I received exactly 7 (seven) mails (the same ones) by LU -
besides this I would like to say that I responded, and I was not the only
one. To respond it does not mean that one has to side or or
Hopefully,
Anny

From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 1:32 PM


> cris
>
> (ive never understood copying emails to a list to members of the list,
they
> just get two copies under normal functioning)
>
> Trevor and I have had an exchange of views b-c. Some of his criticisms of
me
> are cogent and painful. Those that are otherwise can stay where they are.
I
> wanted to let it lie anyway, once I knew what I was after wasnt going to
> happen. And that was a long time ago
>
> I don't want a protected space for politics or civic discourse. (& I don't
> see why civic discourse should be difficult but maybe that's one of my
blind
> spots.) I want to protect both from destruction. Thus limits are placed on
> tactics. And we are talking abou tactics - observe how and when the
> gentleman concerned posts, when he keeps shtumm
>
> Someone who behaves destructively is ruled out until they stop it. There
may
> be arguments about where that line is, but they are not insuperable. There
> is a chance they will learn.
>
> I value engagement at this level far more than, for instance, the mass
demo.
> And the mass demo, whether it's against Bush or Blair, or not that long
ago,
> Thatcher and Reagan, partly endorses the fairy story that these people are
> acting alone. They make decisions and they cover up the decision makers.
> Depends how you look at it. Particle or wave, sort of, maybe. But a mass
of
> people yelling, though an essential tactic against tyranny, is a very
small
> part of politics. Consensus, like readership, is built one by one
>
> Political struggle is often most successful at the level of casework; and
> situations like this are at that level, a kind of casework. Value
judgements
> come into it. Forensic examination of wording and claiming to be just to
all
> will not be just; as the real forensic fora send the not guilty to prison
as
> guilty. In that sense, your role becomes political, and that can't be
> ducked. Fighting word by word is a good tactic *against tyranny and a
lousy
> one for making democracy
>
> None of that demonstrating will contact the millions who are complicit and
> indeed happy in what is being done at a level which has a positive effect.
> It can be negative
>
> I suspect we have made Mr Dillon very happy these last few days; and what
I
> have done has been a destructive failure. It needn't have been that way. I
> should have doubted your post of 29th May. Or you could have acted. But
that
> would have been politics, rather than talking about politics.
>
> We need a list-owner. You're it. That's it. It was only the constant
> reference to racial abuse which made me continue commenting on your
> decision. That wasn't the basis of my complaint and I feel that the
> references to my failure to provide examples of self-contained proof of
> racism in a document which did not contain them was camouflaging the
actual
> decision regarding unprovoked extreme public insult to a member of the
list
>
> >Ric wanted an open list
>
> not, I believe, at any cost
>
> >Mark was
> >the subject of what you claim as personal abuse. It was not personal in
> >respect of you.
>
> As Ron was the subject before
>
> Where I taught once a dart was thrown at a teacher. It lodged in her head
> and she went to hospital but fortunately sustained no long term injury.
She
> then forgave the child who threw it. The headteacher said the matter was
> closed and he would do nothing; and we had to threaten strike action to
get
> action taken. The pupil's action was a public action and not hers alone to
> forgive. Dillon posted front channel
>
> You're doing nothing. I am already - and have been - reconciled to that.
> Disappointed, and more; but reconciled; and was reconciled ages back
>
> >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?
>
> Yes. It is. And it's later than you may think
>
> > 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
>
> very good, very good, cris. But there's another way of looking at it. You
> asked the other 241 to offer an opinion and 1 did - over 99% give or take
a
> few, maybe even a dozen, who may have responded back channel) didnt bother
> replying - impressive engagement achieved there, cris; quite an agora
>
>
> Lawrence