Apparently you enjoy ad hominem attacks. It is novel to be called an
apologist for order, tho.
I, for one, will miss your voluminous contributions to discussions.
Mark
At 02:12 PM 7/23/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>> >
>>
>
|