|
Forwarded by steve duffy <[log in to unmask]>
----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
From: "kent johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:35:46 -0500
Subject: response [from kent]
----
The first part of the below was written yesterday and could only be
forwarded now. In light of the charges against in past 24 hours (kick
'em boys, while he's gagged and bound!), I have added a few comments
beneath the first part.
How interesting the response to this act of censorship is. How revealing of
the dark side of Poetry's nature (or should that be contra naturum)
Kent
>--------
[the first part below was written before Alison yesterday acknowledged a
member's request that Candice's double-speak regarding my expulsion be
clarified.]
>Dear members of Poetryetc,
>
>Since Candice's "FYI" message of today could easily be interpreted as
>saying
>that *I* personally unsubscribed (her phrasing, that I am "no longer
>subscribed," is very much in the spirit of bureaucratic euphemism), I think
>it is important to state for the record that she *removed* me from the list
>after Steve Duffy forwarded my post. This action, may it be clear, after
>she
>assured the list, in no uncertain terms, that I could post "anything under
>the sun"... and this action, as well, despite the fact that I have violated
>none of the stated "list rules" posted by Alison Croggon a few days back.
>
>I think the moderators' action plainly reinforces and confirms some of the
>points I made in my last, and it certainly would seem to confirm Steve
>Duffy's concern that the list, beneath its surfaces of openness and
>impartiality, really is mediated by a "red zone" mind-set on the part of
>its
>"moderators". No matter how the usual Brit-po suspects may paint it, this
>is an act
>of censorship, plain and simple, and the damage is not to me but to the
>ideals of fairness, difference, and open debate in the field of poetry and
>its politics. And this is the case whether you find my views and "style"
>interesting or abhorrent.
>
>There are lots of smart people on Poetryetc. I was sincere in wishing the
>list the best. But to paraphrase A. Gramsci, if I could, beware of Poetry
>Administrators who flaunt the arrogance of carabineri.
>
>I will be writing about this affair and publishing front-channel
>proceedings from it. At
>such time, if the moderators of the list, its "owners", or the Directors of
>Jiscmail wish to sue for "copyright" infringements, I invite them to do so.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Kent
-----------
addendum:
Alison has written today that I "came back" to Poetryetc (nota bene: after I
voluntarily left in wake of the Hess attacks) "gunning for Candice." This is
a lie, typical of the ad hominem nature of the "mop-up" charges against me.
Yes, the blatant personal insults launched suring that affair by
moderator(!) Candice Ward against me (that I was "manipulative,"
"deceitful," was at Poetryetc only to "destroy" the list, that I had
"fabricated" an email address, etc-- see the archives, I have never received
apology) had stung deeply, and there was certainly a background for
resentment-- on BOTH our parts, I think it is clear. But when I returned to
the list I participated actively and as intelligently as I could in many
discussions, including initiating a few threads that proved to be very
productive. As with the "Poems for the New Criterion" sometimes I was
playful, as others on the list often are. The vast majority of what I posted
involved no criticism of individuals on the list. When I did engage in
criticism, I did so with my own idiosyncratic style, but I believe almost
always forthrightly and in context of the issue in question. Which doesn't
mean, of course, that I wasn't sometimes, as everyone sometimes is,
wrong-headed about it.
But the "personal abuse" story being trotted out now is simply laughable.
Did I engage in pointed critcisms, barbed conceits, pointed irony,
conceptual fencing from time to time? Yes, of course. But I repeat, and if
we are going to talk about "GOOD FAITH" as Alison seems to want to, then I
ask list members to consider, in good faith, if anything I might have said
was any more abusive than numerous things said against me and against others
by any number of list members. Has anyone read the posts of that other
overposter David Bircumshaw, or, now that HE has "come back", Lawrence
Upton? Mark Weiss (now that he has come back, too, who once revealed with a
good deal of ill-will to the list, in midst of a serious discussion around
issues of authorship, that a famous poet thought I was an "ass", a feeling
I'm sure shared by others, but you see the point), Candice's very personal
slurs against me? The list could go on and on, and I am NOT suggesting that
any of these people be thrown over the list-cliff either, I am just saying:
If you are going to have an ambiguous, highly subjective clause like
"Personal Abuse" (all caution guarded, I am reminded, frankly, in terms of
semantic charge of the phrase "National Security"), then you need to fair
and not use the ambiguity as a weapon against people who for whatever reason
rub you the wrong way. And that is exactly what is happening in my case.
I repeat-- I have violated NO LIST RULES, and never was I warned by the
moderators that I was, except for the canard regarding the crossposting
matter, which I dealt with in my previous post, right before being expelled.
As to other lists and my history on them, since others are bringing it up,
I'd like to say once again: I was kicked off Poetics for purely ideological
reasons. There is a record of the proceedings, beginning with my tireless
defense of Henry Gould, who was put in the same circumstances at that list.
I will bite my tongue on his behaviour in this case. British Poets-- the
situation cut both ways, but I am being kicked off this list IN SIGNIFICANT
PART becasue some people are still being bumped by the back-washed
turbulence of that complicated affair (and David Bircumshaw's recent post
aobut the "re-posted" emails at the "vile VeRT" is a chuckle, since, as he
well knows, the "emails" are not attributed and are so distorted in the act
of parody that they could not possibly constitute any sort of
"appropriation"). Subsub-- no Mark, I was not kicked off from Subsub. No one
was... So stop it with this "list-buster" thing, please. I am a person who
posts a lot, often obnoxiously so, I take positions, I argue them well, most
often, frankly, aquitting myself well, and, in that regard, frankly, as
well, bringing on the resentment of some (in this category of vanquished
(very intelligent) contricants, actually, are David Bricumshaw and Candice
Ward, both who, go figure, have engaged in "personal insults" against me on,
as I said, numerous occasions. Henry Gould, another overposter, is another
person who gets mad when he is handled in argument, but to his credit he
rarely engages in undue insults.
Well, this is going on too long. But my point is, why don't you stop the
lies, the sycophancy, and the hypocrisy? This is all going down in writing,
and I do think people should think twice before they jump on the bandwagon
of in-your-face censorship.
Kent
--------------------- Original Message Ends --------------------
|
