I thought that's what it was, Anny. I am not going to fight with you. I did
want to be clear what you meant.

It's a pity that you said it. My remark was nothing to do with you. I forget
you and I apologise. It signifies nothing except that I have a poor memory.

I said 1 responded. So it's 2, or 3. It doesn't make any difference. It's a
small number. I was answering a sneer from one who could know better than to
sneer, though he may well not have realised it was a sneer. That's what
wearing a ring of power does for you, even an itsy-bitsy jisc ring of power.

I made it clear from a long way back that I wanted to let this lie. I went
back-channel. I posted a possibly unfinished poem. But it kept being about
me, as Rebecca said. (& I am conscious of the subsequent curt denial of
that.)

In an exchange of people all of whom were behaving as equals, with respect
and trust, I would have responded to Rebecca and said that, though i value
her comments, it is also true that I facilitated the distortions and
possibly made them more likely by the irritations caused by my manner; but
that rather obvious remark would not, I think, be reciprocated where it
might best be reciprocated: in Soyinka's recent formulation, They are right;
and I am dead

I expect both, in many and many ways, excellent and admirable people, will
be surprised and perhaps offended to think they are seen in such a context;
and then they will find it ridiculous. There goes my career again.... And
maybe friendship. I hope not. But the desire for friendship makes me say it
anyway

My poem _tyranny_ will be published shortly and I hope to announce it here,
in case someone wants to buy it. It was quoted from by _100 days_; and I
look forward to it being loudly condemned by Richard Dillon, together with
ISBN and price of course.

Were he to have read it, instead of condemning me for treason, he would have
found it doesn't mention George Bush. It applies to Bush because Bush is
part of a tyranny in the poem's terms; but its subject is tyranny in great
generality and therefore includes Richard Dillon, and me often - e.g. for
opposing Richard Dillon in the manner that I did - and our listowners, as
much for *their manner - to half quote Tom Leonard, this is me talking to
you so shut up - as for their intentions. Perhaps they won't agree; that's
the tyranny of tyranny, even tyranny-lite, as here

Unless we're going to have a full scale rebellion, and not just one of those
rebellions where you get as far as Blackheath and then get hacked to death,
I suggest we let it lie

In fact, even so - it's too hot for marching into the capital and the
weather's too nice for year zero; and they have their own punishment if we
leave them in power

I have found more evidence lo support yet another loss of faith in human
nature, when I was already running on empty; but I have also been enabled
to see myself more clearly; and it's a little ugly. I was quite serious when
I said that I wasn't going to post more & that's both in protest at what I
have already described and in the hope that I might gain more maturity and
learn more humility before I expemporise again.

So, hell being other list members, let's get on with it

Lawrence

-----Original Message-----
From: Anny Ballardini <[log in to unmask]>
To: Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>;
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 13 June 2004 21:46
Subject: Re: city on the hill


>First, I do not want to fight with anybody, the least with you,
>I was referring to the end of your previous message and exactly to:
>_quite an agora_
>that is when I thought that I did take part in it in a very disguised way,
>this is sure, but my voice together with others was there in the big
square.