Jeffrey, no feathers ruffled at all. I just don't like your ad hominem way
of arguing as, "rudeness" apart, it makes everything go round in smaller and
smaller circles.
You may have a valid point (and I'm sure Mark does) about the Academy's
increasing control over what poetry gets read, taught and promoted - and
actually it's one that I probably share, without respect to any tribal
affiliations - but my earlier point stands: that if Abramson has
misconstrued the areas of academicization that concern you it would be
better to clarify them than to treat him with sarcasm. That way at least the
discussion could advance.
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Response to Seth Abramson
Jamie, judging by your slightly acrimonious response, it looks like I might
have ruffled a few of your feathers. I don’t know why, as my sarcasm
regarding Abramson's use of “courtroom” debating tactics shouldn’t be
offensive to you if you are seriously interested in discussing why he is in
opposition to the Argotist feature.
You obviously haven’t read Bob’s response that closely, or you would see
that his “fine-tuning” of a “dull definition” was necessary in order to
correct Abramson’s misrepresentation of it.
Yes, I did mean “ideal” sarcastically, to tease you about your use of the
word “principle” when you said: “… on the principle that my enemy’s enemy is
my friend”. I assumed you were holding this as a principled maxim. Though
why you should have mentioned this at all is puzzling, unless you intended
it to be a diversionary tactic from the discussion at hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once a lawyer always a lawyer, I suppose." Once an ad hominem always an ad
hominominem. Clearly your apology to Abramson was insincere since you're
again assuming you know the motives behind his disagreement. First he was an
aspirant academic, now he's a shyster and a mainstreamer to boot. Are
lawyers especially prone "to liking to take issue publically on
controversial topics"? I would have thought poets were as likely - or more
likely - culprits.
I had read Bob's response but wasn't particularly interested in his
fine-tuning of a dull definition though I'm sympathetic to his bored
exasperation in having to do so.
I hope your use of the word 'ideal' (in "I don’t think the application of
this ideal is applicable in all circumstances") was ironic - strange world
in which this could be an ideal.
You got it right about the poetry world with "heavily tribal and
suspicious", or at least certain quarters of it. Doesn't anyone see the
point of de-tribalizing? Instead of ticketing everyone according to an
assumed allegiance, why not just address what they say, keeping your
suspicions out of it?
Jamie
