Paul writes:

> John wrote - I'm wondering wh Paul (egg) remains on
> this list - it's clearly not to his liking.
>
> Blimey. What a way to get your own way. It's not The List that concerns me,
> it's certain actions that John the listowner has taken. Clearly impaired by
> technical diffuculties, he seems to me to be making hasty decisions and
> making up list policy on the hoof, which I'm suggesting would be less likely
> to happen if there were more than one of him.

Paul, I think you have been rather vague on the subject of "certain
actions" and "clear" "technical difficulties," as well as what you see
as JK's personality cult on the list. Who exactly is propagating the
cult? I have been on the list for a year and haven't noticed a
cult. Certainly there has been criticism of JK on the list, and none
of it was ever suppressed or shouted down.

I know something of the problems, at times disruptive, that the list
has faced in the past, some of which had to do with subscribers' false
identities. Krupoetry, for example, was an especially severe
factor. This was before your time, but I suppose you can look into the
archives if you are interested.

I'm not sure what makes you think that the number of list owners would
alleviate the problems or make managing the list easier. Is "more"
always "better"? In my own opinion, JK has by and large done as good a
job as anyone could have, singly or severally. I am on several poetry
lists, some of them with several list-owners (e.g. BritPo), all of
them fine and interesting venues, but Poetryetc remains my personal
favorite, and I like it just the way it is.

> The way that he conflates The
> List with some minor critisicms of Himself as Listowner and calmy says you
> know where the exit is if you don't like it, show this I think.

Not so. You said that the list's "perhaps most annoying problem" is
"the cult of JK," whom you advised: "Please stop swaying and swooping
around this list and seek help." (In American English "see help," when
used imperatively, often means "go see a shrink.")  Get real: this is
not so "minor," nor is this merely a criticism of JK, but of the list
too. If there is indeed a cult of him here, than the list must be
propagating it. Indeed, to cite your previous message again: "Is it
JK? What will JK say? What will JK do? He's so left. He's beyond
reproach" -- surely these alleged sentiments supposedly describe the
list itself rather than JK "Himself as Listowner"? Don't be shy,
recognize the weight and significance of your own words.

I don't care either way regarding multiple list-owners, and I doubt
very much that this solution is likely to have a significant impact on
the list's "problems," but something about how you discuss these
things makes me think that your beef is not so much about the problems
but about JK himself, whose actions you characterize so
contemptuously.  But this is *his* list, and as far as I am concerned,
he is free to run it in any way he sees fit, and is under no obligation
to share the list's ownership.  I understand you are likely to see me
as contributing to the alleged "cult," but in my opinion the list is
doing just fine.

Cheers,
Philip



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%