Dear Tony, Did you write to me in order to inform me that you belong to many listservs as do I, or try to convince me that UCNeighbors REALLY wanted me to join when I was told otherwise after I called them out when they originally formed the other listserv.
Perhaps you are trying to convince me about how to be neighborly. I know how to be neighborly and have been so through many lower-input community initiatives. However, this does not negate the rationale for forming another listserv AND calling it UCNeighbors. As an original member of the SHCA Listserv and its subsequent UnivCity Listserv, I will never believe UCNeighbors was not formed in order to discredit and shut down the UnivCity Listserv@ purple. Unfortunately, the mystery of the domain UnivCity Listserv resides in some nebulous place at Villanova, while more people web search University City and will find this forum before UCNeighbors. I have stated my case and stood my ground on many difficult neighborhood issues, but I have never resorted to the sniping sort of comments if I could at ALL help it no matter how I was approached. I shall always strive to be civil. -Wilma On 4/1/10 4:26 PM, "Anthony West" <[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: >> Re: [UC] Drug pushers in the NYTimes Wow! THAT¹S 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! Isn¹t 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. > >
