"Finally, I think people opposed to community service should argue for the abolition of the practice by the court system, not the agencies that provide the placements. I see the process not as scandalous but a win win. Sure you can argue that if all the agencies refused the placements, maybe the system would collapse, but choosing such an indirect strategy suggests its not the practice but the target that is at issue. Did someone mention fishing?"
Pmuy, First, the basic facts of this disclosed Walker account, after 5 years of the community service program, have not been disputed. Follow-up reports in which UCD participated did not offer any dispute of the facts of the account. This news story points to several problems (with many tentacles like an octopus), so let's not pretend that the morality of this community service is the only issue or even the central issue of the scandal. The apparent violation of federal statute was not dependent on the "community service work" but UCD involvement with this campaign rally. The dispute hinges on, was this a church rally or campaign? Since a single employee supposedly thought it was a church rally, UCD is pointing to a minor infraction. And the employee is being punished. Yes, yes, we know this. You may be waiting for a "full and truthful" account from UCD. . What the incident shows to reasonable people is the need for an independent investigation in to the "community service" policy and also the "special favor" policy or cronyism. >From the current UC Review, "According to Walker UCD employees also helped set >up the rally." You and Cassidy are trying to assert that a discussion of moral >issues of this probation program and the resulting violation of the 13th >amendment rights of all the community service probationers present are the >only issues. If no community service workers were present, UCD would have >violated the federal statutes by assigning employees to the Knox campaign. >Maybe you have a competent lawyer friend who can explain the important legal >points to you? Point: It's not a Fenton single mistake but UCD policy that is due for an investigation. This is what the cheerleaders seem desperate to deny with all the various fallacious arguments they have been asserting to distract everyone. Point: Had no illegal indentured servitude been used, UCD employees campaign for Knox would have been a federal violation! UCD cheerleaders are engaged in fallacious arguments about community court to distract from this reality. Point: By forcing "community service" labor to work ILLEGALLY at a campaign rally, the probationer's 13th amendment rights appear to have been violated. Courts are prohibited from ordering punishment that violates the law. It appears that the work they performed the day they were ordered to do campaign work for Knox constitutes illegal indentured servitude. I would like to see the ACLU investigate this matter and I will contact them unless it happens before I do. Now forget about literary criticism, Pmuyhera, and explain the difference between civil and criminal violations and the definitions of "illegal" and disputed facts to your fellow cheerleader, Cassidy. Either you can't see the serious problems in his legal knowledge or your criticisms show an obvious double standard favoring a fellow cheerleader. Do you understand the relevant legal issues in this UCD affair? Before, I will respond again to your understanding of polemic or usage of the word prisoner, I want you to answer these questions. Otherwise, I'll put a heading above my replies to you. How about, Warning Cheerleader Nonsense? If a probationer violates the terms of probation by refusing his agreed upon community service, can this lead to incarceration? Does a probationer have the right of appeal if this occurs? When a probationer is forced to do illegal work or face incarceration is the word probationer more correct than prisoner to describe the period of indentured servitude when the illegal coercion occurs? What would Windhole Lewis say if Mr. Walker had informed him that ordering him to do illegal work would constitute a violation of his rights under the US Constitution? Windhole Lewis, "yo dude, I don't know nothin', I don't see nothing, and I don't give a damn 'cause I'm the UCD man." Please answer my questions about probationers, Glenn ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:06 PM Subject: Fwd: [UC] The UCD answer Since you're all into fishing for herring, allow me to cast my hook. First, it helped me understand some posts when he said it was an obvious polemic. It reminded me of ideological skirmishes of years gone by, and also of the term sophistry which I would hear at the same time. I know that Glenn ignored my earlier request that he start his lengthier posts with an abstract so readers could decide whether to commit the time to reading in advance. But maybe that is too much effort to expect. I would gladly settle for him to simply write POLEMIC in the subject line or the beginning of the post. Second, while we're talking about misleading and the like, here's what Wikipedia actually said: Prisoner may refer to one of the following: a.. A person incarcerated in a prison or jail or similar facility. b.. Prisoner of war, a soldier in wartime, held as by an enemy. c.. Political prisoner, someone held in prison for their ideology. d.. A person forcibly detained against his will, such as a victim of kidnapping; such prisoners may be held Hostage, or held to ransom, but not necessarily in a prison or similar facility. I'll leave it to the reader if his editing was true to the source and if it supports his use of the word to describe, even polemically, the state of doing community service. As for me, I'll repeat earlier concerns that those trying to persuade others to their view may want to further ponder whether arguable exaggerations, spin and even poor manners add or detract to an author's credibility. Third, now that Glenn has shared with us UCD info relating to Community Court, it makes one wonder if the website is not comprehensive in explaining the program or if the newspaper got it wrong. Previous posts and the paper suggested the community service was the disposition of a charge brought against a student within the university disciplinary system, which could not incarcerate anyone. Community Court, on the other hand, would deal with real criminal charges in the court system. So while UCD obviously is a partner agency for community service cases from Community Court, is it also doing this for the Penn disciplinary system? Finally, I think people opposed to community service should argue for the abolition of the practice by the court system, not the agencies that provide the placements. I see the process not as scandalous but a win win. Sure you can argue that if all the agencies refused the placements, maybe the system would collapse, but choosing such an indirect strategy suggests its not the practice but the target that is at issue. Did someone mention fishing? -----Original Message----- From: Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Univcity <[email protected]> Cc: kyle cassidy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun, 27 May 2007 7:12 pm Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD answer And even by the generally accepted definition of "prisoner," Glenn was > blowing smoke and Kyle called him on it. > > Of course, if we're allowed to use the term "loosely," then we could call > you a slumlord with total impunity. We don't, because we k now what the > word means, and we know you: do don't try to buy Glenn leniency on > something you wou;dn't tolerate if it were at your expense. Brian, Thanks for a good example of a red herring fallacy in your response to Al's post. I wouldn't have thought you would so quickly do this after Al's post on the very subject. From Wikipedia, Cassidy forgot this one. Prisoner: "A person forcibly detained against his will... but not necessarily in a prison or similar facility." When we talk of someone under house arrest or required to do work in an orange jumpsuit on Baltimore Ave, we understand that they are not in a facility. But isn't their location at this time forced against their will? These individuals stand convicted in real terms by pleading guilty. A form of probation, they are only 1 step away from physical incarceration if they fail any term of the assignment. To engage you in the semantical argument that you and Cassidy wish to drive your red herring fallacy, is it improper to assert that community service probationers are forcibly detained against their will during this period of time? No, any deviation in their location or completing the assigned work could result in actual incarceration with no appeal. Probationers is an exact term, but the issue for our community to consider is, what if these probationers would have refused to work the Knox rally? Since, I am clearly writing a polemic post my use of the word prisoner is right on target not smoke. Your post is smoke. Are you asserting that I'm "blowing smoke" because there is a lack of chains or bars? Your indignation over my word choice seems pretty silly if you think about it. Your assertion that a lack of chains and bars should prevent this usage is thin at best and the word certainly was incidental to the issues you want to confuse. This is like UCD making a big deal that their "mandatory property assessment is not a tax." I think this is a better analogy than your "slumlord" insult. Don't you see how your fixation on this one word is so meaningless to the discussion reasonable people are engaged with over this serious community issue? You and Cassidy seem to try cheap and pathetic fallacious strategies against people you want silenced to divert away from an issue you want silenced. Glenn PS: By the way, your analogy with your use of "slumlord" is a false analogy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Siano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Univcity" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD answer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> In a message dated 5/27/2007 10:12:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> Can you provide a usage of this that's not invented by you? I >> checked out dictionary.com and found these: >> >> 1. a person who is confined in prison or kept in custody, >> esp. as the result of legal process. >> 2. prisoner of war. >> 3. a person or thing that is deprived of liberty or kept in >> restraint. >> >> Kyle: >> You know as well as the next person that Glenn was using the term >> loosely. We all understand what he meant. An argument based on a >> denotation of a term whose connotation everyone understands with >> essentially zero ambiguity is an example of the class of "logical >> fallacies" usually called "Red Herrings" or, sometimes "Smoke Screens." > > And even by the generally accepted definition of "prisoner," Glenn was > blowing smoke and Kyle called him on it. > > Of course, if we're allowed to use the term "loosely," then we could call > you a slumlord with total impunity. We don't, because we k now what the > word means, and we know you: do don't try to buy Glenn leniency on > something you wou;dn't tolerate if it were at your expense. > ---- > 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>. > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: > 269.8.0/819 - Release Date: 5/26/2007 10:47 AM > > ---- 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>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.1/822 - Release Date: 5/28/2007 11:40 AM
