gee, I dunno.... I think candace should be allowed to voice her opinion of
your suggestion without being attacked for it. clearly she doesn't agree
that participation on the list should be so, well, formalized -- at least
that's what I thought she meant...
jb
In a message dated 07/17/2000 3:00:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Candice,
If this makes no sense to you then I'm afraid you make no sense to me.
Why don't you write to me privately and tell me exactly what your problem
is, otherwise leave the sarcasm alone OK? MY opinion is as valid as yours,
and yours is a comfortable position, given you haven't ventured any
solutions yourself.
I am just one person, I'm not sitting among the Gods, and if I've broken
some Divine Protocol of Cool, do let me know, off the record.
Cassie
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:35:10 -0400 (EDT), [log in to unmask] wrote:
> This is a joke, right?
>
> Hopefully but not very,
>
> Candice
>
>
> At 11:02 AM 7/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >David,
> >
> >This is my second go at a response to your message. I should clarify my
> >position. I don't think a rigorous application process for poetryetc is
> >practical- it's a free forum and we should try to keep it that way. Who
> >would have time to assess applications unpaid?
> >
> >But I do think we should do two things to safeguard both listmembers and
the
> >integrity and democracy of discussions.
> >
> >1. Invite absent, valued listmembers like Viv and Joe back with promise
of a
> >self-regulatory Code Of Practice.
> >
> >2. Jointly draft a Code of Practice that is emailed to all new members
on
> >the understanding that upon violation they will be issued with three
> >warnings by a nominated list member or by John Kinsella, after which
they
> >will be removed from the mailing list for a set period. After which they
can
> >rejoin if they choose.
> >
> >The Code of Practice would read approximately as follows:
> >
> >a) Discussion to be soley about poetry and matters of demonstrated
> >relevance, eg. news of publications, philosphical issues, anything else
that
> >is presented in the context of an argument, or for the benefit of the
group
> >
> >b) Personal attacks, gratuitous self-promotion, threatening language,
> >presumptions and prejudices of all kinds about fellow members to be left
at
> >the door
> >
> >c) An honour system whereby each member makes any effort to listen to
> >others' arguments, however foreign, and try to ensure the democracy and
> >contructiveness of proceedings
> >
> >d) Endeavour to create a forum for diversity, where women, ESL speakers
and
> >younger writers, as well as older, established and of course male
writers,
> >cam feel comfortable speaking
> >
> >e) Attention to the logic and relevance of our own posts, and a
willingness
> >to be wrong on ocassion, without loss of face
> >
> >c) Forum not to be used as a drop-in centre
> >On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:05:20 +0100, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> >
> >Contributions welcome.
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Cassie Lewis
> >
> >
> >
> >> Cassie Lewis wrote to the effect that we should not be looking for
ways
> >to
> >> exclude people. I have to confess that while I respect this view, I
find
> >it
> >> difficult to share it. It seems to me that there are individuals
whose
> >sole
> >> purpose in joining lists like poetryetc is to (a)advertise their own
> >> personalities (b)abuse other members and (c) who think it is their
divine
> >> mission to 'liven up' such lists by various types of 'mischief' which
-
> >> surprise, surprise - no-one finds funny. In my view this makes them
> >> self-excluding because they are not participating in the subject of
the
> >> list. But most importantly, it excludes others - witness the fact
that
> >> several people have left this list because they are fed up with the
level
> >to
> >> which it has in some areas descended. This is, of course, just one
view
> >of
> >> such activity. Everyone will have their own.
> >>
> >> However, I agree with Cassie that we should all move on and in the
> >interests
> >> of that I would like to discuss some poetry. I came across a book
> >recently
> >> which came out last year and seems to have eluded reviewers. It is
called
> >> Almost and is by Oliver Reynolds. Reynolds is an Anglo-Welsh poet who
has
> >> probably suffered from an early association with Craig Raine and the
> >> so-called martians or metaphor men. Anyway, his new book is much
better
> >than
> >> that and well worth a look. It's published by Faber and I'll end by
> >quoting
> >> a bit from a poem called 'The Gap' which, yes, does in part derive
from
> >the
> >> cotton clothing chain:
> >>
> >> Your white jeans had a workman's loop, handy for a hammer
> >> Which, climbing into a cab ("Chinatown..."),
> >> Snagged, and the seam gave, and gave me more:
> >> A private road to Paradise which, serpentine,
> >> I took, exploring this gap, this fissure
> >> For my fingers, for the aficionado
> >> I am of you: your skin, your yawn, your laugh...
> >>
> >> [Apologies if transmission misses up the lineation]
> >>
> >> This seems to me to be a clever and complex portrayal of desire. So,
if
> >you
> >> like it, go buy the book. One of way of moving on is to climb into
that
> >cab
> >> with Oliver.
> >>
> >> cheers
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> > >>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|