Dear Glenn,
To answer your specific questions... "First, could you identify the other "5 or 6 people" whom you and your fellow list members believe should be pre-banned from the upenn.edu list?" I never mentioned anything about banning, those are your words, not mine. I will ask kindly, please do not put words into my mouth. "Isn't creation of your UC Neighbors actually a sign and symbol that gangs or bullying should not be coddled or given a free pass by strong citizens whom will not be intimidated? " The UCNeighbors list is not mine as you implied, I don't know how you ever got that impression, I don't even work for Penn. As for a sign, I only see the UCNeighbors list as a sign of choice, let people choose whatever list pleases them. "Do you consider your last 2 posts constructive attempts to make important points or enter into a discussion?" Just clarifications and observations, please re-read my posts which are below. Tony Dominick ----- Original Message ---- From: Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Tony Dominick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:07:38 PM 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) DIV { MARGIN:0px;} "Just so you all know, Glenn is wrong when he thinks I am new to this list." I stand corrected. Here is my corrected statement. "Hi Mr Dominick, Since (I've never noticed any posts from you which I considered of interest or valuable,) let me (introduce myself and) help you understand the genesis of the University of Pennsylvania censored e-mail listserv criticized on this public list..." First, could you identify the other "5 or 6 people" whom you and your fellow list members believe should be pre-banned from the upenn.edu list? I've seen this 5 or 6 number stated repeatedly but I believe by leaving the individuals and their posts unidentified those statements should be understood as cowardly attempts to intimidate 300+ subscribers on this list. The only folks who come to my mind that fit your description are on the censored list and share a particular ideology. I've started a letter to the Daily Pennsylvanian and some Penn officials about the Cassidy list and this is important information. I am one of these 5 or 6, but identifying the others and their uncivil posts is rather important. You don't need to bother to try to understand why; it's not easy for many folks to understand. Even just their identities would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! If you answer my question, I promise I won't make the mistake of attempting a discussion or responding to you directly about your comments in the future. I may comment about your posts especially when they include silly criticisms or insults directed at me or contain pot shot insults towards others . When an individual doesn't first attempt a good faith effort to be part of any discussion but simply desires an opportunity for insults against people perceived as too smart to engage in civil discussion, I've decided to ignore such childishness to a point. I stopped being overly accepting as my nature and personality dictated around 2001. My foolish patience had only emboldened the bullies I dealt with at FOCP as well as the UCD executive director at that time. I had never been bullied before and lacked experience. I hold my failures somewhat responsible for our communities loss of Clark Park to Penn. In hindsight, my dedication to diplomacy, trust, and forgiveness kept me from exposing properly and timely what I was seeing as an overwhelming attempt to dominate, divide and conquer not only our park but community. My desire for civil and logical discussion was exploited. You could follow up with others whom have tangled with local civic associations to confirm this reality. I know some folks are expected to tolerate pathetic "pot shots" from strangers forever. After my years of experience with folks on the censored list, I know how this must be addressed even though I will respond without personal malice towards you. Isn't creation of your UC Neighbors actually a sign and symbol that gangs or bullying should not be coddled or given a free pass by strong citizens whom will not be intimidated? Let me simplify my explanation a bit. Proponents of a Penn led plutocracy simply could not win their arguments through years of public bullying and intimidation. Hence, UC Neighbors was established partly for this reason with Penn resources. As a five year list member, you've been able to witness the horrible behavior of several of the people on the censored list. Look how friendly, polite, and constructive this list has become except when folks from the censored list come back to insult or attack folks on the open list. I'm curious. Do you consider your last 2 posts constructive attempts to make important points or enter into a discussion? Thanks for the identities of the 5 or 6 other wankers. By the way, I did not start calling myself or others by this name. Your criticism of my use of "names" is a bit simplistic and seems like you are imposing a double standard when you ignore that the barking cheese crowd started and enshrined the use of such language most often to cause personal injury. I ridicule an ideology by using the words anointed and barking cheese heads even if some uninvolved individuals may question if I could be including them. Struggles aren't perfect and I would agree that name calling can be destructive and hurtful. Please remember that some cheeseheads openly wish for my death and I honestly believe this behavior is more damaging than the use of words like anointed, UC lords, and barking cheese heads. Back to intellectual discussions with my dog, Glenn ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony Dominick To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [UC] the defectors to UCNeighbors (was: Yet more help from Hollywood) 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) DIV { MARGIN:0px;} 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 Penn’s 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 Penn’s Real Estate spokesperson, Andrew Zitcer attempted to denegrate dissent and opposition to Penn’s marketing scheme and corporate domination, in a city wide publication; it was on this listserv that the ethical failure to disclose their spokesperson’s 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.. Penn’s 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 Penn’s 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 To: UnivCity listserv 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 doesn’t 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. That’s my view for what it is or isn’t 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1003 - Release Date: 9/12/2007 10:56 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>.
