Re: [UC] Penn Alexander 100% low-income?

[Meg Wise]

Title: Penn Alexander 100% low-income?
The School District's website includes economic data for all schools and lists Penn Alexander as 48% low income, making it actually one of the most affluent schools in the district. As you note, it is impossible to compare schools when some of the data is obviously wrong. How each entity (district, state, etc.) collects data, and how it could be so misreported, would be a good story for the Inquirer!Meg Wise-Original Message-
From: Kimm Tynan 
Sent: Apr 13, 2010 12:25 AM
To: UnivCity listserv 
Subject: [UC] Penn Alexander 100% low-income?






Did anyone else notice that in the Inquirer’s Report Card on the Schools, Penn Alexander is identified as having 100% low-income students? Does anyone else find this extremely hard to believe?

I thought maybe it was an error on the Inky’s part, but I looked at the raw data on the state’s website, and it has Penn Alexander reporting pretty close to 100% “economically disadvantaged” students grades 3-8.

This seems unbelievable to me. But maybe there is a reasonable explanation? I’m considering writing the Inquirer reporters or editors who put the report together to look into it, but thought maybe folks more knowledgeable than I might have some insight into this.

Before I get accused of hating on the neighborhood or trying to tear things down or sour grapes or something, it is a significant matter to me. As the parent of a three-year-old who is trying to research and compare future schools, I want to compare apples with apples, and I believe that schools with high percentages of low-income students have a much bigger challenge than schools with lower-percentages, and so test scores need to be considered in light of those factors. This is not only my belief – the quintile scoring system compares “similar schools” based on percentage of low-income students. So, not only would an error in this regard make my job harder, but it would, it seems to me, skew the “similar schools” comparison.

I’m interested to hear what folks think about this.

Kimm





You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] FOCP response

[Glenn moyer]

Does anyone know why Mr. Chance does not subscribe to this listserve?Mary,Yes, I do. Like
Mr. West and Mr. Siano, he believes in concentrated power. He does not
believe in public notification, inclusion of the public, nor publicly
available information or discussion. (I know this because he sends me
insulting responses off of the list.)He asserts that people
must check the FOCP web site daily or else it is their fault if they
miss an FOCP action or policy which they call "the community
decision." Any one wishing information about the FOCP secret dealings
must ask for a private "coffee meeting" which must be conducted where
no other neighbors may listen or participate.Example: Mr.
Chance insults me for not forwarding, each and every thing that I
report about the FOCP publicly, to him personally. Simultaneously, he
asserts that FOCP has no duty to share any information with the
public. Think of this bold demand for power!Each member of the
community must chase the FOCP leaders and catch any secret information
decided in closed back rooms. But any one discussing the FOCP publicly
owes the FOCP leaders a separate e-mail because they are too important
to listen to public communication! That really shows the arrogance of
his position.Mr. West's myopic attacks on uncensored
communication speaks for itself. If those members of our community,
who speak truth to power, will not obey the self anointed gang in
power; he wants them silenced. The public listserv is one of the
important barriers preventing 100% power concentration over their
neighbors and the FOCP secret dealings. (Is Mr West the poster boy for
civility-haha?) Example of silencing: Mr West has had me
silenced at the FOCP meetings since 2004. (At that time, I introduced
a motion approved by the FOCP members. The members wanted a process
for inviting park stakeholders and the public, to all future
discussions about changing Clark Park. I promised to present a process
for their approval at the next meeting. Mr West would not allow that
presentation.)Since then:  I was barred from ever again
formerly addressing the FOCP membership. The FOCP won't even allow a 1
minute public statement to object to their secret dealings. FOCP can
not defend their anti-democratic processes nor their back room dealings
in any public forum. That is why the personal attacks and demands for
secrecy always substitute and become their primary arguments. My
example is revealing: Contrary to Mr. West's assertion about those who do nothing
but complain; I was a major volunteer activist in the park when FOCP
was hated by the Department of Recreation and did nothing but
complain. I proposed the popular Farmer's market blocked by the FOCP
in 1996. I started the volleyball club in 1983 and again in 1996. I
founded the Clark Park Music and Arts Community in 1998 and ran it for
5 years.When UCD called FOCP and SHCA "the community,"
everything changed. The real and natural leaders in the community were
shut out, unless they agreed with the university's agenda. And the
groups like FOCP/SHCA leadership gained exclusive power, which they never
earned.The real leaders in the community welcome public
discussion and debate because their projects, like the Farmer's market,
festivals, and volleyball are welcomed by the vast and diverse
community. Real leaders are always happy to face the public openly and
honestly and earn their trust! Conversely, unpopular projects
like the Campus Inn and the redesign of Clark Park must be conducted
secretly. When people have objected to the BID, Campus Inn, and the
clark park master plan; they have always had their character attacked.
Then, there is a call for censorship and secret meetings, because the
power brokers claim that "there are crazies trying to disrupt the hard
working volunteers." This process is routine. If you look at
each neighborhood controversy since UCD arrived, the pattern and
arguments for secrecy are the same.Best,Glenn -Original Message-
From: mcget...@aol.com
Sent: Apr 12, 2010 2:39 PM
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] FOCP response


 Does anyone know why Mr. Chance does not subscribe to this listserve? I would expect the leader of a local civic association to be connected to as many sources of local information and activities as possible. What about our other civic leaders (e.g. at the Spruce Hill Community Association, the UC Historical Society and Cedar Park Neighbors) and our local politicians (Mrs. Blackwell, for instance and ward leaders and committee members)?

Mary


 




 


 


-Original Message-
From: Glenn glen...@earthlink.net
To: univcity@list.purple.com  "UnivCity@list.purple.com" UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Sun, Apr 11, 2010 7:42 am
Subject: [UC] FOCP response









Sorry, I forwarded this response from FOCP earlier but it did not get 
posted:



Responses from FOCP, Mr Chance:


"Glenn--


Your issue remains moot.  If you want to post that interpretation 
anywhere feel free to do so."

Re: [UC] why community activists avoid this list

[Anthony West]

Liz,

As I am a member of UC-list, you seem to believe I am insulting myself. 
I'm sorry you feel insulted and you shouldn't, as I think highly of you 
and most UC-list members whom I know personally. I am confident I've 
never attacked Wilma, who is a charming correspondent, although we have 
disagreed on facts.


You are an active community member who posts useful information on 
UC-list. But you are not an officer of a civic association, park-support 
group, library support group, church group, home-school association or 
arts association, to my knowledge.


The focus of this thread is a point raised by Mary: why community 
leaders don't read this list. She wishes more would do so. I reported 
what most of the leaders who've mentioned the list to me have said: they 
don't see it as the wisest use of their time. And the track record of 
the list demonstrates it is seldom used by any neighborhood groups as a 
medium of public interaction.


UC-list can be a perfectly fine place for many people and many purposes. 
But if Mary or other members want to use it for meaningful interaction 
with community groups, they will have to change the list so that it 
starts to attract community groups. UCNeighbors doesn't get much 
community-group traffic either, for that matter.


There's not much political difference between the two lists, since 
it's the same community and often the same people. However, on 
UCNeighbors I read less railing against gentrification by people who, 
when you meet them, look suspiciously like gentrifiers to the naked 
eye. To me, that's a UC-list hallmark.


I do not think an unmoderated list with a specialization in discord can 
grow in the direction Mary suggested, that's all. You will not hear 
people who are actually in charge of ongoing projects engage in dialog 
about them here. Therefore, by definition, discussion tends to be 
dominated by comments of the uninvolved and uninformed. But it's the 
process, not the people, that leads to this result.


Those who are happy with this list as it is, face no danger of seeing it 
change. Since, however, we often read complaints about UC-list by 
UC-list members, those who wish they had a different product may welcome 
both our reviews, Liz.


-- Tony West



At 7:05 Tony directed some questions to me, in response to my post which stated 
that I found his comments about the UC list and its members insulting.
I am seeing these questions now, along with several other posts by Tony, which 
continue to insult the UnivCity List and its members.
Even when Tony throws in the occasional compliments he managed to make them 
sound grudging or gratuitous.

I consider myself ACTIVE in several neighborhood organizations, and SUPPORTIVE 
of many others.
I read many positive posts on both lists.
I read many thoughtful posts on both lists.

I don't think it is appropriate to define either list as a complete or accurate 
voice for the community.
I have previously posted my frustration at the failure of many self-described 
leaders to engage the members of our community who are not on either list, or 
any e-lists.
MY neighborhood includes the elderly, immigrants, pre-schoolers and people 
who don't have the luxury of home computers.

I don't see any huge political difference between the two lists.
UCNeighbors is sometimes more arty or playful, thanks to Kyle and Ross.
UnivCity seems a little more practical and more open to penetrating discussions 
and discord.
Ultimately I don't see the need for the competitive narcissism that Tony seem 
to be promoting as he harps on the superiority of one list (and its members) 
over the other.
The reality in most cases is probably WE is THEY.
Does anyone know the percentage of overlap?  I bet it is quite high.

Wilma makes wonderful contributions.
Some may on the face seem negative while reading to me as a search for 
acknowledgment of an ongoing need to bridge class, race and cultural 
differences.
She did not deserve Tony's attack.


Sadly, Tony's 9:50 PM post reads, to me, like projection.
Was Tony looking in a mirror when he wrote,
An unmoderated listserve runs an equal risk of reflecting only the views
of discredited streetcorner ranters, because they are the only public
speakers who have nothing better to do with their time -- but can't
withstand any judgemental filter for their writing. So they wind up
clogging the drain on UC-list. They're not that much fun, and they're
not very informative either.
I read this as his autobiography for today.

Some days Tony makes wonderful contributions.
Today, not so much.
I am tired of people who deny their own behavior, even while they are attacking 
similar behavior in others.


I am happy to have access to both UnivCIty and UCNeighbors.
I am grateful to Jeff and Kyle for the tools they have given us.

I am no fan of Glenn's methods but, just because he often acts obsessed or 
sounds paranoid, it doesn't mean he's always wrong.


I hope all enjoy some lovely rest and wake up 

Re: [UC] FOCP response

[Brian Siano]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Glenn moyer glen...@earthlink.net wrote:

 Does anyone know why Mr. Chance does not subscribe to this listserve?

 Mary,

 Yes, I do.

 Like Mr. West and Mr. Siano, he believes in concentrated power.  He does
 not believe in public notification, inclusion of the public, nor publicly
 available information or discussion.  (I know this because he sends me
 insulting responses off of the list.)

 I think Glenn's explained it well-- inadvertently. Why subscribe to a
listserv where people circulate lies about you? Glenn has no real interest
in real issues, and he doesn't scruple at lying about people's reasons or
motives. And as we all know, confronting lies takes a lot of work... and
even then, there are people who still believe the lies, and the liars just
dream up some more.

And, like Glenn Beck, Glenn Moyer drops reams of crazy... all the while
demanding that other people engage with him. It's not that his issues are
valid, or even important; it's that he's demanding _attention_. His entire
argument can be summed up as Watch me as I say Frank Chance hates people!
If I accuse the Friends of being white supremacists, you have to publish
your meeting minutes to prove me wrong! I can post that Tony West hates
Jews, and you HAVE to reply to THAT! I AM A  REAL AND NATURAL LEADER OF THE
COMMUNITY! I AM IMPORTANT!

After replying once or twice, you hit diminishing returns.

If you want to know what's happening in the Park, just ask me, or Tony, or
stop by the table we've started running at the Farmer's Markets. Or come to
our meetings, the schedule of which is posted on our website. If you want to
get involved, join. Join and join the Board as well: we always need people
to do things.

RE: [UC] why community activists avoid this list

[Karen Allen]

I know I'm opening myself up to an attack, but the same groups also do not use 
UC Neighbors. So what's being proved? 

 

Speaking as a Cedar Park Neighbors Board member for the past 14 years, CPN has 
its own website and a membership list that we use to send out information.  

 


Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:05:19 -0400
From: anthony_w...@earthlink.net
To: univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] why community activists avoid this list

Really, Liz? I thought it calm, informative, observant and factual.

Of the numerous community groups in University City City, how many can you name 
whose activists use UC-list as an information medium?

If they don't in fact, use it ... do you have an alternative explanation for 
why they don't, which is better than my explanation? Why do you think the 
following vibrant groups seldom comment on this listserve (I'm all ears)? --

Friends of Clark Park, Friends of Malcolm X Park, Friends of Barkan Park, 
Friends of the Walnut Street West Library, Penn Alexander HSA, Lee HSA, Wilson 
HSA, University City Historical Society, the A-Space, Powelton Civic Ass'n, 
Walnut Hill Community Ass'n, Cedar Park Neighbors, Garden Court Community 
Association, Spruce Hill Community Association, West Shore Community, Dist. 
Health Ctr. 3, University Square Association, Woodland Ave. Reunion, University 
City City Arts League, People's Emergency Ctr., Community Education Ctr. (I 
could go on and on.)

(A) Why do you think none of these groups want to touch this listserve with a 
10-foot pole? (B) Why do you think it's the messenger's fault (me) for pointing 
out the obvious? I think these data more likely point to a flaw in UC-list's 
underlying design.

But if you can correct these flaws and solve these problems, you know I'll 
stick with it!

-- Tony West



On 4/12/2010 6:40 PM, campio...@juno.com wrote: 
I found this an insulting and crazy making post

  

RE: [UC] why community activists avoid this list

[Karen Allen]

I am a community leader b/c I'm Treasurer of Cedar Park Neighbors, and I read 
this list. I also read UC Neighbors.  

 

You will not hear people who are actually in charge of ongoing projects engage 
in dialog about them here. Therefore, by definition, discussion tends to be 
 dominated by comments of the uninvolved and uninformed. 

 

Since community leaders don't engage in dialog[ue] about [ongoing projects] 
on UC Neighbors either, I guess that means that UC Neighbors' discussions are 
dominated by the comments of the uninvolved an uninformed as well. 

 

 


 
 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:45:27 -0400
 From: anthony_w...@earthlink.net
 To: univcity@list.purple.com
 Subject: Re: [UC] why community activists avoid this list
 
 Liz,
 
 As I am a member of UC-list, you seem to believe I am insulting myself. 
 I'm sorry you feel insulted and you shouldn't, as I think highly of you 
 and most UC-list members whom I know personally. I am confident I've 
 never attacked Wilma, who is a charming correspondent, although we have 
 disagreed on facts.
 
 You are an active community member who posts useful information on 
 UC-list. But you are not an officer of a civic association, park-support 
 group, library support group, church group, home-school association or 
 arts association, to my knowledge.
 
 The focus of this thread is a point raised by Mary: why community 
 leaders don't read this list. She wishes more would do so. I reported 
 what most of the leaders who've mentioned the list to me have said: they 
 don't see it as the wisest use of their time. And the track record of 
 the list demonstrates it is seldom used by any neighborhood groups as a 
 medium of public interaction.
 
 UC-list can be a perfectly fine place for many people and many purposes. 
 But if Mary or other members want to use it for meaningful interaction 
 with community groups, they will have to change the list so that it 
 starts to attract community groups. UCNeighbors doesn't get much 
 community-group traffic either, for that matter.
 
 There's not much political difference between the two lists, since 
 it's the same community and often the same people. However, on 
 UCNeighbors I read less railing against gentrification by people who, 
 when you meet them, look suspiciously like gentrifiers to the naked 
 eye. To me, that's a UC-list hallmark.
 
 I do not think an unmoderated list with a specialization in discord can 
 grow in the direction Mary suggested, that's all. You will not hear 
 people who are actually in charge of ongoing projects engage in dialog 
 about them here. Therefore, by definition, discussion tends to be 
 dominated by comments of the uninvolved and uninformed. But it's the 
 process, not the people, that leads to this result.
 
 Those who are happy with this list as it is, face no danger of seeing it 
 change. Since, however, we often read complaints about UC-list by 
 UC-list members, those who wish they had a different product may welcome 
 both our reviews, Liz.
 
 -- Tony West
 
 
  At 7:05 Tony directed some questions to me, in response to my post which 
  stated that I found his comments about the UC list and its members 
  insulting.
  I am seeing these questions now, along with several other posts by Tony, 
  which continue to insult the UnivCity List and its members.
  Even when Tony throws in the occasional compliments he managed to make them 
  sound grudging or gratuitous.
 
  I consider myself ACTIVE in several neighborhood organizations, and 
  SUPPORTIVE of many others.
  I read many positive posts on both lists.
  I read many thoughtful posts on both lists.
 
  I don't think it is appropriate to define either list as a complete or 
  accurate voice for the community.
  I have previously posted my frustration at the failure of many 
  self-described leaders to engage the members of our community who are not 
  on either list, or any e-lists.
  MY neighborhood includes the elderly, immigrants, pre-schoolers and 
  people who don't have the luxury of home computers.
 
  I don't see any huge political difference between the two lists.
  UCNeighbors is sometimes more arty or playful, thanks to Kyle and Ross.
  UnivCity seems a little more practical and more open to penetrating 
  discussions and discord.
  Ultimately I don't see the need for the competitive narcissism that Tony 
  seem to be promoting as he harps on the superiority of one list (and its 
  members) over the other.
  The reality in most cases is probably WE is THEY.
  Does anyone know the percentage of overlap? I bet it is quite high.
 
  Wilma makes wonderful contributions.
  Some may on the face seem negative while reading to me as a search for 
  acknowledgment of an ongoing need to bridge class, race and cultural 
  differences.
  She did not deserve Tony's attack.
 
 
  Sadly, Tony's 9:50 PM post reads, to me, like projection.
  Was Tony looking in a mirror when he wrote,
  An unmoderated listserve runs an equal risk of 

Re: [UC] Meeting minutes was FOCP response

[Glenn]

FOCP Vice President:  If I accuse the Friends of being white 
supremacists, you have to publish your meeting minutes to prove me wrong!


Sorry for the second response to the Vice President's outburst at a 
straw man.  I know many of you believe this type of post should be 
ignored, even if it is a civic association leader making back room deals 
about the future of our community.   But the issue of the FOCP election 
meeting minutes is important.



The FOCP minutes from Oct. 21, 2009 will prove that unanimous consent 
was used instead of an election for Board members and Officers.  There 
will be no tally of votes in the minutes, which will help me prove that 
a quorum had not been obtained for a legal election.  The FOCP has no 
documentation that will support that they had a quorum and a legal 
election.  Fran has a hand written list of the 8 or 9 members qualified 
to vote.


The minutes will show that a separate unanimous consent approved 4 
additional board members after the initial unanimous consent.  (Note: 
Not one single person in the packed room wanted to join the FOCP, it's 
board, and participate in their election beyond the slate of candidates 
advanced.)  The minutes will show that Tony West brought  Ed Haligan to 
the Board during this second illegal process.  (Clearly, the initial 
consent had to occur immediately with no new names, so that the lack 
of a quorum was hidden until it was too late.)


Have you ever heard of unanimous consent used, when the majority present 
in the room were not members, and were present because they feared the 
group's intentions  (I was forced to sit in a corner by myself at 
the packed dog park vote, so I wouldn't cheat-hahaha)



The illegal election and refusal to make the minutes publicly available 
is merely the most recent occurrence to prove that the FOCP is a gang 
that does not represent its membership, let alone the community.  I knew 
that FOCP would not make its minutes available, but I required a public 
refusal.


Robert's Rules is very specific that unanimous consent is not allowed in 
the absence of a quorum, and is very specific about the only legal 
actions in the absence of a quorum.  These calls for unanimous consent 
have been used many times before to silence objections.  The quick yes 
vote hid the fact that only 8 or 9 ballots would be passed out.  Mr. 
Chance claimed that he thought he saw the exact minimum number of 18 
members, so a real vote tally could not be allowed.Mr. Chance made a 
huge error when he saw the exact minimum number for a quorum, and 
unanimous consent was substituted for a real vote.  It was only clear 
when 8 voices were heard from the otherwise silent crowd!


  It's too late; you missed your chance; and your a hothead for 
objecting now; are the responses by those who pull this unanimous yes 
maneuver.  (I saw this technique when I was on the Board of FOCP, 10 
years ago.


Glenn

On 4/13/2010 9:39 AM, Brian Siano wrote:



On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Glenn moyer glen...@earthlink.net 
mailto:glen...@earthlink.net wrote:


Does anyone know why Mr. Chance does not subscribe to this listserve?

Mary,

Yes, I do.

Like Mr. West and Mr. Siano, he believes in concentrated power. 
He does not believe in public notification, inclusion of the

public, nor publicly available information or discussion.  (I know
this because he sends me insulting responses off of the list.)

I think Glenn's explained it well-- inadvertently. Why subscribe to a 
listserv where people circulate lies about you? Glenn has no real 
interest in real issues, and he doesn't scruple at lying about 
people's reasons or motives. And as we all know, confronting lies 
takes a lot of work... and even then, there are people who still 
believe the lies, and the liars just dream up some more.


And, like Glenn Beck, Glenn Moyer drops reams of crazy... all the 
while demanding that other people engage with him. It's not that his 
issues are valid, or even important; it's that he's demanding 
_attention_. His entire argument can be summed up as Watch me as I 
say Frank Chance hates people! If I accuse the Friends of being white 
supremacists, you have to publish your meeting minutes to prove me 
wrong! I can post that Tony West hates Jews, and you HAVE to reply to 
THAT! I AM A  REAL AND NATURAL LEADER OF THE COMMUNITY! I AM IMPORTANT!


After replying once or twice, you hit diminishing returns.

If you want to know what's happening in the Park, just ask me, or 
Tony, or stop by the table we've started running at the Farmer's 
Markets. Or come to our meetings, the schedule of which is posted on 
our website. If you want to get involved, join. Join and join the 
Board as well: we always need people to do things.




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2808 - Release Date: 04/13/10 
02:32:00

   

Re: [UC] why community activists avoid this list

[Glenn]

Since community leaders don't engage in dialog[ue] about [ongoing 
projects] on UC Neighbors either, I guess that means that UC Neighbors' 
discussions are dominated by the comments of the uninvolved an 
uninformed as well.


Hahaha!

FOCP hides their plans; has closed meetings by unidentified 
committeemen; only allows private meetings for coffee; and then calls 
everyone else in the community uninvolved and uninformed  I guess we 
should call it, Catch-23.


As I've called for meeting times, dates, and locations for many years, 
uninvolved and uninformed is just about the nicest thing the FOCP 
leaders have ever called me!  Remember the ongoing FOCP message to the 
community of the uninformed and uninvolved:


Put your money where your mouth is



On 4/13/2010 11:34 AM, Karen Allen wrote:
I am a community leader b/c I'm Treasurer of Cedar Park Neighbors, 
and I read this list. I also read UC Neighbors.


You will not hear people who are actually in charge of ongoing 
projects engage in dialog about them here. Therefore, by definition, 
discussion tends to be

dominated by comments of the uninvolved and uninformed.

Since community leaders don't engage in dialog[ue] about [ongoing 
projects] on UC Neighbors either, I guess that means that UC 
Neighbors' discussions are dominated by the comments of the 
uninvolved an uninformed as well.





 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:45:27 -0400
 From: anthony_w...@earthlink.net
 To: univcity@list.purple.com
 Subject: Re: [UC] why community activists avoid this list

 Liz,

 As I am a member of UC-list, you seem to believe I am insulting myself.
 I'm sorry you feel insulted and you shouldn't, as I think highly of you
 and most UC-list members whom I know personally. I am confident I've
 never attacked Wilma, who is a charming correspondent, although we have
 disagreed on facts.

 You are an active community member who posts useful information on
 UC-list. But you are not an officer of a civic association, 
park-support

 group, library support group, church group, home-school association or
 arts association, to my knowledge.

 The focus of this thread is a point raised by Mary: why community
 leaders don't read this list. She wishes more would do so. I reported
 what most of the leaders who've mentioned the list to me have said: 
they

 don't see it as the wisest use of their time. And the track record of
 the list demonstrates it is seldom used by any neighborhood groups as a
 medium of public interaction.

 UC-list can be a perfectly fine place for many people and many 
purposes.

 But if Mary or other members want to use it for meaningful interaction
 with community groups, they will have to change the list so that it
 starts to attract community groups. UCNeighbors doesn't get much
 community-group traffic either, for that matter.

 There's not much political difference between the two lists, since
 it's the same community and often the same people. However, on
 UCNeighbors I read less railing against gentrification by people who,
 when you meet them, look suspiciously like gentrifiers to the naked
 eye. To me, that's a UC-list hallmark.

 I do not think an unmoderated list with a specialization in discord can
 grow in the direction Mary suggested, that's all. You will not hear
 people who are actually in charge of ongoing projects engage in dialog
 about them here. Therefore, by definition, discussion tends to be
 dominated by comments of the uninvolved and uninformed. But it's the
 process, not the people, that leads to this result.

 Those who are happy with this list as it is, face no danger of 
seeing it

 change. Since, however, we often read complaints about UC-list by
 UC-list members, those who wish they had a different product may 
welcome

 both our reviews, Liz.

 -- Tony West


  At 7:05 Tony directed some questions to me, in response to my post 
which stated that I found his comments about the UC list and its 
members insulting.
  I am seeing these questions now, along with several other posts by 
Tony, which continue to insult the UnivCity List and its members.
  Even when Tony throws in the occasional compliments he managed to 
make them sound grudging or gratuitous.

 
  I consider myself ACTIVE in several neighborhood organizations, 
and SUPPORTIVE of many others.

  I read many positive posts on both lists.
  I read many thoughtful posts on both lists.
 
  I don't think it is appropriate to define either list as a 
complete or accurate voice for the community.
  I have previously posted my frustration at the failure of many 
self-described leaders to engage the members of our community who 
are not on either list, or any e-lists.
  MY neighborhood includes the elderly, immigrants, pre-schoolers 
and people who don't have the luxury of home computers.

 
  I don't see any huge political difference between the two lists.
  UCNeighbors is sometimes more arty or playful, thanks to Kyle and 
Ross.
  UnivCity seems a little more practical and more 

[UC] Dueling Listservs

[Karen Allen]

Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood 
listservs, I'd like to make one observation:
 
The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list is 
basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that 
would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind, and 
serves a defined audience. 

 

None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were 
even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would 
cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no further 
discussion took place there.

I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006 
because there had been  some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on UC 
list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the 
Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in the 
October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early June, 
2009). 
 
I did a search of my undeleted email with the term ucneighbors, and found 12 
pages  (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007. 
Overall the consistent topics were:  missing pets, recycling, home repair and 
contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools, 
cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that 
appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning Campus Inn. The only 
somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the 
Kingsessing branch library.
 
Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all 
emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term 
campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until 
June 8, 2009.  All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of 
the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading. 
 
By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in turn have 
aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the people, on either side, 
who care about an issue. I regret having lost friendships over some of the 
things that have been fought out on this listserv. But the reason that there is 
no homeless shelter, UCD tax, or ten-story hotel in this neighborhood is due in 
large measure to the existance of this list. 
 
I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, because they 
serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC Neighbors and UC Listserv 
have different audiences and fill different niches.  Neither one is better than 
the other, and neither one is a substitute for the other.  


From Franklyn Haiman The American Prospect | June 23, 1991:
As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. 
California opinion in 1927, If there be time to expose through discussion the 
falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the 
remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.


 
  

Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs

[Glenn]

Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally 
saved all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search 
using the term campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from 
April 28, 2008 until June 8, 2009.  All of the list-generated posts came 
from UC List; not one of the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from 
heading.



Good analysis!  Record abstraction was a very good way to look at this 
data.  Your report of your methods is also perfect.


 My interpretation of your data suggests that we should consider the 
chilling effect of censorship at the neighborhood level.  I've seen 
increasing reports about moderation and how it discourages anything 
approaching discourse.  It is a tool for exclusive clubs or deceptive spin.



As soon as Penn drops UC Neighbors without continuing any links, I could 
also wish their club well!  Cassidy and Tony can moderate a club on 
google or many other places.


But using the massive Penn network to set up censorship of controversial 
UC neighborhood topics was very problematic.  It was hard to believe 
that any university would promote a closed censored list as a public 
list, for such a long time.   The implications of censorship over the 
adjacent neighborhood, at the time the university was ostensibly 
partnering with the neighborhood, are extraordinary.


Wilma raised that alarm as soon as Cassidy/Melani made the 
announcement.  Penn employees need to be trained on the open expression 
policies that most responsible universities put in place!


Good analysis,
Glenn

On 4/13/2010 2:49 PM, Karen Allen wrote:
Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary 
neighborhood listservs, I'd like to make one observation:


The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its 
list is basically because they rarely talk about anything 
controversial there that would arouse rancor or hostility. They 
created that list with that in mind, and serves a defined audience.


None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on 
UC List were even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a 
while someone would cross-post a response to a UC discussion to 
UCNeighbors, but usually no further discussion took place there.


I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 
2006 because there had been  some really nasty exchanges going back 
and forth on UC list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors 
was definitely around during the Campus Inn fight (that controversy 
first arose when an article appeared in the October 12, 2007 edition 
of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early June, 2009).


I did a search of my undeleted email with the term ucneighbors, and 
found 12 pages  (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to 
August 2007. Overall the consistent topics were:  missing pets, 
recycling, home repair and contractor recommendations, meet-ups, 
clean-ups, crime alerts, schools, cultural events and general 
announcements; basically the same things that appear on the UC 
list. There were no posts mentioning Campus Inn. The only somewhat 
controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the 
Kingsessing branch library.


Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally 
saved all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search 
using the term campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from 
April 28, 2008 until June 8, 2009.  All of the list-generated posts 
came from UC List; not one of the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the 
from heading.


By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in 
turn have aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the 
people, on either side, who care about an issue. I regret having lost 
friendships over some of the things that have been fought out on this 
listserv. But the reason that there is no homeless shelter, UCD 
tax, or ten-story hotel in this neighborhood is due in large measure 
to the existance of this list.


I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, 
because they serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC 
Neighbors and UC Listserv have different audiences and fill different 
niches.  Neither one is better than the other, and neither one is a 
substitute for the other.


From *Franklyn Haiman */_The American Prospect _/*| */June 23, 1991:/

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous 
/Whitney v. California/ opinion in 1927, If there be time to expose 
through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by 
the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, 
not enforced silence.





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2808 - Release Date: 04/13/10 
02:32:00

   

Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs

[Alex de Soto]

Well done, Karen.  I agree with you about one not being superior to the
other, such as one listserv is rife with crazies and the other just talks
swap meets, boat races and riding to hounds.  There is room for both
listservs and people can choose one or the other or both.


On 4/13/10 2:49 PM, Karen Allen kallena...@msn.com wrote:

 Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood
 listservs, I'd like to make one observation:
  
 The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list is
 basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that
 would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind,
 and serves a defined audience.
  
 None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were
 even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would
 cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no
 further discussion took place there.
 
 I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006
 because there had been  some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on UC
 list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the
 Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in the
 October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early June,
 2009). 
  
 I did a search of my undeleted email with the term ucneighbors, and found 12
 pages  (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007.
 Overall the consistent topics were:  missing pets, recycling, home repair and
 contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools,
 cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that
 appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning Campus Inn. The only
 somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the
 Kingsessing branch library.
  
 Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all
 emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term
 campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until
 June 8, 2009.  All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of
 the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading.
  
 By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in turn have
 aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the people, on either side,
 who care about an issue. I regret having lost friendships over some of the
 things that have been fought out on this listserv. But the reason that there
 is no homeless shelter, UCD tax, or ten-story hotel in this neighborhood is
 due in large measure to the existance of this list.
  
 I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, because they
 serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC Neighbors and UC Listserv
 have different audiences and fill different niches.  Neither one is better
 than the other, and neither one is a substitute for the other.
 
 
 From Franklyn Haiman The American Prospect | June 23, 1991:
 As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v.
 California opinion in 1927, If there be time to expose through discussion the
 falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the
 remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
 
  

Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs

[Alex de Soto]

Glenn, I raised the alarm because my fear was that UCNeighbors was formed to
disparage and discredit the purple listserv because the people who started
it disagreed with some of the positions expressed here and they had the
backing of UPenn to lend legitimacy to their clarion call for people to
abandon this listserv.

As long as people do not seek to disparage those of us who still post here
instead of UCNeighbors I say fine.


On 4/13/10 3:51 PM, Glenn glen...@earthlink.net wrote:

 Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved
 all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term
 campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until
 June 8, 2009.  All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of
 the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading.
 
 
 Good analysis!  Record abstraction was a very good way to look at this data.
 Your report of your methods is also perfect.
 
  My interpretation of your data suggests that we should consider the chilling
 effect of censorship at the neighborhood level.  I've seen increasing reports
 about moderation and how it discourages anything approaching discourse.  It
 is a tool for exclusive clubs or deceptive spin.
 
 
 As soon as Penn drops UC Neighbors without continuing any links, I could also
 wish their club well!  Cassidy and Tony can moderate a club on google or many
 other places. 
 
 But using the massive Penn network to set up censorship of controversial UC
 neighborhood topics was very problematic.  It was hard to believe that any
 university would promote a closed censored list as a public list, for such a
 long time.   The implications of censorship over the adjacent neighborhood, at
 the time the university was ostensibly partnering with the neighborhood, are
 extraordinary.
 
 Wilma raised that alarm as soon as Cassidy/Melani made the announcement.  Penn
 employees need to be trained on the open expression policies that most
 responsible universities put in place!
 
 Good analysis,
 Glenn
 
 On 4/13/2010 2:49 PM, Karen Allen wrote:
  Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood
 listservs, I'd like to make one observation:
  
 The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list
 is basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that
 would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind,
 and serves a defined audience.
  
 None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were
 even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would
 cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no
 further discussion took place there.
  
 I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006
 because there had been  some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on
 UC list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the
 Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in
 the October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early
 June, 2009). 
  
 I did a search of my undeleted email with the term ucneighbors, and found
 12 pages  (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007.
 Overall the consistent topics were:  missing pets, recycling, home repair and
 contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools,
 cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that
 appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning Campus Inn. The only
 somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the
 Kingsessing branch library.
  
 Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved
 all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term
 campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until
 June 8, 2009.  All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of
 the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading.
  
 By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in turn have
 aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the people, on either
 side, who care about an issue. I regret having lost friendships over some of
 the things that have been fought out on this listserv. But the reason that
 there is no homeless shelter, UCD tax, or ten-story hotel in this
 neighborhood is due in large measure to the existance of this list.
  
 I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, because they
 serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC Neighbors and UC Listserv
 have different audiences and fill different niches.  Neither one is better
 than the other, and neither one is a substitute for the other.
  
  
 
 From Franklyn Haiman The American Prospect | June 23, 1991:
 As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v.
 

RE: [UC] Dueling Listservs

[Karen Allen]

Unon reflection, I guess this information does leave open to question why UC 
Neighbors never discussed controversial issues...



Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:15:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs
From: wil.p...@comcast.net
To: glen...@earthlink.net; kallena...@msn.com
CC: univcity@list.purple.com

Glenn, I raised the alarm because my fear was that UCNeighbors was formed to 
disparage and discredit the purple listserv because the people who started it 
disagreed with some of the positions expressed here and they had the backing of 
UPenn to lend legitimacy to their clarion call for people to abandon this 
listserv.

As long as people do not seek to disparage those of us who still post here 
instead of UCNeighbors I say fine.


On 4/13/10 3:51 PM, Glenn glen...@earthlink.net wrote:



Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all 
emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term 
campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until 
June 8, 2009.  All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of 
the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading.


Good analysis!  Record abstraction was a very good way to look at this data.  
Your report of your methods is also perfect.

 My interpretation of your data suggests that we should consider the chilling 
effect of censorship at the neighborhood level.  I've seen increasing reports 
about moderation and how it discourages anything approaching discourse.  It 
is a tool for exclusive clubs or deceptive spin.   


As soon as Penn drops UC Neighbors without continuing any links, I could also 
wish their club well!  Cassidy and Tony can moderate a club on google or many 
other places. 

But using the massive Penn network to set up censorship of controversial UC 
neighborhood topics was very problematic.  It was hard to believe that any 
university would promote a closed censored list as a public list, for such a 
long time.   The implications of censorship over the adjacent neighborhood, at 
the time the university was ostensibly partnering with the neighborhood, are 
extraordinary.

Wilma raised that alarm as soon as Cassidy/Melani made the announcement.  Penn 
employees need to be trained on the open expression policies that most 
responsible universities put in place!

Good analysis,
Glenn

On 4/13/2010 2:49 PM, Karen Allen wrote: 

Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood 
listservs, I'd like to make one observation:
 
The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list is 
basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that 
would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind, and 
serves a defined audience. 
 
None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were 
even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would 
cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no further 
discussion took place there.
 
I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006 
because there had been  some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on UC 
list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the 
Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in the 
October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early June, 
2009). 
 
I did a search of my undeleted email with the term ucneighbors, and found 12 
pages  (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007. 
Overall the consistent topics were:  missing pets, recycling, home repair and 
contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools, 
cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that 
appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning Campus Inn. The only 
somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the 
Kingsessing branch library.
 
Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all 
emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term 
campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until 
June 8, 2009.  All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of 
the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading. 
 
By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in turn have 
aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the people, on either side, 
who care about an issue. I regret having lost friendships over some of the 
things that have been fought out on this listserv. But the reason that there is 
no homeless shelter, UCD tax, or ten-story hotel in this neighborhood is due in 
large measure to the existance of this list. 
 
I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, because they 
serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC Neighbors and UC 

Re: [UC] why community activists avoid this list

[Anthony West]

Thanks to Karen and Brian for confirming my original point. A few 
leaders (officers) do read UC-list, and occasionally write on it. But 
they are a minority among neighborhood leaders. And neither of them uses 
UC-list as a medium for community outreach or discussion for their 
community group. Or UCNeighbors, for that matter.


There has never been a demand on UCNeighbors for community group leaders 
to listen to, or dialog with, its readers. Readers on UCNeighbors seem 
to trust they can reach out to community groups on their own, if they 
have any questions about them.


In contrast, a recurrent fantasy surfaces on UC-list from time to time, 
that it's a place where readers can address community groups and 
demand information, explanations, atonement, etc. from them. It is 
nothing of the sort.


Most UC-list readers don't think like this, of course. But it is a 
public space where inappropriate behavior faces few checks; as a result, 
inappropriate behavior tends to blossom thereon.


Since nobody ever comments about community groups on UCNeighbors -- 
truly, most such bodies don't seem to be very controversial amongst most 
University Citoyens -- it is impossible to tell whether that list's 
readers are uninvolved and uninformed, or passionate and savvy, about 
community groups.


Only on UC-list is bandwidth wasted on this skimpy subject. If that's 
what its readers like -- then have at it! But they mustn't expect 
community groups to dialog with them here. Especially those that rely 
solely on neighbor-volunteers. Their time is scarce.


-- Tony West



On 4/13/2010 11:34 AM, Karen Allen wrote:
I am a community leader b/c I'm Treasurer of Cedar Park Neighbors, 
and I read this list. I also read UC Neighbors.


You will not hear people who are actually in charge of ongoing 
projects engage in dialog about them here. Therefore, by definition, 
discussion tends to be

dominated by comments of the uninvolved and uninformed.

Since community leaders don't engage in dialog[ue] about [ongoing 
projects] on UC Neighbors either, I guess that means that UC 
Neighbors' discussions are dominated by the comments of the 
uninvolved an uninformed as well.

[UC] that particular clientèle

[Frank]

More on the Local 44 raid:

http://www.philebrity.com/2010/04/13/pa-lawmakers-blast-plcb-plcb-uses-the-but-they-might-have-been-craft-ale-gangstas-defense/

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.

[UC-Announce] Klezmer concert (Su 4/18) and workshop (Th 4/22) at Crossroads

[Daniel Flaumenhaft]

Sunday, April 18 at 7:30 pm

MICHAEL WINOGRAD TRIO
(with special guest Dan Blacksberg)
New  traditional klezmer, Yiddish song  improv
The wedding band of choice for the hippest of shtetls. – City Paper
Formerly deceased, the music now enjoys rude good health. A perfect example of 
this sea change in musical fortunes. – The Forward
Tickets are $20, $10 discount, $30 for supporters, $5 for 12 and under.

Thursday, April 22 at 7:00 pm
Free KLEZMER WORKSHOP with Dan Blackberg

Both events are at Crossroads Music 
48th and Baltimore Ave. (in Calvary United Methodist Church)

http://www.crossroadsconcerts.org or 215-729-1028 

A leader in the second generation of the klezmer revival, clarinetist and 
composer Michael Winograd is considered a modern master of the klezmer clarinet 
style and has also developed his unique voice in the area of free-jazz with his 
group Infection. Since graduating with distinction from the New England 
Conservatory of Music, Michael has taught and performed all over the world, 
including at KlezKamp, KlezKanada, the Jewish Culture Festival in Krakow, the 
Klezmer Workshop in Paris, the Winnipeg and Calgary folk festivals, and the 
Dawson City Music Festival.

Benjy Fox-Rosen is a Brooklyn based bassist, singer, and composer. He has 
performed internationally as a member of Luminescent Orchestrii, a Balkan 
inspired string band, and is a founding member of PLAY! ensemble. In 2007 Benjy 
was a recipient of the Bronfman Fellowship for Emerging Jewish Student Artists. 
He also performs regularly with Transylvanian folk band Metrofolk, Jake 
Shulman-Ment, The Amazing Frozen String Quartet and with his own band, Minutn 
fun Bitokhn, focusing on the songs of, and original setting of poems by, 
Mordechai Gebirtig.

Patrick Farrell is a Brooklyn, NY based accordionist, brass fanatic, composer 
and bandleader who has been described as a wizard by Feast of Music and as a 
player of mordant wit and blistering speed by Lucid Culture. An open-eared 
approach and consistent curiosity about music have led him to study and perform 
in an ever-expanding variety of musical fields, including collaborations in 
theater, dance and spoken word. He has travelled extensively in Eastern Europe 
and the Balkans, where he regularly studies with his primary accordion teacher, 
Goran Alachki of Skopje, Macedonia.

Daniel Blacksberg has played trombone with just about every klezmer band on the 
East coast that's had one, as well as many in Europe, all while residing in the 
city of brotherly love.  He's a regular with Frank London's Klezmer Brass All 
Stars and is a member of Alan Bern's Klezmer/Gypsy music supergroup The Other 
Europeans.  He's been a featured performer and teacher at festivals and 
workshops everywhere from Toronto to Charlottesville to Weimar, Germany to 
Krakow, Poland. 

In addition to performing with the Michael Winograd Trio on  Sunday, Dan will 
be hosting a special klezmer workshop and jam at Crossroads the following 
Thursday.  Here you can learn to play the instrumental Jewish music of the Old 
World and New with one of the best trombonists in the business.  The event will 
be about half workshop, where the group will delve into a small number of tunes 
to learn the style and the ornamentation and half jam where the people can play 
the tunes they already know and let all the work settle in.  This is a great 
opportunity for those who have been playing klezmer for a long time or those 
who just have a passing interest in Eastern European folk music.  


UPCOMING EVENTS

Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 7:30 pm
JAYATEERTH MEVUNDI
Indian classical vocalist of the Kirana gharana
Took [Kolkata's Nazrul Mancha] conference by storm. His presentation of 
Sudhkalyan followed by Pahari Thumri and Bhajan is still ringing in my ears. 
Jayatu Jayateerth! – Dhaka Daily Star
Sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania South Asia Center

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 7:30 pm (kid's show at 4:00 pm)
ALASH ENSEMBLE
Tuvan throat-singing
Utterly stunning. Audience members picked their jaws up off the floor. – 
Washington Post. 
Seemed to demonstrate superhuman powers using their vocal chords. – Cornell 
Daily Sun

Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Generations of Resistance, featuring:
ANNE FEENEY - unionmaid, hell raiser, and labor singer
Congratulations on your fine songwriting! - Pete Seeger
Anne Feeney is the best labor singer in North America. - Utah Phillips

EVAN GREER - Songs to inspire hope, build community and incite resistance
Songs [that] will be heard at the barricades for years to come. - Tom 
Morello, Rage Against the Machine
An eloquent and energetic writer. - Howard Zinn

ROY ZIMMERMAN - Funny songs about ignorance, war, and greed
Lacerating wit  keen awareness of society's foibles that bring to mind a 
latter-day Tom Lehrer. - Los Angeles Times
Reintroducing literacy to comedy songs. - Tom Lehrer

Friday, May 21, 2010 at 7:30 pm
BRUCE MOLSKY  ALE MOLLER - Appalachian old time and Swedish 

Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs

[Anthony West]

Sharp and clear observations, Karen (most of which I clipped).

It's not that controversy doesn't erupt on UCNeighbors. Last week saw a 
flurry of intense discussion that meandered from a community-garden 
conflict to carshare parking -- both big UC lifestyle issues. I learned 
a great deal.


But it ENDED. Information was exchanged and the discussion arrived at 
its destination.


So I'd agree with you that UCNeighbors readers want controversy and 
conflict to get somewhere, arrive at a point. On UC-list, controversies 
tend to be repetitive because arguers don't acknowledge points by the 
opposition, don't apologize for mistakes, and don't develop their 
thought before their readers' eyes. It is, as Brian noted, rather like 
Glennbeckistan in rules of engagement, if not in political bias. On 
UC-list, conflict is eternal and has to stay eternal, to have meaning 
for the combatants.


As Karen noted, most of the controversies UC-list once took so seriously 
are ignored on UCNeighbors. That is a list better suited to people who 
are capable of seeing both sides of an issue. As a result, when they 
hash out a controversy and both sides have made their points, they let 
it drop.


On UC-list, attack mode is always de rigueur. Every pleader pleads he is 
being attacked or persecuted or dissed, while ignoring the attacks and 
persecutions and disses that he himself launches in turn.


At the time the new list seceded from the old, many University Citizens 
found the hysterical abuse about UCD, or Campus Inn, or Spruce Hill 
Civic Association unending, monotonous and unbalanced. But they couldn't 
get a word in edgewise, as frantic hyperpartisanship overwhelmed this 
listserve. Any poster who dared to say merely, Well, on the one hand X, 
on the other hand Y, risked being flamed by secretive, unseen neighbors 
over trivia. Over tempests in teapots.


So a space was created in which this can't happen. I like that space, 
and many other neighbors do as well, because it gets more posts than 
UC-list. So it serves the neighborhood well. But I'm still here too.


-- Tony West



On 4/13/2010 2:49 PM, Karen Allen wrote:
Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary 
neighborhood listservs, I'd like to make one observation:


The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its 
list is basically because they rarely talk about anything 
controversial there that would arouse rancor or hostility. They 
created that list with that in mind, and serves a defined audience.


None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on 
UC List were even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a 
while someone would cross-post a response to a UC discussion to 
UCNeighbors, but usually no further discussion took place there.

[UC] FOUND: tickets

[robert rathmann]

Let me know if you lost your tickets.

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] Dueling Listservs

[Karen Allen]

In my original post, I sought to be as objective as possible so that readers 
could draw their own conclusions. Since words are being put in my mouth, I'll 
comment: 

 

I found it odd that the UCNeighbors list, which Kyle created as a civilized 
alternative to UC List, did not address the Campus Inn issue AT ALL.  There was 
no civilized dialogue about the pros and cons of a ten-story hotel in a 3 
story residential neighborhood; there was no dialogue AT ALL!  There were no 
alternate-universe Karen Allens or Glenn Moyers or Melani Lamonds  politely 
taking turns debating his or her point; IT WAS IGNORED, as if none of it was 
happening.  
 

So I'd agree with you that UCNeighbors readers want controversy and conflict 
to get somewhere, arrive at a point

 

Please don't put words in my mouth; I never said that. That is your opinion, 
not mine.  Plus, as far as anyone would tell by reading UC Neighbors during 
that period, no controversy existed, so there was never any point to be 
reached. 

 

As Karen noted, most of the controversies UC-list once took so seriously are 
ignored on UCNeighbors. That is a list better suited to people who are capable 
of seeing both sides of an issue. As a result, when they hash out a controversy 
and both sides have made their points, they let it drop.


Where is the evidence of that?  First of all, I can't recall any controversies 
being discussed there, and in the case of Campus Inn, no one ever even 
acknowledged there was an issue, much less discussed it, made a point and then 
let anything drop.  In my post, I stated imperical evidence that would lead a 
person to conclude that controversies were ignored on UC Neighbors, but 
personally, I don't see that as a good thing if the point is to be an alternate 
forum for civilized discussion.

 

Ignoring controversy is fine if the subscribers want to maintain the listserv 
as a medium for socializing, which UCNeighbors seems to be. There's nothing 
wrong with having a purely social network, if that's what they acknowledge it 
to be.  But if UCNeighbors is supposed to be a community listserv that 
discusses community issues, it falls very short of that mark.  

 

I was on the front lines of the Campus Inn battle and I saw how that project 
was being manipulated and rubberstamped through the system via backroom deals, 
and how people who were supposed to be representing the community were actually 
representing and advocating for the developer.  I'm sure that the people who 
were behind that are extremely unhappy that a communications medium that they 
do not control shined an unwanted light upon them, and was successful in 
defeating their plans. I'm sure that they would not be sorry to see that medium 
die. I'm sure they would be happy if an unconfrontational medium took its place.

 

I'm also sure that were it not for this listserv, things would be very 
different today in UC, precisely because neighborhood controversies could have 
flown beneath the radar, and backroom deals could have remained in the back 
room.  But luckily for the neighbors living in the 40th and Pine teapot, they 
were spared the tempest that the Campus Inn would have brought down upon 
them.  

 

 

 


Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:48:08 -0400
From: anthony_w...@earthlink.net
To: univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs

Sharp and clear observations, Karen (most of which I clipped).

It's not that controversy doesn't erupt on UCNeighbors. Last week saw a flurry 
of intense discussion that meandered from a community-garden conflict to 
carshare parking -- both big UC lifestyle issues. I learned a great deal.

But it ENDED. Information was exchanged and the discussion arrived at its 
destination.

So I'd agree with you that UCNeighbors readers want controversy and conflict to 
get somewhere, arrive at a point. On UC-list, controversies tend to be 
repetitive because arguers don't acknowledge points by the opposition, don't 
apologize for mistakes, and don't develop their thought before their readers' 
eyes. It is, as Brian noted, rather like Glennbeckistan in rules of engagement, 
if not in political bias. On UC-list, conflict is eternal and has to stay 
eternal, to have meaning for the combatants.

As Karen noted, most of the controversies UC-list once took so seriously are 
ignored on UCNeighbors. That is a list better suited to people who are capable 
of seeing both sides of an issue. As a result, when they hash out a controversy 
and both sides have made their points, they let it drop.

On UC-list, attack mode is always de rigueur. Every pleader pleads he is being 
attacked or persecuted or dissed, while ignoring the attacks and persecutions 
and disses that he himself launches in turn.

At the time the new list seceded from the old, many University Citizens found 
the hysterical abuse about UCD, or Campus Inn, or Spruce Hill Civic Association 
unending, monotonous and unbalanced. But they couldn't get a word in edgewise,