Well now to be fair, "On the rectum of peacocks" has just been published
by the East Village and has not circulated otherwise. I've no doubt
that's Kent's intention was provocative, "Kent" being a synonym for
"provocative," at least in these parts: "Ye kent do that ye little
gurrier ..." Anyways.
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Elizabeth James wrote:
> Kent, thanks for the response. I *didn't find it funny, and that's
> personal; however that's exactly why I was rattled by your possible
> motive for posting it -- a piece in the 'offensive' tradition, by
> someone other than yourself, that had been round another list anyway,
> and was not (as I thought) of particularly general interest. The
> contextualisation would have been useful in the first place. We're not
> all the same here...
> Humour, that's a subject. Not to mention intentionality. If someone '
> intends' to be 'good-humoured', is that good enough? (I know nothing of
> the buffalo thing, btw)
> Anyway, cheers. God help the President.
> Elizabeth James