Well if I was Luke I would have been offended by your post - if there was humour in it then it was sly humour - and it was concerned with someone's personality, so how you can say the opposite below is beyond me. My use of the word 'snobbish' has offended you in return - well sorry - I accept your saying what you said was 'off the cuff' and not meant to come across the way it did.
Cheers
Tim
On 1 Jun 2018, at 15:26, Peter Riley wrote:
> The discussions that take place here aren’t, are shouldn’t be, concerned in any way with people’s personalities, their characters momentarily or generally, their age, their anger or their calm, any more than the state of their digestive system. It is about poetry and deals in concepts and ideas, prospects, definitions, techniques, etc. with regard to the art. There is no reason why it should ever engender bad feeling, and I don’t see why a quite off-the-cuff, jocular, sweeping kind of rebuttal shouldn’t be read as involving serious points, even if rather exasperated.
>
> But this sight just breeds bad feeling, sometimes achieved with considerable effort (Tim, your second sentence is complete nonsense, so is your third, and really, to be called “snobbish” is about ***ing limit. Poets!
>
> (I’ve written to Luke to clarify the tone of those remarks).
>
> PR
>
> On 31 May 2018, at 12:00 am, BRITISH-IRISH-POETS automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Wanted to respond to this but waited to see if Luke would, which he has. How can Peter know what vocabulary Luke has or has not? And the snobbish implication seems to be that Luke is using certain words without the correct experience of their usage, or something like that.. i.e. he is being pretentious. I don't think this is so. I enjoy Luke's form of intellectual shorthand - it's provocative and always interesting - both light and heavy at the same time.
>
