To the contrary, I for one did not think you were new to the UC Listserv. Glenn¹s position may be a bit extreme, but this doesn¹t mean that he or others might have experiences with community associations and Penn that are not so good.
As for the ³annointed², that moniker has been used on this listserv for years. Sometimes I agreed and sometimes I didn¹t. -Wilma On 9/12/07 1:18 PM, "Tony Dominick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello again, > > Just so you all know, Glenn is wrong when he thinks I am new to this list. If > he would have only taken his own advise and checked the archives for my name > he would see that I'm about 5 years "new" to this list. Too bad I didn't > post the first day I joined or I might be 6 years "new". > > Interesting to see Glenn's quote though, "Penn believes it will intimidate the > rest of the community by its silencing and punishment of dissenters." > Apparently now he can channel the collective thoughts of the thousands of > people that work for Penn. (Once again, that is sarcasm for those that didn't > follow it.) > > "barking cheese", "anointed", Glenn can't help but resorting to name-calling > instead of using the true names. I guess name-calling is the level that some > really feel comfortable operating at. > > > Now back for some more name-calling, > Tony Dominick > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Tony Dominick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; UnivCity listserv > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:48:35 AM > Subject: Re: [UC] the defectors to UCNeighbors (was: Yet more help from > Hollywood) > > Re: [UC] the defectors to UCNeighbors (was: Yet more help from Hollywood) > Hi Mr. Dominick, > > Since you are new to the list, let me help you understand the genesis of the > University of Pennsylvania censored e-mail listserv critisized on this public > list. I have been a long term member of the Penn community, and this censored > listserv will ultimately bring shame to our university. > > I would suggest that you review the archives of the public purple list just > prior to July 30 to confirm my explanation. In addition to founding members > Cassidy, Anderson, Lamond, Siano, West, I can point you to others appearing in > the archives so that you can see that the claim about civility by the > justifiers of censorship cannot possibly be supported. > > As has been pointed out publicly, several founders of the censored Penn list > were part of a gang of individuals who have been employing various fallacious > argumentative strategies for years. These folks and their gang like tactics > were thoroughly and publicly exposed and were recognized as the primary source > of incivility on this list. They appear to consider themselves Penn partners > in a new elite who will dominate society in a new plutocracy. > > Banning dissenters on one side of neighborhood issues is not"light moderation > or light censortship." Yet it is the supportable conclusion for the > establishment of the new censored list. Prior to the establishment of barking > cheese not only had its founders tactics been thoroughly exposed but the > public list emerged as one of the rare opportunities allowing dissent, > disclosure, and questioning which is considered necessary in democratic > societies. > > In the year 2007, this public list emerged as a powerful obstacle to the > overwhelming Penn "marketing" machine. As the various unethical practises and > frauds driven by the University of Pennsylvania Real Estate monopolists > continue to demand absolute power and the establishment of an elite > plutocracy, this list emerged as one of the few venues for honest discussions > and questioning. The archives served as a public historical record. > > As Penn¹s cloaked agent UCD was caught violating federal law in 2007, it was > this listserv which provided the community stakeholders a powerful public > gathering for discussion. When Penn¹s Real Estate spokesperson, Andrew Zitcer > attempted to denegrate dissent and opposition to Penn¹s marketing scheme and > corporate domination, in a city wide publication; it was on this listserv that > the ethical failure to disclose their spokesperson¹s true identity was > exposed. To this day, the rest of the city believes the spokesperson for Penn > Real Estate, Andrew Zitcer, is Everyman who finds citizens concerns about Penn > marketing and monopoly to be frivilous and stupid. The folks on this public > list shared his actual role in the Penn machine and we have the opportunity to > see how dishonest the tactics of Penn Real Estate are in 2007.. > > Penn¹s move to sponsor a censored private list called "UC Neighbors" is > designed to replace and minimize this rare public place for important > neighborhood discussions. As long term list readers understand, this "sweet > barking cheese" list is also a set-up for future astroturfing to support > corporate domination and rule over our community. > > All local Penn agendas are masked with the claim that 80% to 100% of "good" > neighborhood consumers demand the Penn agenda. Astroturfing is a rather new > term describing the false claim of grassroots support which the censored list > will falsely prove. > > Please read back in the listserv archives and you will see that civility and > the need to ban 5 or 6 wrong thinking people is nothing but a bold lie. Penn > believes it will intimidate the rest of the community by its silencing and > punishment of dissenters. Several years ago, a local civic association, the > squirrel hill association, was similarly punished to send a similar > intimidating message to the other civic clubs. And it worked against their > leaders often referred to as the "anointed." > > Mr. Dominick, I truly believe if democratic principals are resurrected > nationally and locally, our University of Pennsylvania is going to regret this > "UC neighbors" list. There are many scholars and researchers at Penn who > depend upon and protect the reputation of ethical conduct at our university. > The censorship list as well as the widespread unethical conduct of Penn Real > Estate and its operatives will cause shame to our entire university community > when sweet barking cheese is studied and exposed.. > > One of the banned evil doers, I am deeply concerned about the ramifications > censorship holds for this country and our university. It's not because the > "civil gang" regularly posted wishes for my death or called me so many names, > or made fun of murder victims which frightens me. I hope you join with the > public and condemn, ridicule, and stand against Penn¹s new cloaked censorship > policy and the continued unethical propaganda pushed by Penn Real Estate. > > Thanks for your interest in this matter. I hope my comments are helpful > > Sincerely, > > Glenn Moyer > > > > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Tony Dominick <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: UnivCity listserv <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 11:40 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [UC] the defectors to UCNeighbors (was: Yet more help from >> Hollywood) >> >> >> >> >> Hello all, >> >> Just my own point of clarification. To reference Wilma's words: >> >> "The people on UCNeighbors did not approve of those of us who had a >> different view of how events unfolded and left. They also sowed enough >> seeds of nasty behavior, disrespect and contempt on this list as well, that >> this should not have been the rationale for forming another list in my >> opinion." >> >> First off, as one member of the UCNeighbors list, thanks for being able to >> read my mind. And I did't know you were the collective voice for everyone on >> the UCNeighbors list. That is sarcasim for those that didn't realize, but >> my point is that I find it odd that people on this list think they know >> exactly why people joined the other list. It is often referenced that >> anyone who joined "UCNeighbors" has left "UnivCity". This is not always >> true and so I am clear, I am on both lists. Yes Virginia, one can be on >> multiple lists, and welcome to the Internet since you are new here. >> >> Second off, while I am all for people speaking their mind I, like I assume >> others, have gotten tired of the 5 or 6 people on this list that has >> resorted to name-calling, whining, and ranting to get their point across. A >> sample of the childish name-calling from just the last week alone: "Ceasar >> Amy", "Sweet Barfing Cheese", not to be confused with >> "sweetbarkingcheese.com", "UC Lords", "the anointed" (FYI, I don't think >> there was any anointing involved). I get my fair share of whining, >> complaining, and name-calling from my 3 year old that I got tired of having >> to hear it coming from adults acting like 3 year olds. So I joined >> UCNeighbors _not_ for the reasons that Wilma suggests, that I "did not >> approve of those of us who had a different view of how events unfolded." I >> actually like the different views that come up and enjoy reading them. But >> I personally have found that "UnivCity" has gotten less informative lately >> and more like noise to me and I joined "UCNeighbors" in the hopes that it >> will serve the purpose that the "UnivCity" once did, of getting information >> out. >> >> So far the "UCNeighbors" list has been informative without the name-calling. >> But don't worry folks, I will still read "UnivCity" for the enjoyment. >> >> >> Now let the name-calling resume, >> Tony Dominick >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Wilma de Soto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: Anthony West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; UnivCity listserv >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:28:59 AM >> Subject: Re: [UC] the defectors to UCNeighbors (was: Yet more help from >> Hollywood) >> >> Dear Tony, >> >> You may have a point, but I found your post to be rather high-handed and >> disparaging with regard to most of the high-thinkers have gone over to the >> other list, etc. Second-raters and fool doesn¹t help either. >> >> However, it is an accurate description of many who are on the new list as to >> how do they think of us on this listserv. >> >> Many of us here have had years of community service and have paid our dues. >> We have been here longer than many of the initial posters on the other list. >> >> It eventually came down to some us actually love everything Univ. of PA. is >> doing here and stand to benefit from it personally or professionally. >> Others see a re-vamping of the neighborhood and displacement of its long >> time residents; especially people of color and are battle-scarred from >> attacks and other negative experiences with the institution. >> >> The people on UCNeighbors did not approve of those of us who had a different >> view of how events unfolded and left. They also sowed enough seeds of nasty >> behavior, disrespect and contempt on this list as well, that this should not >> have been the rationale for forming another list in my opinion. >> >> That¹s my view for what it is or isn¹t worth. >> >> Regards, >> >> Wilma >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.13/998 - Release Date: 9/10/2007 >> 8:48 AM > >
