Agreed, Steve--and thanks for putting the respective "offenses" so
clearly. Although I didn't find David's post as offensive as you did
because he spoke only for himself and didn't presume to speak for the
rest of us, as Hugh did, I did have a problem with David's blaming
Pseu for Hugh's obnoxious expletive, followed by a post in which he
virtually dared anyone to expect him to apologize.
I was more offended by Hugh's presuming to speak for me, as I would
be if anyone else on the list were to be so presumptuous, and I've
long found the plethora of self-promoting posts by him and others
more of an annoyance than anything Pseu ever did or said. Didn't we
move to Mailbase to get rid of the spam at the foot of our old
ListBot posts? It's even less welcome in message text, as far as I'm
concerned--speaking for no one else and in full knowledge of what an
irritant some listees find me, too. That's the point, isn't it? We
put up with each other or we use our filters, delete buttons, and so
forth--or we leave the list ourselves--as opposed to driving others
off it, as longtime, highly valued listee Joe Duemer was driven off
by another (relatively new) listee's bullying, for example: an episode
that still seems shameful to me and contrary to the spirit of poetryetc
(as was).
Candice
>i would have thought that if anyone ought to be excluded then hugh
>tolhurst's "language" ought to lead to hugh being excluded rather than
>his target. or are you suggesting that his behaviour is somehow less
>offensive than pseusanne's?
>
>what sorts of prejudice do we need in order to regard hugh's message as
>"understandable".
>
>if hugh's blunt message is to be regarded as "understandable" then it
>would seem that the hostility towards pseusanne is becoming morbidly or
>uncontrolledly emotional for reasons which are not clear.
>
>steve
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|