"Nonsense like this is why nobody takes UC-list seriously. Frank, the
notorious UC public advocate, must live by the legal rules all other
public advocates live by. If Frank violates the law in a way that
threatens powerful opponents, he'll be busted.. Not my idea! But if
Frank's political payroll is clean .. then he's clean."
You are the problem, West.
Since the gang of bullies went crying for censorship to Penn, this list
works very well. We treat each other respectfully now that cyber bullies
aren't constantly lashing out with pathetic attempts to silence discussion.
Trying to make people feel threatened personally!
The only time things get out of line is when assholes leave the censored
Penn good neighbor list to take shots at the rest of us. No one has tried
to insinuate threats on this list since the last time you did. Are you so
stupid that you can only succeed by pathetically threatening to go after
people personally? Are you so out of control that you would be quite
willing to frame them, hurt them, or destroy them by any means possible?
Don't bother answering me. I know you too well.
Go back to Penn and tell them you're too damn stupid for honest civil
debate. They're going to need to arrest all of us to shut us up. If you
stick your nose up a little farther, maybe you can have UCD give me trash
tickets daily.
You know where I live. Why don't you try to threaten me some more, Mr.
Bully? I know that you are capable of almost any treachery.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "UnivCity listserv" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] Re: Do we hear one another?
What you just wrote is untrue, Frank.
I addressed the challenge of sitting on a committee and arriving at a
committee's decisions. I have sat on many committees; how many have you
sat on?
Anyone who reads the dialog you copied below will see I did not "equate"
meeting attendees with liars, bla bla.... That's all your own angry,
careless rhetoric. The last tine we interacted on line, you were telling
the on-line community you were suffering from the illness of a friend in
Atlanta. I respected that.
I too have faced many health challenges in the past 12 months. Did I beg
public forgiveness for my manners on account of them? Pity is a one-way
street for you, it seems.
Angry, dishonest rhetoric (neighborhood "fight talk") is the central
purpose of UC-list these days. Personally, it sickens me. I am in the
political business, so I am familiar with this pathology. I deal with it
for a living ... but I don't want to come home at the end of the day and
deal with it some more.
What do you do for a living, by the way, Frank? Where do you live, and how
do you afford to live there? Can you please tell the neighborhood exactly
who you are? You are a frequent angry critic of how your neighbors manage
their properties and their public spaces; yet we know strangely little
about you. What's the scoop? How much do you pay to your landlord for the
environment you think this proposed hotel would disrupt? If information
about the hotel is rightfully public, isn't information about you
rightfully public as well? Tell us who you are and where you are.
-- Tony West
Frank wrote:
You are equating people who chose to attend the meeting with shameless
liars/ignorami and those on the committee with people who struggle to
tell the truth in public/experts? That's preposterous. People who learn
zoning law don't necessarily speak truthfully. Where did you get that
idea? There is no connection. Why would you equate them?
Everyone who attended the meeting "contributed" simply by attending. The
committee wanted public input and they got it. As I said before, not
every interested party can be accommodated on a board or committee. How
dare you accuse everyone who isn't on a committee of laziness? You're
saying the public input has no meaning because the public didn't bother
learning zoning law. If that's so, why bother asking for it?
Your reasoning is just silly.
Frank
On Feb 14, 2008, at 08:49 PM, Anthony West wrote:
Frank,
As a simple member of both SHCA and FoCP (but an officer of neither), I
can tell you that any member of either body who wants to serve on a
committee like the Zoning Committee now in the spotlight, has only to
request it. It's much easier than getting a US passport or voting in the
April primary. It is participatory democracy at its purest. Let me be
blunt: anybody who doesn't sit on the SHCA Zoning Committee is just too
lazy to do so.
Why, then, should neighborhood decisions be decided by people who don't
contribute rather than by those who do contribute?
That doesn't equate with "participatory democracy at its finest". Every
form of government can make wrong decisions. If the US Congress can blow
any given assignment; so can SHCA. In this case, criticize the decision;
don't criticize the "process."
My point is that "people who actually went to the meeting" are not the
same as "people who actually learned zoning law, and decided to speak
honestly to their neighbors." The word of a willful ignoramus should not
bear equal weight with the word of an expert. The word of a shameless
liar should not bear equal weight with the word of a person who
struggles to tell the the truth in public, regardless of personal cost.
Do we disagree on these two points, Frank?
-- Tony West
Frank wrote:
Yes, we disagree.
You are equating people who chose to attend the meeting with shameless
liars/ignorami and those on the committee with people who struggle to
tell the truth in public/experts? That's preposterous. People who learn
zoning law don't necessarily speak truthfully. Where did you get that
idea? There is no connection. Why would you equate them?
Everyone who attended the meeting "contributed" simply by attending. The
committee wanted public input and they got it. As I said before, not
every interested party can be accommodated on a board or committee. How
dare you accuse everyone who isn't on a committee of laziness? You're
saying the public input has no meaning because the public didn't bother
learning zoning law. If that's so, why bother asking for it?
Your reasoning is just silly.
Frank
On Feb 14, 2008, at 08:49 PM, Anthony West wrote:
Frank,
As a simple member of both SHCA and FoCP (but an officer of neither), I
can tell you that any member of either body who wants to serve on a
committee like the Zoning Committee now in the spotlight, has only to
request it. It's much easier than getting a US passport or voting in the
April primary. It is participatory democracy at its purest. Let me be
blunt: anybody who doesn't sit on the SHCA Zoning Committee is just too
lazy to do so.
Why, then, should neighborhood decisions be decided by people who don't
contribute rather than by those who do contribute?
That doesn't equate with "participatory democracy at its finest". Every
form of government can make wrong decisions. If the US Congress can blow
any given assignment; so can SHCA. In this case, criticize the decision;
don't criticize the "process."
My point is that "people who actually went to the meeting" are not the
same as "people who actually learned zoning law, and decided to speak
honestly to their neighbors." The word of a willful ignoramus should not
bear equal weight with the word of an expert. The word of a shameless
liar should not bear equal weight with the word of a person who
struggles to tell the the truth in public, regardless of personal cost.
Do we disagree on these two points, Frank?
-- Tony West
Frank wrote:
The fact is that not everyone who has an opinion on or is affected by
any given project can be accommodated with a place on a board or
committee. Meetings like the one last night are one of the very few
places where some members of the community can actually be heard. We
took advantage of it. What exactly is the problem with that? Is this
not part of the public process? I would also argue that discussion on
a community listserv is also part of the public process.
Secondly, the people who have been writing about this process are, for
the most part, the people who actually went to the meeting last night
and participated in the process.
What is your point?
Frank
----
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>.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database:
269.20.5/1278 - Release Date: 2/14/2008 10:28 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>.
