You condemned HD discussion, Paul, and wanted it to be off of the list. Yet, there are new people on the list all the time who have NOT heard all of the issues; plus, I don't really think that everyone on the list is fully aware of the enormous potential ramifications of Jannie Blackwell's HD bill, whether they are old or new list members. If the anti's would refrain from writing negatively about UCHS and preservation issues, then there would be no need to respond with another point of view. But if they do write negatively and no one replies, then, to the new people on the list, it looks as if there is no other side to the issue. Must the "other side" remain silent just to avoid overload in email boxes? Should there be no setting out of the larger picture, when Mr. Farrell has been led to believe that the UCHS president is involved in some sort of conspiracy with Penn?
After I politely sort through a myriad of general messages about Democrats, Republicans, cleaning services, stove repairs, and other chatter which is interesting, but unlikely to have a major effect on Philadelphia, I don't feel that I must stay silent when a new member begins posting anti-UCHS messages, obviously being encouraged by responses from the anti's on the list. Just hit the "delete" button if this topic isn't of interest to you! I do that frequently. And I believe that Monique Harvey doesn't even live in the neighborhood any more, so it disturbs me that she would "vote" to limit what the neighborhood's list can discuss.
Again, happy new year to all.
Melani Lamond
- Re: [UC] UCHS, HD and limiting topics MLamond
