Let's just stick to being unacknowleged legislators.
There's been a lot of rubbish talked on this list, and I don't exempt
myself from that sin; and it commonly descends to ridiculous excesses.
But that's the nature of the beast. Chris is right in pointing out that
even through the recent spats (and I can't figure out what they are
about) some people have been also attempting to talk about poetry and
related things. If the ethics of members have to be imposed by law, I'm
out of here - it'll become like a committee meeting. What's the fun in
that?
I worry about the notion of "safety". On the one hand, I feel
passionately that, yes, this list should support diversity, and I don't
much like nuisance postings. On the other, if that means descent into
blandness, and everyone strapping their mouths in case they say something
that offends somebody else, it's too high a price to pay. How "safe" is
poetry? Are we really to be coddled in cotton wool?
The caveat against personal abuse seems fairly obvious, and is already in
place.
I join lists so I can be challenged and differed with, in short, to
disagree. Why? Because it's interesting. I can talk to the mirror all
day if I want to.
Best wishes
Alison
>The list has relied on common decency (though not without the benefit of
>heated exchange, we are after all in the real world), and a shared passion
>for all things relating to poetry and poetics. Sometimes the list has gone
>off-topic, but by and large these digressions have been fruitful and
>entertaining.
>
>The list is sometimes forthright and challenging; but never threatening,
>gratuitous or prejudiced; and suggesting that poets here are behaving in
>this manner seems misjudged and, to be honest, quite offensive.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|