Hi Ricky, I believe I >can trust my neighbors (using the term loosely) to recognize and >accept reasonable use of the park, and that if a line comes close to >being crossed, that others of my neighbors will speak up.
I appreciate your optimism and trust in your neighbors. Unfortunately, my experience contradicts your belief. The type of dishonest survey that is being done by FOCP leaders has been done several times before. Let me be clear, it's not to get neighbors opinions. It is to provide proof for the need of restrictions against other park users, who do not have Penn behind them. Importantly, FOCP/UCD is preparing to close park A for an extended period of time. But the attempts to use dishonest methods to justify actions against park users, outside of the FOCP leadership, has been around for a long time. I and others were targets of this association when UCD first changed the balance of power in the neighborhood several years ago. (Before UCD, city agencies considered the provincial standards and abuses of the FOCP/SHCA leaders an annoying nuisance. Leaders of the other park user groups were able to work with city agencies and get many things accomplished in the park and neighborhood without corporate resources.) That is the power dynamic neither UCD, SHCA, or FOCP has ever wanted. About the trust in neighbors to stand up to abusive practises- Unfortunately, I've noticed an increasing lack of concern when abuse surfaces against "others" until it "hits home" like the recent hotel incident. This is a very dangerous phenomena, in my opinion. Surveys are an example of things that our neighbors should speak about, but have so often been "swept under the rug" These are a written record, a rare event, which can demonstrate the actual agenda of the leaders. Not only does the UCD/SHCA/FOCP partnership of leaders meet secretly for actual meetings, but they have an incredibly powerful marketing machine behind their deceptive messages called the University of Pennsylvania. Questions about the "research" are always prohbited. Questioners are never allowed to speak at the public dog and pony shows or are shouted down as obstructionists. Our neighbors collectively allow this to occur! In the neighborhood and public forums, many of the individual leaders engage in fallacious arguments like ad hominem, and straw man creations to personally attack those bringing truthful accounts or dissenting positions to the public arena. I experienced these tactics a couple years before I ever posted on this list. It's always a power struggle with them and never a discussion between mature adults. I appreciate your criticism of my style while taking them on during the past couple of years. I decided to make fun of the latest attempt. (I first tried giving accounts of abuses publicly, and it didn't work as I had the death ray pointed at me.) The techniques employed in this FOCP survey have been thoroughly dissected on this public forum over the past many years. I hope you're correct that people will condemn the FOCP at their anuual dog and pony show. But our neighbors must first recognize that these surveys have nothing to do with getting opinions from the community! (For example, the "sampling" alone will always provide useless "conclusions" that will always end up on the desks of the city agency.) Thanks for your criticism. I'll give it serious thought. Glenn -----Original Message----- >From: Richard Moreau <[email protected]> >Sent: Sep 23, 2009 9:04 AM >To: Glenn moyer <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [UC] FOCP does it again > >At the risk of getting you started again (not that I dont sometimes >agree with you; it's just the lengthy explications and over-the-top >lengths to which you carry them....) > >Heaven forbid that they ask people around the park for their opinions >about the park and how its use impacts them! I understand that we >shouldn't be restricting people's access to public spaces and their >right to free speech but there are limits long recognized by the law >and common sense. It's one thing to play music I don't like but it's >another to burn a cross (actually, I'm not sure the law does see these >as essentially different, but I think you get my point.) I believe I >can trust my neighbors (using the term loosely) to recognize and >accept reasonable use of the park, and that if a line comes close to >being crossed, that others of my neighbors will speak up. > >- Ricky > >On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Glenn moyer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear community, >> >> >> The excellent FOCP has a new, highly sophisticated, survey >> instrument designed to discover the good wishes of good neighbors. >> Which bad groups should the FOCP policy comandantes kick out of >> Clark Park and send to Malcolm X park this year? The enquiring >> minds of FOCP leaders want to know! >> >> The principal investigator and lead author of the survey instrument >> is none other than that illustrious, larger than life, permanent >> board member, and chief committee bloviater, Tony W. Bigwind! He >> and his assistant, Frank Privatizeparks, uncloaked the expertly >> administered scientific research formality last week, before an >> assembled crowd of bad people. >> >> Why waste time with valid research when FOCP already knows the best >> of all possible truths? Let’s not be silly and waste the time of go >> od volunteers! >> >> If only Fox news had researchers like T.W. Bigwind and >> Privatizeparks, we’d have a Rush/Beck administration in the White ho >> use now! >> >> >> >> Thumbing their protuberances at the freedom of assembly doctrines >> established over the past two centuries, what does FOCP care if city >> tax payers defend against a first amendment lawsuit? These FOCP >> researchers want the good truth, and as far as they’re concerned, th >> e loony leftists can shove their precious first amendment up their a >> …(censored for civility)! [But please, only shove the constitution >> after obtaining the proper permits from the department of recreation.] >> >> >> At the assembly of bad people, Tony W. Bigwind was magnificent as he >> explained the erudition, statistical absolutisms, and socio-economic >> ego stratification parameters of the research to the bewildered >> audience. Not a single soul understood the brilliant brilliance >> from Bigwind except Bigwind himself! >> >> It seems that only good people, trained by experts of the American >> Association of the Scientifically Anointed, can administer the >> excellent survey to prevent unanticipated contamination of the >> research proof. All of you little folks will certainly understand; >> the overwhelming research evidence will soon prove that good FOCP >> comandantes have no rules above them. Rules are for those the >> comandantes don’t like, and as everyone knows, excellent FOCP survey >> s simply prove that this is absolutely positively fact! >> >> Tony W. Bigwind and Frank Privatizeparks want good facts! Nothing >> but the good truth and the good facts! FOCP surveys rule! >> >> Glenn >> PS: Sincerely, the use of permits in the city of Philadelphia needs >> to be clarified and challenged in court. In the United States of >> America, use permits are intended as a system for reserving public >> space for a special purpose. It is not considered by the US Supreme >> court, over the centuries, to be a tool for a powerful UCD backed, >> ruthless association, to discriminate against others, so that they >> have monopoly use over public parks! Rules and permit restrictions >> in the civilized world, beyond Clark Park, are for everyone or no >> one! We need to consider how FOCP leaders attempt to monopolize and >> dictate the use of Clark Park, instead of giving them more money and >> power as they always demand! >> >> >> ---- >> 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>.
