??? I can't disagree that in some cases the uncivility cuts both ways.? Although one could argue about offensive and defensive hostility, its not likely to be worthwhile.? OTOH, you seem to concede the impossibility of reining in the anti-social conduct here.? If that be the case, the question I see is whether you see any problem with this list, and if so, whether you prefer it to the possibility of starting over on better terms with an understanding that people need to make more effort to do what you do - stick to the merits.
-----Original Message----- From: KAREN ALLEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:55 pm Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION I think the uncivility cuts both ways, and many of the people who complain of it engage in it themselves. So because the bad behavior is a two-way street, I suspect that there may also be a desire to control what is being said in the guise of controlling manners.? ? I do make a conscious effort to not attack anyone in disagreeing with them, and to stick strictly to the merits of the discussion. I have not had a problem from most posters, except that my criticism of UCD has caused me to become an "untouchable", if you will, among its supporters.? ? >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Fwd: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR >CIVILIZED CONVERSATION? >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:55:30 -0400? >? >? > I take this that you don't credit my views, and those who agree with >them, that it really is the behavior and not the content.? Of course, it's >difficult to define civility, but apparently most of us agree we can know >it when we see it.? My question for you is, do you indeed stand in support >of the uncontrolled list, viewing the poor conduct you agree has occurred >as intractable or superior to the possibility that people will be >restricted in some fashion is they can't act properly?? >? >You certainly have strong views on some things, and are grounded in actual >involvement.? If everyone made up a list of people who are jerks on the >list, I don't think you'd show up.? You say your piece without being >uncivil.? >I don't think anyone would ban you, me or Wilma from a list for being >anti-social, regardless of what we had to say.? >? >Paul? >? >? >? >? >? >? >? >? >-----Original Message-----? >From: KAREN ALLEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 2:44 pm? >Subject: [UC] RE: I Respectfully Decline [Was: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR >CIVILIZED CONVERSATION]? >? >? >? >? >? >? >? >? >? >I have to respectfully decline joining this list for a number of reasons,? >but my primary one is this:?? >? >While Melani claims that there would be "civilized" conversation, what I? >fear it will actually be is "sanitized" conversation.?? >?? >? >While it's true that many unpleasant things get said on this list, that has? >been a two-way street. The people claiming to be victims give as good as? >they get, and just as often send inflammatory posts themselves: remember? >"Serial Liar sends misleading information"? How about "cheap", "greedy",? >"slumlords", "Napoleon complex" "frugal" "fanatic"? A poster in this? >current thread, Phillip Forrest, sent an ugly post that suggested that,? >rather than his own use of the delete key, Glenn should kill himself, but? >somehow that was not viewed as being part of the problem. Isn't sending? >information as a front for UCD just as "misleading"? Couldn't the >organized? >effort to enact the BID with carefully planted information be just as? >easily labeled a "conspiracy"??? >?? >? >What I see as a problem is how will "uncivilized" be defined on the new? >list. To me it seems that much of what is being claimed is uncivilized is? >often a disagreement with the ideas being expressed. I make no secret of? >the fact that I don't agree with the BID or with what I view as Penn and >its? >supporters having an undue hand in the direction of this neighborhood. >That? >is an unpopular view among those who want Penn's involvement or who make? >huge business profits because of it. I have not been attacked on the? >listserv for my opinoins, but I have already been shunned in person for? >taking that stance.?? >?? >? >My question is this: What is meant by "cilvilized" an "uncivilized"? Is? >this REALLY a concern about the tone, or is there also a concern about the? >ideas expressed? Would I be banned for posting things critical of UCD?? >Or for defending John Fenton (the post-Malcolm X Park John Fenton, not the? >pre-Malcolm X Park John Fenton). Or will the new list be a forum wherein? >like-minded people can get together and make unchallenged claiims? Would? >Phillip Forrest's ugly suggestion that Glenn kill himself get Phillip? >banned??? >?? >? >Karen Allen?? >?? >? > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >? > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >? > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >? > >Subject: JOIN UC NEIGHBORS FOR CIVILIZED CONVERSATION Re: [UC] Since the? > >real reason for the new list is...?? >? > >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:28:22 EDT?? >? > >?? >? > >?? >? > >In a message dated 7/30/07 11:45:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:?? >? > > > ???? ......Kyle didn't start the UCNeighbor list because he was being?? >? > > > childish or selfish and walking away with his bat and ball. He started? > >it because?? >? > > > the communication on this listserv is becoming petty, myopic and? > >insulting.?? >? > > > It's also becoming a crowded room (virtually speaking) with some loud? > >voices?? >? > > > trying to drown out the once speaking in a normal tone. Some people do? > >act?? >? > > > like they own this list and like to think that they can dictate and? > >frame the?? >? > > > conversation and debates that occur here. Many people have started >doing? > >the?? >? > > > serial deleting of [UC]-labelled emails, because it's become less? > >relevant and?? >? > > > helpful to the average UC resident. I don't know about you, but this? > >puts?? >? > > > people a hair-trigger away from leaving the listserv and the >community?? >? > > > discussion that occurs here. No one is excluded or protected on Kyle's? > >new listserv?? >? > > > either. You can still take the conversation there, if you want to, and? > >your bat?? >? > > > and ball.?? >? > > >?? >? > > > This weekend, the heavy-handed people on the purple list found out >that? > >their?? >? > >readers now have the option to move away, and clearly, they don't want >that?? >? > >to happen. So - did they offer to moderate their language and help? > >develop a?? >? > >set of guidelines? No, they became even more heavy-handed! Several?? >? > >attacked Bruce Anderson for suggesting guidelines. Some even tried to? > >blame Jon?? >? > >Herrmann, who wrote that he had not read the last 13,000 emails posted on? > >the?? >? > >purple list in the last 15 months - now, that shows how involved HE is,? > >doesn't?? >? > >it? Some renewed conspiracy theories, one generated new spoof posts, >and? > >as?? >? > >usual, a small but noisy group attacked the person who saw a need to do?? >? > >something and actually DID it.?? >? > >?? >? > >But, why should we be stuck with a dysfunctional list which will not? > >change??? >? > >?? >? > >I came in for criticism for saying it would be heaven to be on a list? > >without?? >? > >one particularly voluminous ranter who has focused on me, sometimes?? >? > >alarmingly. Why would I want to be on a list with member who sends out? > >fantasy emails?? >? > >about what he wants to have happen to me in Clark Park? Why would I?? >? > >recommend that the buyers and sellers I work with join a listserv where? > >they'd read?? >? > >that kind of stuff with my name in it, where a neighborhood fanatic >would?? >? > >single me out for ridicule though I've never even met the man? Is it >any? > >surprise?? >? > >I think it will be "heaven" to be on a list where that sort of email >isn't?? >? > >likely to be tolerated??? >? > >?? >? > >Kyle CAN ban that individual on the new list, but he won't, if the? > >individual?? >? > >is civil to his fellow list members. Anyone can sign up, and the >archives?? >? > >are public, so even non members can read what's written. There's no?? >? > >conspiracy and lots of transparency.?? >? > >?? >? > >I'm afraid that "spoof" addresses have been posted more often than the? > >actual?? >? > >one for Kyle's new list, so I'll include it again here to counteract the?? >? > >usual poster of misinformation.?? >? > >?? >? > >?http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ucneighbors?? >? > >?? >? > >- Melani Lamond?? >? > >?? >? > >?? >? > >**************************************?? >? > > Get a sneak peek of the?? >? > >all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour?? >?? >? >? >----?? >? >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.? ? ----? 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.
