Of the ten or so entirely personalised and sarcastic posts David Lace has directed at me, I see little to be gained by replying as no serious argument is advanced in them. In this one, however, he mentions an issue that is of concern to me.
About the first remark I'll merely repeat that I found Mark's comment humorous. I have no sure idea what Mark's intent was, though I do suspect it was intended as I took it. It's only David who presumes that, as he says "I take him at his word, as that is all his statement allows for." On a poetry discussion list it seems ironic that someone should claim any statement can only be read in one way, and that all other interpretations are to be disallowed. If anything is presumptuous – and megalomaniacal – it’s this. Since I keep getting accused of changing my position about this I can only repeat I’ve neither denied the truth of Mark’s comment nor (for that matter) affirmed it – I don’t even think it requires that of anyone. It’s only David who seems to be treating it as holy writ so I leave him to his rapt contemplation of it.
But the second paragraph raises an issue I care about. The portrayal of my behaviour (“you like to play the victim on this list...Most of the debates involving you in the past have resulted in you calling ‘foul’...”) is evidently untrue, and there are no examples given to help establish why David thinks this or what purpose apart from vilification saying it would serve.
David refers to a “few people who have emailed” him in agreement and seems to suggest they have to keep their communications sub rosa because, unlike him, being poets they have something to lose by opposing me openly. What would that be? I have no administrative, executive, editorial, or advisory power in the poetry world. I rarely even review. I am a freelance writer and translator and do a small amount of teaching here and there. It’s not well paid work but I chose it and like it, and have never considered myself a victim in that respect nor in relation to this list. I see my position as relatively privileged. So those furtive back-channelers should feel emboldened to speak out.
But the main point of my replying is this. Whether or not these are real people or imaginary friends of David (I have no way way of knowing unless they make their arguments themselves) I have indeed quarrelled with the way this list permits any kind of rudeness and attack in contravention to the list rules. And this has, in the last however many years, only once (or twice?) been on my own behalf. It has nearly always been with regard to some ‘ad hominem’ insult to someone absent from the list. I think there really is a moral principle here and I know I have been openly disagreed with on this by many people here. Regardless of the emails sent to David I think my stance on this deserves consideration and at least a modicum of respect. In the past on those occasions when things became abusive, the list managers have intervened, but for some years the present incumbents, whoever they are, have been in a state of oblivious hibernation, and I believe that means the list has suffered several times because of that.
When I saw David’s posts were obsessively focusing on trying to attack me personally and saw how it was only going to deteriorate, I suggested some ground rules for the continuing discussion, but the suggestions were immediately repudiated by him. The result has been a completely unnecessary obstruction to reasonable discourse, surely what we want from a discussion group. As David has referred to my behaviour on the list without any example to justify his view, I feel entitled to remind him of another of his malicious outbursts which was directed at Geraldine Monk who’s no longer, I think, on the list. After misconstruing an ironic remark of hers, David began a similar campaign of jeers and taunts, which received the exasperated, though, it has to be said, not entirely polite response from her of “As for David Lace’s reply – he’s likes to insult people and his response is so beneath contempt I can’t even be arsed to tell him to go fuck himself. So I won’t bother.”
To avoid the need for this kind of response, but more than that, to avoid the frustration that leads to it, I would renew, without any hope of its happening, my call for us to respect the spirit if not the letter of the list’s rules. While the list is mostly and happily self-regulating, even when the exchange becomes heated, it only takes one episode of trolling behaviour to wreck the possibility of any discussion.
Sorry for the length of this,
Jamie
-----Original Message-----
From: David Lace
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 12:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a bit much
Just because Robin thinks it is humourous doesn't necessarily mean it is, nor does it mean you were not being patronising to presume to know what Mark's intent really was.
It seems to me you like to play the victim on this list. Most of the debates involving you in the past have resulted in you calling "foul" and making pleas to the list that the person you are confronting on any particular issue, and who you can't "put right" is being "unfair". It is why I avoided getting involved in debates with you in the past. A few people have emailed me agreeing with me on this, so obviously you have hit a nerve somewhere here. I am not an academic nor am I a poet so I have nothing to lose by being honest with you. You can continue to try to smear me here, but I only hope that your tactic is seen for what it is.
-----------Original Message-----------
Jamie McKendrick wrote:
Since at least one other
person seems to share my sense of its humour, are you now going to retract
your remark about me misrepresenting Mark's statement and your
trouble-making suggestion that I'm being 'patronising' towards him?
