cris
the last time Mr Dillon made a personal attack, you said - i do not quote
exactly -
that they would not be tolerated further
he has now made another
what is the point of saying behaviour won't be tolerated if you are going to
recommend toleration when it is repeated?
I do not see the recommendation of the filter as adequate
i dont even know what he is doing posting - he was thrown off for comparing
me to osama bin laden and refusing to apologise... and he never has
apologised
if he is expressing views, they are lost on me
if he has an arguments, they are opaque to me
if he is unintelligible and boorish, and those are your words, why speak of
expression and arguments?
i question his good faith, which is why I expressed myself as I did & i only
expressed myself at all because i had a strong suspicion that he would be
tolerated
i would have preferred not have been joined with him in your
salutation; he is nothing to do with me except in the negative sense that he
clearly wishes to destroy
L
-----Original Message-----
From: cris cheek <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10 June 2004 21:52
Subject: Re: a city upon a hill
>Hi Lawrence, Richard,
>
>I've been engaged in fairly consistent debate with Richard in the wake
>of the previous spat about racisim. My preference is that he make his
>arguments to the list. I have encouraged him to do so. Even though I
>now regret having done so, since he makes the same points as before in
>as unintelligible and boorish a fashion.
>
>I FULLY recognize that there are terms being brought into the
>discussion that are hugely contestable (both in their definition and in
>their application). Richard and I are diametrically opposed in our
>political prospects. However it is my wish to ask the question posed by
>the free radio station Radio Alice (part of the Autonomia movement in
>Italy in the 1970s).. What is to be gained by preventing certain views
>from being put? Yes, it's an old chestnut and I wanted broader list
>discussion on the issue.
>
>Is it simply the case that air becomes poisoned and that those who will
>not articulate their anxieties need to be protected from hearing or
>reading the views of those who they detest? Is it the way to try to
>silence or to shout down those with whom one profoundly disagrees.
>Ought they be banned from expressing their opinions? And so on . . .
>the question does impinge upon poetry and poetics as it is clearly not
>the case that
>
>Richard clearly experiences certain opinions and lines of political
>thought as an attack on something which he holds dear and feels
>compelled to make counter broadcasts. I cannot understand his points of
>view whatsoever, nor his terms of reference, nor his vocabulary.
>However, within the human bounds of netiquette, which he does skirt
>with flouting (sometimes more sometimes less) I, for one, am able to
>tolerate his pain. I take his utterly pedantic pissing contest on typos
>as a further expression of that btw. Richard you do yourself no favors
>whatsoever by playing such ill-judged vacuous games of one-up-man-ship.
>
>I have myself asked him direct questions as to his use of racism, for
>example. Here he uses the term as if Ronald Reagan and those who
>support him and value his contribution to history constitute a 'race'.
>It is a proposition that I cannot fathom one iota.
>
>I would encourage other opinions on the matter of those with the power
>being requested to make 'him pull up his trousers and shut him up'. I
>would also encourage those who would rather not receive opinions of a
>particular ideological slant to set their filters accordingly.
>
>love and love
>cris
>
|