Candice is perfectly capable of answering for herself and I expect she
will. I speak for myself here. I was on vacation and unsubscribed during
this latest dust-up, so I don't know what was said. But this is not a court
of law any more than it's speaker's corner. It's more like a private
residence. Certain behaviors are expected. Enforcement is hardly arbitrary
and almost never necessary: I've been on this list a long time--I don't
think anyone else has ever been asked to leave.
But this is pretty much a waste of time: the authority of list managers is
small potatoes, and rebelling against it rather pointless, as no one is
constrained to stick around and the consequences of leaving are nil.
My last word, I hope, on the subject. On to other things.
Mark
At 06:59 PM 7/23/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>candice,
>
>i'm afraid it ain't "okey-dokey".
>
>of those principles you outline below, it seems to me that kent is
>guilty of number 1 only, and then only in as much as he responded to
>personal abuse from list-owners and others in a tit-for-tat manner.
>
>i still want to know _exactly_ what charges are laid against kent which
>could not equally be laid against yourself and others in respect to
>recent events here.
>
>steve
>
>on Mon, 23 Jul 2001 05:59:26 -0400
>Candice Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>> 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
>
>
> o
> + . o
> dEbRiS <><
> e [log in to unmask] . ><[[[[º>
> web http://www.debris.org.uk
> scattered_fragMents.l0ose_materiALs.etc o
> . / . . ||| . / .*-|/-* delete?
>|||||||||1|||||||||2|||||||||3|||||||||4|||||||||5|||||||||6||||||||7||
> exit
>
|