Re: So, who is Committeeman? [was: Re: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job]

2007-06-07 Thread Elizabeth F Campion
Ross,

I repeat, I prefer attribution.
My further comment was MHO, that said writer might have good reason to
stay quiet and avoid any association with the straw figure, held up for
immolation, by you and others.
What may have been an oversight has been so roundly pounded beyond
recognition, and the writer (possibly a hapless soul) defined as
vile, sneaky, manipulative and part of some putative clique.

I believe 'strangers' should be invited in, and bona fides revealed in a
natural and organic manner.
Most on this list are neighbors and even potential friends.
Newbies should not be grabbed by the digital throat and shaken until
they accept the pigeon hole assigned by the loudest bully.

I'm not calling the post or subsequent silence the bravest or most
honorable or smartest choice.
But I'll note that it is hard to build relationships upon such a rocky
start.
C-7 may be choosing a new E-name as we speak.


Committeeman7 did nothing wrong!
Unfortunately he did nothing right.
But the real harm is being caused by those who are abusing their talents
and our time.

Focusing on C-7's identity is a distraction from the content of the
message and the much bigger issues of 
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
My questions include:
How do we thank John Fenton?
Can his job and reputation be saved?
Should we 
save his job? 
lose UCD? 
settle for what we get (and thus deserve)?
How do we prevent the further co opting of UC by Politics, Penn
and powerful lurkers?
Do we support any person or initiative at UCD?
?, ?, ?

Ask more, limit responses to facts and goals or clear opinions, not
gossip and speculation.
And stop attacking me.
I am not C-7.
I don't deserve the attacks and I don't like being grumpy or angry at you
and I don't like thinking of you as some overstuffed gnat that needs a
smack-down.  
I'd rather enjoy your civil company, in a friendly environment, where
body language and immediate feedback can provide the clues as to when
either of us has gone to far in a stupid direction.

Best!
Liz



On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:13:24 -0400 Ross Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:



On 6/7/07, Elizabeth F Campion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I prefer attribution, but I understand why someone might not want to
expose themselves to the rampant paranoia, profligate speculation and
general nastiness that began to swirl around the 'offending' post, long
before a beginner might have twigged to list etiquette (or not) or a more
adept sender might have discovered an address oversight.


Many of our senders are known by insider nicknames.
Some of us include to much in our signatures, others too little, some
assume the E-address says it all.

 
Liz, I fail to understand why you're putting so much energy into
defending the practice of anonymous posting, which even the most hopeless
newbie realizes is a vile and scummy practice. There is absolutely no
excuse for sending messages under false names to a public email list. In
fact, it is technically illegal, although I can't cite the statute at the
moment. WTF is wrong with you today??? 



-- 
Ross Bender
http://rossbender.org/mqrtoc.html

Ph.D. in Love, Columbia University
D.Hon. Bob Jones University
Certificate in Cognitive Science, Institute of Glottopsychiatry,
University of Waterloo 
Chevalier, Legion d'Honneur
Lt., (Ret.) Queen's African Rifles
Voted Most Likely to Succeed, Goshen High School, 1967




Elizabeth Campion   Cell Phone: 215-880-2930
215-546-0550 Main, -546-9871 fax,  Desk + VM: 215-790-5653
PRUDENTIAL, FOX  ROACH REALTORS, LLC
Please read Consumer Notice  enjoy HOME PILOT tools at
 www.PruFoxRoach.com

Re: So, who is Committeeman? [was: Re: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job]

2007-06-07 Thread Elizabeth F Campion
Ross,

The only posts with inarguable intent to annoy were those who demand the
right to 'out' or badger C-7. 

I still consider the original post and accurate and timely invitation to
a community meeting that was more lively than most.

Sorry,
your need to know
inability to let go
do not alter my original opinion or my interpretation of the regulation.

Let's agree to disagree.
I am beginning to find this thread boring and I am one of the
participants.

Liz   


On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:29:07 -0400 Ross Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:



On 6/7/07, Elizabeth F Campion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Committeeman7 did nothing wrong!

He/she/it did something very wrong -- posted an anonymous message that
not only annoyed the listserve but caused a whole lot of trouble,
igniting a firefight and gangbang that resulted in a huge amount of
damage to the list. 

I'm not focusing on the anonymous posters' identity -- simply insisting
on the very basic principle that ANONYMOUS POSTING IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
PERIOD.

FWIW here is the text of the federal statute which became law in January
2006: 





It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you
must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language. 
Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate
telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted,
in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity
and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who
receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
not more than two years, or both. 
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491
.html

While you may believe, as the above commentator does, that it's a stupid
law is beside the point. There's a very good reason for this type of
statute, even if it's unlikely to be enforced. 


-- 
Ross Bender
http://rossbender.org 


Elizabeth Campion   Cell Phone: 215-880-2930
215-546-0550 Main, -546-9871 fax,  Desk + VM: 215-790-5653
PRUDENTIAL, FOX  ROACH REALTORS, LLC
Please read Consumer Notice  enjoy HOME PILOT tools at
 www.PruFoxRoach.com

Re: So, who is Committeeman? [was: Re: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job]

2007-06-07 Thread Ross Bender

On 6/7/07, Elizabeth F Campion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Ross,

The only posts with inarguable intent to annoy were those who demand the
right to 'out' or badger C-7.

I still consider the original post and accurate and timely invitation to a
community meeting that was more lively than most.

Sorry,
your need to know
inability to let go
do not alter my original opinion or my interpretation of the regulation.

Let's agree to disagree.
I am beginning to find this thread boring and I am one of the
participants.




OK. I'll buy you a beer sometime.

--
Ross Bender
http://rossbender.org