Candice
as you are perfectly aware, the Nazi thing was not a travesty of Erminia's
poem but of her use of 'normal' as a desideratum. The idea was translate
'normal' to the Nazi world, the Nazis were nothing but 'normal' in their own
eyes, and see what you get. You know this, I've explained it in detail,
boringly and laboriously already, and I find your remarking on it again
nothing short of disingenuous. I do wish I hadn't put that post up, but it's
too late now, it wasn't worth the grief it's brought.
As for my words and Erminia's, what can I say. I take it from this then it's
ok, in your eyes, for some people to indulge in the most scurrilous forms of
personal abuse, it's ok for some people to use lists as an exercise in
ego-attention-seeking, but not for others to protest. Erminia made quite
clear her position today: she does as she likes and fuck everyone else. If
that's what you think lists are supposed to be for you're welcome to the
feeling. It's not one I want. Throughout the day I've tried to avoid getting
too drawn into it, one thought that passed my mind during the day was that
there was no way you would come in on a rhinoceros charge on the back of
Erminia's posts. But yet you have.
And I don't take kindly to your substance that I'm in remark. That follows
on exactly from Ermina's posts. I am not impressed. And why you are trying
to inflate the non-aggressive exchange between Chris and myself into yet
another row beats me.
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: News Writing
Nothing left to interpret, Dave, now that you've admitted it was
news-writing you meant--apart from "pork pies," that is, which means???
As for the "no personal abuse" rule, fortunately I'm no longer responsible
for making or enforcing any Poetryetc rules (yippee!), but I will say (since
_you_ raised the issue of "justice") that Erminia was provoked by the Nazi
travesty you made of her poem, remember, an abuse of person and poetry
(IMHO) that she did nothing to provoke from you, as far as I know. But
then, it's hard to imagine a defensible provocation for that, and I find
your attempt to deflect attention from your words to hers lame, to say the
least. Maybe you should drop this now before the substance in which you're
already up to your neck rises to drowning-pool level.
Candice
on 1/6/02 3:12 PM, david.bircumshaw at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Flippin 'ell, Candice. Below is my original post, interpret it at will. As
> for my _admonishing_ Erminia, are we talking about the same person here?
The
> same Erminia who has been happily insulting me all day on this list
> (remember the 'no personal abuse' rule?) I'm amazed, I really am. Not
angry,
> but, to use that vulgarism, 'gob-smacked'.
>
> Obviously the fact that she's been merrily comparing me and my writing to
a
> pile of shit, telling me I have no business speaking on any lists etc is
> entirely my fault and yet another example of my terrible behaviour.
>
> Aston Villa have just gone 2 up in as many minutes against Man Utd in the
FA
> Cup. There is some justice in the world.
>
> Best
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>> You might find Hans Magnus Enzenberger's comments on Stern in his
>> book of essays _Mediocrities and Delusions_ interesting (apart from
>> anything else, he's always a pleasure to read). He makes the same
>> comment about media proprietors being more savvy about media theory
>> than the students protesting against it.
>>
>
> Thanks for reminding me about that, Alison, I still recall coming across
> HME's book one day in Leicester Library, I read it standing up without
> taking it out on loan, and, Chris, I've no doubt about the accuracy of
your
> observations about L.Murdoch. I think, or rather suspect, that one of the
> pifalls that language-centred persons, as poets tend to be, is that we
> instinctively feel that those who use language like a soggy pork pie,
circa
> British Rail 1946 not sold until 199-something, after travelling the
lengths
> and breadths (notice those clever 's's, to avoid the cliché) must
therefore
> be our intellectual inferiors.
> But of course they're not. They are 'savvy' people. They just don't share
> our values.
>
> Nor their private pork pies, which are much fresher!
>
> (NB 'pork pies' means ....)
>
> Best
>
> Dave
|