You're still not making sense. In the theoretical example *you* (not
Ray) originally used, the decision about what content to teach was
made by the agency, not by UCD. UCD's support would theoretically be
forthcoming no matter what content was chosen. Any public complaint
would have to be directed to the agency in question since UCD would
be content-neutral.
I'm going to repeat what I said before: You seem to be mired in
traditional method of communication and to believe that they are the
*only* way things work. Seriously, you use the word "must" more than
anyone I can remember. You make pronouncements about the way things
"are" which completely disregard different methods of communication
than the ones, if I can presume, you work best in.
Important decisions *do* get made without all of the parties involved
talking face to face. I am reminded particularly of my involvement in
Provincetown Community Television and the Provincetown Cable Advisory
Board. Most of our negotiations, even controversial ones, with both
Comcast and Outer Cape Television happened through email. The parties
involved were just too geographically separate to be in the same
place at the same time very often. I didn't know much when I started
with them but I learned and eventually taught at our Community
Television Station.
Frank
On Jun 1, 2007, at 05:19 PM, Anthony West wrote:
Frank,
Ray proposed that UCD "not take sides in public questions/disputes/
contests, not taking sides or even appearing to take sides."
Therefore, Ray is saying, UCD could only support projects with
which there was universal contentment in this community. And since
it only takes one person with a keyboard to manufacture a "public
question/dispute/contest", in an area with more than 50,000
residents (at least on UC-list), this proposal is the kind of pipe
dream that flourishes in unrealistic internet communities.
I repeat: this standard is absurd, an impossible test to meet for
any one of the hundreds of organizations that operate in some sort
of public-private interface throughout Philadelphia. Any
governmental authority you might approach to put a chop on your
regulatory proposals, will recognize this in a flash and tune you out.
Anybody who wants to consider developing a regulatory network for
UCD needs to acquire a grounding of knowledge and common sense
about how actual agencies and actual regulators work. It will
require real study and real interaction with real people in the
real world.
Pounding out an ever-expanding wishlist of single-issue edicts to a
single-case agency one doesn't really know anything about, is a
childish exercise in imaginary self-importance. Ray can do this if
he wants. He can hold his conversation with nobody, in public, if
he wants.
-- Tony West
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD answer
Umm...Who said *that?* If I missed something, please explain it to
me.
Frank
On Jun 1, 2007, at 02:48 AM, Anthony West wrote:
So to set a standard of universal contentment as the benchmark
for any non-profit's legitimacy is absurd, an impossible test to
meet.
----
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>.
----
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>.
----
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>.
