I am answering to both so maybe Rebecca you will receive this message. I
know the seven mails were due to a problem with the server _solved, and I
sent a message back to let Lawrence know that I agreed with him, that is
that he was not to be blamed for the mails, but the message hasn't arrived
yet.
And to say that I understand your point very well.
What I wanted to stress before was that Lawrence was simply skipping some
other mails, I am not that innocent as you well know, but I think that both
Trevor and chris tried to divert the specific problem with the original
complaint somewhere else, and that is where I would also like to keep it,

best, Anny

From: "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 8:56 PM


> I didn't receive 7 mails of this, but, since Lawrence's post
> is so painedly clear, I wanted to say that I understood from
> the beginning that his complaint was about personal abuse,
> and in my view his complaint has no less currency for being offered
> on behalf of someone else (Ron before, this time Mark), but,
> since it is offered on principle, rather than on personal affront,
> even more. However, the discussion seemed to veer off into
> other issues, racism, another list. This seemed to me anyway
> to be the usual way in which an original and legitimate complaint
> is lost to other issues, that are 'false', in the sense of being not
> present, not resolvable, and not at issue (however 'true' they
> may have been once), and that, once these
> issues have sputtered out, the matter passes, with the original
> complaint left unanswered. I too value an open forum for
> the exchange of any views, even those I might personally
> find obnoxious. And, while it might seem odd from one who
> has argued so fiercely, I have had my mind changed on a
> a number of subjects by argument here, and have a number
> and even regretful thoughts that are different now then they
> were then. But I don't think the original complaint was about
> the political views but on the issue of abuse, a judgement call,
> as cris so rightly notes. But my underlying perception on this list
> is that, characteristically,
> if someone is personally abusive, it will be tolerated for a number
> of occasions, and that if someone complains about it, the focus
> then shifts to the problematics of the complainer. Basically
> this has all become about Lawrence, and I don't think it should
> be, he only complained of personal abuse. Whether it was enough
> abuse to be booted or suspended, is a matter that obviously can
> be debated and where different degrees of toleration come into
> play. I think he had a legitimate complaint and while that complaint
> could be and was debated, I don't really see why he's the focus
> of criticism cogent or otherwise.
>
> Best,
>
> Rebecca
>
> Rebecca Seiferle
> www.thedrunkenboat.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anny Ballardini <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Jun 13, 2004 10:58 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: city on the hill
>
> 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