Not sure if I should label this a cheap shot or friendly fire, but I strongly prefer that personal attacks be based on facts. Fact is that I have never attacked UCHS and am actually a member. Arguably, I have attacked preservation issues, but not because I am opposed to preservation, preservationists or the historic district as you suggest. The true and stated target of my complaint (and I think Monique was coming from the same viewpoint) was not people on one side of the issue or the other, but rather people with fixed and strongly held positions who engage in endless and nasty e-mails like lifelong enemies lobbing bombs back and forth, year after year. Most of the vast and silent majority on the list, I suspect, have heard enough and have stopped listening.
Paul Uyehara In a message dated 12/30/2004 2:17:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >In a message dated 12/30/04 1:08:35 PM, [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. >> ......... >> laserbeam� >> [aka ray] >> >> Ray, are you saying that all UCHS board members and former board members >should think alike? � How can you expect this, given that you are a former UCHS >board member, and you clearly feel entitled to a different opinion? � Penn's >"encroachment" into West Philadelphia in the 1960s, when entire blocks were >razed >and the land was incorporated into the campus, was one of the reasons UCHS >was founded. � However, Penn's use of a small portion of Baltimore Ave., >trading >it for a former gas station lot in the middle of the road, is not something >which would concern one who wishes to preserve historic properties. � Maybe >those who are concerned about traffic patterns or bicycle lanes or pedestrian >access would want to weigh in, but not UCHS. � You keep trying to tie unrelated >things together and suggest some conspiracy about Mr. Stuart. � You are "having >trouble reconciling" these things because there's no tie-in - and you know >that; you're just spinning everybody's wheels. � (By the way, yes, I was in >favor of the Vet School's expansion, and no, I have never even met Mark >Stuart.) > >Mr. Farrell, as far as whether or not UCHS "should" take a stand on >Convention Hall, I believe that Ray Rorke, Andy Diller, Al Krigman, Brian >Siano (Brian, >I've included you here as you requested), Paul Uyehara, Monique Harvey - and >even you! - have all demonstrated the tendency of certain members of this >community to attack preservation issues and UCHS no matter what the >organization >does or doesn't do. � So, as you say, you're probably better off going it alone >in your preservation battle. � Otherwise, they're likely to start attacking >you. � (My own opinion, not speaking on behalf of UCHS or anyone else, but >spoken with frustration about the disingenuous nature and vehemence of some of >the >attacks.) > >Happy New Year, everybody! > >Melani Lamond > > ---- 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>.
