Hi Lawrence,

On 12 Jun 2004, at 19:58, Lawrence Upton wrote:

> "race hatred and rambling self-loathing and personal abuse"

if i was glomming onto race hatred I did say at the time of my initial
response to you and doubtless you read me as failing to address the
task, that personal abuse is tough to gauge on another's behalf. But it
is my weaker spot, since I was one who wouldn't have booted Kent
Johnson off those years ago. I still find him an intelligence that i
wish were present rather than absent from this e-space. There is no
absolute thick skin of course. Not that it is in any way a
justification for inconsistency but others have been the subject of
personal abuse before (Mr Bales offered as much to several, including
myself, here over a prolonged period and in far more abusive terms -
although each case has its own particulars - before he was shown the
door last year). As it turns out i was completely wrong and Marcus -
although he had his supporters - was unable to restrain himself from
repeatedly overstepped the mark and craved the closure he got - even
though others yet lamented his passing. The broad arguments feel more
interesting now too (maybe that is an utterly subjective call, I
thought that Mark's city on a hill post was provocative and that the
ideological spins were and are worth exploring, without Richard's
response those spins would not have been as clearly evidenced), much
more so as they are of the fiercest and most threatening troubles in
the world right now and for the foreseeable future. I'm quite sure that
Trevor is right that no such arguments on lists between polarised
antagonists ever achieve much (if anything). But do you really want a
protected space Lawrence? for poetry and poetics? for politics and
civic discourse? (yes i know that civic bit is the difficult bit).
There are already such lists as you know. Ric wanted an open list and
that is what Trevor and I are trying our hardest to service. Mark was
the subject of what you claim as personal abuse. It was not personal in
respect of you. He answered in good spirit and spiritedly - we've
also been in touch. I know for sure he was not surprised at Richard's
counter punch, not that such vehemence gets any easier to deal with.
Rad LIbs and so forth is not personal abuse. That which was offered was
a version of that which as Trevor pointed out Tim also offered today.
So what's the sauce and what the gander? Self-loathing, let alone
rambling self-loathing, isn't against any rules that I'm aware of
anywhere. So race hatred was the only pin left standing, which is why I
pushed on it.

For what it's worth if 'our' rules were stringently enforced both
Alison and Robin would have been suspended today. Isn't the
interpretation of 'our' rules what 'we' is about - through the chair
of course?

Here's what the extended welcome message says:

Conditions of Membership: The list is unmoderated one with open files.
That means that messages will not be intercepted on their way to list
members. Messages cannot be censored by the list owners. But members
should take note that outright abuse, harrassment or repeated ad
hominem posts (either front channel or back channel) will be met with
brief or extended exclusion of such a member from the list. Everyone is
asked to abide by the common conventions of netiquette.

  Off-limits are: repeat e-mails, EXTENDED SHOUTING (abusive use of
caps), the pursuance of exchanges which can be considered to constitute
harassment and unambiguous insults towards other list members or those
who who are not members of the list and therefore cannot exercise
right-of-reply. Equally off-limits is the importing or redistribution
of reference to previous e-spats occurring on other lists. We humbly
beseech that tired old animosities are not played-out once again in
this arena. Members who fail to abide by these rather general concepts
of civility will be suspended from list activities for one full week
for any first offense. After one week, the suspended member can be
reinstated - subject to agreement by the list-owners. The second
suspension will be for one month, the third, six months, and the
fourth, permanent. ALL decisions relating such suspensions will be the
responsibility of the list-owners at that time. ALL correspondence is
respect of such disputes will be expected to be conducted back-channel
and not on the list. It has been recognized that many professional list
saboteurs abound. Indeed this list has been troubled by them in the
past. Such saboteurs will not be welcome on this list at all; if they
do appear on this list (or if they suspected through heteronymic
devices to be present), they will be excised from the list with extreme
prejudice. Saboteurs will be immediately and permanently removed from
the list; they will receive no warnings. "Not in our house."

  It might be taken into account by list-members that the list co-owners
do so for the crack, such as it can be. We also have busy schedules. It
is not therefore ALWAYS possible to service enquiries, nor to deal with
troubles, with immediate effect. We hope that such situations don't
arise, but please don't become too impatient if they do. We WILL
respond.

________

we are trying to respond, though the response is clearly not to
everyone's liking. Perhaps you're right Lawrence, Richard could have
been suspended. You wanted that. Tim didn't. That's two people out 242
currently here. Close call

love and love
cris