ah, so it's me that's confused. to my knowledge, there have been no
strictures on this list about discussing the poetry of the past.
"poetry etcetera" covers a lot of territory, and that's one of the
delightful things about it. indeed, with it's current membership, it's
hard to avoid it. so i guess the question remains the same.
Roger
On 1/14/06, Jon Corelis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:25:43 +0000, Roger Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >there's almost a defiance here: i'm talking about the muse, quite
> >possibly a politically contentious issue, and i just don't care if it
> >does offend you. as if i'm doing something naughty... you're right,
> >daveb, debate is cut short
>
> Please note that I'm being misquoted here: what I said quite clearly
> and specifically was that I would decline to respond to claims that
> the poetry of the past and its sources were of no great interest, not
> that I would decline to engage in a discussion on the nature of the
> Muse, which would indeed have been an odd thing for me to say, since
> that's exactly what I've been doing. It seems to me equally odd to
> complain that "debate is cut short" on this issue when at least half a
> dozen list members are in the middle of a vigorous debate on it.
>
|