 |
 |
>word should not be invoked lightly. ooo. sorry. me being irresponsible again? words should be lightly baked on both sides. I unreservedly accept Ric as big cheese on this list. I was not suggesting that the list should do things that would not be justifiable in academe. I am suggesting that the nature of the beast means that it can (justifiably) be something MORE useful academically if its nature is understood from a perspective which is not constrained by the model of previous paper academic publications. Maybe discussion of this comparatively new means of publication/communication is not thought to be useful on a list committed to POETRY. What are we doing here if not exploring this new mode of interaction and its relation to the work and lives of the poets who are here. We can publish articles elsewhere. We can write open letters to each other elsewhere. We can chat in cafes elsewhere. We are doing something different here. Is the self imposition of this particular limit (I think it is - 'don't talk about people behind their backs') the best way of running this academic List? They potentially have access to it like any journal. Do we have to check when we publish an article whether or not the people we refer to have bought the issue? It was an academic question. I am responsible for the lightness with which I invoke words. You can hold me to account. If I choose to invoke heavy words lightly, you can criticise me. You have. Thank you. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%