I might willingly consider that when you've either retracted your claim based on hearsay about my habitual dealings with the list, which you tauntingly call throwing my 'toys out of the pram' and crying 'foul' so as to win an argument. And apologised for it as well as for the rest of your personalised and jeering posts to me.
Otherwise let's be content with this sort of courteous stalemate.
Jamie
> On 28 Oct 2016, at 19:04, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I'm glad that some sort of courteous stalemate can come surrounding Mark's statement. I am prepared to leave it at that.
>
> But can you retract what you said about me being rude to Geraldine, when you quoted her OTT response to my criticism of her.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------Original Message-------------
>
> Jamie McKendrick wrote:
>
>
> David,
> I've spent a good hour and a half dealing with your charges against me, and this post is the last I'll send on the matter. Your email at least is courteous this time. If you can't see how it differs from the many posts you sent preceding it, there's no point in me explaining.
> Helpful that you at last say why Mark's post has been so important to you, but I persist in my view that it merely charts ways in which song and poem have been used, summing up rather than defining anything. It has nothing to say about their differences. So, in my view, it supports neither your argument nor mine. All I'd add is that there isn't, as you despotically claim, only one way of reading it - you're however as entitled to your view of it as I am to mine. But I'm still appalled at your behaviour merely because I had a different view to yours, or even because you thought, wrongly as it happens, that I'd changed my view.
> I don't even understand your last question. I apologised to the list because my post was so long and tedious and because the matter was trivial, and yes I do hold you at least partly responsible for the way this tedious matter has been drawn out. I was taking responsibility for my side in this quarrel. The apology was on my behalf. And I repeat it for this further message. I don't think anyone else would have found that hard to follow. You can make your own apologies. Or not.
> Jamie
|