Would folks do me a favor in this age of email uncertainty and please use a
SUBJECT line in their emails to the List?
Future blanks will be deleted on my part, for what its worth.
not a curmudgeon, just too much invested in hardware,
Frank
*******************
Frank Parker
[log in to unmask]
http://now.at/frankshome
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
>poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Lawrence Upton
>Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 6:55 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject:
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard Dillon" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: 01 February 2002 12:25
>
>
>| John Pilger is a paid political activist and agitator for the World
>| Socialist Review. When I attempted several years ago to communicate
>| with him directly he told me, "I don't give a shit about you or what
>| you, or people like you, have to say." And he doesn't.
>
>Perhaps you communicated more effectively than you know
>
>| Mr. Upton's views, shot at us by this use of Pilger's column,
>
>They are not my views. They are Mr Pilger's. If you look very carefully, you
>might see his name. That's why he put it there. That's why I left it there
>
>It's one thing - if this is what you are getting at - to express a view and
>then say *afterwards "I was just quoting". I sent the whole thing with the
>author's name on it. Implicit in that is "This is interesting" but I haven't
>told you my view on it. I live in a world in which any account other than
>the official account is shouted down, as you are attempting to shout me
>down - "the silencing of dissent" - and I passed on the words of someone who
>manages to be heard. There may well be inaccuracies, exaggerations etc. I
>haven't gone into in that much detail yet. I read it quickly, it looked
>interesting, it is pertinent and I passed it on.
>
> will
>| require a point for point refutation
>
>why?
>of whom?
>are all his claims wrong?
>and, if not all, are you saying it is necessary to appear to refute them
>anyway
>
>Unless I am to mistrust all the news media, I am sure that the first
>paragraph is accurate. You wish to refute it, do you? You think they've
>caught bin Laden, do you? You think there is peace in Afghanistan because
>there is some peace in Kabul? You believe the US govt is *not planning to
>develop new weapons, despite announcing itself that it plans just that? You
>think the number murdered by USUK action is not around 5000, do you? I think
>that's a UN figure. It's quite widely accepted. You dispute that the new
>military budget is enough to end all primary causes of poverty in the world?
>Please show *your figures. You dispute that Rumsfeld said he told the
>Pentagon to think the unthinkable? It was widely reported. You dispute the
>reports of Cheney's 50 years of war statement, do you? (Who do you think did
>his voice on the sound bites?). You dispute the summary of 1984 slogans?
>Which edition are you using? You dispute that Somalia is in the firing line?
>You dispute that there is oil off that country's coast? You dispute the
>judgement on _Black Hawk Down_? (It's quite a widely held view) You dispute
>that maybe 10000 somalis were killed in 1993? You dispute the account of
>Brzezinski's account of the Carter years? You dispute that Taliban means
>student? I look forward to your refutations. Maybe _heroic denial_ could be
>the next project
>
> which will not affect Mr. Upton
>| and, of course, Pilger.
>
>If you show me that something in Pilger's article is wrong which I had
>concluded was true, I shall of course be affected.
>
>| Do the writers on Poetry ETC want to see the list take the turn Mr.
>| Upton seeks to take it?
>
>*I am a writer. I am also quite unable to "turn" (turn?) a list on my own.
>If the list were to "turn", whatever you mean by that, in a direction I
>seek, it would have to be because many agreed to it. Would that be wrong?
>Should they be arrested?
>
>It's news to me that I wish to take it anywhere; but I do remember when I
>was suggesting that the bombing of Novi Sad in response to events in Kosovo
>had to be gratuitous, I received support from the then list-owner for my
>stand against war
>
>You seem inordinately flustered by this article being posted here. Why are
>you so threatened by it? It was tangential tooursconcerns before but youhave
>made it central. How dare I express an unofficial view - back to ecellence
>in poetry, you; and keep your mouth shut
>
>Do you have so little respect for your fellow list members that you believe
>it is likely that they will be in some way corrupted & en masse. I think
>they're harder-headed than that, by a long way. If I tried to impose my
>views here I'd expect a good verbal dusting down
>
>I think you protest too much. Never mind about my plans for the list, what's
>your agenda?
>
>
>L
>
|