Simon!

|Angel Exhaust.... has a new address

Fair enough. That's that then. If that was said before I missed it - mea
culpa (conditional)
*
|I now edit the poetry section of Angel Exhaust... as I think Angel Exhaust
can be changed from the inside

Alien V - Aboard the ironically named Nostromo, the combative magazine
editor typing at his desk "Surely x is the terriblest poet in the - ";
but his flow is broken by the poetry editor editing his way out...

I am suspicious of changing things from the inside; I am not sure it can
really be done.

Anyway, my objection is to the content of Duncan's "critical" work. I ruled
out ever sending poems to AE because of AD's abusive utterances. (That they
wouldn't have been published is beside the point. I regret now having
published in FO; & it tells me absolutely nothing about the quality of the
work that it was accepted) Do we now face the possibility of a magazine with
one editor castigating the work of a poet which it also publishes under the
editorship of another editor? And, if so, will this be offered as evidence
of balance?
*
|My own line on the Bob Cobbing essays is pretty much the same
|as Ben's*, and Andrew knows this... Bill Griffiths has always seemed a good
poet to me, and Andrew knows this too.  Neither of these views prevented
Andrew, in good
|faith, from inviting me to edit the poetry section.

Leaving aside "in good faith" (?) I am not sure what that has to do with the
objection to his personal attacks. The personal attacks still hurt people -
I don't go for that stuff about the fox and the stag enjoying being hunted
*
|4) Andrew does not have access to the internet, so he is largely unaware of
|this discussion... Last year I recall talk about that rogue Nicholas
Johnson,
|and eventually some members pointing out that he had no way to defend
|himself on the list: how is Andrew's position different?

I never worried about that given the tenor of messages NJ has sent me - out
of the blue! Anyway...

No one is stopping Andrew from joining the britpo list. He does access the
net. I quoted Ben's article from the net last night from a page ending
"Andrew Duncan made me". So he does have access. It may not be frequent
access; but if he can put abuse on the net then he can damn well be
criticised for it on the net.
*
|AD is not the fascist ogre portrayed by some postings

no he is not a fascist and I have never met an ogre; but Andrew is
intemperate, his writing is bullying and he is arrogant; he does a lot of
harm without understanding that or, apparently, caring; and achieves nothing
useful by it

|He certainly has strong, provocative views and expresses them in a
|wayward, often obtuse manner

and without evidence
*
|* The point surely is that Andrew DID publish Ben's letter

It's part of a point. The main POINT is that Andrew should not have been
abusive in the first place and that he's done it again after publishing
Ben's letter. So he hasn't learned. At his age he should know that you can't
just be a brat and think that saying sorry makes it all right - and he
hasn't said sorry

He published Ben's letter with interjections the sneering tone of some of
which did not suggest he had learned. Ben wasn't just correcting points of
fact

*
[It's also just occurred to me that it isn't just me made the connection
between little boy abuse and big boy war-making - I quoted OTL's "Your
deployment of smart words creates as much collateral damage as a "smart"
bomb i.e. a lot""]
*
Anyway, I have other things to do. Thanks Simon for a thoughtful posting,
for all I question it, it's thoughtful, and good luck with your effort
inside the angel's exhaust

L





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%