-----Original Message-----
From: cris cheek <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 11 June 2004 02:17
Subject: Re: a city upon a hill
>Hi Lawrence,
>
>when has Richard ever been thrown off of this list? I *think you're
>conflating lists. There is certainly a residual spat between yourself
>and Richard from poetryetc.
There was a *libel of me by Richard. Maybe that's what I am thinking of.
Baying for blood? I don't think so. I'd object to racism in anyone. Baying
for blood? That's rather cliched for you, and the more personally
objectionable the more I think about it
carried from one list to another is
>a salient feature of list-serv history (listory?). I think that's part
>of what's ongoing here, despite your offence at each other's views.
It is possible, of course. Having the ambiguous benefit of believing I know
what my motivations are, I doubt it. My motivation is not the issue though
because I am objecting on the basis of a set of rules.
You will recall that my previous objection elicited support. Mr Dillon went
quiet for a while and now he has come back, because I guess he knows you act
until, in my judgement, the necessity is heavily into the red
If I have confused two separate events, then I apologise and
withdraw that as a mistake; but my objection was not based on the
false memory. I thought it last time, but it wasn't relevant really because
I
don't want to even try to control - and I let it go.
It's a pity I mentioned my mistaken memory because it has given a handhold
for _fingers on buzzers_ - is *that how you view this? - & it is I who am
responding to him, not the other way around. He has become much more
tactical. No finger on his buzzer.
I am responding to him as a person endorsing murder, kidnap and torture
and a whole lot more if one went into particularities. If that offends him,
tell him it's just what I wrote at the moment.
I am offended by lots of views here and elsewhere, but I don't want them
silenced. I feel offence, yes, and complain on that ground... and am not
supported. My concern, however, is that the approach is pernicious; and the
assumption that we can engage with it is complacent to the point of smugness
all the best
L
|