This message, it seems, is from that very same presumed Kent Johnson who was
_let back on- this list by the very moderators whom he now wishes to
characterize as if paranoid personnel from the Office of the Holy See.

Kent seems to have perfected the art of selective memory. As the the vile
name of Vert has been conjured again, it might be worth explaining that the
material in that publication includes listposted messages from members of
another list, doctored to the point of defamation and published WITHOUT the
agreement of the persons concerned. It does include a link to the archives
of the list concerned but as only someone on a research grant would have
time to trawl the original material it's a safe bet that the lies stand.

And now it seems that he has refined his alleged art and intends to publish
BACK CHANNEL MAIL from people (again without their agreement) .
Interestingly enough, a possible home for this material is a magazine with
close links with David Hess. Now it doesn't take much thought to realise
that b-c- posts are utterly vulnerable to falsification and that to publish
them thus is a fundamental breach of e-etiquette. You just don't _do_ that.

Whatever Kent's explicit politics are, in terms of listserv discussions and
poetry, he comes across to me as an opportunist who is constantly seeking to
excite acrimony to provide him with material which he can exploit in an
attempt to perpetuate a myth of artistic oppression, a myth which has the
sole purpose of getting attention for one Kent Jonson, fame-seeking
non-believer in the Self.

David Bircumshaw


----- Original Message -----
From: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 10:48 AM
Subject: Fw: Re: Announcement (from Kent)


> Forwarded by steve duffy <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> ----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
> From: "kent johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 18:57:27 -0500
> Subject: Re: Announcement (from Kent)
>
> -----------
>
> Dear Poetryetc members,
>
> I don't know how many of you will read this, since Candice Ward,
> freedom-of-expression-defending-moderator of Poetryetc, has already
> suggested that list members set their "filters" against me. But I feel I
> need to say something, and this will be my last post until I am no longer
> singled out under this so-called "Special-Review Status". I will not stoop
> to post directly to the list under such circumstances, so I've asked Steve
> Duffy to forward this for me, as he has had the decency to at least raise
> questions about the fairness of the current situation.
>
> As many of you know (though I'm well aware that this issue is of minor
> importance to some), my postings have been subject to special surveillance
> by the moderators before being cleared for release to the list. The
> purported reason for this is that moderators wish to ensure that I do not
> violate "Copyright" by forwarding posts from another list (posts on
poetry,
> which I believed would be thought-provoking to others), thus potentially
> "endangering the integrity" of Poetryetc, and its parent body, Jiscmail.
>
> I believe this is essentially a bunch of red-herring shit, and I'd ask
> members to please consider the following points in judging whether the
> aggressive action against me is justified.
>
> 1)While her message may have made it seem that I have been trying, in
> defiance of the moderators, to forward posts from another list, and that
the
> moderators were thus only taking last-resort measures in placing me under
> "review status", I have not attempted to forward any posts. The change in
> list subscription status arrived suddenly and without any back-channel
> warning whatsoever that such a measure would be taken. There was a
> front-channel exchange, quite pointed on both sides, in which CAndice Ward
> expressed her alarm, and to which in reply I demurred with some
indignation,
> offering specific reasons as to why there should be no "copyright" issue
> with forwarding the posts. Why was there no attempt to communicate with me
> b-c on this matter? Isn't this standard practice for moderators when there
> is a concern about disagreement or misunderstanding?
>
> 2) When I inquired b-c about the very impersonal Jiscmail message I had
> received, I received reply from Alison Croggon that the "special status"
> decision had been made for three basic reasons: a) I had been overposting,
> b) I had been "rude" to the list moderators, and c) my insistence on
wanting
> to share material from another list had gone too far. Candice Ward wrote
me
> back channel, copying the other two moderators, indicating (and with some
> glee, I felt-- this before she gloatingly wrote me, in second of two very
> bizarre b-c's, to ask that I buy her a "Harvey Wallbanger"!) that she
> wholeheartdly agreed with the "reasons" outlined by Alison.
>
> There are some things to be said here. As to a) It is unarguably the case
> that I have been posting too much. I apologize. But I NEVER RECEIVED ANY
B-C
> WARNINGS FROM THE MODERATORS IN REGARDS TO OVERPOSTING, nor from any other
> list members. To the contrary, a number of list members wrote to say that
> they enjoyed reading my postings, and I developed some fruitful b-c
> exchanges from these contacts. But in any case, so I am wondering: If this
> question of post-quantity was a concern leading up to the rather
> earnest-faced decision taken against me yesterday, WHY WAS THERE NO
ATTEMPT
> TO COMMUNICATE WITH ME ON THE MATTER?
>
> As to b) This charge is, in some ways, the most disturbing, for aside from
> the fact that Canidce Ward has made malicious and patently false remarks
> against me in the past months (and in particular during the infamous Hess
> carpet-bombing, for which Ward, in a flight of paranoia and confusion,
> blamed *me*), and that an edgy dynamic has indeed developed between us,
> there is a larger question raised here about the discursive parameters
> enjoyed by list members. Are the list moderators under certain special
> protections from direct criticism? Can list members not speak with irony
and
> barbed conceit when engaged in debate with them? Do not most of us live in
> G-8 nations? And I would ask: WHAT EXACTLY DID I SAY TO CANDICE THAT WAS
SO
> RUDE AS TO JUSTIFY MY SPECIAL SURVEILLANCE? No one has yet told me, and I
> am waiting, because I would very much like to show how her ad hominem
slurs
> against me have far exceeded in impropriety anything I might have said in
> return!
>
> The fact of the matter is that the rancor Candice (and, to an extent,
Alison
> and Randolph Healy) holds against me goes back to the history of another
> list. And that, as they say, is another story in technicolor, even though
> they'd like to paint it in black and white. (But if you want to see what
> really made them blow their psychic tops, go to issue #3 of VeRT
> http://www.litvert.com
>
> As to c) I want to state a very simple and important point again: I have
the
> permission of the poster to do forward his posts, and while the posts
> *belong to him* in any case, THEY ARE REVISED FROM WHAT WAS INITIALLY
POSTED
> AT POETICS. What exactly is the problem here? Even if there were a
> "copyright problem" with Poetics if the posts were sent in their original
> textual state (the notion is absurd!), there clearly can *not* be one if
the
> posts being forwarded have been revised and rendered, ipso facto, into
> different posts. And one must ask: Why is there apparently no problem with
> the forwarding of other posts to Poetryetc.? Why aren't the moderators
> concerned about copyright issues with these posts, which may have well
> appeared on other lists? Why is nothing apparently said to other Poetryetc
> members when they have (and they certainly have on various occasions)
> forwarded their Poetryetc posts to other lists, and yet I am reprimanded
b-c
> by Candice Ward and specifically threatened with removal if I continue to
do
> so?
>
> The clear answer, in my opinion, is that the "copyright" issue is a smoke
> screen to hide the primary motive for my "special status". And that
primary
> motive is a punitive one: to submit me to a kind of censorious threat and
to
> make me feel excluded from normal participation. Again, there is a bigger
> history behind this, and it is a history in which those now deploying
> censorious spirit are very much complicit.
>
> May Poetryetc prosper.
>
> Kent Johnson
>
>
> --------------------- Original Message Ends --------------------
>