Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [pacleansweepuncensored] banned?

Expand Messages
  • Stephanie
    No problem little man--I m sick of hearing spewage from someone with a Napolean complex anyway. SEEYA. Carl H. Silverman wrote:
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
      No problem little man--I'm sick of hearing spewage from someone with a Napolean complex anyway.
       
      SEEYA.

      "Carl H. Silverman" <satanhimself@...> wrote:
      Don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out, Stephanie.
      PACleansweep is a NON-PARTISAN organization.  All points
      of view deserve a place at the table---not just YOUR point of view.
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Stephanie
      Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:20 PM
      Subject: Re: [pacleansweepuncensored] banned?

      I'm OUT! See ya!
      Please unsub me!

      "Jeff M. Brindle" <jmbrindle@...> wrote:
               Actually what cracks me up - and I just realized this - is that all along Russ has had the idea that I am running just as a publicity stunt for my party. If this really were the case, even in part, you'd think that given the way I've been treated by Operation Clean Sweep since I sent in my candidate declaration on January 6th that I would have publicized it in some way to generate some buzz. But you haven't seen ANY "Russ Diamond blacklists Socialist candidate" stories, smear campaigns on uncleansweep.com, or retaliatory press releases come out of my campaign because - as I've said all along - this isn't a publicity stunt rather an attempt to mount a serious, issues based campaign despite the odds of a Socialist winning in a predominantly GOP district. All I've ever done is continue to press PACleanSweep for equal treatment as a candidate; incumbents have gotten a squarer deal than I have! ;)

      - Jeff M. Brindle
      www.brindle2006.com

      At 01:15 PM 6/30/2006, you wrote:


      Welcome to the crowd, Jeff.
       
      People reading this board need to realize that
      you are being criticized for wanting to legally amend the Constitution,
      yet Mr. Diamond and his cronies "approved" (without a legal vote of
      the legitimate Board of Directors)  other candidates who, judging
      from their websites,
      apparently want to violate the Constitution without amending
      it.
       
      Any candidate who accepted such approval during the period
      between March 15th and now is NOT---repeat---is NOT officially
      approved by PACleansweep, Inc.   Any candidate who THOUGHT
      they were approved will need to request such approval again and be
      interviewed (in some manner) by the official board of directors.
       
      Stay tuned.
       
      As you know, since Mr. Diamond and his cronies--for purely personal
      political reasons---do not wish to have any association with any "Socialist" party,
      but prefer to pander to the far right, various pathetic excuses were made as to why you
      have not been given full approval by PCS.
       
      You were, however, given "conditional" approval by the legitimate Board--although Mr. Diamond
      failed to inform you of that---and now that you have done a great job in
      collecting signatures, you are still being given the shaft by Mr. Diamond
      and his cronies.  So much for Mr. Diamond and his cronies being "nonpartisan".
       
      You asked PACleansweep to send a speaker to your Socialist party convention
      in April.  When it was clear that you were likely to be given the shaft, once again,
      by our so-called "nonpartisan" leadership, I agreed to represent PCS in case others would not.
      I would have done the same if someone from the Constitution Party had made
      a similar request of me.  Unlike some others, I take the term "non-partisan" very
      seriously and in its broadest sense, regardless of how much I may disagree with the positions of the parties
      and the candidates.   In fact, I am registered to vote as "Non Partisan", and I refused
      to change that, even though it meant I could not vote in the primary,
      because I--as a founding and ongoing director of PCS-- did not want to be viewed
      in any way as favoring one party over another, even temporarily.
       
      During the legitimate approval process back in the winter,
      I "held my nose" in approving several candidates whom I personally found
      politically offensive.  I vigorously opposed only one candidate because he admitted
      he would use his office to promote one particular industry in Pennsylvania.  He was
      a nice-enough guy, with money and charisma, but clearly no better than most incumbents and
      worse than some.  Most of those candidates lost in the primary, and perhaps some of
      the incumbents will have better PCS opponents in the fall.
       
      I attended your convention, and while it had a small turnout, the discussions were very
      thoughtful and challenging, and, as you know, I expressed some skepticism about the
      viability of some socialist policies.  Nevertheless, you deserve equal treatment by PCS
      regardless of those policy positions.  Pennsylvania and the USA will benefit from the
      broadest array of ideas brought to the table.
       
      I find your website, and your use of the Project Vote Smart questionairre, to be a model
      for all candidates.  People may not agree with you, but at least we all know exactly
      where you stand on many, many issues.  Perhaps having a socialist in the Legislature
      is exactly the kind of "monkey wrench" the current corrupt Legislature needs.  But
      that's up to the voters of your district to decide.
       
      Indeed, the only criticism I could offer is that you need to smile a bit more in your
      commercials and public appearances.  Not a big deal, because ideas should be more
      important than image, but something that could help you win more friends.
       
      People reading this board also need to know that Mr. Diamond and Mr. Lingenfelter,
      despite being prohibited from doing so (by unanimous action of the full legal Board
      of Directors back in February)
      because they are announced candidates
      for public office, are attempting to vote on Board matters.  I, for one, will not
      participate in any manner in these schemes---particularly in any attempt to
      dissolve the corporation.
       
      The court-reconstituted Board of Directors consists of 5 members who have integrity,
      and 5 who do not.  Any observer who has integrity and who is not blinded by their own (or others') pipe dreams
      should be able to tell who belongs to each group.
       
      Again, stay tuned.  There's a lot more to come.
       
       
      Carl H. Silverman
      --Founding and ongoing member of the Board of Directors, PACleansweep, Inc.
      --Co-Plaintiff in the Common Cause lawsuit against the pay raise
      --Registered "Non Partisan" in Cumberland County
       
      (formerly known as notoriousactivist@... until banned
      by Mr. Diamond and his cronies from the PACleansweep Discussion Board,
      the PACleansweep Board of Directors Discussion and Voting Board, and the PACleansweep.com email system)
       
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jeff M. Brindle
      To: pacleansweepuncensored@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 8:03 AM
      Subject: [pacleansweepuncensored] banned?

      I wondered why I have not received any PACleanSweep emails in over a day,
      looks like I have been banned. Not sure why, I emailed Andrea hopefully she
      will be able to tell me.

      - Jeff




      When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence.
      www.lp.org
       

      Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

    • Jeff M. Brindle
      I for one would like to get back to talking about pay raise fallout, property taxes, and other issues related to the state legislative race. I guess it ll just
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
        I for one would like to get back to talking about pay raise fallout,
        property taxes, and other issues related to the state legislative race. I
        guess it'll just have to be here.

        - Jeff
      • Jeni Ertmer
        Well, at least you aren t banned in Boston totally Jeff! It sucks to think that freedom of speech and choice was supposed to exist completely in other areas
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
          Well, at least you aren't "banned in Boston" totally Jeff!

          It sucks to think that freedom of speech and choice was supposed to exist completely in other areas too and yet, apparently it doesn't.

          Glad though you still have an outlet to intermingle.



          At 08:45 AM 7/1/06 -0400, you wrote:

          I for one would like to get back to talking about pay raise fallout,
          property taxes, and other issues related to the state legislative race. I
          guess it'll just have to be here.

          - Jeff



          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
          Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/06
        • closet_libertarian
          Ok I didn t mean that your message specfically wsa the hate message I only mean that some others have been spreading nasty comments here. I didn t mean to
          Message 4 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
            Ok I didn't mean that your message specfically wsa the hate message I
            only mean that some others have been spreading nasty comments here. I
            didn't mean to imply you specifically were doing it I really meant the
            others. However I do think that you five are making this all about
            Russ when clean sweep was never about Russ it was about making Penna a
            better place for everyone. I just wish your friends could put aside
            their personal feelings about him and what he wnats to do and just get
            the business done but every message posted by them is about something
            Russ Diamond is doing and that just makes the whole thing look
            personal to me and maybe to others.

            --- In pacleansweepuncensored@yahoogroups.com, "Carl H. Silverman"
            <satanhimself@...> wrote:
            >
            > My message was not a message of hate.
            > It was a message of truth. Sometimes the truth hurts.
            > Anyone who has aligned themselves with PCS who
            > does not want to hear the truth, anyone who believes
            > the ends justifies the means, should part ways with
            > PCS immediately.
            >
            > The "rogues" are the ones who have violated
            > the corporation bylaws and now violate the court order.
            > They are the ones who claim to be nonpartisan yet will
            > approve a Constitution Party candidate but not a Socialist
            > Party candidate, simply because of their party affiliation.
            >
            > Any organization that claims to be against corrupt government
            > cannot allow itself to be guided by corrupt individuals.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: closet_libertarian
            > To: pacleansweepuncensored@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:26 PM
            > Subject: [pacleansweepuncensored] Re: banned?
            >
            >
            > It looks to me as if the ones with integrity are the one's not posting
            > messages of hate in a rogue forum but the ones who keep their noses
            > clean by not stooping to this level of public name calling and attacks
            > or threatening to post more information that can't do antyhing but
            > hurt PA Clean Sweep in the long run so you need to decide what side
            > you are on and this is not about being for or against Russ Dimaond but
            > being for or against corrupt government.
            >
            > --- In pacleansweepuncensored@yahoogroups.com, "Carl H. Silverman"
            > <satanhimself@> wrote:
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: Jeff M. Brindle
            > > To: pacleansweepuncensored@yahoogroups.com
            > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 8:03 AM
            > > Subject: [pacleansweepuncensored] banned?
            > >
            > > I wondered why I have not received any PACleanSweep emails in over a
            > day,
            > > looks like I have been banned. Not sure why, I emailed Andrea
            > hopefully she
            > > will be able to tell me.
            > >
            > > - Jeff
            > >
            > >
            > > Welcome to the crowd, Jeff.
            > >
            > > People reading this board need to realize that
            > > you are being criticized for wanting to legally amend the
            Constitution,
            > > yet Mr. Diamond and his cronies "approved" (without a legal vote of
            > > the legitimate Board of Directors) other candidates who, judging
            > > from their websites, apparently want to violate the Constitution
            > without amending
            > > it.
            > >
            > > Any candidate who accepted such approval during the period
            > > between March 15th and now is NOT---repeat---is NOT officially
            > > approved by PACleansweep, Inc. Any candidate who THOUGHT
            > > they were approved will need to request such approval again and be
            > > interviewed (in some manner) by the official board of directors.
            > >
            > > Stay tuned.
            > >
            > > As you know, since Mr. Diamond and his cronies--for purely personal
            > > political reasons---do not wish to have any association with any
            > "Socialist" party,
            > > but prefer to pander to the far right, various pathetic excuses were
            > made as to why you
            > > have not been given full approval by PCS.
            > >
            > > You were, however, given "conditional" approval by the legitimate
            > Board--although Mr. Diamond
            > > failed to inform you of that---and now that you have done a great
            > job in
            > > collecting signatures, you are still being given the shaft by Mr.
            > Diamond
            > > and his cronies. So much for Mr. Diamond and his cronies being
            > "nonpartisan".
            > >
            > > You asked PACleansweep to send a speaker to your Socialist party
            > convention
            > > in April. When it was clear that you were likely to be given the
            > shaft, once again,
            > > by our so-called "nonpartisan" leadership, I agreed to represent PCS
            > in case others would not.
            > > I would have done the same if someone from the Constitution Party
            > had made
            > > a similar request of me. Unlike some others, I take the term
            > "non-partisan" very
            > > seriously and in its broadest sense, regardless of how much I may
            > disagree with the positions of the parties
            > > and the candidates. In fact, I am registered to vote as "Non
            > Partisan", and I refused
            > > to change that, even though it meant I could not vote in the primary,
            > > because I--as a founding and ongoing director of PCS-- did not want
            > to be viewed
            > > in any way as favoring one party over another, even temporarily.
            > >
            > > During the legitimate approval process back in the winter,
            > > I "held my nose" in approving several candidates whom I personally
            found
            > > politically offensive. I vigorously opposed only one candidate
            > because he admitted
            > > he would use his office to promote one particular industry in
            > Pennsylvania. He was
            > > a nice-enough guy, with money and charisma, but clearly no better
            > than most incumbents and
            > > worse than some. Most of those candidates lost in the primary, and
            > perhaps some of
            > > the incumbents will have better PCS opponents in the fall.
            > >
            > > I attended your convention, and while it had a small turnout, the
            > discussions were very
            > > thoughtful and challenging, and, as you know, I expressed some
            > skepticism about the
            > > viability of some socialist policies. Nevertheless, you deserve
            > equal treatment by PCS
            > > regardless of those policy positions. Pennsylvania and the USA will
            > benefit from the
            > > broadest array of ideas brought to the table.
            > >
            > > I find your website, and your use of the Project Vote Smart
            > questionairre, to be a model
            > > for all candidates. People may not agree with you, but at least we
            > all know exactly
            > > where you stand on many, many issues. Perhaps having a socialist in
            > the Legislature
            > > is exactly the kind of "monkey wrench" the current corrupt
            > Legislature needs. But
            > > that's up to the voters of your district to decide.
            > >
            > > Indeed, the only criticism I could offer is that you need to smile a
            > bit more in your
            > > commercials and public appearances. Not a big deal, because ideas
            > should be more
            > > important than image, but something that could help you win more
            > friends.
            > >
            > > People reading this board also need to know that Mr. Diamond and Mr.
            > Lingenfelter,
            > > despite being prohibited from doing so (by unanimous action of the
            > full legal Board
            > > of Directors back in February) because they are announced candidates
            > > for public office, are attempting to vote on Board matters. I, for
            > one, will not
            > > participate in any manner in these schemes---particularly in any
            > attempt to
            > > dissolve the corporation.
            > >
            > > The court-reconstituted Board of Directors consists of 5 members who
            > have integrity,
            > > and 5 who do not. Any observer who has integrity and who is not
            > blinded by their own (or others') pipe dreams
            > > should be able to tell who belongs to each group.
            > >
            > > Again, stay tuned. There's a lot more to come.
            > >
            > >
            > > Carl H. Silverman
            > > --Founding and ongoing member of the Board of Directors,
            > PACleansweep, Inc.
            > > --Co-Plaintiff in the Common Cause lawsuit against the pay raise
            > > --Registered "Non Partisan" in Cumberland County
            > >
            > > (formerly known as notoriousactivist@ until banned
            > > by Mr. Diamond and his cronies from the PACleansweep Discussion
            Board,
            > > the PACleansweep Board of Directors Discussion and Voting Board, and
            > the PACleansweep.com email system)
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: Jeff M. Brindle
            > > To: pacleansweepuncensored@yahoogroups.com
            > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 8:03 AM
            > > Subject: [pacleansweepuncensored] banned?
            > >
            > >
            > > I wondered why I have not received any PACleanSweep emails in over
            > a day,
            > > looks like I have been banned. Not sure why, I emailed Andrea
            > hopefully she
            > > will be able to tell me.
            > >
            > > - Jeff
            > >
            >
          • fearthewhammy
            Closet, Your comments make perfect sense in theory. It shouldn t be all about Russ and we should all get back to business. What you might not know is that
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
              Closet,

              Your comments make perfect sense in theory. It shouldn't be "all about
              Russ" and we should all get "back to business."

              What you might not know is that PACleanSweep's current situation is,
              in fact, quite backwards from the situation you're criticising.

              I, for one, used to be a HUGE Russ Diamond booster. I'm not anymore,
              but my distrust of Russ has nothing to do with where PACleanSweep is
              today.

              What you SHOULD know, before you point fingers, is that Russ Diamond,
              Tom Lingenfelter, and three voting members of the Board of Directors
              have refused to discuss ANY business relating to PACleanSweep with two
              exceptions: they'll discuss giving Diamond and Lingelfelter voting
              rights, and they'll discuss dissolving the corporation.

              For them, it's ALL about Russ and Tom having power, even though we all
              unanimously voted to restrict the power of candidates serving on the
              Board many months ago.

              I absolutely agree that we need to get back to business. Many an email
              and phone call have been made by me trying to get people back to the
              table. The group that I call "the Diamontologists" want nothing to do
              with it.

              We made motions to approve candidates, to ratify the approval of
              candidates that was done by the board members who were booted by the
              judge, etc. Russ claims he has the power to rule efforts to conduct
              business "out of order."

              So, according to Russ, we can't conduct any business. The simple
              reality is that he doesn't want any business discussed where he can't
              control the outcome. He's a control freak, and he thinks PACleanSweep
              should be under his exclusive control. With five people who haven't
              sworn PERSONAL loyalty to him sitting on the Board, he'd rather
              PACleanSweep DO NOTHING, or be DISSOLVED, than risk us having actual
              substantive discussions as human beings.

              You're right. This shouldn't be "about Russ" and we should get back to
              business. But right now, it's just not happening. You have every right
              to be angry but please don't misdirect your outrage toward people who
              agree with you and are trying to make things happen.

              Best,
              Mike

              --- In pacleansweepuncensored@yahoogroups.com, "closet_libertarian"
              <closet_libertarian@...> wrote:
              >
              > Ok I didn't mean that your message specfically wsa the hate message I
              > only mean that some others have been spreading nasty comments here. I
              > didn't mean to imply you specifically were doing it I really meant
              the
              > others. However I do think that you five are making this all about
              > Russ when clean sweep was never about Russ it was about making Penna
              a
              > better place for everyone. I just wish your friends could put aside
              > their personal feelings about him and what he wnats to do and just
              get
              > the business done but every message posted by them is about something
              > Russ Diamond is doing and that just makes the whole thing look
              > personal to me and maybe to others.
            • fearthewhammy
              I know how you feel. From a policy standpoint, I m about as far from socialist as you can get. I m tired of government growing and growing. But I think it s
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
                I know how you feel.

                From a policy standpoint, I'm about as far from socialist as you can
                get. I'm tired of government growing and growing.

                But I think it's inappropriate to rip candidates on policy issues
                within the PACleanSweep movement.

                Carl was probably a bit harsh for my taste in responding, but I'll
                put it this way:

                Incumbent Tim Hennessey is one of the worst of the worst. I believe
                he's in the top ten in terms of per diem collection. He's a Hall of
                Shame member and spent taxpayer dollars on that junket to Seattle,
                then attended ONLY classes for his personal Continuing Legal
                Education to keep his law license (he didn't participate in any
                seminars relating to being a better legislator).

                It's PACleanSweep's job to help put ethical challengers on the
                ballot to provide a choice besides Hennessey. I think it goes
                against our mission -- and frankly it's very partisan -- to reject
                Mr. Brindle because we don't like his policy platform.

                That's just my $.02,
                Mike


                --- In pacleansweepuncensored@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie
                <steflink@...> wrote:
                >
                > Thank you! Right on--but I'm sick of it--so I'm done with the
                whole scenario.
                > We're on the fast track towards socialism and I can't be part of
                any of it.
              • Carl H. Silverman
                Closet, I am working on a major response to your post, but I want to enjoy the sunshine, so bear with me and, hopefully within 24-48 hrs, I ll post it. CHS ...
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 2, 2006
                  Closet,
                   
                  I am working on a major response to your post,
                  but I want to enjoy the sunshine, so bear with me
                  and, hopefully within 24-48 hrs, I'll post it.
                   
                  CHS
                   
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 11:28 AM
                  Subject: [pacleansweepuncensored] Re: banned?

                  Ok I didn't mean that your message specfically wsa the hate message I
                  only mean that some others have been spreading nasty comments here. I
                  didn't mean to imply you specifically were doing it I really meant the
                  others. However I do think that you five are making this all about
                  Russ when clean sweep was never about Russ it was about making Penna a
                  better place for everyone. I just wish your friends could put aside
                  their personal feelings about him and what he wnats to do and just get
                  the business done but every message posted by them is about something
                  Russ Diamond is doing and that just makes the whole thing look
                  personal to me and maybe to others.

                  --- In pacleansweepuncenso red@yahoogroups. com, "Carl H. Silverman"
                  <satanhimself@ ...> wrote:
                  >
                  > My message was not a message of hate.
                  > It was a message of truth. Sometimes the truth hurts.
                  > Anyone who has aligned themselves with PCS who
                  > does not want to hear the truth, anyone who believes
                  > the ends justifies the means, should part ways with
                  > PCS immediately.
                  >
                  > The "rogues" are the ones who have violated
                  > the corporation bylaws and now violate the court order.
                  > They are the ones who claim to be nonpartisan yet will
                  > approve a Constitution Party candidate but not a Socialist
                  > Party candidate, simply because of their party affiliation.
                  >
                  > Any organization that claims to be against corrupt government
                  > cannot allow itself to be guided by corrupt individuals.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: closet_libertarian
                  > To: pacleansweepuncenso red@yahoogroups. com
                  > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:26 PM
                  > Subject: [pacleansweepuncens ored] Re: banned?
                  >
                  >
                  > It looks to me as if the ones with integrity are the one's not posting
                  > messages of hate in a rogue forum but the ones who keep their noses
                  > clean by not stooping to this level of public name calling and attacks
                  > or threatening to post more information that can't do antyhing but
                  > hurt PA Clean Sweep in the long run so you need to decide what side
                  > you are on and this is not about being for or against Russ Dimaond but
                  > being for or against corrupt government.
                  >
                  > --- In pacleansweepuncenso red@yahoogroups. com, "Carl H. Silverman"
                  > <satanhimself@ > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: Jeff M. Brindle
                  > > To: pacleansweepuncenso red@yahoogroups. com
                  > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 8:03 AM
                  > > Subject: [pacleansweepuncens ored] banned?
                  > >
                  > > I wondered why I have not received any PACleanSweep emails in over a
                  > day,
                  > > looks like I have been banned. Not sure why, I emailed Andrea
                  > hopefully she
                  > > will be able to tell me.
                  > >
                  > > - Jeff
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Welcome to the crowd, Jeff.
                  > >
                  > > People reading this board need to realize that
                  > > you are being criticized for wanting to legally amend the
                  Constitution,
                  > > yet Mr. Diamond and his cronies "approved" (without a legal vote of
                  > > the legitimate Board of Directors) other candidates who, judging
                  > > from their websites, apparently want to violate the Constitution
                  > without amending
                  > > it.
                  > >
                  > > Any candidate who accepted such approval during the period
                  > > between March 15th and now is NOT---repeat- --is NOT officially
                  > > approved by PACleansweep, Inc. Any candidate who THOUGHT
                  > > they were approved will need to request such approval again and be
                  > > interviewed (in some manner) by the official board of directors.
                  > >
                  > > Stay tuned.
                  > >
                  > > As you know, since Mr. Diamond and his cronies--for purely personal
                  > > political reasons---do not wish to have any association with any
                  > "Socialist" party,
                  > > but prefer to pander to the far right, various pathetic excuses were
                  > made as to why you
                  > > have not been given full approval by PCS.
                  > >
                  > > You were, however, given "conditional" approval by the legitimate
                  > Board--although Mr. Diamond
                  > > failed to inform you of that---and now that you have done a great
                  > job in
                  > > collecting signatures, you are still being given the shaft by Mr.
                  > Diamond
                  > > and his cronies. So much for Mr. Diamond and his cronies being
                  > "nonpartisan" .
                  > >
                  > > You asked PACleansweep to send a speaker to your Socialist party
                  > convention
                  > > in April. When it was clear that you were likely to be given the
                  > shaft, once again,
                  > > by our so-called "nonpartisan" leadership, I agreed to represent PCS
                  > in case others would not.
                  > > I would have done the same if someone from the Constitution Party
                  > had made
                  > > a similar request of me. Unlike some others, I take the term
                  > "non-partisan" very
                  > > seriously and in its broadest sense, regardless of how much I may
                  > disagree with the positions of the parties
                  > > and the candidates. In fact, I am registered to vote as "Non
                  > Partisan", and I refused
                  > > to change that, even though it meant I could not vote in the primary,
                  > > because I--as a founding and ongoing director of PCS-- did not want
                  > to be viewed
                  > > in any way as favoring one party over another, even temporarily.
                  > >
                  > > During the legitimate approval process back in the winter,
                  > > I "held my nose" in approving several candidates whom I personally
                  found
                  > > politically offensive. I vigorously opposed only one candidate
                  > because he admitted
                  > > he would use his office to promote one particular industry in
                  > Pennsylvania. He was
                  > > a nice-enough guy, with money and charisma, but clearly no better
                  > than most incumbents and
                  > > worse than some. Most of those candidates lost in the primary, and
                  > perhaps some of
                  > > the incumbents will have better PCS opponents in the fall.
                  > >
                  > > I attended your convention, and while it had a small turnout, the
                  > discussions were very
                  > > thoughtful and challenging, and, as you know, I expressed some
                  > skepticism about the
                  > > viability of some socialist policies. Nevertheless, you deserve
                  > equal treatment by PCS
                  > > regardless of those policy positions. Pennsylvania and the USA will
                  > benefit from the
                  > > broadest array of ideas brought to the table.
                  > >
                  > > I find your website, and your use of the Project Vote Smart
                  > questionairre, to be a model
                  > > for all candidates. People may not agree with you, but at least we
                  > all know exactly
                  > > where you stand on many, many issues. Perhaps having a socialist in
                  > the Legislature
                  > > is exactly the kind of "monkey wrench" the current corrupt
                  > Legislature needs. But
                  > > that's up to the voters of your district to decide.
                  > >
                  > > Indeed, the only criticism I could offer is that you need to smile a
                  > bit more in your
                  > > commercials and public appearances. Not a big deal, because ideas
                  > should be more
                  > > important than image, but something that could help you win more
                  > friends.
                  > >
                  > > People reading this board also need to know that Mr. Diamond and Mr.
                  > Lingenfelter,
                  > > despite being prohibited from doing so (by unanimous action of the
                  > full legal Board
                  > > of Directors back in February) because they are announced candidates
                  > > for public office, are attempting to vote on Board matters. I, for
                  > one, will not
                  > > participate in any manner in these schemes---particula rly in any
                  > attempt to
                  > > dissolve the corporation.
                  > >
                  > > The court-reconstituted Board of Directors consists of 5 members who
                  > have integrity,
                  > > and 5 who do not. Any observer who has integrity and who is not
                  > blinded by their own (or others') pipe dreams
                  > > should be able to tell who belongs to each group.
                  > >
                  > > Again, stay tuned. There's a lot more to come.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Carl H. Silverman
                  > > --Founding and ongoing member of the Board of Directors,
                  > PACleansweep, Inc.
                  > > --Co-Plaintiff in the Common Cause lawsuit against the pay raise
                  > > --Registered "Non Partisan" in Cumberland County
                  > >
                  > > (formerly known as notoriousactivist@ until banned
                  > > by Mr. Diamond and his cronies from the PACleansweep Discussion
                  Board,
                  > > the PACleansweep Board of Directors Discussion and Voting Board, and
                  > the PACleansweep. com email system)
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: Jeff M. Brindle
                  > > To: pacleansweepuncenso red@yahoogroups. com
                  > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 8:03 AM
                  > > Subject: [pacleansweepuncens ored] banned?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I wondered why I have not received any PACleanSweep emails in over
                  > a day,
                  > > looks like I have been banned. Not sure why, I emailed Andrea
                  > hopefully she
                  > > will be able to tell me.
                  > >
                  > > - Jeff
                  > >
                  >

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.