Mairead Byrne wrote:
>
> HENRY & LAWRENCE (& FREDERICK)
>
> DISCUSSION
>
> discussion is that someone says something and someone
> responds to it
>
> or they dont, and they stay silent, as most are doing now
>
> or they dont but they offer a different thread
>
> if you dont actually want to discuss this with me, fine
>
> FREDERICK
>
> I won't get caught by this double act again Frederick I am
> filtering you out from now
>
> L
>
> BULLYING
>
> You yourself are being bully-like, Lawrence
>
> In what precise sense
> I would like an answer
> I dispute that
>
> You yourself are being bully-like, Lawrence
>
> bully, you call speaking *for he who shouted first but do
> not follow through yourself when that is challenged
>
> and while you jeer people are dying
>
> FREDERICK & THE NON SEQUITUR
>
> I accuse Frederick of writing a non sequitur, not of
> bullying
>
> I didn't mention Hamas. Frederick did.
> It is, yawn, a non sequitur.
>
> I feared a mindless response.
>
> I got a non sequitur.
>
> I didn't said Frederick's response was a mindless response.
>
> I didn't say mindless.
>
> I wrote dishonest.
>
> I deleted it.
>
> I wish I had left it.
>
> Perhaps you dont *know what a non sequitur is
>
> It is nothing to do with the content although it is
> discerned through the content
>
> This is an aspect of the whole context of the whole context
> of the situation which you are calling a non sequitur
>
> REPRISE
>
> Please don't misrepresent me
> But I didn't
> Please don't misrepresent me
> But I didn't
>
> you are misrepresenting yourself
>
> FREDERICK & THE OFFICIAL POSITION
>
> You called Frederick's the "official" position, implying, of
> course, that yours is unofficial, or is yours actually
> another kind of official position, maybe you could clear
> this up for me.
>
> There is generally one official position and many unofficial
> positions. Mine is one of them.
>
> mixing up the two is pointless
>
> ARGUMENT & COUNTERARGUMENT
>
> Did you make an argument? I thought you waxed sarcastic.
>
> I implied an argument.
>
> and Frederick may or may not have wanted to make an
> argument.
>
> Let him put a counterargument if he has one.
>
> And even.
>
> And even if it was an argument, for the third time, it was a
> non sequitur.
>
> FREDERICK & THE NON SEQUITUR & THE ARGUMENT & THE UNOFFICIAL
> POSITION
>
> The implicit argument of Frederick's non sequitur is an
> official version
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> Does this mean I support Sharon? No.
>
> CHORUS
>
> You go back and read my words
>
> CODA
>
> Okay, that's it for me on this one, Lawrence.
> Very amusing, Henry.
Set to music it might resemble Virgil Thomson's setting of Gertrude
Stein.
|