Who Cares.
Mark Weiss wrote:
>
> Kent asked me to forward the following.
>
> >From: "KENT JOHNSON" <[log in to unmask]>
> >Organization: Highland Community College
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:52:48 -0500
> >Subject: note
> >Priority: normal
> >X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
> >
> >Mark,
> >
> >Would you do me a favor and post this for me? I am at work, and,
> >in any case, I fear lots of people won't read it under the
> >circumstances if it is sent by me.
> >
> >thanks,
> >Kent
> >
> >-----------
> >
> >David Hess has put on quite a show, just as I warned the list he
> >would. Part of his show has been to create a Hotmail account
> >under my name, presenting a number of posts as if they were
> >mine. (I had thought the content of the posts would make quite
> >evident to anyone reading that they were his, but I seem to have
> >been mistaken). The only posts I have written are under the
> >kljohnson45 address. That's said for what it's worth; some on the
> >list seem to have made up their minds about my acts and
> >intentions, and I see that elaborate proposals are now being made
> >to ban me from the list.
> >
> >I assume David has been writing under my name with the intent of
> >making a symbolic statement about "my project," as he puts it.
> >Fine. But there is really no parallel between playing sophomoric
> >games with Hotmail aliases and the seriously relevant issues
> >concerning authorship that projects like Motokiyu's or Pessoa's
> >raise-- exactly to the contrary, as I point out in the section of the
> >interview I shared with the list, where I discuss the Luther Blissett
> >and Karen Elliot phenomena. David's madly energetic
> >performance is a minor instance of the spirit of these anarchic
> >virtual projects. And with his "nutshell" dismissal in a recent post of
> >the Yasusada writings, he shows himself to have some more
> >thinking to do about the question, which is not a bad thing, of
> >course: Its aesthetic complexity is why Doubled Flowering has
> >been so widely discussed and debated, and why it will be into the
> >future. David enters that debate in his own inimitable and
> >poignantly angry way.
> >
> >My response to David during his jihad against me has been pretty
> >reasonable, I think. He's brought fairly harsh personal insults into
> >play, even calling into question my relationship to my family. I
> >assume there was almost no response to his over-the-top uncivility
> >because of the diversion caused by his two addresses. But I will
> >say, if at risk of seeming like I think I'm the victim, which I don't,
> >feeling quite at ease with how I've dealt so far with David, that I *do*
> >feel a bit badly that I've gone from having put forward what I thought
> >were some interesting ideas for discussion in the past few days
> >(and there *was* some very interesting discussion that ensued), to
> >being the object of such condemnation on the part of some of you.
> >
> >In any case, I now hand it back to David Hess. He'll no doubt go on
> >for a while longer, and under different @Hotmails. You go, David.
> >And as I said earlier, I'm eager to have a conversation with you. But
> >I'm still waiting for you to drop the clown-act and adopt an approach
> >that is conducive to real exchange. You could start by
> >acknowledging to the list who has sent what, and then extend an
> >apology to me (back channel is fine) for the personal slander.
> >
> >But I'll converse with you even if you don't do this. All you have to
> >do is take a fresh breath and begin.
> >
> >Kent
> >
> >
> >
|