[UC] Car jacking confirmation
Dear list, It appears we do have a police problem. I just spoke with Sargeant Monk, #517, 215-686-3268. He authorized me to post his information so you can confirm my reports. On Saturday, I confirmed with Officer Davis. There was some type of car robbery incident on the 500 block of 44th, although details of the 2 accounts are disputed. I wasn't given the details. I explained how this misinformation has now placed me in the position of passing their misinformation publicly while looking for the truth. As I said before when the second account arrived, one way or the other we have a serious problem. He apologized for the incorrect information I was given and had no explanation. I asked them to follow up and explain to me how they could give me incorrect information. And how I could be told that it was OK to expose it publicly as a false report. I'm going to also contact the police press room so that they can address this problem I regret the period of misinformation in which I was involved, but did give you the reports exactly as I received them. Now, I will return to the main headquarters and file a complaint with the police. I feel we all need some answers. Sincerely, Glenn Moyer
RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
Are you sure we have a police problem, and not a deranged list busybody with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex problem? - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:26 AM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Dear list, It appears we do have a police problem. I just spoke with Sargeant Monk, #517, 215-686-3268. He authorized me to post his information so you can confirm my reports. On Saturday, I confirmed with Officer Davis. There was some type of car robbery incident on the 500 block of 44th, although details of the 2 accounts are disputed. I wasn't given the details. I explained how this misinformation has now placed me in the position of passing their misinformation publicly while looking for the truth. As I said before when the second account arrived, one way or the other we have a serious problem. He apologized for the incorrect information I was given and had no explanation. I asked them to follow up and explain to me how they could give me incorrect information. And how I could be told that it was OK to expose it publicly as a false report. I'm going to also contact the police press room so that they can address this problem I regret the period of misinformation in which I was involved, but did give you the reports exactly as I received them. Now, I will return to the main headquarters and file a complaint with the police. I feel we all need some answers. Sincerely, Glenn Moyer
Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
In a message dated 8/6/2007 11:35:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you sure we have a police problem, and not a deranged list busybody with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex problem? Mike: I notice that you're on the civil citizens' list at sweetbarkingcheese.com -- so apparently you somehow don't approve of the gratuitous insults and antagonism admittedly shown too often on the UC list. I haven't read your posts over there, but assume you've adopted a persona more suitable for the tea and crumpets crowd that joined it -- else why would you have signed up and why would the censors have let your messages through? So why the totally unnecessary nastiness here? OK, Glenn admittedly went a bit overboard after trying to get the facts from the copskies and being given false information. But, when he found out that he was mislead by Philadelphia's finest, he posted what seems like a sincere correction. And you either can't find it in your heart to let it go without a mean-spirited response, or even to say something pleasant to encourage the kind of posts you purport to want by going to the other list. I noticed, by the way, that Melani Lamond is also posting to sweetbarkingcheese.com. But her post this morning on this list, in response to something by Al Airone, was useful and took no potshots whatever at people who have chimed in on the carjacking topic with whom we know she doesn't always see eye-to-eye. Always at your service ready for a dialog, Al Krigman ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
Al, It would be unwise to make assumptions about what I do or don't approve of based solely on what in which databases my name lies, especially since you admit you haven't done the extremely small amount of research necessary to make your claims plausibe. Listen, you and I have butted heads in the past, and god willing will continue to do so in the future, but you've never struck me as particularly insane. We disagree vehemently on many things, but you've always seemed, if nothing else, a rational, thinking human being. I understand that you've got something against the other list, but you cannot seriously look me in the keyboard and tell me that you think that what Glenn has done with this issue over the last few days doesn't smack of looney-tunes? Surely your sophistry doesn't extend that far. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 11:52 AM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation In a message dated 8/6/2007 11:35:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you sure we have a police problem, and not a deranged list busybody with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex problem? Mike: I notice that you're on the civil citizens' list at sweetbarkingcheese.com -- so apparently you somehow don't approve of the gratuitous insults and antagonism admittedly shown too often on the UC list. I haven't read your posts over there, but assume you've adopted a persona more suitable for the tea and crumpets crowd that joined it -- else why would you have signed up and why would the censors have let your messages through? So why the totally unnecessary nastiness here? OK, Glenn admittedly went a bit overboard after trying to get the facts from the copskies and being given false information. But, when he found out that he was mislead by Philadelphia's finest, he posted what seems like a sincere correction. And you either can't find it in your heart to let it go without a mean-spirited response, or even to say something pleasant to encourage the kind of posts you purport to want by going to the other list. I noticed, by the way, that Melani Lamond is also posting to sweetbarkingcheese.com. But her post this morning on this list, in response to something by Al Airone, was useful and took no potshots whatever at people who have chimed in on the carjacking topic with whom we know she doesn't always see eye-to-eye. Always at your service ready for a dialog, Al Krigman _ Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF0002000982 .
Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
In a message dated 8/6/2007 12:04:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be unwise to make assumptions about what I do or don't approve of
based solely on what in which databases my name lies, especially since you
admit you haven't done the extremely small amount of research necessary to
make
your claims plausibe.
Listen, you and I have butted heads in the past, and god willing will
continue to do so in the future, but you've never struck me as particularly
insane.
We disagree vehemently on many things, but you've always seemed, if nothing
else, a rational, thinking human being. I understand that you've got
something against the other list, but you cannot seriously look me in the
keyboard
and tell me that you think that what Glenn has done with this issue over the
last few days doesn't smack of looney-tunes? Surely your sophistry doesn't
extend that far.
Good points, sort of.
But you (and everyone else) know that I'm denigrating the other list on
purpose and I assume that almost everyone knows what that purpose is.
But what you say above is a bit of misdirection. The fact is that your post
was gratuitously insulting and is reflective of the kinds of things we should
all be trying to avoid. Not by a few people picking up their marbles and
going elsewhere (while still keeping their eyes on where they've been), but by
being more tolerant of people with opposing views. I'm not saying I haven't
slipped on occasion, but I try not to do this. Which explains why I felt
comfortable challenging Brian Siano's assertion that I engaged in
mean-spirited
rants and Phil Forrest's statement that I spewed filth because I knew they
couldn't back them up with quotes that would have been readily available in
the
archives if not in their own files.
If someone goes overboard -- occasionally or frequently -- I think the wrong
thing to do is to respond in kind. Sometimes, no response is the best
response. Other times, a measured response to what the person is trying to say,
and
not how it's said, would be appropriate.
Yeah, OK, I've come back on some people -- often but not always when they
attack me for what seems like no reason other than they either disagreed with
something I wrote or with what they think I think. Far more often, I just let
it go.
It seems that you don't like Glenn, or at least don't like the way he
handles things. But you could have done yourself and everyone else a service in
this particular case by thanking him for explaining the error he was making and
agreeing that police misinformation is a problem we should look into -- and
left out the insults. Those who think Glenn is paranoid would think so without
your accusation. Those who think he's right will think so despite your
accusation.
I quoted something from Amy Gutmann's book about deliberative democracy the
other day. Yes, I chide what seem to be her pretensions on this topic -- not
because I think what she says is wrong, or silly, or anything like that. But
because I honestly believe she may only practice what she preaches when she
thinks she's among the other anointed and doesn't think it at all necessary
when she'd dealing with us of the benighted -- that's a big part of what being
anointed is all about. Here's another quote from her book (emphasis added to
show what I think is the point):
Deliberation cannot make incompatible values compatible, but it can help
participants recognize the moral merit in their opponents' claims when those
claims have merit. It can also help deliberators distinguish those
disagreements
that arise from genuinely incompatible values from those that can be more
resolvable than they first appear. And it can support other practices of
mutual
respect, such as the economy of moral disagreement described earlier.
{There's a good chapter on-line at
_http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7869.html_
(http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7869.html) if anyone is
interested. Get past the stuff about Bush and Iraq to get to the heart of the
matter
as opposed to one manifestation thereof.]
I'm not opposed to bluntness -- the rough and tumble that Joe Clark
thought ill of me for saying and didn't notice how gratuitously insulting he
was
being when he posted to that effect -- if it cuts to the chase. But it doesn't
have to cut to the bone.
Al Krigman
** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what you say above is a bit of misdirection. The fact is that your post was gratuitously insulting and is reflective of the kinds of things we should all be trying to avoid. Not by a few people picking up their marbles and going elsewhere (while still keeping their eyes on where they've been), but by being more tolerant of people with opposing views. I'm not saying I haven't slipped on occasion, but I try not to do this. Which explains why I felt comfortable challenging Brian Siano's assertion that I engaged in mean-spirited rants and Phil Forrest's statement that I spewed filth because I knew they couldn't back them up with quotes that would have been readily available in the archives if not in their own files. I don't _need_ to back it up with quotes: long-time readers of this list have seen more than enough of your track record. The gratuitous insults at UCD employees. Your consistent insulting of Melani Lamond; she claims that you'd threatened to sue her. And lately, your eagerness to accuse Kyle Cassidy of engaging of censorship, and of childish motives of taking his toys and going away.And those of us who've _tried_ to work with you on things, like the Historic District issue a few years back, know how quickly you turn angry and insulting on the slightest provocation-- like, when people won't do what you tell them. Generally, Al, you _are_ a pretty mean-spirited fellow around here. I'll grant that you occasionally back off from these with Uriah Heep-like admissions, but I've known you long enough to recognize hypocrisy. (Granted, _I_ can be pretty mean-spirited... but I don't pretend I'm _not_.) 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] Car jacking confirmation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/6/2007 11:35:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you sure we have a police problem, and not a deranged list busybody with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex problem? Mike: I notice that you're on the civil citizens' list at sweetbarkingcheese.com -- so apparently you somehow don't approve of the gratuitous insults and antagonism admittedly shown too often on the UC list. This comment makes no sense at all. It assumes that people who joined the other list should, for some reason, be extra-civil over here on the rough'n'tumble Purple list. And if they get tetchy or argumentative here, they're hypocrites. It's also a typically shoddy tactic: claim that the other person _should_ follow some rule of behavior that you've invented for them, and accuse them of hypocrisy or dishonesty when they _don't_. Here's a clearer example; Aren't liberals supposed to be helping the poor? Then why haven't you given your house to crackheads? Of course, if we follow Al's logic... if _this_ list is supposed to be free and open and uncensored, and _not_ for the tea-and-crumpets etiquette as Al says... then doesn't it make sense that insults and invective are _supposed_ to appear here? So why is Al suddenly demanding civility? 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] Car jacking confirmation
Uriah Heep-like admissions The character or the band? - Mike V. 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] Car jacking confirmation
From: Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:22:32 -0400 This comment makes no sense at all. It assumes that people who joined the other list should, for some reason, be extra-civil over here on the rough'n'tumble Purple list. And if they get tetchy or argumentative here, they're hypocrites. I guess that's because that's the some reason that that list was supposedly created to begin with. And the reason why people here were encouraged to join that list. And the reason why some claimed they did so. So, if someone joins a list whose entire reason for existing claims to be its civility, why shouldn't its members be accused of hypocrisy when they come back here and engage in the very behavior they claim drove them away? It's also a typically shoddy tactic: claim that the other person _should_ follow some rule of behavior that you've invented for them, and accuse them of hypocrisy or dishonesty when they _don't_. Actually, you guys invented that rule for yourselves. 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] Car jacking confirmation
Did they? I'd love to see where. Show me, please. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KAREN ALLEN Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:09 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation It's also a typically shoddy tactic: claim that the other person _should_ follow some rule of behavior that you've invented for them, and accuse them of hypocrisy or dishonesty when they _don't_. Actually, you guys invented that rule for yourselves. 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] Car jacking confirmation
KAREN ALLEN wrote: From: Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:22:32 -0400 This comment makes no sense at all. It assumes that people who joined the other list should, for some reason, be extra-civil over here on the rough'n'tumble Purple list. And if they get tetchy or argumentative here, they're hypocrites. I guess that's because that's the some reason that that list was supposedly created to begin with. And the reason why people here were encouraged to join that list. And the reason why some claimed they did so. So, if someone joins a list whose entire reason for existing claims to be its civility, why shouldn't its members be accused of hypocrisy when they come back here and engage in the very behavior they claim drove them away? It's also a typically shoddy tactic: claim that the other person _should_ follow some rule of behavior that you've invented for them, and accuse them of hypocrisy or dishonesty when they _don't_. Actually, you guys invented that rule for yourselves. For _our_ list. _This_ list is Open Season. 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] Car jacking confirmation
From: Mike V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'KAREN ALLEN' [EMAIL PROTECTED], UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:18:33 -0400 Actually, you guys invented that rule for yourselves. Did they? I'd love to see where. Show me, please. - Mike V. ucneighbors -- Residents of University City About ucneighbors English (USA) A mailing list for residents of Philadelphia's University City. Talk about plays, restaurants, trash removal, lost dogs and the like. Welcome aboard. Be nice. * [Ucneighbors] Howdy Neighbors Kyle Cassidy kcassidy at asc.upenn.edu Fri Jul 27 18:47:38 EDT 2007 Previous message: [Ucneighbors] Howdy Neighbors Next message: [Ucneighbors] Kyle's list Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] excellent. welcome aboard. we'll see how this goes for a few days. once more people get on, i'll experiment with forced moderation. the cool thing about this software is that i can pre-ban glenn! * [Ucneighbors] Howdy Neighbors MLamond at aol.com MLamond at aol.com Fri Jul 27 18:57:05 EDT 2007 Previous message: [Ucneighbors] Kyle's list Next message: [Ucneighbors] Wow! So this is what it's like on the other side! Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 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! This will be heaven. But, I hope he doesn't know where you live. Melani From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC] Since the real reason for the new list is... Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he was being childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He started it because the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic and insulting. It's also becoming a crowded room (virtually speaking) with some loud voices trying to drown out the once speaking in a normal tone. Some people do act like they own this list and like to think that they can dictate and frame the conversation and debates that occur here. Many people have started doing the serial deleting of [UC]-labelled emails, because it's become less relevant and helpful to the average UC resident. I don't know about you, but this puts people a hair-trigger away from leaving the listserv and the community discussion that occurs here. No one is excluded or protected on Kyle's new listserv either. You can still take the conversation there, if you want to, and your bat and ball. This weekend, the heavy-handed people on the purple list found out that their readers now have the option to move away, and clearly, they don't want that to happen. So - did they offer to moderate their language and help develop a set of guidelines? No, they became even more heavy-handed! Several attacked Bruce Anderson for suggesting guidelines. Some even tried to blame Jon Herrmann, who wrote that he had not read the last 13,000 emails posted on the purple list in the last 15 months - now, that shows how involved HE is, doesn't it? Some renewed conspiracy theories, one generated new spoof posts, and as usual, a small but noisy group attacked the person who saw a need to do something and actually DID it. But, why should we be stuck with a dysfunctional list which will not change? I came in for criticism for saying it would be heaven to be on a list without one particularly voluminous ranter who has focused on me, sometimes alarmingly. Why would I want to be on a list with member who sends out fantasy emails about what he wants to have happen to me in Clark Park? Why would I recommend that the buyers and sellers I work with join a listserv where they'd read that kind of stuff with my name in it, where a neighborhood fanatic would single me out for ridicule though I've never even met the man? Is it any surprise I think it will be heaven to be on a list where that sort of email isn't likely to be tolerated? Kyle CAN ban that individual on the new list, but he won't, if the individual is civil to his fellow list members. Anyone can sign up, and the archives are public, so even non members can read what's written. There's no conspiracy and lots of transparency. I'm afraid that spoof addresses have been posted more often than the actual one for Kyle's new list, so I'll include it again here to counteract the usual poster
Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
I rest my case. From: Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:22:55 -0400 For _our_ list. _This_ list is Open Season. 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] Car jacking confirmation
Ah, I believe you are under a misapprehension, Karen. Kyle made up some rules for his mailing list, yes, but that rule certainly doesn't apply to this list, and despite what certain hatemongering gadflies may think, Kyle does not speak for everyone who happened to sign up for the mailing list that he founded. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KAREN ALLEN Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:52 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation From: Mike V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'KAREN ALLEN' [EMAIL PROTECTED], UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:18:33 -0400 Actually, you guys invented that rule for yourselves. Did they? I'd love to see where. Show me, please. - Mike V. ucneighbors -- Residents of University City About ucneighbors English (USA) A mailing list for residents of Philadelphia's University City. Talk about plays, restaurants, trash removal, lost dogs and the like. Welcome aboard. Be nice. * [Ucneighbors] Howdy Neighbors Kyle Cassidy kcassidy at asc.upenn.edu Fri Jul 27 18:47:38 EDT 2007 Previous message: [Ucneighbors] Howdy Neighbors Next message: [Ucneighbors] Kyle's list Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] excellent. welcome aboard. we'll see how this goes for a few days. once more people get on, i'll experiment with forced moderation. the cool thing about this software is that i can pre-ban glenn! * [Ucneighbors] Howdy Neighbors MLamond at aol.com MLamond at aol.com Fri Jul 27 18:57:05 EDT 2007 Previous message: [Ucneighbors] Kyle's list Next message: [Ucneighbors] Wow! So this is what it's like on the other side! Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 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! This will be heaven. But, I hope he doesn't know where you live. Melani From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC] Since the real reason for the new list is... Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he was being childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He started it because the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic and insulting. It's also becoming a crowded room (virtually speaking) with some loud voices trying to drown out the once speaking in a normal tone. Some people do act like they own this list and like to think that they can dictate and frame the conversation and debates that occur here. Many people have started doing the serial deleting of [UC]-labelled emails, because it's become less relevant and helpful to the average UC resident. I don't know about you, but this puts people a hair-trigger away from leaving the listserv and the community discussion that occurs here. No one is excluded or protected on Kyle's new listserv either. You can still take the conversation there, if you want to, and your bat and ball. This weekend, the heavy-handed people on the purple list found out that their readers now have the option to move away, and clearly, they don't want that to happen. So - did they offer to moderate their language and help develop a set of guidelines? No, they became even more heavy-handed! Several attacked Bruce Anderson for suggesting guidelines. Some even tried to blame Jon Herrmann, who wrote that he had not read the last 13,000 emails posted on the purple list in the last 15 months - now, that shows how involved HE is, doesn't it? Some renewed conspiracy theories, one generated new spoof posts, and as usual, a small but noisy group attacked the person who saw a need to do something and actually DID it. But, why should we be stuck with a dysfunctional list which will not change? I came in for criticism for saying it would be heaven to be on a list without one particularly voluminous ranter who has focused on me, sometimes alarmingly. Why would I want to be on a list with member who sends out fantasy emails about what he wants to have happen to me in Clark Park? Why would I recommend that the buyers and sellers I work with join a listserv where they'd read that kind of stuff with my name in it, where a neighborhood fanatic would single me out for ridicule though I've never even met the man
Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
Mike V. wrote: Ah, I believe you are under a misapprehension, Karen. Kyle made up some rules for his mailing list, yes, but that rule certainly doesn't apply to this list, and despite what certain hatemongering gadflies may think, Kyle does not speak for everyone who happened to sign up for the mailing list that he founded. I still think my it's open season here line was pithier, but yeah. What He Said. 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] Car jacking confirmation
Lady, you're barking up the wrong tree. I never said I hated garbage. I never said I didn't want contention. Kyle said that he didn't want contention, and while I'm in his sandbox, I'm content to play by his rules. But this sandbox has different rules. In some states I have to wear a helmet when I ride a motorbike. In some I don't. Just because I choose to follow the helmet laws when I'm in California doesn't mean that I'm a hypocrite when I choose to exercise my right not to wear one in Pennsylvania. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KAREN ALLEN Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 3:17 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation That may be true. You don't want contention on your list, while getting in people's faces here. So if it's OK act like that here, then what's the problem??? Why a new list??? It's OK to come onto MY list with garbage while simultaneously claiming you hate garbage? You and Brian are saying you won't dirty up the new list while throwing garbage here??? That's hypocrisy. Karen Allen From: Mike V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'KAREN ALLEN' [EMAIL PROTECTED],UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:58:43 -0400 Ah, I believe you are under a misapprehension, Karen. Kyle made up some rules for his mailing list, yes, but that rule certainly doesn't apply to this list, and despite what certain hatemongering gadflies may think, Kyle does not speak for everyone who happened to sign up for the mailing list that he founded. - Mike V. 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] Car jacking confirmation
Please do not address me as lady. I do not know you. From: Mike V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'KAREN ALLEN' [EMAIL PROTECTED],UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:28:31 -0400 Lady, you're barking up the wrong tree. I never said I hated garbage. I never said I didn't want contention. Kyle said that he didn't want contention, and while I'm in his sandbox, I'm content to play by his rules. But this sandbox has different rules. In some states I have to wear a helmet when I ride a motorbike. In some I don't. Just because I choose to follow the helmet laws when I'm in California doesn't mean that I'm a hypocrite when I choose to exercise my right not to wear one in Pennsylvania. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KAREN ALLEN Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 3:17 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation That may be true. You don't want contention on your list, while getting in people's faces here. So if it's OK act like that here, then what's the problem??? Why a new list??? It's OK to come onto MY list with garbage while simultaneously claiming you hate garbage? You and Brian are saying you won't dirty up the new list while throwing garbage here??? That's hypocrisy. Karen Allen From: Mike V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'KAREN ALLEN' [EMAIL PROTECTED],UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:58:43 -0400 Ah, I believe you are under a misapprehension, Karen. Kyle made up some rules for his mailing list, yes, but that rule certainly doesn't apply to this list, and despite what certain hatemongering gadflies may think, Kyle does not speak for everyone who happened to sign up for the mailing list that he founded. - Mike V. 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] Car jacking confirmation
KAREN ALLEN wrote: That may be true. You don't want contention on your list, while getting in people's faces here. So if it's OK act like that here, then what's the problem??? Why a new list??? It's OK to come onto MY list with garbage while simultaneously claiming you hate garbage? You and Brian are saying you won't dirty up the new list while throwing garbage here??? That's hypocrisy. Karen, you're saying that Mike and I are throwing garbage here. Fine. You're entitlted to your opinion. (You are not,. by the way, entitled to call this your list. It's not your list.) But over the past three days, Glenn Moyer has been dumping _serious_ trash here. He's accused Tony West of lying about a carjacking. He's attempted to portray this as motivated by dishonesty and racism. When called on this, he responded with shouts and insults. And I have seen _NO_ reply from you about any of this. Not one word correcting Glenn on his behavior. You take the effort to complain about Mike and myself... but when Moyer starts libelling Tony, you are _silent as the grave_. So what's the story, Karen? Is it OK to accuse people of racism? Do you share Glenn's deranged grudge against Tony? Is this some personal thing between you and me that I'm unaware of? Is your list a place where only certain people get bad-behavior passes? 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] Car jacking confirmation
KAREN ALLEN wrote: Please do not address me as lady. I do not know you. How do you feel about Karen baby? Bubbalah? Apple Dumpling? Li'l Nell? Your Imperial Majesty? Ivan Grozny? 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] Car jacking confirmation
Mr. Siano: I'm no one's mother, and it's not my place to tell other adults what to say or not to say. Tony West is certainly capable of defending himself, and has done so in the past. But I cannot abide hypocrisy: you're the ones claiming some moral high ground while doing the same thing you accuse others of. And no, it is not my list; I said that to make the point that this is the list I subscribe to. As far as it being some personal thing between you and me, I assure you it is not. In order for it to be personal, I would have to know you, and I know nothing about you other than what I read on this list. Similarly, you don't know me. Let's keep it that way. Karen Allen From: Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:39:27 -0400 KAREN ALLEN wrote: That may be true. You don't want contention on your list, while getting in people's faces here. So if it's OK act like that here, then what's the problem??? Why a new list??? It's OK to come onto MY list with garbage while simultaneously claiming you hate garbage? You and Brian are saying you won't dirty up the new list while throwing garbage here??? That's hypocrisy. Karen, you're saying that Mike and I are throwing garbage here. Fine. You're entitlted to your opinion. (You are not,. by the way, entitled to call this your list. It's not your list.) But over the past three days, Glenn Moyer has been dumping _serious_ trash here. He's accused Tony West of lying about a carjacking. He's attempted to portray this as motivated by dishonesty and racism. When called on this, he responded with shouts and insults. And I have seen _NO_ reply from you about any of this. Not one word correcting Glenn on his behavior. You take the effort to complain about Mike and myself... but when Moyer starts libelling Tony, you are _silent as the grave_. So what's the story, Karen? Is it OK to accuse people of racism? Do you share Glenn's deranged grudge against Tony? Is this some personal thing between you and me that I'm unaware of? Is your list a place where only certain people get bad-behavior passes? 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] Car jacking confirmation
Well, I'm happy to grant at least half of your request. But I do reserve the right to respond to your inaccurate and unreasonable list emails. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: KAREN ALLEN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 4:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation From: Mike V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'KAREN ALLEN' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:56:30 -0400 Terribly sorry. What would you prefer? - Mike V. I would prefer that you not address me at all. And please do not speak to me offlist. 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] Car jacking confirmation
On Aug 6, 2007, at 03:28 PM, Mike V. wrote: Lady, you're barking up the wrong tree. I never said I hated garbage. I never said I didn't want contention. But you did say this: Glenn's ranting takes up my bandwidth, my time and my attention. Banning him isn't censorship. It's hygiene. That amounts to the same thing. Yet you continue to contribute to the unhygienic nature of this list by engaging Glenn in conversation, even resorting to name-calling. Frankus Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
There's a difference between mad ranting and contentious name-calling. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 4:23 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation On Aug 6, 2007, at 03:28 PM, Mike V. wrote: Lady, you're barking up the wrong tree. I never said I hated garbage. I never said I didn't want contention. But you did say this: Glenn's ranting takes up my bandwidth, my time and my attention. Banning him isn't censorship. It's hygiene. That amounts to the same thing. Yet you continue to contribute to the unhygienic nature of this list by engaging Glenn in conversation, even resorting to name-calling. Frankus Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
Or maybe they are just republicans? (Isn't this the way Bush and his ilk are running our country?) Liz On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:17:16 -0400 KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That may be true. You don't want contention on your list, while getting in people's faces here. So if it's OK act like that here, then what's the problem??? Why a new list??? It's OK to come onto MY list with garbage while simultaneously claiming you hate garbage? You and Brian are saying you won't dirty up the new list while throwing garbage here??? That's hypocrisy. Karen Allen 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] Car jacking confirmation
I take your point, and it's not unreasonable. However, his posting volume is relatively consistent whether or not anyone replies to him. The man creates his own controversy. Take this recent carjacking thing -- he worked himself into a lather without any help from yours truly. Thus the occasional email chastising him for his inappropriateness (which you can argue is in itself inappropriate -- though I disagree) doesn't really have an adverse affect one way or the other. - Mike v. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 5:10 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Not much. Besides, my point, which you conveniently ignored, was that responding to him fuels the fire and creates more ranting. Both of you are somehow compelled to reply to each other. One of you just uses more words. Frankus Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible. On Aug 6, 2007, at 04:46 PM, Mike V. wrote: There's a difference between mad ranting and contentious name-calling. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 4:23 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation On Aug 6, 2007, at 03:28 PM, Mike V. wrote: Lady, you're barking up the wrong tree. I never said I hated garbage. I never said I didn't want contention. But you did say this: Glenn's ranting takes up my bandwidth, my time and my attention. Banning him isn't censorship. It's hygiene. That amounts to the same thing. Yet you continue to contribute to the unhygienic nature of this list by engaging Glenn in conversation, even resorting to name-calling. Frankus Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. 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] Car jacking confirmation
Quite right about Melani. She expressed her view without being nasty about it. Her incident with the police at 46th Market seemed plausible. Is the new list only to take nasty potshots at those of us on the UC Listserv, only to be sweetness and light on the UC Neighbors at Penn Listserv? And if so, then why? On 8/6/07 11:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/6/2007 11:35:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you sure we have a police problem, and not a deranged list busybody with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex problem? Mike: I notice that you're on the civil citizens' list at sweetbarkingcheese.com -- so apparently you somehow don't approve of the gratuitous insults and antagonism admittedly shown too often on the UC list. I haven't read your posts over there, but assume you've adopted a persona more suitable for the tea and crumpets crowd that joined it -- else why would you have signed up and why would the censors have let your messages through? So why the totally unnecessary nastiness here? OK, Glenn admittedly went a bit overboard after trying to get the facts from the copskies and being given false information. But, when he found out that he was mislead by Philadelphia's finest, he posted what seems like a sincere correction. And you either can't find it in your heart to let it go without a mean-spirited response, or even to say something pleasant to encourage the kind of posts you purport to want by going to the other list. I noticed, by the way, that Melani Lamond is also posting to sweetbarkingcheese.com. But her post this morning on this list, in response to something by Al Airone, was useful and took no potshots whatever at people who have chimed in on the carjacking topic with whom we know she doesn't always see eye-to-eye. Always at your service ready for a dialog, Al Krigman Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF0002000982 .
Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
(Granted, _I_ can be pretty mean-spirited... but I don't pretend I'm _not_.) Yes, you do! On 8/6/07 1:15 PM, Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Granted, _I_ can be pretty mean-spirited... but I don't pretend I'm _not_.) 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] Car jacking confirmation
Come on, Wilma. I've always taken potshots where I felt they were warranted. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilma de Soto Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 5:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity listserv Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Quite right about Melani. She expressed her view without being nasty about it. Her incident with the police at 46th Market seemed plausible. Is the new list only to take nasty potshots at those of us on the UC Listserv, only to be sweetness and light on the UC Neighbors at Penn Listserv? And if so, then why? On 8/6/07 11:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/6/2007 11:35:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you sure we have a police problem, and not a deranged list busybody with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex problem? Mike: I notice that you're on the civil citizens' list at sweetbarkingcheese.com -- so apparently you somehow don't approve of the gratuitous insults and antagonism admittedly shown too often on the UC list. I haven't read your posts over there, but assume you've adopted a persona more suitable for the tea and crumpets crowd that joined it -- else why would you have signed up and why would the censors have let your messages through? So why the totally unnecessary nastiness here? OK, Glenn admittedly went a bit overboard after trying to get the facts from the copskies and being given false information. But, when he found out that he was mislead by Philadelphia's finest, he posted what seems like a sincere correction. And you either can't find it in your heart to let it go without a mean-spirited response, or even to say something pleasant to encourage the kind of posts you purport to want by going to the other list. I noticed, by the way, that Melani Lamond is also posting to sweetbarkingcheese.com. But her post this morning on this list, in response to something by Al Airone, was useful and took no potshots whatever at people who have chimed in on the carjacking topic with whom we know she doesn't always see eye-to-eye. Always at your service ready for a dialog, Al Krigman _ Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF0002000982 http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF0002000982 .
Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
AND publicly discrediting people on this list who disagree with the new listserv founders. What's up with THAT? Is it civilized conversation (when attacks are made on the original UC Listserv), or a more politically expedient listserv for a developmental plan, where there might be some oppositional input? On 8/6/07 3:17 PM, KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That may be true. You don't want contention on your list, while getting in people's faces here. So if it's OK act like that here, then what's the problem??? Why a new list??? It's OK to come onto MY list with garbage while simultaneously claiming you hate garbage? You and Brian are saying you won't dirty up the new list while throwing garbage here??? That's hypocrisy. Karen Allen From: Mike V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'KAREN ALLEN' [EMAIL PROTECTED],UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:58:43 -0400 Ah, I believe you are under a misapprehension, Karen. Kyle made up some rules for his mailing list, yes, but that rule certainly doesn't apply to this list, and despite what certain hatemongering gadflies may think, Kyle does not speak for everyone who happened to sign up for the mailing list that he founded. - Mike V. 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] Car jacking confirmation
Not exactly speaking for my old High School friend Karen, What has her accusing you of hypocrisy have to do with your assertion of her accusing you of racism? On 8/6/07 3:39 PM, Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: KAREN ALLEN wrote: That may be true. You don't want contention on your list, while getting in people's faces here. So if it's OK act like that here, then what's the problem??? Why a new list??? It's OK to come onto MY list with garbage while simultaneously claiming you hate garbage? You and Brian are saying you won't dirty up the new list while throwing garbage here??? That's hypocrisy. Karen, you're saying that Mike and I are throwing garbage here. Fine. You're entitlted to your opinion. (You are not,. by the way, entitled to call this your list. It's not your list.) But over the past three days, Glenn Moyer has been dumping _serious_ trash here. He's accused Tony West of lying about a carjacking. He's attempted to portray this as motivated by dishonesty and racism. When called on this, he responded with shouts and insults. And I have seen _NO_ reply from you about any of this. Not one word correcting Glenn on his behavior. You take the effort to complain about Mike and myself... but when Moyer starts libelling Tony, you are _silent as the grave_. So what's the story, Karen? Is it OK to accuse people of racism? Do you share Glenn's deranged grudge against Tony? Is this some personal thing between you and me that I'm unaware of? Is your list a place where only certain people get bad-behavior passes? 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] Car jacking confirmation
Unfortunately, so have I. You KNOW it. I am really disturbed about the backlash from the UC Neighbors Listserv subscribers like you and Mr. Siano. Why? I am curious about Brian Siano¹s rant about Karen Allen calling people racist after he had accused me, (for the same reason) of being one of the reasons Kyle formed the UC Neighbors Listserv. His invective does not seem innocuous about race. Neither does Bruce Anderson¹s account, nor FX Winkler¹s earlier post about Sharrieff Ali being a truly scary man. On 8/6/07 6:00 PM, Mike V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on, Wilma. I've always taken potshots where I felt they were warranted. - Mike V. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilma de Soto Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 5:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity listserv Subject: Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation Quite right about Melani. She expressed her view without being nasty about it. Her incident with the police at 46th Market seemed plausible. Is the new list only to take nasty potshots at those of us on the UC Listserv, only to be sweetness and light on the UC Neighbors at Penn Listserv? And if so, then why? On 8/6/07 11:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/6/2007 11:35:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you sure we have a police problem, and not a deranged list busybody with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex problem? Mike: I notice that you're on the civil citizens' list at sweetbarkingcheese.com -- so apparently you somehow don't approve of the gratuitous insults and antagonism admittedly shown too often on the UC list. I haven't read your posts over there, but assume you've adopted a persona more suitable for the tea and crumpets crowd that joined it -- else why would you have signed up and why would the censors have let your messages through? So why the totally unnecessary nastiness here? OK, Glenn admittedly went a bit overboard after trying to get the facts from the copskies and being given false information. But, when he found out that he was mislead by Philadelphia's finest, he posted what seems like a sincere correction. And you either can't find it in your heart to let it go without a mean-spirited response, or even to say something pleasant to encourage the kind of posts you purport to want by going to the other list. I noticed, by the way, that Melani Lamond is also posting to sweetbarkingcheese.com. But her post this morning on this list, in response to something by Al Airone, was useful and took no potshots whatever at people who have chimed in on the carjacking topic with whom we know she doesn't always see eye-to-eye. Always at your service ready for a dialog, Al Krigman Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF0002000982 .
Re: [UC] Car jacking confirmation
Wilma de Soto wrote: Not exactly speaking for my old High School friend Karen, What has her accusing you of hypocrisy have to do with your assertion of her accusing you of racism? I never said that Karen accused me of racism. I said that Glenn Moyer accused Tony West of racism. I pointed out that Karen didn't object to this ugly smear at all, and I asked if she felt that accusations of racism were OK, or if she shared Glenn's grudge against Tony. 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] Car jacking confirmation
Wilma de Soto wrote: AND publicly discrediting people on this list who disagree with the new listserv founders. What's up with THAT? Glenn was wrong, and he discredited himself. I just spelled it out for everyone. Thank you for acknowledging that he has been discredited. Is it civilized conversation (when attacks are made on the original UC Listserv), or a more politically expedient listserv for a developmental plan, where there might be some oppositional input? This _is_ the unmoderated list, where oppositional input such as yours is present. That's why I'm raising this _here_. 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] Car jacking confirmation
So what's the story, Karen? Is it OK to accuse people of racism? Do you share Glenn's deranged grudge against Tony? Is this some personal thing between you and me that I'm unaware of? Is your list a place where only certain people get bad-behavior passes? Very well. Then why mention it to Karen if you were accusing Glenn Moyer? On 8/6/07 7:18 PM, Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wilma de Soto wrote: Not exactly speaking for my old High School friend Karen, What has her accusing you of hypocrisy have to do with your assertion of her accusing you of racism? I never said that Karen accused me of racism. I said that Glenn Moyer accused Tony West of racism. I pointed out that Karen didn't object to this ugly smear at all, and I asked if she felt that accusations of racism were OK, or if she shared Glenn's grudge against Tony. 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] Car jacking confirmation
Fine. Bueno y qué? On 8/6/07 7:21 PM, Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wilma de Soto wrote: AND publicly discrediting people on this list who disagree with the new listserv founders. What's up with THAT? Glenn was wrong, and he discredited himself. I just spelled it out for everyone. Thank you for acknowledging that he has been discredited. Is it civilized conversation (when attacks are made on the original UC Listserv), or a more politically expedient listserv for a developmental plan, where there might be some oppositional input? This _is_ the unmoderated list, where oppositional input such as yours is present. That's why I'm raising this _here_. 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.
