Title: Re: [UC] Drug pushers in the NYTimes
Wilma,

I agree with Tony. I belong to both listservs (univcity and UCNeighbors), but find univcity less and less useful or civil. UCNeighbors is more active and I find the dialog more engaging and community-oriented.

Please come join us.

Margie


Apr 1, 2010 03:32:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Wilma,

Since a lot of people, like myself, subscribe to both lists (actually I'm on four neighborhood lists), there's no "they" vs. "we". There are just two different products out there, for any of us to patronize as we choose.

Some people don't want to subscribe to multiple listserves for the same community. (They'd rather not see their inbox flooded by the same post in three different emails, for instance.) In that case, the listserve with the greater traffic -- particularly traffic about the neighborhood -- is surely the more useful. Almost by definition, it represents the neighborhood better.

One might still keep a membership on the less-popular listserve, if it gives information not available on the more-popular listserve -- particularly if it facilitates a specific kind of neighborhood communication that is hard to get on the more-popular one. In this case, having read both Kyle Cassidy's UC list and Villanova's UC list for a few years now, my take is the "purple" list reliably fosters personal attack, intentional misinformation and extremist hysteria on neighborhood issues.

It's more about the process than the people. The same people, writing on the same issues on UCNeighbors, write with more gentleness, more receptivity and more nuance than they do on Purple. I include myself in this criticism.

Listserves generally die with a whimper, not a bang, and that's how Purple seems to be dying. I still see, from time to time, useful threads about household services that don't appear on UCNeighbors. But I see more useful threads about household services overall on UCNeighbors now than I do on Purple.

The only threads that flourish on Purple rather than UCNeighbors are those that favor querulous complaints about how bad A is or B is. Thus, in this recent statistic-boosting spate, I note that I made a nasty comment about Glenn (en passant) and that Kimm made a nasty comment about Tom (in yo face) and that Wilma induces a global nasty comment by me about all Purple readers (not there at all)  ... par for the course.

Anyone who prefers to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find Purple more congenial than UCNeighbors. Anyone who does not prefer to relate to their neighbors in this manner will find UCNeighbors more congenial than Purple, in my estimation.

So I do think this product is broken and I have no idea how to fix it, unless it's willing to bite the bullet and appoint a moderator of its own. But I'll continue to read it and post on it, if I think I can make a comment that is helpful. I always appreciate your posts, Wilma.

-- Tony West



On 3/31/2010 9:54 PM, Wilma de Soto wrote:
Wow! THAT’S a slap in the face.  

Thank you kindly for showing us who the better people are who have higher-quality neighborhood input.  Since I have been a member of this listserv since its inception, apparently I can rest assured that I would not be considered as such; especially since I am not a member of the UCNeighbors listserv.

Mogadishu, indeed!  Perhaps it was not your intent to appear hurtful, elitist and disrespectful amongst other things, especially in light of the subject of civility raised earlier, but I do perceive it this way because there is not much room for benefit of the doubt anymore.

Snide remarks about the persons who belong to this listserv, since the formation of UCNeighbors has gone a bit too far in my opinion.  You have UCNeighbors...fine!  Isn’t that enough without denigrating this listserv or are we all just supposed to not post, drop dead or leave the neighborhood?  What IS it they want from us?

Come front street with it once and for all.


---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .

Reply via email to