Hi Lawrence,

when has Richard ever been thrown off of this list? I *think you're
conflating lists. There is certainly a residual spat between yourself
and Richard from poetryetc. Baggage carried from one list to another is
a salient feature of list-serv history (listory?). I think that's part
of what's ongoing here, despite your offence at each other's views. So,
your fingers on the buzzers are particularly quick in relation to each
other's posts. Still, apologies for placing you and Richard alongside
each other in the address.

The basis of that reminder on netiquette tolerance (on the previous
thread) was just that . . . specifically focussed onto ad hominem
attacks and racism . . (which I took to be the cumulative effect of his
Captain . . . ghoul- . .  outburst). What I wrote at that moment was:

 >Ad Hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Neither will rascist slurs
and innuendos. That they have already been introduced is a narcotic to
further >bigotry. The moves from specificity to generality being made
are baleful.

I stand by that. YES, Richard has used some of the same tactics,
although the language is modified. I am profoundly disappointed at his
boorish insistence on pursuing the same lines. I encouraged him to air
his arguments on the list, in the wake of lenghty more subtle points
and contestation of terminology that we have exchanged in the corridors
away from the listface. His points once again on the list are poorly
put and I am weak in even tolerating them, weak for not immediately
either telling him to get back in his box or silencing his views by
booting him off the list having suggested that he make his case to the
list. Richard didn't however, as far as i can tell, reiterate race
hatred, although you seem to have found it. Richard attacked Mark and
Mark responded without bile. Why take up Mark's more general cause,
which throws the whole into stark factions, with the result that makes
it look as if opinion itself is being silenced? That's exactly what
Richard accuses Mark of doing. Of course I find Richard's opinions do
not chime with my own. IF expressing an ideological opinion (or
inflection even) constitutes an ad hominem attack on all who do not
hold such an opinion then many here are doing so much of the time.
Surely that is not so. Often the feeling of having been attacked in an
ad hominem manner is most felt and expressed as having been so felt by
s/he who is its subject. Mark *seems to have had the humour to deal
with it.

Alison, is quite right -  points of view such as Richard represents can
be accessed in the newspapers. I'm not sure, as such, why it
invalidates them. More cogently he is a decent poet and has edited one
important CD documents 'Live at the Ear'. So I am probably indulging
him. Not I'm not, I'm genuinely interested in issues of what is found
offensive on this list in respect of the range of viewpoints on
contemporary events which are impacting so critically upon the
productions and circulations of poetry and poetic-informed writing
practices..

Moreover (to my shame;)) I'm bored with continually fielding nits and
picks b/c, conducting surrogate discourse when imho the arguments ought
to be given the chance to be aired on the list, by the list. I am being
weak and resisting shibboleths unless all else fails, since this surely
the way of the problem? I can't throw Richard off the list for b/c
posts. I would hope that Richard realises he is in a minority of one
and that he either retires or ups his rhetorical ante, at which point
he will be bounced from the list. I am saying all of this quite openly.
Compared to one or two others who have been bounced in the past years
Richard is not a prime offender  -  at least not YET - at least not on
this list. I totally agree with Alison that Richard exhibits an
incapacity to show any comprehension for opposing views. I also agree
with yourself that his arguments (ok we can argue about whether he has
arguments or not) are more in the realm of cut and paste tracts. None
of that prevents me from still desiring a broadly civil discussion  -
as i think i know do you. Richard *might very well fail that challenge,
indeed looks set to do so. But I find your own tone on the matter every
bit as inflammatory and unhelpful. In fact it is playing chicken with
bravado  -  will 'they' put the brakes on before the car careers over
the cliff or will 'they' (as i suspect, sigh . . the suspicion of
toleration) be weak and allow him one more post . . . You seem to be
baying for blood, as Richard is.

However IF there's broad agreement that list rules have been flouted by
Richard again (personally I'd let him have this flap at the ghosts of
anxiety on his geiger of patriotic trauma . . is that ad hominem?) then
so be it. Will he go again? I'd like to think not, but then i live in
the gutter of hope

and I'm wanting to hear more and from a wider constituency. I'm sure
I'm wrong . .

love and love
cris