I prefer attribution, but I understand why someone might not want to
expose themselves to the rampant paranoia, profligate speculation and
general nastiness that began to swirl around the 'offending' post, long
before a beginner might have twigged to list etiquette (or not) or a more
adept sender might have discovered an address oversight.
Many of our senders are known by insider nicknames.
Some of us include to much in our signatures, others too little, some
assume the E-address says it all.
I'm fairly fearless, but the remarks are so awful that I'd be reluctant
to admit to being the poster.
One irony, the post turned out to be accurate, and still the poster is
referred to as dishonest.
Meanwhile, among the latest gentle requests for introduction...
Cassidy wrote:
"I'd say it's relevant because:
... So the question "why did committeeman7 make the post and then leave
Glenn to fend for himself amongst the jackles?" I think is relevant. And
now we discover that it was probably someone who was at the meeting or
who works for someone who was at the meeting....
Maybe it was UCD!
In a message dated 6/7/2007 11:05:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Really? Our "little list" of over 300 University City folks who care
enough about what's happening in this community to stay aboard, despite
having to endure frequently nasty exchanges and messages? We don't
count? We can be lied to, or spoken to anonymously by folks who refuse
to reveal their identities?
According to Tony's report, the first Thursday meeting <<... asked that
UCD policies in general be made public.>>
What about the Councilwoman's office's policies? Shouldn't they be
public also? We elect her; should her office and/or her supporters be
sending anonymous emails to the listserv? Or was it sent by an anonymous
supporter of John Fenton? Or somebody who just guessed about today's
meeting, and just happened to be right? In any case, what is to be
gained by adding new layers of secrecy to neighborhood processes?
Committeeman7 knew what was going to happen today and is probably reading
my questions on the list now. Who is he, or she, and why is this person
afraid to identify him or herself?
... <and>...
My guess, now, is that our anonymous poster, Committeeman7, is either
affiliated with the Councilwoman's office or has inside information from
the Councilwoman's office. Why doesn't the person simply identify
him/her/self and be honest and open with us? Why operate secretly? Why
didn't Jannie's office confirm their plans for the first Thursday meeting
when Tony called, if they were collecting signatures and planning to ask
for support? What were they hiding? Have they missed all the calls on
this list for transparency and process?
Melani Lamond
Best!
Liz
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:35:05 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tony, thank you for this thorough and important update. A question
remains about the person who posted about it to our listserv.
My guess, now, is that our anonymous poster, Committeeman7, is either
affiliated with the Councilwoman's office or has inside information from
the Councilwoman's office. Why doesn't the person simply identify
him/her/self and be honest and open with us? Why operate secretly? Why
didn't Jannie's office confirm their plans for the first Thursday meeting
when Tony called, if they were collecting signatures and planning to ask
for support? What were they hiding? Have they missed all the calls on
this list for transparency and process?
Melani Lamond
