Apologists for order at any cost stick up their pointy little heads.
Humorlessness rampant. Earnest zealots of their prickly little
word-hoards. Of course it's a public space. I, for one, declare that I
have much enjoy'd Kent Johnson's wit, and energy, and rambunctious prose.
Without all that, I'm out of here.
John Latta
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Mark Weiss wrote:
> This strikes me as incredibly wrong-headed. A list is not a public
> space--it has an owner. We are invited in pending good behavior, defined in
> this case in very liberal terms. If you've been lurking for any length of
> time you must have noticed more than a few flare-ups that were allowed to
> resolve themselves, and the range of positions on virtually all issues that
> have been raised is rather broad.
>
> Kent has been invited off UB and I believe Subsub. I don't know if your
> infinitely tolerant list has been confronted with members who think that
> disrupting lists is an art form. It would be interesting to know how it
> would deal with that sort of situation.
>
> As to human kindness, I'm not sure its exercise is the primary function of
> a discussion list. As in many other situations we forego therapy in order
> to get something done.
>
> Mark
>
> At 09:01 PM 7/22/2001 -0700, David Hickman wrote:
> >I do not usually post on the lists I subscribe to, but the Kent Johnson flap
> >has drawn me out of my customary silence. Having followed Mr. Johnson on
> >three lists (UB Poetics, Subsubpoetics and now Poetry Etc.) god knows I am
> >no fan of his tireless baiting of anyone and everyone who can be drawn into
> >his volatility and insecurity. But I have decided to unsubscribe from this
> >list, not because of Kent Johnson, (I know how to use a delete key) but
> >because of the willingness of the list "management" to silence him.
> >
> >A list of this kind is bound to attract personalities that are difficult. It
> >cannot be any other way. For people who run a list to pretend that they are
> >only responsible to those who fit their picture of what a list should look
> >like is disingenuous. Their decision to take on such an unpredictable and
> >potentially irritating task has consequences for everyone who subscribes.The
> >kind of responsibility that is called for cannot be said to have been met
> >when one person is sacrificed (Ms. Croggin's recent words to Erminia on this
> >word echo with heavy irony here) for the good of the rest, since there is
> >only exclusivity at the expense of human kindness in such an outcome. I am
> >on at least one list where people view it as a personal failure if they
> >cannot endure this kind of thing and solve it without recourse to
> >censorship. They are right.
> >
> >David Hickman
> >
> >
> >on 7/22/01 3:51 PM, [log in to unmask] at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> >> Anthony asked:
> >>
> >>> did Kent unsubscribe or was he removed? I'm not clear on this.
> >>
> >> Kent was removed at the discretion of the list owners, after his postings
> >> were placed under review (which meant that they went to us first before
> >> being distributed to the list). Kent was aware he was under review, as a
> >> notice goes to any subscriber whose settings are altered in this way.
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Now, on with the show!
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Alison
> >
>
|