This excerpt from the Poetryetc welcome message should answer all your
questions about why Kent Johnson is no longer subscribed. I'm afraid it's
considerably less dramatic than you'd like, Steve, but this is just a poetry
discussion list and, as such, doesn't lend itself to conspiracy theories.
"As an unmoderated discussion list, Poetryetc has few rules, but listees are
expected to adhere to the following principles and practices:
1. No personal abuse
2. No bigotry
3. No malicious e-impersonation
4. No e-mail attachments (due to the danger of viruses and to the technical
difficulties they may pose)
5. No cross/reposting from other discussion lists without the poster's
permission and no cross/reposting, publishing, or otherwise reproducing
material from Poetryetc without permission
6. No posting of previously published (copyrighted) matter without
permission apart from the standard 'fair use' exemptions of brief
quotations/excerpts in the context of discussion."
Okey-dokey?
Candice
on 7/23/01 5:17 AM, steve duffy at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> alison wrote:
>
>>> These actions were taken for reasons obvious to the list and others
>>> which will not be. Neither Candice nor I have any intention of
>>> entering a torturous and time-wasting discussion on who said what to
>>> whom.
>
> i've no idea whether i will be allowed to comment for much longer, or
> whether this message will get through.
>
> i say that alison will not explain the actions of the listowners with
> regard to the "gagging" and subsequent expulsion of kent johnson because
> she _cannot_ explain those actions.
>
> was kent hounded from poetryetc because he threatened the list?
>
> kent himself admits that he tends to "overpost", but that can't be the
> problem, surely? as a long-standing list member i'm aware that there are
> in fact several people here who tend to "overpost". when will those
> people be dealt with?
>
> or was kent hounded from poetryetc [by the same people who silenced him
> on british-poets] because certain people don't like his point of view
> and think he ought not to be allowed to speak?
>
> steve
|