Hi Lawrence,
yes I also reach for claptrap cliche as a default mode when i want to
be doing something positive instead of picking over the interpretation
of the law, such as it is. My own preference is for an open robust
public space and I've said so many times before, but this list is not
quite that, even though the rules embedded in the welcoming message and
invoked here from time to time are minimal and subject to
interpretation. Were they laid out in lycra on the Rosetta Stone they
would still be the matter of argument. You know, it's late at night.
I'm wanting to get into some writing and I'm thinking oh heck here 'we'
go yet again. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that and I'm sure
you're thinking something similar. So, one has to sit down and write
another message that wants discussion to flow but within these fairly
broad parameters but please be considerate of other people's
sensibilities and other reader's interpretative wiles and other modes
of rhetoric and previous histories and what do you mean when you write
' . . .' and . . .
there is certainly a difference between yourself and I as to when the
meter has plunged into the red, as you say. Your instinct is to police
with zero tolerance (to use inflammatory jargon), to 'shut him up';
mine is to want to encourage those here into a full and frank exchange
of views and information (considering information again broadly). You
read that tolerance as complicity and culpability in respect of what is
said here. What can I say? Yes, I am co-responsible for everything
posted here?
Whilst I spotted the tired tropes in Richard's most recent post (hi
Richard) imho, I didn't read racism in it, not in that post. Yes, he
has said something similar before in the broad scheme of political
ideologies and the expression (imported from another list) 'towelheads'
(thanks a bunch Robin) is utterly reprehensible broad stereotypical bat
swinging racism imho; and apposite but not entirely appropriate to this
particular spat. But he has written on other subjects also and takes a
keen interest in poetics. I know that he considers you a fine poet,
even though you profoundly disagree with each other.
At least the discussion here concerns language, its uses, its contexts
of circulation and current affairs impinging onto poetry. I was hoping
to see Richard take on Mark's citation in kind. Unfortunately that
didn't happen.
love and love
cris
On 11 Jun 2004, at 12:09, Lawrence Upton wrote:
> -----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
>
|