Well said Geoffrey (before you get taken to task for moderating the list
-) )
Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoffrey Gatza" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: To Rebecca Seiferle
> Look, you have to stop this.
>
> I came home from a peaceful weekend away and all heck has broken loose.
When
> I left there was poetry, community and discussions and then the Bales
thing.
> We lost Kent over this crap which saddens me very much. I understand his
> position and that of the list.
>
> And now this David, Alison and Rebecca thing is raging again? What
happened,
> well I know as I read ... however, why do you persist in continuing? We
> understand that you can't take it outside of the list or be grown up
enough
> to let it go .... I am getting very upset over this continual bickering. I
> see that you - Rebecca -need to argue with David for one or more unhealthy
> reasons. You simply cannot let it go as we see by your long winded
> explanations of the very simple.
>
> So I am placing you all on review and will set my email to not receive any
> more of your posts. You are as disruptive and foolish in your reactions as
> David is disruptive and foolish. David is playing Puck, or Loki or
Costello
> to your straight man routine and it is no longer funny.
>
> This is sad as there is much poetry to discuss and learn from. Leave your
> bickering to your close friends and family, they inherited it and we are
> depriving them of the experience.
>
> Free your mind and your ass will follow
>
>
>
> Geoffrey Gatza
> editor BlazeVOX2k3
>
> __o
> _`\<,_
> (*) / (*)
>
> www.blazevox.org
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 8:53 PM
> Subject: Re: To David Bircumshaw
>
>
> > Hi Sarah,
> >
> > I agree entirely with your first paragraph here.
> >
> > And I agree that the delete button can come in handy. But this list is a
> public forum, isn't it? isn't there the expectation that the posts are
> public and isn't that why there are certain rules of courtesy, including
no
> personal abuse and harassment? You seem to argue here that the stalking
and
> harassment occurred and that monitoring should occur? but that otherwise,
> it's just a matter of private communication. This isn't a forum of private
> communication. I don't think if I picked some list member out of the blue,
> or out of the unlucky raffle box, and started writing personal messages
like
> those that we have been reading from David Bircumshaw about Alison that I
> could get away with it. David Bircumshaw has been on the list a long time,
> despite his posturing as being outside many literary circles, he also
> implies that he has a cadre of supporters b/c that are very influential,
> even his 'comeback' this evening is attended, and I think he is counting
on
> the fact that he has been here too long and has too many supporters to
ever
> be booted no matter how personal he gets with Alison while we all watch
and
> read. Scapegoating? how? I think there has been some cruelty, but I don't
> know if the motive is cruelty so much as sheer and utter exasperation.
It's
> like the creature from the black lagoon, it just keeps coming back.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rebecca
> >
> > Rebecca Seiferle
> > www.thedrunkenboat.com
> >
> >
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Sarah Peters <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: 04/21/03 11:41 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: To David Bircumshaw
> >
> > >
> > > I think it is one thing, if Alison felt she was being harassed or
> stalked,
> > I'm willing to take her word for it.
> > Monitoring David's post for any more unwanted attention to Alison is
> > appropriate.
> >
> > However, I do think this business has opened the door for some people
to
> > feel that it is all right to be cruel to David.
> >
> > I've said this before and I say it, again: if you don't like someone on
> > the
> > list, their posts annoy you, press delete when you see their name.
> > Otherwise, we all get embroiled in each other's personal prejudice's.
> > David has always posted his personal details and feelings. I don't
believe
> > there is a rule against that.
> >
> > If you don't like David, or more precisely, David's posts, please delete
> > them. I worry that scapegoating may be taking place.
> >
> > This list serve has often seemed like a hostile place, to me, this past
> > week.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: david.bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Date: 4/21/2003 8:29:25 PM
> > > Subject: Re: To David Bircumshaw
> > >
> > > Please, Trevor, no more. I don't think 'everyone's against me', one
> > person
> > > who has been good friends with me has fallen out with me and since it
> > has
> > > become public some have joined in putting the boot in, very
> > deliberately.
> > > The list rules prohibit personal abuse and this message of yours fall
> > very
> > > much within the parameters of that. I suspect there is an underlying
> > > authoritarianism in this list which results in a 'who's in, who's out'
> > > syndrome. It makes a parody of the claims to liberal views that poetry
> > > supposedly espouses. All I want from here is to talk poetry, instead I
> > get
> > > crap like this, I know you feel confident in bullying me as you would
> > never
> > > be censured, the status-games that go on in Irish poetry are something
> > that
> > > I avoid like the plague, you're welcome to your involvement in them,
but
> > > I'll ask you to reflect on the double standards that some members of
the
> > > avant-garde are effectively propounding - "we don't like the power
> > > structures inherent in poetry but we want to take them over for own
use"
> > is
> > > what in effect is being said. That someone like me, who is
lower-class,
> > > jobless, and certainly can write, is being attacked just for existing
is
> > > nothing short of a disgrace and makes a mockery of the liberal
> > pretensions
> > > of the 'better sort'. I don't claim to anything like sainthood but I
do
> > > object to being libelled repeatedly on this list, I know my faults,
but
> > > being a stalker isn't one of them, I know someone who has really been
a
> > > victim of such and am acutely aware of the devastating impact such
> > things
> > > can have. Just as I am aware of the distress these tacitly endorsed
> > personal
> > > attacks on me have caused. I'm sure the 'official' version of all
this
> > will
> > > blame me whereas the reality is that you have just made yet another of
a
> > > series of innuendo-laden and personalised assaults on me but I'm
damned
> > if
> > > I'm going to let myself be walked over anymore.
> > >
> > >
> > > David Bircumshaw
> > >
> > > Leicester, England
> > >
> > > Home Page
> > >
> > > A Chide's Alphabet
> > >
> > > Painting Without Numbers
> > >
> > > <a target=_blank
> >
>
href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm">http://homepa
> ge.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm</a>
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Trevor Joyce" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 10:53 PM
> > > Subject: Re: To David Bircumshaw
> > >
> > >
> > > And me! I've had more than enough of the DB "everyone's against me,
> > though
> > > really there's loads of people are telling me back-channel that I'm
much
> > too
> > > good, loveable, and have too good a sense of humour for you all"
> > floor-show.
> > >
> > > Trevor
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > >From: Liz Kirby <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >Subject: Re: To David Bircumshaw
> > > >Date: Mon, Apr 21, 2003, 1:40 pm
> > > >
> > >
> > > > And by me too. Dave - the gentle thing to do would be to stop.
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry
and
> > > > poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Rebecca
Seiferle
> > > > Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 6:42 PM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Re: To David Bircumshaw
> > > >
> > > > Ok by me.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Rebecca
> > > >
> > > > Rebecca Seiferle
> > > > <a target=_blank
> > href="http://www.thedrunkenboat.com">www.thedrunkenboat.com</a>
> > > > -------Original Message-------
> > > > From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > Sent: 04/20/03 06:37 PM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Re: To David Bircumshaw
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm piggybacking on your message, Rebecca, out of sheer
> > laziness--this
> > > > isn't directed at you alone.
> > > >
> > > > This whole controversy is a bloody bore. Could everyone please stop?
> > > >
> > > > In this case that means, Dave, that the onus falls on you. It would
be
> > an
> > > > act of selfless kindness to simply desist, regardless of rights or
> > wrongs.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 11:13 AM 4/20/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> > > >>David,
> > > >>
> > > >>I don't have any problem with your comments upon my translations,
the
> > > >>exclamation points, or whatever, and am happy to consider them along
> > with
> > > >>anything else. I also don't have a problem with being personal, have
> > told
> > > >>a personal story or two, have made several jokes, and am in the
> > > > vernacular
> > > >>with several people on the list. I don't care what the real story is
> > with
> > > >>Alison, I don't care what's your hearing back channel, I just want
> > this
> > > >>sort of remark, "I'm afraid I don't know what the hell
> > > >>Alison's
> > > >>problem is, it is she who keeps writing to me, up front or back, and
I
> > > >>just
> > > >>respond."
> > > >>
> > > >>to stop. She wrote to you a post in reply to the discussion about my
> > > >>translations yesterday and you took it for an invitation to reopen
> > this
> > > >>entire subject. So here we are again. In how many languages can one
> > say
> > > > "stop".
> > > >>
> > > >>Best,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Rebecca
> > > >>
> > > >>Rebecca Seiferle
> > > >>www.thedrunkenboat.com
> > > >>
> > > >>Rebecca Seiferle
> > > >>www.thedrunkenboat.com
> > > >>-------Original Message-------
> > > >>From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >>Sent: 04/20/03 11:41 AM
> > > >>To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >>Subject: Re: To David Bircumshaw
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Rebecca
> > > >>
> > > >>I find this post a matter of personal harassment. As I quite clearly
> > > > said,
> > > >>the question about exclamation marks was a practical one. I do feel
a
> > > >>certain ironic amusement that someone who has a magazine named after
a
> > > >>poem
> > > >>by Rimbaud and translates Vallejo constantly makes prim statements
> > about
> > > >>the
> > > >>undesirability of the personal, such attitudes wouldn't have lasted
> > five
> > > >>minutes with either of them. I'm afraid I don't know what the hell
> > > >>Alison's
> > > >>problem is, it is she who keeps writing to me, up front or back, and
I
> > > >>just
> > > >>respond. She initiated and maintained the friendship and for a long
> > time
> > > >>it
> > > >>was very warm and supportive now its turned horrible. Being accused
of
> > > >>being
> > > >>a stalker is awful and I'm appalled that such calumny can go without
> > > >>remark.
> > > >>I've never acted with slightest impropriety towards her and my
> > 'unwanted
> > > >>attentions' are a matter of fiction. I don't like writing about any
of
> > > >>this
> > > >>but I am forced to do so by the repeated libels you are casting on
my
> > > >>name.
> > > >>
> > > >>And as for back-channel comments, well, here's an example, from
> > someone
> > > >>who
> > > >>feels intimidated by the bullying on this list from saying anything
> > > >>up-front, I won't give a name:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Laughable, if it weren't so sad... The hypocrisy of it...
Slandered
> > by
> > > >>people who, when it suits them, feign outrage at the merest hint of
> > > >>defamation in other contexts...
> > > >>
> > > >>And really admirable... Your soldiering through it all... Actually
> > > >>sticking
> > > >>with them...
> > > >>
> > > >>They don't deserve you, Dave... Your wit and warmth... <
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>I could publish other back-channel remarks of an even more revealing
> > > > kind,
> > > >>but won't. Suffice to say some people are damaging their reputations
> > by
> > > >>the
> > > >>way they are acting towards me, without any action being taken on my
> > > > part.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>David Bircumshaw
> > > >>
> > > >>Leicester, England
> > > >>
> > > >>Home Page
> > > >>
> > > >>A Chide's Alphabet
> > > >>
> > > >>Painting Without Numbers
> > > >>
> > > >><a
> > > >
> > target=_blank
> > >
> >
>
>>href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm">http://home
> > > p
> > > > age.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm</a>
> > > >>----- Original Message -----
> > > >>From: "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >>To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >>Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 3:51 PM
> > > >>Subject: Re: To David Bircumshaw
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>David,
> > > >>
> > > >>I think your post to what had been a discussion about my Vallejo
> > > >>translations and the desirability of translating the exclamation
marks
> > > > was
> > > >>very personal. Mark seemed to note this as well when in response to
> > that
> > > >>post, he made a point of turning the discussion away from the
> > personal.
> > > >>
> > > >>It's true that it was framed in jokes, but framing unwanted personal
> > > >>attention in the lightest and most humorous of terms does not make
it
> > any
> > > >>less of a harassment to the one who does not want that personal
> > attention
> > > >>and who has repeatedly and as bluntly as possible asked that you
stop.
> > > > You
> > > >>seem to think that as long as you are hassling someone while you're
in
> > a
> > > >>good mood, it's not hassling someone.
> > > >>
> > > >>However, I think the deciding factor is how the person being hassled
> > > >>feels,
> > > >>which is often rather desperate and embarrassed and constrained. I
am
> > > > also
> > > >>commenting upon this as your remarks about me veered toward the
> > personal,
> > > >>suggesting that poetryetc had become rebeccaetc. How am I supposed
to
> > > >>reply
> > > >>to that? I think your appeal to 'common humanity' is related to
that
> > > >>older
> > > >>usage of saying "well, I'm only human," the excuse that was often
used
> > by
> > > >>men to justify their continuing and unwanted attentions and actions
> > > > toward
> > > >>women who were not interested.
> > > >>
> > > >>It doesn't seem to be connected to a sense of common courtesy and
> > > > respect,
> > > >>since even at the most minimal level, if someone has said, please
> > stop,
> > > >>one
> > > >>would do so out of any sense of common humanity and courtesy and
> > respect.
> > > >>I
> > > >>don 't know how much more clearly Alison could have posted on this.
> > And
> > > >>yet
> > > >>you continue to ignore it. It is true that you have posted poems, as
> > we
> > > >>all
> > > >>have, but it's only been a week, and you are once again posting this
> > sort
> > > >>of
> > > >>unwanted personal attentions.
> > > >>
> > > >>I am also tired of you suggesting that there is so much more going
on
> > > > back
> > > >>channel that we are unaware of, and which gives you the
justification
> > to
> > > >>persist in this, whether it is your leagues of women friends that
find
> > > > you
> > > >>unsexist, or whether it is your "personal and practical" matters
that
> > you
> > > >>have with Alison. It seems to me of the nature of innuendo and
gossip.
> > > >>Furthermore your accounts are probably self-serving, having learned
to
> > > >>read
> > > >>through your posts on this, I suspect that in point 2 you are
> > describing
> > > >>your 'gentle responses' to Alison's having lost her temper and told
> > you
> > > >>off.
> > > >>
> > > >>As for back channelling on this, I have back channelled you on this
> > and
> > > >>tried to appeal to you to just stop. As have others.
> > > >>
> > > >>A refusal to hear what the other person, group, nation is saying, a
> > > >>refusal
> > > >>to respect and heed the other's wishes, a refusal to not hassle,
> > invade,
> > > >>transgress, to not hear when one is telling you so clearly to stop.
> > That
> > > >>is
> > > >>the ill that rules the world at the moment.
> > > >>
> > > >>Rebecca
> > > >>
> > > >>Rebecca Seiferle
> > > >><a target=_blank
> > > >>href="http://www.thedrunkenboat.com">www.thedrunkenboat.com</a>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>-------Original Message-------
> > > >>From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >>Sent: 04/20/03 09:05 AM
> > > >>To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >>Subject: Re: To David Bircumshaw
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Phew, Randolph!
> > > >>
> > > >>Point 1 - this is something that should have gone back-channel.
Point
> > 2
> > -
> > > >>I
> > > >>have assured Alison that I will write to her only if she directly
> > > >>addresses
> > > >>me, which was has happened both front and back-channel, nothing has
> > been
> > > >>initiated by me, the back-channel messages in particular have been
> > gentle
> > > >>in
> > > >>tone and only in response to some rather unwelcome messages from
her,
> > I'm
> > > >>sorry to say that, but it's the truth, the recent post that has
seemed
> > to
> > > >>have caused a problem was a good-humoured piece about exclamation
> > marks,
> > > >>it
> > > >>was couched in jokes as is obvious to see. Point 3 - there does seem
> > to
> > > > be
> > > >>a
> > > >>problem about tonality on this list, I've talked about this several
> > > > times,
> > > >>both in terms of e-mail texture and linguistic worlds, a sense of
> > humour
> > > >>seems to be an endangered species here. Point 4 - I am saddened that
> > > >>denial
> > > >>of common humanity is being touted as a modus vivendi, the
> > > >>quasi-legalistic
> > > >>and morally censorious language that is becoming the apex of the
> > list's
> > > >>status systems is depressing in the extreme. Point 5 - I have posted
> > poem
> > > >>after poem and have consistently sought to talk about poetics. Point
6
> > -
> > > > a
> > > >>separation of public and private speech is the rhetorical basis for
> > the
> > > >>ills
> > > >>that happen in this world.
> > > >>
> > > >>Best
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Dave
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>David Bircumshaw
> > > >>
> > > >>Leicester, England
> > > >>
> > > >>Home Page
> > > >>
> > > >>A Chide's Alphabet
> > > >>
> > > >>Painting Without
> > > > Numbers
> > > >>
> > > >><a
> > >
> > >>target=_blank
> > >
> >
>
>>href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm">http://home
> > > p
> > > > a
> > > >>ge.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm</a>
> > > >>----- Original Message -----
> > > >>From: "wildhoney" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >>To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >>Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 9:15 AM
> > > >>Subject: To David Bircumshaw
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Dear David,
> > > >>
> > > >>Given the serious complaints Alison has made against you, I
> > > >>previously asked that you do not respond or refer to her in your
> > > >>posts to PoetryEtc in an uninvited, personal fashion. I am saddened
> > > >>that you have decided not to co-operate in this, despite the fact
> > > >>that Alison's discomfort at this practice is so great that she has
> > > >>already had to take a break from the list. Not only this, but I
> > > >>understand that you are sending her unwelcome back-channel messages.
> > > >>
> > > >>I feel I must make it a condition of your continued membership there
> > > >>are no more such instances. It's up to you.
> > > >>
> > > >>Randolph
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
|
