------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blake-d Digest Volume 1996 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: Puzzles and a Challenge Blake's Child-Likeness Re: Recent posts JOHN MEE AGAIN Re: Recent posts Re: Recent posts and language Re: Recent posts Re: Recent posts Re: JOHN MEE AGAIN Re: Puzzles and a Challenge more on recent posting maternal bosom? Re: Recent posts Re: Recent posts Re: To Ralph Dumain Friedlander's Conclusion Re: Words to Ponder... Re: Recent posts Re: more on recent posting ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:59:23 -0400 From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Puzzles and a Challenge Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Tom Devine: First, how about changing the word "muddle" to "puzzle"? You seem as steadfast in your conviction that Blake was "sane" as you were in your opinion that your reading of "Mock On, Mock On" was correct. And I would be the first to defend your view because you backed it up with your own reasoning. I am not up to your challenge on the prophetic works because they don't interest me at this point. I said when I joined this group that I am interested mainly in _Songs of Innocence and Experience_, but have since re-confirmed my belief that "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" is Blake's masterpiece. Why do you think he dropped "The Marriage" from his later repertoire, folks? Could it have something to do with what a revelation that came to him around that 1800-02 period, pulling him back to the twinkly-twinkly lights of his own fantasy version of Christianity? I think so. If you want what I consider to be a first-rate account of why "Milton" and "Jerusalem" may be the work of a clinically schizophrenic man, give your AOL Web Browser (or Netscape, Microsoft Navigator, or whatever) tons of allocated memory for space and check out Edward Friedlander's WebSite: http://worldmall.com/erf/blake/blakemil.txt The work is over 100 pages long, and boasts an impressive bibliography. Dr. Friedlander first produced it in 1973, and updated it last in 1986. It is something he obviously cares about. In it, he contrasts the self-confident Bard of the "public" poems with a very different Blake as expressed in his letters. He specifically sites passages from both "Milton" and "Jersualem" as he builds his thesis. One thing he stresses is that his "diagnosis" of Blake in no way detracts from Blake's genius. As far as my own feelings about Blake: they began to evolve when I took a college course and realized that these _Songs of Innocence and Experience_ were not the "Child's Garden of Verses" I had thought they were in high school at all. When I saw slides of "The Ecchoing Green" hand-painted once in such a cheerful way, and another time in about the most sinister way conceivable, I started to wonder what Blake meant by meaning. If it's just the intersection of lines of interpretation, and the more lines that cross the word or poem the better... that's interesting. It's also WEIRD. If the knots Blake ties in the _Songs_ are convex like a puzzle, not concave like a muddle, it does not negate the fact that he loves puzzles in a similar way to R.D. Laing's shizophrenic patients love _Knots_. And then, two weeks ago when I was in London and saw the drawing for "Head of the Ghost of a Flea" among other things in the Tate Gallery room, my views were re-confirmed. Let's put it this way, Tom: I don't think Blake would be a good candidate for Glasser's "Reality Therapy." It simply doesn't make sense, as Thomas Paine would have said, for "clouds or reason" to be gone in the last song of experience. What is the blue sky after reason leaves? Merely wonder? Mysticism, I supposed. And, after, all that Blake has taken us through with Innocence and Experience, he'd give us something like: So it's weird. But now that you've been exposed, you're wiser, right? Wrong. Either the original "youth of delight" or the ones that fell in folly's endless maze (i.e. HIS?) "wish to lead others when they should be led." So even at the end he leaves it as a paradox. Sure, Tom. Makes common sense. And when a good revolution is over, we'll be free of our five senses, too. Newton's SLEEP. Francis Bacon, who was pulling the scientific method out of mere Aristotelian speculation... a BAD thing, don't you think? I'd much rather be in the Middle Ages. Or John Locke, whose optimistic works were a cornerstone to the American Revolution and Constitution... hey, let's just FORGET all of them. They're way down in some simplistic view of the universe. Gravity? Hey, when I die I'm just going next door. But all of this is a repeat to my previous posts, and if you've read them and are still adamant that it's YOUR problem, not Blake's, that his works get increasingly obtuse, then... As Luigi Pirandello named one of his plays, "Right You Are If You Think You Are." One final note. I think, in the 20th century's rehabilitation of Blake, it was felt necessary to say that he was NOT insane as a way to justify the genius of his work. To me, as we turn toward the 21st century, I think we need a more expansive and tolerant notion of what sanity entails, as well as the courage to say that he may not have been sane (at least at times) but that it no way detracts from the singular genius of his work. Again, sorry to sound like a broken record, but Julian Jaynes wrote a great book about 20 years ago: _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. It describes the right hemisphere/hallucinogenic "center of the gods" and bemoans how our modern world has shut down this capability with the stress it entails. My last day of discussion on Blake in college Romantic Literature class, I came up to my professor. She said something like, "So you can see why some people thought Blake was insane... and I just don't think he was." I smiled and replied, "Oh, but I DO." And being someone trained well in the divergence of opinion that should be respected in liberal arts, she just smiled back and we left it at that. -R.H. Albright http://world.std.com/~albright/blake.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:58:46 -0400 From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Blake's Child-Likeness Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "It takes one a long time to become young." ---Pablo Picasso I don't know if I've inadvertently caused more distress with my assertion that Blake is child-like, but not childish. But I would like to offer two views that buttress this view. One is from Georges Bataille, Roland Barthes's friend. In _Literature and Evil_ (1957, translation and printing by Marion Boyars Ltd., 1973). Bataille says that Blake is one of his three favorite authors (with the additional perk of being an artist extraordinaire). Bataille says: "The moralist condemns the energy which he lacks... But the necessity of adapting oneself ultimately demands a return to innocence. The marvellous indifference and childishness of William Blake, his feeling of ease when confronted with the impossible, his anguish which left boldness intact, all his defects and qualities were the expression of a simpler age and marked a return to lost innocence." The other if from Andrew Sanders in _The Short Oxford History of English Literature_, "Literature of the Romantic Period", Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994. Sanders says: "The 'two contrary states of the human soul' of the work's subtitle (_Songs of Innocence and Experience_) form a kind of dialectic which suggests not only a falling away from Edenic innocence to experience, but also the possibility of progress toward a Christ-inspired 'higher' innocence and a future regain of paradise." -R.H. Albright ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 11:26:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "M. Persyn" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Recent posts Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To the members of this list: I have just read two recent posts by Ralph Dumain (one is appended below). I have rarely met with such egregious rudeness (nor such bad spelling) on this or any other list. Surely there must be some way to urge him to be civil, or to drop him from the list. Is there anyone out there who agrees with me? I object not to his desire to debate issues, but rather to his language and tone. Mary-Kelly Persyn On Fri, 24 May 1996, Ralph Dumain wrote: > If I had time, I would launch a campaign against Albright's > adolescent drivel. I have been in a great mood lately, but this > flap over Skopal's article in SOCIAL TEXT has me so inscenced > against the charlatanism of Stanley Fish, Andrew Ross, Smelly > Aronowitz, and the entire pomo ilk, I am once again on the warpath > against all gibberish-spouters. Albright, I'm sick of you playing > with your feces online. > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 12:50:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Dumain To: blake@albion.com Subject: JOHN MEE AGAIN Message-Id: <199605281950.MAA25266@igc2.igc.apc.org> I thank those folks who tried to supply me with missing posts on John Mee's DANGEROUS VISIONS of May 24, but I don't think I recovered he post I missed. Is there an archive to the Blake list I could consult? Good news: today I received in the mail my copy of Mee's book. I'm really excited about it, but I won't have time to read this or any of my other Blake acquisitions for several weeks. The contrast made here between Blake and Coleridge alone is useful for my research purposes. Thanks to everyone for the feedback on Mee and A.L. Morton. I wonder if anyone has read some of the other books on my list, for example the book on English children's literature. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 15:36:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Dumain To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Recent posts Message-Id: <199605282236.PAA18973@igc2.igc.apc.org> THis is pubic space, honey, not a cloisterd ivy league seminar hall. If you can;t stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. Who do you think you are? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 22:23:41 -0400 From: "adam r. marcotte" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Recent posts and language Message-Id: <199605290223.WAA18206@ns.norwich.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Is there anyone out there who agrees with me? I object not to his desire >to debate issues, but rather to his language and tone. To which our oh-so-witty Raphy replied: "THis is pubic space, honey, not a cloisterd ivy league seminar hall. If you can;t stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. Who do you think you are?" I'm new to the list, but by no means new to the Net, and I would agree with anyone anywhere who suggests that decency and civility are a value in public, private, and even in ivy league seminars. I have been listening to this group now for some time, and Mary-Kelly, I believe people are selecting to respond only moderately to the snivels from the corner, allowing the discussions to go on despite them. Perhaps if we all just ignore them altogether, they will just go away. Most sincerely, Adam R. Marcotte ---<<---@@ marcotte@norwich.net NEW WEB PAGE ADDRESS: http://www.norwich.net/~marcotte/home.html updated 4/29/96! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 23:17:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Avery F. Gaskins" To: Subject: Re: Recent posts Message-Id: To Ralph Dumain: This ain't public space, honey. We are here because someone owns the list we publish on. If he wishes, all he has to to is delete you, and you will NEVER be back on. Who the hell do you think you are? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 22:44:40 -0500 From: cxh36@psu.edu (Chad Hayton) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Recent posts Message-Id: <199605290326.XAA25314@r02n06.cac.psu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 3:36 PM 5/28/96 -0700, Ralph Dumain wrote: >THis is pubic space, honey, not a cloisterd ivy league seminar hall. >If you can;t stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. >Who do you think you are? Ralph, Mary-Kelly probably thinks she is someone using the same "public space" as you are and is entitled to complain about your posts much in the same way you complain about R. H. Albright's (only she is more polite). What I find embarrassing about your above response is your insistence on proving Mary-Kelly Persyn right about your postings. She claims that she "objects not to [your] desire to debate issues, but rather to [your] language and tone." Although your language in this particular posting isn't that much a problem, your tone is clearly hostile and inappropriate for a space devoted to intelligent discourse. In addition, it is probably important to remember that this "public space" really isn't public at all; it is only as public as the list-owner wishes it to be. I would have been much more interested in learning precisely *why* you are "on the war path against all gibberish-spouters" and why you feel the R. H. Albright is one. In other words, don't just make wild assertions. Back up you position with support and careful argument. You claim you don't have time to do this, but even a piece meal argument would be better than no argument. If you have time to make yourself notorious on the list, you should have time to at least outline your grievances. Otherwise I would have to agree with Mary-Kelly that we should urge the listowner to drop you off the list. That would be a shame since I rather enjoy some of your posts (like your recent one on John Mee). Prove me wrong. Sincerely, Chad Hayton Pennsylvania State University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 03:03:42 -0400 From: TomD3456@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: JOHN MEE AGAIN Message-Id: <960529030342_402832848@emout12.mail.aol.com> Ralph and others- There is indeed an archive of the Blake list discussions on the web. Seth can supply the exact URL, but if you can find the albion.com home page (I usually go to the Yahoo home page (www.yahoo.com) and search for "William Blake"), I believe it contains links to the archive. --Tom Devine ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 09:28:48 -0500 From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Puzzles and a Challenge Message-Id: <96052909284817@womenscol.stephens.edu> Mr. Albright invites those who are irritated by his messages to use the delete button. It would be a kindness on his part, in that context, to place his name or some relevant signal at the beginning of his lengthy opinings as fair warning--something like "Here's More Albright" in the message line, or "Albright Happens!" Those would be helpful for those who prefer not to read the several sentences it sometimes takes to identify the special qualities of the Albright postings. Of course, as others have observed, Mr. Albright has every right to post to this list and no one would deny either the right to express opinions or the opportunity to do so. One reserves the right, however, *not* to respect the opinions expressed, especially when they are often reductive, uninformed, simplistic, and idly speculative. REading Albright is often like listening to a child comparing his red rubber ball with a red tomato and a red stoplight, all of which he tells us have similar qualities (indeed!) and from them, he will suggest, we can learn everything we need to know about red stars, as well as hypothesize a definitive interpretation of E.A. Poe's "Masque of the Red Death" along the way. Just one example--recently we learn that not only does Mr. Albright believe that Blake was insane (and that's okay because we can still respect his genius), but it appears that evidence of his insanity is found in his opposition to Bacon, Locke, and the Enlightenment "optimism" (wherever that is found) that he attacks in his later prophecies. So Mr. Albright *equates* the scientific method (pulled out by Bacon?) plus Lockean associative epistemology with "sanity" and anti-Enlightenment thought with the "Middle Ages" (presumably disease and dirt and superstition) and indeed, "insanity"--so, since Blake attacks the Englightenment, he probably would dismiss the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and he is, what is more, accused of being an early believer in some of the more ditzy New Age ideas that have floated up a mere 170 years after his death. Or another--"The Ghost of the Flea" impresses Mr. Albright as grotesque and scary, and must therefore be evidence of insanity on the part of the artist who drew/painted it. (Does Mr. Albright know there are several versions of the flea; does he know when and under what circumstances they were produced? Has he considered their relation to some images among the Dante illustrations? He doesn't tell us.) Do we also conclude that Bosch, Grunewald, di Chirico, and George Grosz were all insane (I don't say they were not, but what evidence are we using) because they produced frightening and grotesque imagery? Apparently so. And by the way, whose norms of sane/insane or mental health in general are we using here? Are we to assume that middle class white American views of what is normal (as though there were such a homogenous set of views--whose? William Bennett's? oh no-- Camille Paglia's of course!) constitute universal standards of judgment for all time? Even haters of Foucault can recognize the basic accuracy of his _Madness and Civilization_. Or do we really want to assume we can pronounce essential/universal norms for human behavior? As one who spends several hours a day, seven days a week for about 10 months of the year reading freshman compositions, many of which share the qualities of "thought" typical of Albright's messages, I would really rather not find myself in the middle of such stuff on the list. It's not that there is anything wrong with exploring alternative ways of understanding Blake, nor is there anything wrong with offering hypotheses based on evidence--but sweeping generalizations and ex cathedra pronouncements (at least in tone) will stimulate annoyed--even scatological--responses--and by the way, Blake was entirely capable of such responses himself, though that may not be an adequate excuse for all that one is tempted to say. Tom Dillingham (tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:30:57 -0400 From: Ted Ross To: blake@albion.com Subject: more on recent posting Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960529143057.462f3674@pop.atl.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I don't know what furnaces people's brains have been in lately, but as a new member to the list, I'd like to say that the self-indulgence of people lately has been greatly diminishing my enjoyment of a place that I considered until recently a treat. I wish we could get back to Blake and stop flaming people on-line. There is a vast difference between passionate disagreement about a Blakean issue and abusive behavior. The people who have been ruining the page for everyone should examine their behavior and make a course change to a sunnier disposition. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:31:18 -0500 From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael) To: blake@albion.com Subject: maternal bosom? Message-Id: <9605291636.AA22423@uu6.psi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I finally got hold of the _New Yorker_ review of Ackroyd's _Blake_, and was startled by this sentence: "He hated landscapes, perhaps because they reminded him uncomfortably of the maternal bosom." Does anyone know where Fraser gets this? I get his general point, that Blake identifies nature with "vegetated" female procreation, but does Blake make such a remark anywhere? Is Fraser referring to painted landscapes or "real" ones? (not that such a distinction means anything to Blake, of course!) Jennifer Michael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:14:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Recent posts Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mary-Kelly- I agree with you. Ralph is just very lonely and lashes out. but that doesn't mean that we don't have rules. you can just imagine him in the schoolyard in 4th grade. matthew dubuque virtual@leland.stanford.edu On Tue, 28 May 1996, M. Persyn wrote: > To the members of this list: > > I have just read two recent posts by Ralph Dumain (one is appended below). > I have rarely met with such egregious rudeness (nor such bad spelling) on > this or any other list. Surely there must be some way to urge him to be > civil, or to drop him from the list. > > Is there anyone out there who agrees with me? I object not to his desire > to debate issues, but rather to his language and tone. > > Mary-Kelly Persyn > > On Fri, 24 May 1996, Ralph Dumain wrote: > > > If I had time, I would launch a campaign against Albright's > > adolescent drivel. I have been in a great mood lately, but this > > flap over Skopal's article in SOCIAL TEXT has me so inscenced > > against the charlatanism of Stanley Fish, Andrew Ross, Smelly > > Aronowitz, and the entire pomo ilk, I am once again on the warpath > > against all gibberish-spouters. Albright, I'm sick of you playing > > with your feces online. > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:15:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Recent posts Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Ralph- We think we are your equals. We think humans deserve respect. It's a crowded planet, and your shortsighted tantrums make it more so. We invented cyberspace, not you.... matthew dubuque virtual@leland.stanford.edu On Tue, 28 May 1996, Ralph Dumain wrote: > THis is pubic space, honey, not a cloisterd ivy league seminar hall. > If you can;t stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. > Who do you think you are? > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:09:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: To Ralph Dumain Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII R.h. I think ralph confuses anger with eloquence.... poor fellow... matthew dubuque virtual@leland.stanfordedu On Tue, 28 May 1996, R.H. Albright wrote: > I haven't known exactly how to respond or not to respond to your latest > insults, which most recently degenerated into, at least in my reading, a > threat to my person. > > And yet I think it's important, because this kind of bullying should not be > tolerated. > > I at least talk in this group. > > What do your messages send, as a signal, to those who may wish to talk but > don't have quite the self-confidence? They say SHUT UP. They say "I'm > smart, and you're not." In short, they are the antithesis to the kind of > critical and creative engagement as well as to the diversity of opinion or > approaches that a discussion group such as this is designed to allow. > > For the sake of myself as well as others whom you may have intimidated, I > request an apology. > > And yes, it is very easy to press DELETE when you see anything that has my > name as author of it, if they cause you so much distress. > > -R.H. Albright > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 16:33:08 -0400 From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Friedlander's Conclusion Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thank you, Tom D. at Stephens, for comparing my writing skill to a bad college freshman. I KNEW there was something fishy going on when I maintained a B+/A- average at Amherst College, and later at Brown University, as an English major! Or maybe, in my old age, I have reverted to child-like descriptions for a reason. You know, Tom, it takes one a long time to become young! For those of you who have not yet had the time or inclination to view a medical doctor's 100+ page thesis on Blake's condition (he also happens to have been an English major and a great appreciator of Blake's art), this is Edward Friedlander's conclusion to his WebSite: "Let no one misunderstand me. Blake's writings and pictures are extremely interesting and valuable. Blake has opened worlds of marvels and great beauty to us. Blake rejected social injustice and mechanical philosophies just like most of us do. "But I believe that William Blake was wrong about his visions and voices. They are not guides to metaphysical truths for all of us. I find that Blake's visions of the end of the world and the transformation of all people's perceptions were figments of his sick brain. Like the sons of Los, I believe that it is better to live and work for good in the world as it really is. "I believe that Blake was wrong. But I hope that he was right. Then, when we understand his works, we will have broken through the 'limits of opacity and contraction', and enter a larger, more meaningful world." Now... before any of you draw your own too-rapid conclusions on what Friedlander is saying, I would recommend you read his work in its entirety first. The address again is: http://worldmall.com/erf/blake/blakemil.txt And again, you need to give your Web browser plenty of space, because Friedlander has put the entire 100+ thing, footnotes and bibliography and all, on one "page." -R.H. Albright http://world.std.com/~albright/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 13:54:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII elisha- well stated... matthew virtual@leland.stanford.edu On Mon, 27 May 1996, Elisa E. Beshero 814 862-8914 wrote: > Oh how easy it is to discard the following message--and any others written > by the same source. Why bother with Mr. Dumain's more substantive posts, his > booklists and reviews? Can we place any value at all on the readings such a > childish mentality produces? At any rate, Mr. Dumain is certainly skilled in > using words related to solid waste material. . .--Elisa > > - - The original note follows - - > > Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 18:27:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: Ralph Dumain > To: blake@albion.com > Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... > Resent-From: blake@albion.com > Reply-To: blake@albion.com > > It's bad enough I'm wasting time on this Social Text scandal, because > I have real work to do. I hope I can find the time to come back > and take you out. THe same kind of childish nonsene these pomo types > engage remins me of your crap. However, you have performed one service as > an irritant. I hope to show one day that BLakee would have had no interest > whatever in falsifying science in order to create a new obscurantist > ideology. BLake was on an alotgether differnt plane than he likes of > Fritjof Capra or Douglas HOfstadter. When ime permits, I will come back > to flush little turds like you and Albright. > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 96 14:18:49 -0700 From: Seth T. Ross To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Recent posts Message-Id: <9605292118.AA03826@albion.com> Content-Type: text/plain Dear Blakeans: Please don't interpret my silence as acquiescence or agreement. I've warned Ralph Dumain about abusive and hostile posts in the past, and I warned him again today. As Avery points out below, this is _not_ a public space, and anyone who is repeatedly disruptive to the list will be removed. While I'm loathe to articulate a policy of "three strikes, you're out," that sums up my feeling at the moment about how to handle disruptive list members. I wish to thank Avery, Mark Trevor Smith, Adam Marcotte, Chad Hayton, Mary-Kelly Persyn, Ted Ross, Matthew Dubuque and others who have tried to maintain and defend the decorum of the list. Overall, I've been very pleased with the progress of the list, and I value and look forward to all your contributions. Yours, Seth List-maintainer/owner --- A\ Seth Ross \ seth@albion.com\ AlbionBooks A A\ Independent Content Provider \ Books & Online Services A A\ MSN: Go "albion" \ http://www.albion.com/welcome/albion/sig Begin forwarded message: Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 23:17:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Avery F. Gaskins" To: Subject: Re: Recent posts In-Reply-To: Message of 05/28/96 at 15:36:02 from rdumain@igc.apc.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2297 To Ralph Dumain: This ain't public space, honey. We are here because someone owns the list we publish on. If he wishes, all he has to to is delete you, and you will NEVER be back on. Who the hell do you think you are? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 14:28:05 -0700 From: rmcdonell@ucsd.edu (Robert McDonell) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: more on recent posting Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ralph Dumain has done this on other lists--likely on every list he's on. On some level, I'm sympathetic because he does have something to contribute to discussions, and sometimes the stakes in those discussions are (virtually speaking) relatively high. However, all too often Ralph seems to slide into a proprietary stance that invariably would lead to situations like this; Ralph becomes the subject of discussion. I won't psychoanalyze this demand/desire to self-substitute for a list's orienting subject, but it does seem to be there in his virtual make-up. On the other hand, I don't much care for the "civility" line itself, as it is so often misused by those who control to marginalize and exclude voices they don't want to entertain: pluralism in jackboots, as always. -------------------------------- End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #59 *************************************