It's ok, cris

I have been contemplating my alarm at becoming "Law"

In some continental accents, my name comes out as "Law rents", which wld be
ok if it were clearly rents as in rips and breaks; but it cld so easily seem
to be backhanders

but, at a time when the deliberate murder of civilians on racial grounds is
dismissed as only a mishap and as heavy-handed, let's not allow this to come
between us

naming is of course another form of gatekeeping,sometimes the only gate we
truly control; by the time one can conceptualise one's named state one is
already in part defined by it

L

----- Original Message -----

From: "cris cheek" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 23 July 2002 22:46
Subject: Re: speech pro


sorry

from the lapsed Christ-bearing two sides of my face

> Mr Cheek
>
> I had already anticipated your abbreviation and it does not please me. I
> haven't completed chopping the tree down. It started to rain before I
could
> finish. I must restrain it with ropes, possibly the best bit, before
> continuing. The leaves continue *their own Indian Summer of greenness,
> despite the deep wedge cut from it, though a more self-reflective life
form
> would have despaired already
>
> I am as touchy about familiarity with my name as any creature aware of its
> own mortality. I do not feel at all at ease with "Law"... Not that I take
> it too seriously, I believe. I have read that my forename is cognate with
> laurel via a confusion with the bay (!) so that it could be taken as a
> generic term for the poet
>
> & my middle name, which I do not use familiarly at all, John, means
beloved
> of god
>
> & upton I suppose means bloke from the posh end; so maybe I am called
> something like posh jammy bastard who writes poetry
>
> anyway, as you know, Lawrence does very nicely with all but the very
closest
> friends - I mean no offence - so cld we go back to that if you wish to
> pursue these matters further?
>
> L

> hi Law, you'll notice that more familiar tone. Not that abbreviations are
> always harbingers of the inside track.
>
> It's hard to know how to address what you might say next. Strategies of
> familiarity move some way towards compensation for jumping the gun.
>
> I notice too some interesting typos in my next post. For example the
King's
> 'meeting with out people our love' in which the initial 'our' has been
> misfingered as 'out'. You're right about that breakdown of listening, or
> selective listening between the King and Parliament. It seems to me that
> those ways by which 'our' becomes 'out' is a nub of what we are exploring
> here.
>
> I can't help but draw strength between your experience of the birch woods
> and those 'commons' the tragedies of which we continue to live within.
>
> By the way, did you cut down that tree?
>
>> Hi Cris, I too have been away, at multiple sites, constructing multiple
>> fictions, no doubt. I met up with numerous people at the beginning of the
>> week, some of whom I was pleased to see, but all of whom knew why I was
>> there (Nottingham) because they were there for analogous reasons. So,
like
>> them, I gave an account of what I had been doing since we met last.
>>
>> Then, over the weekend, I met others elsewhere who were very surprised to
>> see me, some of them had seen me recently only an hour or two from here
in
>> London; and so the required account was more of how I came to be there.
>>
>> In each case, the same account must be repeated; yet it varied; and yet,
>> mostly, I sought to speak the truth.
>>
>> One, surprised to see me, said "Lawrence! I didn't know you existed
> outside
>> of London", which I find odd, seeing myself more as someone who is hard
> put
>> to exist *in London
>>
>> I have no energy myself for research. I am quite tired out by events
since
>> my return; but I am grateful for yours and I'll respond to that
>>
>> | Now don't you just love that application of 'condign'
>>
>> I do, I do
>>
>> | pardon the term
>>
>> I do
>>
>> But I feel that neither side was truly listening in that dispute -
between
>> the King and Parliament; and in that they were using inappropriate
> language
>> as they addressed each other
>>
>> This morning's post brought an advertisement for the forthcoming Poetry
>> International... Yet do they really think to attract me by asking "What
> are
>> the sparks that kindle the creative fires...?" or by describing poets as
>> "presiding spirits" (£12 incl continental breakfast)
>>
>> It's an odd document. Committed to bilingualism - they thank the Svenska
>> Institute - and a tendency towards sports writing accretion-
"Cornish-born
>> TS Eliot Prize shortlisted poet Maura Dooley"
>>
>> & there's even going to be a US giant
>>
>> I might go to that
>>
>> I saw a strong man in Greece once. He was called Irakles or something and
>> had a van with a chain breaking painted on it. He strutted around, quite
>> like Charles I perhaps, though his shirts weren't so good as the God's
>> anointed, and puffed and groaned a good deal as he worked his wonders.
But
>> his tricks were so obvious that the locals laughed at him and wouldn't
> pay.
>> He became angry.
>>
>> I remember smelling of Vicks Vapour Rub. My bed was extremely soft and my
>> defective back slipped so that I came downstairs through my landlady's
>> garden like an old man. Hearing me, she came out to give me my morning
>> coffee - this wasn't in the deal but she liked me, and she and her sister
>> were trying to marry me off to a Greek woman, any available Greek woman -
> in
>> fact I have a feeling the woman her sister had in mind was in Melbourne;
>> but, she said, Greek women make the best wives in the world; and no man
is
>> happy without a wife. I preferred my landlady's company. The conversation
>> there was limited to such Greek as I could understand - nouns in first
>> person, present tense verbs, and few of both. I liked the garden and she
>> brought me plates of fresh figs, which I ate under a shady fig tree by
>> fig-leaf-dappled light. Our only disagreement was my habit of calling out
> to
>> any cat which passed. And there were plenty of them. The Greek
countryside
>> is not that cat loving and cats make their own entertainment. Cat garden
>> bad? I asked. Yes, she said, and a whole lot more. Then, sometimes she'd
> say
>> shirt, and a whole lot more. Shirt? I'd say. Yes, she'd say, and a whole
> lot
>> more. You shirt take? I'd say. Yes, she'd say, and a whole lot more. It's
>> clean, I'd say; and she'd laugh a bitter laugh that would have done
credit
>> to Medea. This was always bad news because they came back starched so
>> heavily one couldn't move. Fridays and Saturdays were dangerous because
> she
>> wanted me ready for Sunday. Festival eves were dangerous.
>>
>> But the coffee was worth the risk. 2 of those and I could walk all day,
>> would walk, I might as well have been wearing red shoes. Actually, they
> were
>> brown.
>>
>> On this day, she looked at me and asked after my health. I explained all
> was
>> well and it was only a matter of time before I could move freely. No, she
>> said, you are on holiday. Vicks! and rushed indoors. Before I could
finish
>> scanning the beta section of my pocket dictionary, she came back with a
>> bottle; and then began a struggle I could not win. Peace was only
> available
>> by my retiring to my room and making sure I smelt heavily of VVR
>>
>> Had she been near your friend in Swansea she'd have had Vicks all over
> their
>> head
>>
>> | How is hurt ever undone?
>>
>> Indeed, cris. It took me several 30 mile walks
>>
>> | My memory of youthful telephone directory is a shoe-in, to sue an
>> incorrect
>> expression or rather a perfectly adequate expression but to apply it
> without
>> accuracy. The prefix, the exchange, was 360 and that's pretty much
> connected
>> to my meory of the dialing wheel.
>> That's interesting. Before I had been taught arithmetic, before I went to
>> school, I could manage it by using the telephone dial as a visual aid. I
>> can't quite remember what I did; but to this day I have a visual image of
>> the numbers 0 - 9 in an almost complete circle, after which higher
numbers
>> sheer off in a dimensionless direction, forming circles of their own. The
>> curve of 11 and 12 wobbles a little as it breaks free of the first
circle,
>> after which the curve is more circular, but I find 20 hanging out in
space
>> in relation to 1, 2, 3..., like the end of a bent paperclip; but 20, 30,
>> 40... are also on a circle, and looking back, I see 10 and 0 in place,
> with
>> the circles of 21, 22, 23... etc spinning below or perhaps above - I
can't
>> quite see them till I am upon them
>>
>> Similarly with hundreds, thousands, not that I like puddings, and onwards
>> upwards
>>
>> Push button phones do little for me, tho that's what I have, upstairs and
>> down; but since then I have been rote taught to count. I think it helped
> me
>> learn my tables and to absorb the various short cuts I was taught
>>
>> | Is this rotation and de-rotation of the telephone dial applicable
>> to received hurt and its potential undoing?
>>
>> I bit my nails as a child and once my finger tip was too sore to dial...
>>
>> | 360 6523, for some reason I can
>> remember my mother's tone when answering the phone more than my father.
> That
>> mode of domestic gate-keeping was her domain.
>>
>> Yes, it was a mark of perceived maturity when I was permitted to answer
> the
>> phone on my own initiative; and I recall my father being called from
>> exhausted sleep to answer a "Mr Upton please" only to come back and say
>> "It's for him, isn't it?"
>>
>> | It makes me wonder now about gate-keeping as part of all, let's say
> much -
>> too much some might argue - human exchange.
>>
>> Lots of gate-keeping last week. How will you get in without a key? Have
> you
>> registered? You're not wearing your badge.
>>
>> Saturday I walked for some hours, steadily up, through beech woods,
>> eventually to over a thousand feet, remains of a hill fort; the trees
>> thinned out and there was a kestrel almost in the centre of the eclipse
of
>> the sky. How hot it was and bright, the susurrating trees around. Gates
> were
>> open to me. Only sheep ran. Even the deer remained, a little nervous, but
>> they stood, and drank, a sip, a look, another sip; and the squirrels knew
>> the benefits of being able to walk vertically and were contemptuous of
> fear
>> of danger. Someone walks up the wall in Bergman's Wolf Hour, I remember
>>
>> As I began this, a man on the radio said "scientific farming has created
> new
>> fields in which people feel alienated". I recommend beech woods
>>
>> Ban the bomb
>
>> | Lawrence, I had your last mail on my laptop away with me as it were.
I'm
>> | back, not quite as it were but now and have successfully I think, I
> hope,
>> | transferred the post. Such delays in conversation do bring something.
> I've
>> | been doing a modicum of research, prompted by your explicit reference
to
>> | historical events and the multiple fictions of account.
>> |
>> | I was struck by 1629 also being the year during which Charles 1
> suspended
>> | Parliament. Nay nay, he did dissolve it in order to ensue his personal
>> | government. In that wonderful expression 'he dissolved the Houses'
>> | (Treveleyan) i quote at length from his speech that March its cogency
to
>> the
>> | sweets and briars of understanding being overt:
>> |
>> | 'Whereas for several ill ends the calling again of a Parliament is
>> divulged,
>> | however we have showed by our frequent meeting with out people our love
> to
>> | the use of Parliament; yet the late abuse having for the present driven
> us
>> | unwillingly out of that course, we shall account it presumption for any
> to
>> | prescribe any time unto us for Parliaments, the calling and continuing
> of
>> | which is always in our own power, and we shall be more inclinable to
> meet
>> in
>> | Parliament again, when our people shall see more clearly into our
> intents
>> | and actions, when such as have bred this interruption shall have
> received
>> | their condign punishment, and those who are misled by them and by such
> ill
>> | reports as are raised in this occasion, shall come to a better
>> understanding
>> | of us and themselves.'
>> |
>> | Now don't you just love that application of 'condign' in respect of
> those
>> | doing the applying and those being applied to and those having it
> applied
>> to
>> | them? Such triangles as involved an absoluter (pardon the term) as
>> distorted
>> | organ chords begin to build and to disharm (pardon the term) in nearby
>> | speakers, came to a head in the late nineteenth century before becoming
>> | stripped of their absolutist wing and being fretted over in more binary
>> | forms.
>> |
>> | btw i had to sign a card this morning to a friend of mine who is lying
> in
>> a
>> | bed in Swansea having had an emergency brain tumour op that hasn't
>> | completely 'worked'. He's been in Chemotherapy and the prognosis is
> bleak,
>> | although he is in an indian summer of consciousness high on the drugs
> with
>> | the benefit of brief respite. I wished him 'happy staples - make it a
>> | limited edition' and then realised that if he didn't get the intended
> joke
>> | it *might be taken wrong. How is hurt ever undone?
>> |
>> | My memory of youthful telephone directory is a shoe-in, to sue an
>> incorrect
>> | expression or rather a perfectly adequate expression but to apply it
>> without
>> | accuracy. The prefix, the exchange, was 360 and that's pretty much
>> connected
>> | to my meory of the dialing wheel. I've still got one in my bedroom with
>> its
>> | tinkling bell. It's a milky jade green plastic classic. I had to clean
> the
>> | wheel as it was sticking. But now it as smoothe as my memory before you
>> | jolted it. Is this rotation and de-rotation of the telephone dial
>> applicable
>> | to received hurt and its potential undoing? 360 6523, for some reason I
>> can
>> | remember my mother's tone when answering the phone more than my father.
>> That
>> | mode of domestic gate-keeping was her domain.
>> |
>> | It makes me wonder now about gate-keeping as part of all, let's say
>> uch -
>> | too much some might argue - human exchange.
>> |
>> | Hi Cris
>> |
>> | At last, I feel, we are really making some progress; and,
significantly,
> I
>> | feel that hope arises from error and the clumsiness of rushing - your
>> | mis-spelling _communincation_ speaks of our state beneath the
camouflage
>> of
>> | error correction protocols so beloved of censors and diplomats.
>> |
>> | We live with and in error - _breakage I mean_ - but the experience
> changes
>> | us. All self-reflection involves self-objectivisation, so that one
names
>> and
>> | then distances what is already alien. As you rightly say: _I have
> wondered
>> | about *that myself_ (my emphasis, and without irony)
>> |
>> | | Sorry not to have responded sooner. As to the act of intrusion,
>> | surely it remains a mutual presence whilst its affects and effects will
>> | differ?
>> |
>> | Of course. Yes. When I was young, the first volume of the London
> telephone
>> | directory was A - E; and nb the exchange names was _reliance_ -such
>> distant
>> | days, as distant as 1629, the phone number (still then a rare thing to
>> | possess a phone)
>> |
>> | & what happened in 1629?
>> |
>> | the answer is infinite.
>> |
>> | one cannot even be sure it *is a year
>> |
>> | I feel like Benny Profane looking at that single line "No sign of V"
>> |
>> | 1629 The Charter of Massachusetts Bay, the First Peoples' name, the
>> English
>> | monarchical signature... What a lot of uncomfortable situatedness that
> led
>> | to
>> |
>> | California Assembly Bill 1629 - "This bill... would expand the scope of
> an
>> | existing crime" - thus do we widen the gap in the hedges between
>> utterances
>> | by pushing through in the silence of embarrassment or anger or even
>> | perception, the participants abstracted
>> |
>> | It razes questions of the thisness of the individual. It foxes me.
> That's
>> | what moves me to the woods.
>> |
>> | L
>> |
>> |
>> | | c - I have wondered about that myself. The communincation of
> breakage
>> I
>> | | mean. Sorry not to have responded sooner. As to the act of intrusion,
>> | | surely it remains a mutual presence whilst its affects and effects
> will
>> | | differ? As during a conversation, it's difficult to ascertain if one
>> | | person, even oneself (ves), might have or might not have said
>> | such-and-such
>> | | without the aforegoing so-and-so having said so-and-so. Even a gap in
>> the
>> | | hedges between utterances could engender a shift that can rightly
> surely
>> | | only belong to the conversational exchange itself and not the
>> participants
>> | | in abstraction. Maybe my sense of situatedness is getting the better
> of
>> me
>> | | here. All by way of wondering if the question of forced entrance is
>> quite
>> | | so critical to understanding our predicament as you assert when you
>> write
>> | .
>> | | . .
>> | |
>> | | >Who broke the gate?
>> | | >
>> | | >That's a question to which we both know the answer, but you evade
it.
>> | | >
>> | | >As to that fix stuff, there might be something to be gained from
>> | | >investigating the pathology of your mis-seeing; but I dobt that'd
>> explain
>> | | >your repetition of what you *know to be untrue - from pathology to
>> | psychosis
>> | | >
>> | | >But you knew I was listening for signs to the half-machinelike creak
>> and
>> | | >groaning wail of the beeches on the slight breeze that seems always
> to
>> | fill
>> | | >that precious dingy woods
>> | | >
>> | | >I think of that often and find it difficult to forgive your
intrusion
>> | | >
>> | | >L
>> | | >| c - Trust you. It's like I remember that weird day in January a
> few
>> | | >years
>> | | >| back when i was looking for you, with an urgent enquiry and
> somebody
>> | down
>> | | >| at The Bells informed me that I'd find you up on the back field.
> You
>> | know
>> | | >I
>> | | >| went there. I've told you as much. But not being able to see you
>> | anywhere
>> | | >| in the field i climbed up slightly into that thick little wood
> behind
>> | the
>> | | >| broken gate. You know the one. It was far darker in there among
the
>> | trees
>> | | >| of course. even though they were leafless then. Yet i glimpsed
you,
>> | | >| crouching in among those rucked up becch roots with a bloody fox's
>> | gizzard
>> | | >| between your teeth. You even tried to make out that I didn't
>> understand
>> | | >| your sorry ass back then. Okay, I didn't. I absolutely couldn't
get
>> my
>> | | >head
>> | | >| around it. Just for that you owe me clear apology. I'm sorry -
> you
>> | owe
>> | | >| me.
>> | | >| >
>> | | >| >This won't do cris. Of course I am sorry. But I wonder if *you
>> | | >understand.
>> | | >| >You imply some kind of duty of care within the formulation of
> email
>> | | >| >communication! Tell me, is this a duty of right or of virtue? (I
> am
>> | | >making
>> | | >| >the Kantian distinction, of course)
>> | | >| >
>> | | >| >Your demand for absolute sorrow suggests some final purpose on
> your
>> | | >part,
>> | | >| >projected - by you - upon the pair of us as an entity of
> individuals
>> | in
>> | | >| >communication. Now this is the very area in which Kant
> demonstrates
>> | that
>> | | >| >external legislation is impossible. So by what means am I judged?
>> | | >| >
>> | | >| >It seems to me that you understand me no better than you claim I
>> | | >| >misunderstand you. Surely Kant's response to that would be
>> increased
>> | | >| >communication.
>> | | >| >
>> | | >| >Please clarify, and with a little more courtesy please, if you
are
>> | | >sincere
>> | | >| >yourself. Let's go for a less grand but larger and more inclusive
>> | scheme
>> | | >of
>> | | >| >things.
>> | | >| >
>> | | >| >
>> | | >| >L
>> | | >| >
>> | | >| >| c - you've quite obviously given the subject a sincere run
> about
>> | the
>> | | >| >| block, for which I have nought but admiration. It just won't do
>> | | >however.
>> | | >| >In
>> | | >| >| the grander scehem of things I mean. Either you are absolutely
>> sorry
>> | | >for
>> | | >| >| the hurt and confusion that your careless use of emphasis has
>> caused
>> | or
>> | | >| >| else you are not fit for the subtleties of remote conversation.
> Do
>> | we
>> | | >| >| really understand each other? I sometimes wonder.
>> | | >| >|
>> | | >| >| >It's an interesting question, cris
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >and please don't apologise about the delay
>> | | >| >| >i understand the need to deal with flocks before the sabbath
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >considering your question, i returned to my text, in so far as
> it
>> | is
>> | | >| >textual
>> | | >| >| >as we would generally understand that term, and i see that my
>> | asterisk
>> | | >| >| >there, the one to emphasise _is_ rather than the one you refer
>> to,
>> | is
>> | | >on
>> | | >| >| >_fault_, surely not insignificantly
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >but, turning to your question, I believe _ironising_ would
>> | _precede_
>> | | >| >| >undermining. That is *processually. I mean, *can (and I only
> seek
>> | to
>> | | >| >| >emphasise the interrogation there, I think,) one ironise what
> has
>> | been
>> | | >| >| >undermined? I imagine such an attempt would bring derision
from
>> the
>> | | >| >peanut
>> | | >| >| >gallery. That proves nothing, of course, they roll out - and
> drop
>> | | >| >| >sometimes - sometimes as part of the same multiple mental and
>> | verbal
>> | | >| >| >gesture - all manner of provocations, quite often for the
>> | provocation
>> | | >and
>> | | >| >no
>> | | >| >| >more; but then that is rhetorically necessary they'd say, or
at
>> | least
>> | | >
>> | | >| >| >justified. Nevertheless, and I am sorry to find fault before I
>> have
>> | | >| >provided
>> | | >| >| >an answer of any kind, though this response is a mode of
answer
>> as
>> | I
>> | | >am
>> | | >| >sure
>> | | >| >| >you will agree, I think that what you intended to say is
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >to ironise - even undermine - its implied sincerity
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >I am not, as you know, a post-modernist. So, for me, the
> asterisk
>> | | >remains
>> | | >| >a
>> | | >| >| >multi-valent symbol, but one which is not in itself
polysemous.
> I
>> | | >think
>> | | >| >| >that's clear. One might even suggest it is a priori, the
> analysis
>> | of
>> | | >the
>> | | >| >| >symbol, I mean, not the symbol itself, but only in a
contingent
>> | sense
>> | | >and
>> | | >| >| >applicability. (One thinks of Barthes.)
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >Emphasis *was needed, I felt, because sincerity is always
>> doubted,
>> | | >| >perhaps
>> | | >| >| >because the possibility of consensual meaning has been
> challenged
>> | so
>> | | >| >| >thoroughly, not only by politically-motivated verbicide but
> also
>> by
>> | | >those
>> | | >| >in
>> | | >| >| >whom what T S Eliot called The Tribe placed their trust in
the
>> | | >survival
>> | | >| >of
>> | | >| >| >the language. Yes? I am tempted to bring in Kristeva here...
> One
>> | is
>> | | >| >almost
>> | | >| >| >led to posit the death of the lexicographer.
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >I am a little surprised that such assertion, particularly in
> this
>> | | >| >| >circumstance, could be, however tentatively, confused for what
>> had
>> | | >| >brought
>> | | >| >| >about the necessity of emphasis, especially in what was so
much
>> | | >concerned
>> | | >| >| >with courtesy and so little with the communication of a
> critical
>> | | >position
>> | | >| >as
>> | | >| >| >to be hardly endowed with semiotic content. If I misread you,
>> then
>> | I
>> | | >am
>> | | >| >| >sorry
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >L
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >----- Original Message -----
>> | | >| >| >From: "cris cheek" <[log in to unmask]>
>> | | >| >| >To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> | | >| >| >Sent: 13 July 2002 14:05
>> | | >| >| >Subject: Re: Speech Pro
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >| c - Lawrence, I don't have time to answer you more fully
as
>> | today
>> | | >has
>> | | >| >| >| become unexpectantly hectic. I'll try to pick up my mail
> later.
>> | | >| >Meanwhile
>> | | >| >| >I
>> | | >| >| >| must attend the opening of 'Flocks' - sorry for the break
> in
>> | | >| >| >| communincation. In haste, my concern is with that asterisk
by
>> | | >| >genuinely.
>> | | >| >| >Is
>> | | >| >| >| it for the sake of emphasis, or to undermine - even
>> ronise -
>> | its
>> | | >| >| >implied
>> | | >| >| >| sincerity?
>> | | >| >| >|
>> | | >| >| >| > sorry, cris, i thought it was clear...
>> | | >| >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >| > look, i'm sorry, but i *don't think you've been very
> helpful;
>> | but,
>> | | >of
>> | | >| >| >| > course, the fault* is mine; and i can only say that i am
>> | | >*genuinely
>> | | >| >| >sorry
>> | | >| >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >| > sorry
>> | | >| >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >| > L
>> | | >| >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >| > ----- Original Message -----
>> | | >| >| >| > From: "cris cheek" <[log in to unmask]>
>> | | >| >| >| > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> | | >| >| >| > Sent: 13 July 2002 13:32
>> | | >| >| >| > Subject: Re: Speech Pro
>> | | >| >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >| >
>> | | >| >| >| > | c - Lawrence, are you saying sorry or what are you
>> saying?
>> | Did
>> | | >I
>> | | >| >do
>> | | >| >| >| > | something wrong?
>> | | >| >| >| > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > i suppose i do
>> | | >| >| >| > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > sorry,cris
>> | | >| >| >| > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | c - what you mean is no, isn't it?
>> | | >| >| >| > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > sorry
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | c - sorry can be a catch-all can't it?
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | is as does in its generic representation of a
>> | perceived
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | interpretative guilt
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | a token to a potential sleight
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > well that's ok for that
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > but are you sorry for the original offence to
> me
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > i dont see any evidence that you are
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > you just keep rolling out "sorry"
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > it's beginning to look as though it's personal
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > if this goes on I may have to become really
>> sorrow
>> | to
>> | | >| >make
>> | | >| >| >up
>> | | >| >| >| > for
>> | | >| >| >| > | > your
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > lack
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > of sorrow
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > L
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | - sorry again
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > That's no good
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > That's somebody else's sorrow; it has
>> quotation
>> | | >marks
>> | | >| >on
>> | | >| >| >it
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > L
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | c - all I can say is "sorry"
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > just as long as you are
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > (I may ask for evidence)
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > L
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | - sorry
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > Now it's *my turn to ask you why
> you
>> | are
>> | | >| >sorry
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > L
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | >
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > this is absolutely democratic!
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | Hi Lawrence
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | - sorry
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | love and love
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | cris
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > | > |
>> | | >| >| >| > |
>> | | >| >| >|
>> | | >| >|
>> | | >|
>> | |
>> |