[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
nah, I'm just trying to reconcile apparent contradictions and ironies...
like how a former uchs board member can applaud penn's encroachment while another uchs board member claims that historic districting stems penn's encroachment.
or how penn's encroachment is destroying the historic convention hall and commercial museum while uchs is mum about it.
or how you're applauding the vet school's encroachment while the vet school's mark stuart is prez of uchs.
are you saying that all UCHS board members and former board members should think alike?
no, I don't think all uchs board members think the same way about history. nor do I think any uchs board member thinks about history or preservation or penn's encroachment the same way from one day to the next, from one building to the next.
which is the problem.
because uchs, as an organized body, claims (repeatedly, publicly, vociferously -- in newspapers and on websites, to residents and city govt reps) that it's acting on behalf of ucity, that an historic district is what's needed to 'preserve' our 'history' and stem penn's 'encroachment.' meanwhile uchs, as an organized body, remains silent about two historic ucity buildings about to disappear forever in the wake of penn's wrecking ball.
and now you're labeling uchs's inconsistencies as conspiracy theories?
......... laserbeam� [aka ray]
---- 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>.
