I am putting my side of the verbal abuse I have received in public from
Steve Duffy. I tell you that now so that you can skip it if you wish.

Immediately below is a summary...

F

I received Mr Duffy's posting (A - header only, as it is largely repeated
below) a few minutes before he published it, but as a back-channel posting.
I had signed off britpo by then and did not know he had published it.

I replied (B), almost immediately and constructively I thought, and I was
disappointed by his reply (C). I replied to that (D) and have received *no
reply.

On receipt today of the digest for yesterday, I found that he had published.
What had been an oddity is now seen as active defamation, for whatever
reason.

I have tried to deal with this b-c, at Mr Duffy's apparent instigation; and
that hasn't worked: he dismisses my attempt as a game.

It may be that Mr Duffy is more busy as Mr O'Brien and therefore completely
unable to explain his attack upon me. If so, perhaps he should work less
hard. With a lighter work load, he might come to see that I have no interest
in him; and, if he desists from calling me nasty etc, I shall revert to
neither thinking nor speaking of him - personally, at a guess, I would
prefer that to the explanation I have requested.

If he does not mention me here, I shall reciprocate. If it could be reduced
to back-channel abuse then I could filter him out or take it up with his
ISP.

L
---------------------------------
(A)
From: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 07 August 2000 13:39
Subject: Re: unsubscribe
---------------------------------
(B)
From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 07 August 2000 13:46
Subject: Re: unsubscribe

Dear Steve,

Please tell me what you mean by my continuing with my nastiness. To you? I
haven't even thought about you for some time. I feel no animosity towards
you.

| [i'm _still_ waiting for a reply to the last message i sent as part of
| a three-way back-channel discussion with a listowner and yourself - a
| message in which i pointed out the unfairness of this situation. i can
| only presume you have that listowner's support ...]

I have no one's support. Please put a date to it, or give me some help, and
I will try to find and try to answer you.

| >> I don't think there was anything in what I said to justify
| >> "constable"; but that's not the point is it?
|
| my use of the term is *completely justified*.

Fine. It looks like a non sequitur to me.

| and you continue to twist the truth.

of what?

 you continue to characterise me
| and others in such a manner as to make participation impossible.

I don't think I have referred to you for some time. i have just referred to
you because you came in with that inexplicable remark about list-constable.
i certainly am not doing anything that i am aware of to make *your
participation impossible. tell me what i am doing and i'll try to stop if it
seems reasonable to me to do so

certainly i have been fairly quiet and i intend being extremely quiet

L
________________________
(C)

From: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 07 August 2000 16:34
Subject: Re: unsubscribe

| sorry. i did not intend to send my message back-channel - to hark back
| to your last b-c message to me, it is not a game i wish to play
| back-channel.
---------------------
(D)
From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 07 August 2000 16:57
Subject: Re: unsubscribe

No apology is needed especially as I thought you were showing consideration
to the others. It may be a game to you. It's serious to me. I don't know
what I said in my last back-channel to you. I can't find one. As I keep
trying to get through to you; I have no strong feelings about you.

I can imagine the sort of thing I might have said; but I see no problem in
using back-channel to sort out [what] the hell you are talking about.

I followed *you in using back-channel; but I doubt the others would be
interested in your argument with me. I have none with you.

You have attacked me twice in the last 24 hours and I have asked [you] to
explain: I replied to your last in good faith. Please answer me.

 I think it would be fairer to the others to do so back-channel; but I can't
stop you using front-channel.







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