Hi Lawrence,

(sorry about the double posts btw - it's a feature of my recent mail
software update, i'll remember to try and be more careful with list
post)

we certainly can agree that a few out of 241 is small fry. There hasn't
been only 1 response (Tim, Alison, David, Robin, Elizabeth, Douglas,
Trevor, myself and yourself is the beginnings of a representative
constituency), several now agreeing with you but one begging to differ
on the actions required. Still, more opinions would have been at least
helpful, but that is the current way - don't voice an opinion, be very
afraid of speaking out and it is the voicing of opinions that causes
spats such as this to develop and that further silences those who fear
speaking out in the first instance. The turnout does appear somewhat
tentative, some agora as you rightly say, which *might indicate any
number of interpretations, the trauma of a culture of defeat amongst
them. There are obviously people on the list with wildly divergent
opinions. None here can know quite what the breakdown and the
divergence is. I would far rather that a wider constituency were
talking up on the list more frequently on a wide variety of topics -
including poetry.

Trevor and I do tend to copy a fair amount (though by no means all) b/c
list correspondence to each other. It is sometimes unfortunate that we
cannot pass examples on. Honestly though some of the lengthy diatribes,
the twisting and turning, the miss, miss, but . . . but . . you
wouldn't wish on anyone. Such are the wages of power. I don't doubt
that being list-owner in these circumstances is a political and
tactical position. You are angry because you have not got your way on
your terms, so you are understandably angry, and as a result set out to
humiliate the current list-owners by innuendo and accusation. You
persist in doing so. You feel that you are speaking up and testing the
bounds of the list in the best interests of the list as a whole and so
do I. I'm sorry if you feel hard done by and thereby the list is being
short-changed of preferable debate. Trevor and myself are openly and
honestly explaining what we are thinking on the matter and you are
continuing to disagree with our thinking and that is your prerogative.
Our friendship is taking second place to larger issues of the list in
this instance. I hope it'll recover. Questioning of any kind of
authority is something that art and artists ought to undertake, so I
applaud that. I'm certainly not saying anything so silly as 'trust me'.
We share a wish to protect both politics and civic discourse from
destruction. We are disagreeing on tactics and interpretations.

I know that you think I am, in particular, being duplicitously
selective in my arguments. One of the charges is of forwarding one
aspect to hide behind and of not joining the dots from one thread to
another. We've both been calling this as we read and find it. I thought
I'd at least articulated the breakdown between your three calls as I
read them.

I'm happy to have the list whys and wheretofores debated. They are not
immutable. One of the things which happens is that time zones, posting
times and reading-responding times can create the illusions of
promptness and slackness both. That's before one brings other
commitments into the equation. This is true for everybody I know. Hence
an appearance of inaction is often enhanced. That sounds like an excuse
and in many ways it is, in that it amplifies the ebb and flow in these
moments

Richard has somewhat modified his rhetoric - not enough, but somewhat.
He might well revert to type. The numerous and lengthy and highly
detailed b/c mail I get from him leads me to believe that he is very
far from happy. I can also assure you that it would be much easier for
me to simply close the door to him. I would no longer have to deal with
that welter of background commentary, counter claims, provocations,
accusations and rebuttals. But the polarisation of opinions are surely
worth airing and discussing? That is the political stance here that I
have taken from the outset. Your wish is to use rules to silence him
and Richard's determination to identify with and to voice blue collar
ire might well undue him. That, in both cases, as well as for Trevor
and myself, for everyone here is the conundrum of public space.

Whilst I take and understand your broad point made in the classroom
dart story, what has been occurring is not equitable with physical
violence, even though words can hurt and are an extraordinarily
powerful weapon both of articulation and silencing of points of view.
Yes the language and the terminology of power and of influence and of
identity and of exchange are worth picking over. Everybody who
contributes here to this mesh of tensions over recent events is doing
so. The terms are highly contestable and can be extremely divisive. Yet
in neither Ron Silliman's nor Mark Weiss's instances was there a
complaint from them. That does NOT begin to condone what Richard is
saying when he addresses his responses directly to those posting
viewpoints with which he profoundly disagrees. In some ways at least he
has the courtesy to address them directly. I understand the wish to
want to intervene on an other's behalf, in particular in situations for
which the victim cannot counter - a category into which neither Mark
nor Ron fit. Not that there is any reason to want to expose them to
harsh address. However for Mark and Ron to expect that their posts
would not be the subject f fierce contestation is also unlikely.

Since writing this Rebecca has enjoined, her weight swings in behind
Lawrence too, and she does have a point about the tendency for
toleration on this list. I can understand that toleration as both a
strength and a weakness. It could be twisted further still, to be
understood and experienced as a weakness when it is a strength and a
strength when it is a weakness - nonsense perhaps, perhaps of course.
But I don't think it is poetry;) . . . it is just sheer bloody hard
graft - for all of us. Perhaps that makes a space for poetry. There's
no doubt that we are all here trying to create space for others to be
creative in. Sometimes the creativity is unavoidably deferred.

love and love
cris