. But, I hope he doesn't know where you live. Melani and then on july 28, kyle announced on this list that he had set up his new list. one difference between kyle's list and this list: unlike kyle's list, this list's archive can be viewed by ANYONE, whether they are subscribed or not. the above exchange, in fact, is archived here: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18895.html and from there anyone can explore what kyle and others posted over the years -- good, bad, or ugly -- and the discussions that followed his leaving: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18858.html .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Tony, Wow you think what I said was nasty? Snide, maybe, but in that case I¹d better stay over here. Given the turmoil he put this community through, I think it was pretty mild. There¹s a difference between ³conflict and confrontation² and ³nastiness and incivility.² But those distinctions get lost on a lot of people. And just for the record: (1) I said nothing about Tom Lussenhop, only about his hotel, and (2) I went to a fair amount of trouble to actually give him an answer to his question. One private commenter thought I was too generous. Kimm On 4/1/10 4:26 PM, Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net wrote: Wilma, Since a lot of people, like myself, subscribe to both lists (actually I'm on four neighborhood lists), there's no they vs. we. There are just two different products out there, for any of us to patronize as we choose. Some people don't want to subscribe to multiple listserves for the same community. (They'd rather not see their inbox flooded by the same post in three different emails, for instance.) In that case, the listserve with the greater traffic -- particularly traffic about the neighborhood -- is surely the more useful. Almost by definition, it represents the neighborhood better. One might still keep a membership on the less-popular listserve, if it gives information not available on the more-popular listserve -- particularly if it facilitates a specific kind of neighborhood communication that is hard to get on the more-popular one. In this case, having read both Kyle Cassidy's UC list and Villanova's UC list for a few years now, my take is the purple list reliably fosters personal attack, intentional misinformation and extremist hysteria on neighborhood issues. It's more about the process than the people. The same people, writing on the same issues on UCNeighbors, write with more gentleness, more receptivity and more nuance than they do on Purple. I include myself in this criticism. Listserves generally die with a whimper, not a bang, and that's how Purple seems to be dying. I still see, from time to time, useful threads about household services that don't appear on UCNeighbors. But I see more useful threads about household services overall on UCNeighbors now than I do on Purple. The only threads that flourish on Purple rather than UCNeighbors are those that favor querulous complaints about how bad A is or B is. Thus, in this recent statistic-boosting spate, I note that I made a nasty comment about Glenn (en passant) and that Kimm made a nasty comment about Tom (in yo face) and that Wilma induces a global nasty comment by me about all Purple readers (not there at all) ... par for the course. Anyone who prefers to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find Purple more congenial than UCNeighbors. Anyone who does not prefer to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find UCNeighbors more congenial than Purple, in my estimation. So I do think this product is broken and I have no idea how to fix it, unless it's willing to bite the bullet and appoint a moderator of its own. But I'll continue to read it and post on it, if I think I can make a comment that is helpful. I always appreciate your posts, Wilma. -- Tony West On 3/31/2010 9:54 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote: Re: [UC] Drug pushers in the NYTimes Wow! THAT¹S a slap in the face. Thank you kindly for showing us who the better people are who have higher-quality neighborhood input. Since I have been a member of this listserv since its inception, apparently I can rest assured that I would not be considered as such; especially since I am not a member of the UCNeighbors listserv. Mogadishu, indeed! Perhaps it was not your intent to appear hurtful, elitist and disrespectful amongst other things, especially in light of the subject of civility raised earlier, but I do perceive it this way because there is not much room for benefit of the doubt anymore. Snide remarks about the persons who belong to this listserv, since the formation of UCNeighbors has gone a bit too far in my opinion. You have UCNeighbors...fine! Isn¹t that enough without denigrating this listserv or are we all just supposed to not post, drop dead or leave the neighborhood? What IS it they want from us? Come front street with it once and for all.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
Sure, Kimm. Snide is good enough. He didn't put the community through turmoil that I could see. The community (specifically the community around 40th Pine, not your community or mine) was faced with a stark choice between Tom Lussenhop's mediocre highrise hotel and your ugly, crumbling derelict building. Tom came up with one way to deal with this problem property; you preferred that it stay as it is. You won. Decay now rules that block and will do so for the indefinite future. So maybe it's time for the pro-decay forces to quit making snide comments about the guy's hotel, which apparently will now go up on another site, about four blocks away.You got your decay. Show a little graciousness now! He wants off this listserve. Who can blame him? Many other persons have requested help in escaping Purple. It's not like he's being weird, to want to quit reading Purple. -- Tony West On 4/1/2010 8:45 PM, Kimm Tynan wrote: Tony, Wow -- you think what I said was nasty? Snide, maybe, but in that case I'd better stay over here. Given the turmoil he put this community through, I think it was pretty mild. There's a difference between conflict and confrontation and nastiness and incivility. But those distinctions get lost on a lot of people. And just for the record: (1) I said nothing about Tom Lussenhop, only about his hotel, and (2) I went to a fair amount of trouble to actually give him an answer to his question. One private commenter thought I was too generous. Kimm
[UC] Second Census Form?
How many subscribers to this list received a second 2010 Census form at their mailing address? How many didn't receive one at all? GJJ 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] Second Census Form?
Just depends if your house is zoned multi-family or not. Zoned multi = 2 forms, one for each 'household.' Andrew Diller On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Karen Heenan karen6...@msn.com wrote: I got a second one today. I mailed the first one in last weekend. - Original Message - *From:* Gary J. Jastrzab garyjastr...@comcast.net *To:* ucneighb...@hector.asc.upenn.edu ; univcity@list.purple.com *Sent:* Thursday, April 01, 2010 11:51 PM *Subject:* [UC] Second Census Form? How many subscribers to this list received a second 2010 Census form at their mailing address? How many didn't receive one at all? GJJ 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] Second Census Form?
Andrew: Zoning has nothing to do with this. Census forms are supposed to be sent to each housing unit (e.g. USPS mailing address). It appears that most other Philadelphia addresses also received duplicate forms. GJJ On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:04 AM, Andrew Diller wrote: Just depends if your house is zoned multi-family or not. Zoned multi = 2 forms, one for each 'household.' Andrew Diller On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Karen Heenan karen6...@msn.com wrote: I got a second one today. I mailed the first one in last weekend. - Original Message - From: Gary J. Jastrzab To: ucneighb...@hector.asc.upenn.edu ; univcity@list.purple.com Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 11:51 PM Subject: [UC] Second Census Form? How many subscribers to this list received a second 2010 Census form at their mailing address? How many didn't receive one at all? GJJ 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] Second Census Form?
I did. I expect everybody who received the first form also received the second. The letter in the second mailing says not to send in this one, if you've already sent in the first census form. Elliot Sent from my iPhone On Apr 1, 2010, at 23:51, Gary J. Jastrzab garyjastr...@comcast.net wrote: How many subscribers to this list received a second 2010 Census form at their mailing address? How many didn't receive one at all? GJJ 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.
Re: [UC] Civility (Was: Re: Drug pushers in the NYTimes)
If I remember correctly—and I'm sure that I do—Kyle started his personal listserv less than a week before his book was released. I always suspected that he did it to avoid any discussion about the book's subject matter. In that sense I agree with you. I don't think he can easily deal with disagreements. I could be wrong. Frank PS. For those of you not subscribed to UCNeighbors, that listserv is now a Google Group and is no longer hosted by or affiliated with Penn. On Apr 1, 2010, at 08:59 PM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: Wilma de Soto wrote: As an original member of the SHCA Listserv and its subsequent UnivCity Listserv, I will never believe UCNeighbors was not formed in order to discredit and shut down the UnivCity Listserv@ purple. kyle set up his listserv towards the end of july 2007 after being on this list for years. though it's convenient for some to think this list upmanship has all been a question of civility, kyle's free-wheeling posting style here was certainly no model of civility; while he was on this list he behaved at times as badly as (if not worse than) those he (and others) accused of behaving badly. his leaving was not about the civility of this list, but about the inability of everyone on this list to agree. many people countered his arguments and points of view with the same free-wheeling style he used. some who did agree with him (while matching his free-wheeling style) left to join his list at the same time he did; in fact, they were posting on his new list before kyle posted the news here that he had set up his new list. on july 27 the following free-wheeling exchange happened between he and melani on his new list: In a message dated 7/27/07 6:49:04 PM, kcassidy at asc.upenn.edu writes: the cool thing about this software is that i can pre-ban glenn! to which melani replied: This will be heaven. But, I hope he doesn't know where you live. Melani and then on july 28, kyle announced on this list that he had set up his new list. one difference between kyle's list and this list: unlike kyle's list, this list's archive can be viewed by ANYONE, whether they are subscribed or not. the above exchange, in fact, is archived here: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18895.html and from there anyone can explore what kyle and others posted over the years -- good, bad, or ugly -- and the discussions that followed his leaving: http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg18858.html .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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] LOST chihuahua, 44tth Baltimore
Begin forwarded message: From: Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net Date: April 1, 2010 11:41:03 PM EDT Subject: lost chihuahua, 44tth Baltimore Reply-To: anthony_w...@earthlink.net We are looking for a lost chihuahua in the vicinity of 44th Baltimore. Collarless. A shiny black 5 lb. dog with brown spots over each eye. Call (267) 456-5687 if you sight her, please. -- Tony West
Re: [UC] Second Census Form?
Ditto here. We sent our first one in last week and got a second one today, same as other people have mentioned. The Commerce Dept is aggressively trying to up the mail-in participation in order to reduce the amount of door-to-door interviewing, and their spokespeople - including the Commerce Secy - have been saying over the past few weeks that there will be multiple mailings as part of that campaign. Al Airone - Original Message - From: Elliot M. Stern emst...@verizon.net To: Gary J. Jastrzab garyjastr...@comcast.net Cc: ucneighb...@hector.asc.upenn.edu; univcity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Second Census Form? I did. I expect everybody who received the first form also received the second. The letter in the second mailing says not to send in this one, if you've already sent in the first census form. Elliot Sent from my iPhone On Apr 1, 2010, at 23:51, Gary J. Jastrzab garyjastr...@comcast.net wrote: How many subscribers to this list received a second 2010 Census form at their mailing address? How many didn't receive one at all? GJJ 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. 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] Second Census Form?
I received a second one today. Although a bit annoying I'll go ahead and fill it out again since it will only take about a minute or so. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 1, 2010, at 11:51 PM, Gary J. Jastrzab garyjastr...@comcast.net wrote: How many subscribers to this list received a second 2010 Census form at their mailing address? How many didn't receive one at all? GJJ 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.
