RE: [UC] important question about free speech rallyhahahaha Cassidy, I can see why you like Tony's style so much. You know you may be able to impress upscale wolves at first, but your technique at debating becomes clear after a few rants.
Sure, any jerk can pull 2 sentences out of context, start ranting that the writer actually means something completely different while hoping that no one checks the original source. Tony thinks he is clever when he relies on this cheap and simple technique and you do as well. Rant on brother. When you stop trying this Tony style idiocy, let me know This was much better Cassidy. You actually make a point and you actually catch me using a weak choice of words. Try this direct approach at debating more often: "And this one: " ... UCD efforts at 'law enforcement.' This effort sought to destroy the residents' ability to announce community meetings, protest wars and business improvement districts, and any grassroots organizing." What specifically has UCD done to "destroy" residents ability to announce community meetings? Have they shut down this listserve? Or the UC Review? or knocked down the kiosks in Clark Park? or carted away the bulletin boards in the Green Line? Shut down the Phillyblog? " Here is my revised statement. UCD efforts at law enforcement sought to destroy a very valuable grassroots communication network. Not only did observation of this communication network reveal the healthy and diverse neighborhood, but also it was an extremely important communication network for the conveyance of many types of relevant neighborhood information. There are different types of communication vehicles, but for many types of information and to reach the maximum number of people in a small geographic neighborhood or community; street posters are perhaps the most valuable medium serving the community. Examples would include lost kitty poster, anti UCD posters, times and locations of Clark Park redesign meetings, anti war rallies, etc. To me, this first UCD enforcement policy shows a reckless disregard for the residents of this neighborhood by an out of control UCD police, or it suggests a deliberate focus on stifling free speech and thwarting any type of community organizing outside of UCD's direct control. Stop showing a bullying style of debating, Cassidy. Yes you impressed Tony, Brian and Melani with your cheap rant. Others will see that you are a brat who like Tony relies on this technique while refusing to challenge someone's ideas. Do you really believe I'm going to waste time on your cheap tricks and your absurd interpretations of my meanings? Rant on brother. ----- Original Message ----- From: Kyle Cassidy To: Glenn ; Mike V. ; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 3:15 PM Subject: RE: [UC] important question about free speech rally Did you try this "the answers to your questions are in the archives of my previous rants, let me know when you've found them" approach when you were in collage? Though We could use some clarification on a few of the extra assertions in this post (and for extra credit please try to use the words "astroturfing" and "ad hominim" in your responses) For example this: "Consider the implications of the 'special events review committee' which would have eliminated all independent events in Clark Park except UCD events and the Spruce Hill May Fair. This committee was a creation by the Fairmount Park Commission which controls Rittenhouse Square." Are you now saying that it isn't Penn who is trying to eliminate "free speech" (which has now morphed into the undefined "independent events" but it's actually the Fairmount Park Commission? (Who does indeed control the park, not UCD) Or are you saying that Penn now controls the Fairmount Park Commission? In either event, please show your work. And this one: " ... UCD efforts at 'law enforcement.' This effort sought to destroy the residents' ability to announce community meetings, protest wars and business improvement districts, and any grassroots organizing." What specifically has UCD done to "destroy" residents ability to announce community meetings? Have they shut down this listserve? Or the UC Review? or knocked down the kiosks in Clark Park? or carted away the bulletin boards in the Green Line? Shut down the Phillyblog? You have the rhetoric of Che Guevara picketing a kids lemon aid stand. I hope you'll put this energy to good use when something tragic happens in the world; say, the Patriot Act or prisoner abuse at Abu Ghrabe. Hopefully this will be an uplifting example: Some of your neighbors, who thought the law forbidding signs posted on utility poles was not in the best interest of the community, called their City Council woman and ask that she get the law changed. They did this instead of inventing conspiracy theories and daring the police to ticket them. If you think that the law requiring people to curb their dogs is outrageous, or whatever quality of life that's been imposed on you that you wish you didn't have anymore, call your City Council woman and ask her to get it changed. That's what she's getting paid for. Don't start screaming that the poop free streets are part of a sinister conspiracy. -----Original Message----- From: Glenn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 5/3/2007 2:18 PM To: Kyle Cassidy; Mike V.; [email protected] Subject: Re: [UC] important question about free speech rally RE: [UC] important question about free speech rallyKylie writes: "Please show your work, this quiz counts towards your final grade." Teacher dude, since your #1 just shows off your poor reading comprehension. I'll just ignore it. To avoid redundancy answering #2, I'll refer you to the archives so you can review and study my previous posts and others relevant additions from the past few years. If you contact the mayor's commission on literacy, they can get a volunteer tutor to assist you. Please try to be respectful to this tutor, he or she will try to help you with comprehension. Take extra time to study my posts, which describe the UCD/FOCP Quality of Life task force. Lewis Wendell publicly refused to release the documentation of this outrage when I demanded that these records be made available to the publiic at one of the BID presentations. Consider the implications of the "special events review committee" which would have eliminated all independent events in Clark Park except UCD events and the Spruce Hill May Fair. This committee was a creation by the Fairmount Park Commission which controls Rittenhouse Square. It was a great example of twisting an inappropriate quality of life ordinance to the nth degree. This was long before UCD fully controlled Clark Park, so my arguments prevailed. In fact, my track record for beating the bullying by the FOCP is the reason why Tony West has banned me from FOCP participation since 2003. Of course at this point, UCD controls Clark Park and reason has nothing to do with Clark park policy. This task force and an FOCP survey led to a City Paper article in 2001 titled, "Battle of the Bowl" When I later announced the cancellation of the fall 2002, Clark Park Music and Arts festival, I also published a warning to dog owners, immigrants, drummers, the Woodland Ave Reunion and soccer players that this task force wanted all of us whores and gang members out of their park. Unlike the poor FOCP, I was able to publish this in the UC Review. Regarding the assault on free speech, look also for posts that discuss one of the very first UCD efforts at "law enforcement." This effort sought to destroy the residents' ability to announce community meetings, protest wars and business improvement districts, and any grassroots organizing. The destruction of this communication network was an assault on free speech and was justified as a quality of life enforcement needed to fool suburbanites to call Melanie and buy a house. The justification seems absurd compared to the value of grassroots communication for the health of a community. However, UCD wasn't about to wait until NO-NID posters went up before destroying this communication medium. This was UCD's first police action west of 40th St. Let me know when you have completed your study. I have a tremendous number of additional anecdotes that support my assertions. Very few people have the amount of experience attempting to deal cooperatively with UCD and Penn as I do. I was known as a builder and organizer and I was naive enough to take Penn at its word about a desire for "community engagement." I even tried to help Penn with its miserable attempt to replicate a Clark Park festival. The 1999, "Welcome to the neighborhood festival" The following year the Daily Pennsylvanian covered my rejection of Penn's attempt to buy the Clark Park music and arts festival. Check out these publications. Because of my long involvement with Clark Park and my long association with Penn, I was very involved since before this UCD occupation crossed 40th St. I had a long history of confrontation with the leaders of the FOCP/SHCA when I attended the very first "Party for the park" You can find the number for the Mayor's commission on literacy in the phone book. Sincerely, Glenn ----- Original Message ----- From: Kyle Cassidy To: Glenn ; Mike V. ; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: RE: [UC] important question about free speech rally Dude, even if Penn chooses the members of the UCD's governing body in a secret Masonic rite deep in the subterranean labyrinths of the Mill Creek tunnel work -- how does ANYTHING you said here support your two weird contentions: 1) That Penn is somehow responsible for people not being allowed to sing in Rittenhouse Square. 2) That Penn and I quote is "extremely committed to the elimination of free speech and the take over of public parks." "We" are extremely interested in your list of examples of Penn's commitment to eliminating free speech. Seeing as that you managed not to get arrested at the protest, we must assume that you fled like a birkenstock wearing yuppie who needed to get back to his day job when the mounted patrols swept the park and therefore we must question your commitment to fighting for our freedom. In addition we must suspect that you are actually a government mole trying to infiltrate the Free Speech movement. Larry West would have been waving to us from the windows of the Philly jail while we camped out in support. Please show your work, this quiz counts towards your final grade. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Glenn Sent: Thu 5/3/2007 10:44 AM To: Mike V.; [email protected] Subject: Re: [UC] important question about free speech rally Mr, V I think you want a linguistic discussion about the way the word "we" might be used? If I say, "we in the United States believe in the right to free speech," you would be quite correct to point out that not all 300 million citizens do believe in the right to free speech. The word, we, implies a shared group but is very different from the word, everyone, or the phrase, all of us. When I used the word, we, I was referring to the following group. We, the residents of eastern West Philly subscribed to the university city purple list whom are informed and interested in what is generally referred to as local politics and consider concepts such as process of governance, rights, duties etc. For the sake of brevity, I hoped my use of the word, we, would be understood to include folks that are sometimes called UCD cheerleaders, those like myself wanting UCD to go away as well as people who have feelings between. However, I did not mean to imply inclusion of those individuals who are not interested or informed about these matters. Frankly Mr. V, I don't believe some upscale people on this list have enough knowledge about processes associated with governance to follow the various discussions that arise about the UCD, its corporate partners, "spin," propaganda, etc. Now, if you want a public discussion about other aspects about my words which you quote; please send an additional post with a clear question of the disputed idea. I get worried about the eyes of some of the old geezers on the list if my posts get too long or complicated. Taking a guess at your disagreement but trying to save the old geezers eyes, let me say this. It is not just that Penn entities are the primary funder of UCD. The UCD board of directors is always chaired by Penn real estate officials like John Fry and Omar. The board of directors is a hand picked assortment of corporate cronies to the University. They also carefully hand pick a couple of civic association leaders to rubber stamp their plots and schemes regarding this neighborhood, If UCD was actually answerable to the "community" can you describe the process by which the community chooses the UCD board of directors? I think a hand picked board of directors picked solely by closed university proceedings is highly suggestive that UCD is the agent of Penn. If you can demonstrate that the UCD board of directors is chosen in some other manner, I will admit the mistake of my words and apologize to the list. Now in honor of old geezer eyes, I close. Sincerely, Glenn ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike V. <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Glenn' <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:20 AM Subject: RE: [UC] important question about free speech rally Er, I'm pretty sure that "we" don't know that at all. "We" have seen no proof of that, nor even any highly suggestive evidence. I'd thank you to be more careful when you speak for "us" in the future. - Mike V. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [UC] important question about free speech rally We know that Penn's agent in this neighborhood is UCD and they are extremely committed to the elimination of free speech and the take over of public parks. ________________________________ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:57 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 5/2/2007 2:16 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 5/2/2007 2:16 PM
