From: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]>
>> -- well, let's just get this a little straight: it was four lists
>> and five occasions. There was Buffalo in 98. Kent the martyr for
yet another version.
>> I could go on -- but I'd make the point that the archives of Buffalo,
>> subsub [I think], british-poetry, and poetryetc are open for public
>> inspection. Fewer people will read them than will read The Kent
>> Johnson Version in VeRT, or wherever. Nevertheless, they're there to
>> be consulted.
indeed, i'd recommend the archives. the british[and irish]-poets
archives are particularly interesting.
>> This isn't an issue of censorship, it's an issue of disinformation.
i remember making public disinformation i received backchannel during
the brit-poets affair. i also remember the sender disappearing when
things got too hot.
-- [Which "the sender"? If this is meant to be reference to me, I'm
perfectly happy to deal with why or why not I did or did not say things
frontchannel or back ("the sender disappearing when things got too hot.").
If it's a reference to anyone else, please specify, otherwise no one can
challenge you.]
-- Well, there's a simple answer to this: Read the british [and
irish]-poets archives and compare them with what Johnson/Debrot says in
VeRT -- +not+ difficult to do.
-- One of the things that has (for me) come out of this is lack of trust.
I'll stick with what I publish frontchannel, as it can be documented.
Backchannel emails can be [even more easily] manipulated than frontchannel
mails.
"
but if anything this is an issue of heirarchical structure imposed on
public space, and the silencing of someone who dares point that out.
it's an issue of consensus struggling to dominate unfairly ...
"
I +know+ this is a desperately simple [censorship] question, but I'm +still+
waiting to hear why VeRT didn't give the british-poets' response to
Johnson/Debrot.
RH
|