»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
Relationships & Respect
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
Relationships & Respect |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If we don't try to nurture and show a relationship aspect in this forum a bit more focusedly I feel CA will just continue falling down and keeping few members for lack of intimacy. To me the relationship is the most important part so we may know that respect is always behind the critique of the poetry and critique of critique, in the bouts of differing opinions. If we don't or can't have that assurance as " cushion " there it is going to be cold floor. It's not right that people seem to be doubting the friendship or respect for things said about a poem or critique. The intimacy should be strong enough to let us know there is no disrespect. But I guess it is not. People just come and go and never stay here. Aren't we pursuing poetry? Well when people aren't inclined to stay around, that isn't going to bring it. [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-25-2003 04:12 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
“If we don't try to nurture and show a relationship aspect in this forum a bit more focusedly I feel CA will just continue falling down and keeping few members for lack of intimacy. To me the relationship is the most important part so we may know that respect is always behind the critique of the poetry and critique of critique, in the bouts of differing opinions. If we don't or can't have that assurance as " cushion " there it is going to be cold floor. It's not right that people seem to be doubting the friendship or respect for things said about a poem or critique. The intimacy should be strong enough to let us know there is no disrespect. But I guess it is not. People just come and go and never stay here. Aren't we pursuing poetry? Well when people aren't inclined to stay around, that isn't going to bring it.” Ess I think this is one of the best posts on this subject I’ve seen. There is much you say that I totally agree with. However I think the word intimacy is maybe not quite what you mean, for me that word hints at a rather cushy closed little world. I know you didn’t mean that. There are a few points. First I do think it is essential to have a “core” of experienced regular posters - there have been many such over the years but regrettably many have moved on, while they were here many became good friends and as you so rightly say, that DID make for an atmosphere people could get on and critique and discuss. Moreover if one regular member stepped out of line there was always a “friend” around to reason with the errant member or step in to sort out a problem. And because it WAS a friend the respect would be there. This meant that not so much load fell on the moderators to deal with problems, and indeed problems were more or less nipped in the bud before they got out of control. Thirdly I am sure that you recognise that it’s not realistic to expect newcomers to instantly become familiar with the personalities and become friends overnight, but some of my suggestions in other replies (and Serenity’s) have been geared to trying to ensure that people with motives that are likely to produce a positive contribution to the forum are ENCOURAGED and people with motives that are largely self serving/selfish are DISCOURAGED. Finally, because I agree with you so much about this, I’d like to point out (at risk of seeming yet again to harp on about it) that ABOVE ALL the members must have a respect for and, if possible, a friendship with the people responsible for policing the forum. I’m sure you know by now! that the reason I won’t post any critiques at present is because I have totally lost respect for Pete. It also seems to me that at least part of the reason Sid seems to want to leave is because of the delayed way in which he was made an example of in public (quite similar to my grouse). In my case though it’s doubly frustrating because I’ve suggested a sure fire mechanism for ensuring my return to proper critiques - which has been ignored. In many ways Pete is the ideal moderator: laid back, slow to anger, bland (in a nice way), and a generally a good mediator. Just occasionally though larger situations seem to develop where he loses the plot (as we ALL do sometimes.... lol), and, in my opinion, those situations have a much greater fallout than they need to simply because Pete’s way of handling them seems to be to retract into himself (how am I doing on the psychology front Jamie!?  ) and pretend the problem will just go away. And sure enough it does, but then another comes along and it happens over and so on, until, in my opinion, the wrong atmosphere develops in the forum. Not one of friendship, respect and solidarity, but one of unease and disinterest. There is no longer any secure foundation. I think you described it brilliantly as a “cold floor”.Thanks for listening. R |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
In the main I think I’d have to echo both the above posts, although I take issue with the idea that people don’t stick around here, people do, they simply modify their posting habits around the cyclical bouts of madness and lethargy that have dogged this forum since its inception. I do agree however that when several like-minded people who are familiar with each other start posting the forum does spring to life but that same familiarity may, in some respects, be the very thing that kills interaction. Has anyone heard the word clique mentioned in here before? The events leading up to both the Radrook incident and the more recent situation involving Sid are classic cases, both came during an active period and both will if we are not careful end up being followed by a slow degeneration. Rob will stop posting on a point of principle Sid will disappear in a huff and I’ll keep my critical hands in my pocket like several others and wait for the next bloom. The madness in all of this is that the solution is so simple if people will take a step back and swallow a little bit of humble pie seasoned with a dollop of common sense. Rob knows that Pete is a good moderator Sid understands the critical and constructive belong together Pete knows that both of them are assets not asses Ron definitely knows that this is a storm in a teacup And Brad knows absolutely nothing about poetry (joke) My vote is for a declaration of peace, Rob should be made a Mod to balance Pete’s Ying with his Yang and to see exactly how easy the job really is. Pete should email Rob and accept that the Radrook thing wasn’t handled as well as it could be and it was all the fault of elves or something and Sid should post one clearly constructive critique on the threads where he accidentally stepped over the invisible line that nobody told him about. That’ll leave Ron to get back to the important task of bringing back the Alley and free up this forum for some blooming poetry. [This message has been edited by Toad (10-25-2003 09:48 AM).] |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
ROTF - only someone from your particular niche of the globe could have written that  |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Smiling with you, Toad. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Rob should be made a Mod" Toad should too |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I have totally lost respect for Pete" That is what I am saying though. We shouldn't be losing our respects over the craft of this forum! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Thirdly I am sure that you recognise that it’s not realistic to expect newcomers to instantly become familiar with the personalities and become friends overnight" Yes; a newcomer needs time to be part of that; and then he/she will know that a harsh criticism is just part of the craft of the forum and is not a specfic smite at him/her. We have to make sure to let them know us and try to get to know them better too, but that may take some time and patience [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-25-2003 11:11 AM).] |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
"That is what I am saying though. We shouldn't be losing our respects over the craft of this forum!" Nooooooo not over the craft of the forum. Pete is a good poet (despite his name!) and when his moderating duties allow he writes pretty good crits as well (my opinion ). No Ess my problem is simply that he refuses to countenance the possibility that he might have made an error or at the very least have been hasty, moreover he won't even look at the evidence again, moreover it now seems he won't even countenance a third party arbiter. And this despite the fact that he’s got two longstanding and normally well behaved members telling him he jumped in too slow to start with (i.e. wasn’t around), then too fast (i.e. without looking at the entire position). That kind of inflexibility doesn't engender respect here or anywhere. R |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Please know I respect your side. But if Pete possibily made a mistake why does that need to be advertised like a scandal? How would you feel if someone kept on referring to a possible mistake you made, pubicly, so people even who were not at all part of the situation heard about it? I know I wouldn't feel very good. [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-25-2003 09:11 PM).] |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
“Please know I respect your side. But if Pete possibily made a mistake why does that need to be advertised like a scandal? How would you feel if someone kept on referring to a possible mistake you made, pubicly, so people even who were not at all part of the situation heard about it? I know I wouldn't feel very good.” Ess I didn't feel so good myself Ess when Pete completely unjustifiably branded me a trouble maker in public!!  I understand why you may think I am being nasty to Pete right now and I respect your candidness, however consider this: Supposing you’d spend a long while trying to constructively help people in this forum, and each time you did so another member directly and indirectly disrupted your efforts but in such a way that it was difficult for the mods to intervene. Finally you found someone (a newcomer) who was receptive to working with you to improve her poetry (and hopefully teach you something as well in the process!). You then spend hours and hours preparing and posting replies to assist that newbie, while all the while this other disruptive member is either deliberately or misguidedly trying to cause difficulties. Finally he goes too far and launches a completely unprovoked personal attack wrecking the whole thread. Instead of retaliating immediately you leave it a day to see if the moderator will intervene but when he doesn’t you write a fairly forceful reply back simply pointing out how the other member has misunderstood the position. Suddenly the moderator (Pete) reappears and in a patronising way tells you both that you’ve been very naughty and closes the thread completely. Thus totally wasting several hours of your time as well as scaring off the newcomer. Instead of taking the matter up in public as you would have been quite entitled to do you then, to save embarrassment, write several long e-mails to the moderator in question pointing out the problem and asking him to re-consider. You receive no replies from him at all. You then contact another moderator in PIP and write the same mails to him/her with the result that he/she tells you that the other moderator is out of his depth and it’s best to just leave it all to sort itself out quietly. So you leave the forum for several months. Much later you rejoin the CA discussion still feeling sore about what happened and not trusting that it won’t happen again unless it’s resolved. On the advice of another moderator you then write again to the moderator who handled the situation before (Pete) and ask him to reconsider and to delete his patronising reply and open the thread again. You put your point of view about what happened, you offer to sent evidence of what happened to help him. He tells you: 1. That he was entirely right, and 2. That you “prodded” the other member into behaving badly. When asked to point out where you “prodded” he refuses to discuss the matter further in e-mail, tells you you are flogging a dead horse and cuts communication. So sorry if it offends you Ess, but that’s why, when the opportunity now arises in public to point out why I’m not posting critiques I take it, private communication it seems is a dead end. R [This message has been edited by Robtm1965 (10-27-2003 09:10 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You made a choice, Rob. No one here forced you to respond to Radrook and, in doing so, make yourself a part of the problem. It would have been nice if a Moderator had gotten to the thread earlier, but we all operate under time constraints and that didn't happen. Did you email a Moderator before you chose to respond? Or an Admin? Or me? You had lots of options. You chose the wrong one. I fail to see why someone else should accept responsibility for your choices? CA is a Poetry forum, not a Discussion forum. We've relaxed the rules a little, but now have more discussion threads active than critiques, and are in danger of losing our focus. If the Alley was available, most of these threads would have already been moved. Critiques are welcome, discussions centered on a specific critique are still encouraged, and I'll even listen to specific complaints. Carping and nagging, however, are just a waste of time and space. Accept and move on, Rob, or just move on. That choice, too, is yours to make. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Ron Thank you for the clarity. That at least is appreciated. As you may know this wasn’t an isolated incident. There was a build up over several weeks and yes I had been in dialogue with Pete about the situation in the days before. In the offending thread there was also a build up of problems, again over days, and yes I did e-mail Pete before I finally responded. Crucially when I DID respond I don’t believe I even then stepped outside the guidelines (other than maybe my final “grow up” comment) despite extreme provocation. Instead I made a real effort to show Radrook why he had misunderstood. And no, of course I didn’t e-mail you. I chose the option of trying to explain to someone who had just been extremely abusive why he’d made a mistake. If that was the “wrong” option in your book then that’s too bad! And of course this isn’t what this forum is about, I want to get back to poetry as much as anyone. But as I said to Ess above private communication seems to have failed. “Carping and nagging”!? Humm ... I seem to recall Asquith said something similar about Emily Pankhurst during her long and militant campaign for female enfranchisement. To discover truth and principle it’s worth being persistent Ron at whatever level. I’ve been persistent and, it seems, failed to find them here. R |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Rob, as a moderator, I can't expect to please everyone every time. There will be steps I have to take that some may not like and may even seem offensive to some. Therefore, I feel that I necessarily have to take a bit of complaining and maybe even a little personal abuse, all for the benefit of the forum. Your constant whining, I won't even call it carping or nagging, is really getting old. I am sorry for you if your feelings were hurt over the Radrook incident a year ago but it is time you just grow up and get over it. Yes you did contact me by email. Last week. Several times. I tried to be reasonable with you but you just kept repeating the same argument over and over. After several, I did indicate that I would not continue the discussion further. At that point, you took your whining to the forum. I can accept a certain amount of that but now you have gone too far. quote: The only truth there is that it was not an isolated incident. You and Radrook had been cranking up the rhetoric for a couple of weeks until it finally got completely out of hand and unacceptable. The rest of it is absolute lies. You had no dialog with me at all and you never emailed me before last week. Rob, you can whine all you want about petty stuff. The forum will see that for what it is. I will not, however, stand by while you fabricate lies about me or anyone else. Your participation in CA for its intended purpose is welcome. Constant complaining about its unfairness and inadequacies is borderline. Propagating lies is completely unacceptable. Pete [This message has been edited by Not A Poet (10-27-2003 01:37 PM).] |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Fine Pete Having failed totally to respond to ALL my civil requests both private and public for a resolution to this situation or an arbiter you now stoop to bullying tactics and coarse insults, calling me a whiner and a liar. The SimplyGold thread which I brought to the top of the forum again has been removed by Ron which is a shame as I was hoping to allow other people to look at what happened unedited. (I jumped to the erroneous conclusion that you removed it yourself). Well fortunately I forwarded all the e-mails which I sent to you at the time of the Radrook incident to your fellow moderator Severn. I also discussed your behaviour and lack of response with her at great length at the time. I am sure she will confirm what I say, but whether she does or not I will post those mails and the exchanges as well plus the unedited Simply Gold thread in this forum starting in 48 hours and going on repeatedly until you either ban me from the site or retract the accusation of lying unreservedly. I am truly sorry that this has escalated to this ridiculous level when all I was asking you to do was reconsider the evidence. [This message has been edited by Robtm1965 (10-27-2003 03:11 PM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
I was hoping all this would end peacefully - that everyone would give just enough to avert the inevitable but I suppose it was just wishful thinking on my part. Rob. I strongly suggest you reconsider your proposed actions, you and I both know what the response to such action would be and I’d rather avoid the inevitable choice I’d be forced to make between my principles and my membership under such circumstances. I sincerely believe you have a valid gripe and understand that due to whatever reason it has in your opinion been left largely unanswered. My advice is to email Ron and calmly state the facts as you see them surrounding the incident and hopefully this matter can finally and less painfully be brought to a conclusion. [This message has been edited by Toad (10-27-2003 04:24 PM).] |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Toad mon ami, fortunately I read your post just before I wound Ron up even more than he is probably already wound up. I think you are possibly the only person who followed the saga closely enough to see what went on and I’m incredibly grateful that you are still inclined to support me. Nevertheless tis not really your battle, and certainly not sufficient reason for you to contemplate anything drastic! Je promettrai d'écrire à Ron si vous promettrez de ne pas laisser quoi que les résultats. Convenu? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The evidence has been reconsidered. What you want is for it to be reinterpreted. Sorry, Rob, but you were just as out of line in that thread as was Radrook, and just as out of line in that thread as you are in this one. Issuing demands and ultimatums, whether to Radrook or to Pete, is entirely counter-productive and IS prodding an escalation. You did it there. You're doing it again. You had the choice to ignore Radrook. You didn't do that, though, because after all, he had the temerity to criticize your critique. Anything in that thread that was not about the poem was irrelevant and properly deleted. Get over it. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Ron ~shaking my head~ If what you say about that thread was the case I would be the first to acknowledge my fault I truly would. You point out one place in that thread Ron where I was upset about Radrook "critiquing my critique" and I’ll gladly drop this whole thing. What happened plain and simple was Radrook (looking for trouble) mistakenly thought I was talking to him rather than the author of the thread on one particular reply and (as he had done on previous occasions). He then (to the bemusement of both myself and Craig) launched what looked like an unprovoked attack because of that misunderstanding. This is incredibly sad Ron. You clearly haven’t read the thread. I’m sure you won’t have time, but I’ve mailed you anyway as Craig suggested. Rob |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Ron said: “Did you email a Moderator before you chose to respond? Or an Admin? Or me? You had lots of options. You chose the wrong one. I fail to see why someone else should accept responsibility for your choices?” Pete said: “The rest of it is absolute lies. You had no dialog with me at all and you never emailed me before last week.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ok I’ve had enough of this now. You asked about e-mails Ron? You called me a liar Pete. Here you are: Subj: Re: From Severn, moderator. Concerning CA. Date: 13/10/02 To: wordgirl3nz@yahoo.co.nz Kamla Thank you for your explanation about forum procedure and the professional way in which you handled things. It does clear it up. Also thank you for listening to my side of things re Radrook. I will try to contain my impatience. I accept that my "lovely lovely" poem comment to Miller was not honest and I won't do that again. My 8 points of advice I have however saved as I really think they do address a problematic issue: that of getting caught in a cycle of self indulgent poetry. Some people post to CA in periods when they see active and intelligent critique going on for one reason and one reason alone: to get instant praise and adulation for their work. When they don't get it they immediately flounce off in hissy fit never to be seen again. If they DO get it (from someone like Radrook) they post another poem to hear it all over again, and then generally bored, they vanish, never to be seen again. I don't like to see a poster like that pandered to. But as I say I will try to be nice, and once in a while someone DOES respond constructively with, "well then how do I improve?". "Now as to the situation with yourself and Radrook. You may not wish any advice, so I'll call these suggestions instead. Bad vibes rarely disappear without some form of action" Always open to advice. The fact is that I quite liked his early critiques before I started posting, it was only when I came along and he started responding to poems by effectively contradicting everything I said that I suppose he became mildly annoying. Even now he doesn't really bother me (until I start getting e-mails from moderators!) And to be honest I think I detect a slight shift in his critiquing (his recent one to Marshal was really quite good). I can live with it, he isn't going to change his views on academics I don't think, and I ain't about to change mine on "Hallmark" poetry. Takes all sorts. But glad to hear you'll be watching. Best regards Rob Subj: (no subject) Date: 13/10/02 To: wordgirl3nz@yahoo.co.nz I hope my reply in this thread /pip/Forum28/HTML/000289.html doesn't cause problems. I tried to be tactful.. Ok, I am done being a timewasting pain in the a** now. Rob Subj: Re: Critical Analysis Date: 16/10/02 To: not_a_poet@hotmail.com Dear Pete If you read my e-mail to Severn you will know my views on Radrook. For my part there is no animosity at all - perhaps a little mild irritation sometimes, but nothing serious. Besides which I don't know whether you have noticed but his recent crits have been really quite good - tough and to the point.. Whether or not I can take any of the credit for what I regard as his more honest style is a matter for debate, but it is sure gratifying to see, and I hope it continues. "But I also must remind you that suggesting a poet simply give up the craft is less than constructive. I do agree that some poems are hopeless and should be abandoned." I am sure I haven't ever done that Pete! I would never ever suggest that a writer should give up writing however bad they were. Perhaps you might point out the place where you think I said that, and I will be more careful in future. For the record my position is that a writer can ALWAYS improve hence my strenuous efforts to help by suggesting productive ways forward - reading material etc, and now my latest attempt at a quasi workshop with Simply Gold. Anyway, thanks for the mediation Pete, as always you are a masterful diplomat. Rob Subj: not stirring Date: 17/10/02 To: wordgirl3nz@yahoo.co.nz Severn (sorry I was wrong I am bothering you again!) Not stirring things here, just trying to understand where Radrook is coming from! Is this sarcasm do you think? /pip/Forum72/HTML/002853.html#12 Tell me to mind my own business if you like! Regards Rob Subj: Re: not stirring Date: 18/10/02 To: wordgirl3nz@yahoo.co.nz In a message dated 18/10/02 11:15:14 GMT Daylight Time, wordgirl3nz@yahoo.co.nz writes: Now, the question is, what would you like to do? Nothing I am just trying to understand the guy! Which is probably impossible. I am grateful for your insight Kamla Regards Rob Subj: (no subject) Date: 19/10/02 To: not_a_poet@hotmail.com Pete Could you sort this out if Electra hasn't done so already. Profuse apologies for the mix up. I'm just trying to keep all the llama stuff in one thread. /pip/Forum28/HTML/000309.html Also, I hope you don't mind me doing this workshop type exercise in CA, let me know if you have a problem. Thanks. Regards Rob Subj: sighDate: 20/10/02 To: not_a_poet@hotmail.com, wordgirl3nz@yahoo.co.nz The man is mad I have decided. Maybe by the time you both get this he will have deleted what he wrote. He either has a massive inferiority complex or he is an inveterate misunderstander! This is the link: /pip/Forum28/HTML/000295-2.html I think it's reply 23. And here it is in full in case he deletes: "If I see that certain advice has already been given, why should I repeat? To satisfy you Rob? It certainly cannot be to help the writer since the advice has already been given--right? So sadly, for you at least, all this gratuitously- offered simple, advice has been really for naught. Why? Well, first because I am obviously not in need of it. But secondly and more importantly, because my post was simply a clarification in response to your indirect but very obvious insinuation that I am suggesting overburdening of this poet's poetry with adjectives. Since such is NOT the case I thought it wise to RESPECTFULLY clarify the issue. Yes, we do differ in our approach Rob. That is nothing exceptional. But so do most others here at PIP. I think that the reason is that we aren't clones? Anyway, I think that you should be aware that one reason why I personally do not emulate your chosen critique system, if indeed that is what it is, is because of the constant sweeping generalizations you make that I feel can very well stifle a new writer. Such all encompassing statements such as, "Never write from emotion," or "Avoid religious subjects because they are hackneyed" or 'Go away and come back in a year when you can write better." or simply expecting EVERY new poet to write like a college professor regardless of educational background or personal preferences can lead to a serious case of writer's block wherein the writer winds up giving others volumes of advice but not posting anything himself. (ring a bell?). Sort of like a self-imposed straightjacket or the proverbial centipede who thinks so much on each leg that he is rendered immobile. In short and hopefully in conclusion, feigning incomprehension and striving to prove another member to be incompetent as you are presently doing and have been doing for some time now isn't really helpful for the smooth operation of this forum. In short, it isn't very nice Rob. Better to simply listen humbly to the moderator's advice to present a united front whether we disagree or do not on major issues. This way the forum will not become one in which its contributing members have to be defending themselves against a self-appointed poet Laureate who wishes to force his chosen but exceedingly dubious literary idiosyncrasies on everyone. [This message has been edited by Radrook (10-20-2002 06:00 PM).]" _________________ To be honest I'm getting a little tired of these antics. I'm really trying hard to help Electra write a decent poem and it pisses me off (excuse expletive) that this prat is messing up the thread with his idiocy. Quite apart from the effect it has on our credibility with an interested newbie. To my certain knowledge I have been totally charming to Rad since our exchange - even having a little go at pulling together with him in Pete's thread. I'm not sure how much longer I can keep my patience though. I'm really sorry to bother you both with this again but would it be possible please just to tell the guy that I am not out to denigrate, vilify or otherwise "get at" him. I just want a nice peaceful life and a free run to try and help new people who want to learn to write to do so. Sorry if I come over as grouchy, I'm tired and that post was really annoying! Eddie is nice though Rob Subj: (no subject) Date: 20/10/02 To: crazy_edd2000@yahoo.co.uk Thanks Craig. I don't know what's up the the guy, we've had our moments, but I thought it had all been sorted and we were nearly friends (pete's thread). I should get the Dylan book tomorrow - all being well with the post. Hope all is ok with you. Thanks again. Rob Oh, and sorry i haven't got to your poem yet, i would've tonight but i've just spent the last half hour writing to pete and severn about radrook - such a waste of time. it's good though - and maybe it's a good thing for some others to have a crack at it first i any case. Sorry i'm kind of fed up, these sort of antics really annoy me especially in a thread where for the first time i seem to have a poet who is seriously interested in trying to improve and i like trying to teach - even if i am half baked at it. bfn R Subj: From Rob at CA Date: 20/10/02 To: nycelectra@yahoo.com Electra Just a note to say I'm sorry about what's going on with Radrook in "our" thread! He and I didn't see eye to eye a few weeks back on various things, but after a chat with the moderators I thought we were friends. It seems that he thinks not! I have a feeling that he is a little "unstable". Various weird replies he has made in the past make me think he goes through bad patches when he suddenly feels inferior or something and that seems to make him very sarcarstic and facetious even in his replies which can be pretty hurtful. Anyway I don't want him to spoil what we are trying to do here in your thread - I think you are doing a marvellous job and I hope I will not turn out to be too awful a teacher! I've also had several people say to me that they are following the thread and learning a lot so i think it is helping others as well. I have mailed Pete and Kamla to ask them to try and control Radrook so hopefully things will calm down. I hope it hasn't put you off continuing. Best regards Rob Subj: Radrook Date: 21/10/02 To: not_a_poet@hotmail.com, wordgirl3nz@yahoo.co.nz Severn and Pete Ok I have now had a closer look at why Radrook might have posted what he did and I think that what has happened is that he has mistaken my critiquing tips for Electra as some kind of assault on his own critiquing, or an attempt to lecture him. Unfortunately in the time between me writing this to Electra in reply #20: "PS I was dead serious about the critique thing. You are CERTAINLY ready to have a go at commenting on others poems, and the exercise can only help you. All you have to do is say whether you liked a poem or not and try and pin down what it was you liked about it. I may be able to find some further tips on that later. But seriously please have a go, you need only write a few lines. Poets are always grateful for ANYONE''S opinion it helps them decided what is working and what isn''t, and quite often the less experienced critics provide the rawest, clearest and maybe even sometimes the most honest assessments." in between writing that and posting the actual tips Radrook posted a reply, so perhaps he thought I was aiming it at him if he didn't read what I wrote to Electra. Notwithstanding that, what he wrote to me was completely out of order and I would be grateful if you would remove his reply #23 completely from the thread as soon as possible with an appropriate note to him telling him why. Furthermore this situation arose I think mainly because he keeps interleaving replies with my attempts (feeble they may be) to teach Electra something. This is exacerbated by Electra herself posting new revisions of the Edge in the same thread. While I of course have no problem with this (after all it's her thread and Edge was the original poem) it can only work if Radrook reads my posts and stops getting riled up about things that are not addressed to him!! This is likely to be a longish thread if Electra stays the course and if Radrook is going to continue in this vein then maybe it would be better to start a new thread. As I said before if this is the preferred route then I would like to see all the replies relevant to Llama moved over, they are numbers: 1,2,3,4,7,9,11,13,14,15,17,20,22. Only a moderator can do this so I guess I will leave it to you two to decide what to do. Notwithstanding that I would like Radrook's post #23 sorting out because each time I read it it annoys me, and I might just say something I'll regret soon! Why can't life be simple? Rob Subj: PETE URGENT Date: 21/10/02 To: not_a_poet@hotmail.com Pete Please read my earlier mails dating from last night and fully apprise yourself of what has gone on in this thread. There is no question of there being "two" sides to the argument in this case and I resent the post you have just made in the thread to that effect. I appreciate that you have probably made it before reading my mail and before reading the whole of the last few excahnges ie since reply number 23, but please will you remove your post or amend it so that it does not look as if i am somehow half to blame for this fracas. To answer your specific points: "Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen. You have gone over the top this time. I am closing this thread until I have time to make it acceptable to the other members of the forum. " I agree it should be closed but check your mail. "We are not discussing poetry or even criticism of it anymore. This is not only a waste of time and effort, it is extremely unfair to SimplyGold, whose only interest was improving this particular poem." I totally agree with you. "If I can make the thread acceptable, I will consider reopening it later. Now, everyone cool off a minute. Meanwhile, you might consider emailing SimplyGold to apologize for hyjacking her thread for your personal use." Read the whole thread Pete. This is SG and my attempt to do a quasi workshop and all was going well until ... As for mailing her i have been doing just that. You might note that it is I who have spent several hours trying to help her. (i am copying my mails to her to you). Please discuss with me how you intend to restructure the thread. Pete, let me make one thing plain. I have done my utmost to get on with Radrook in the last few days since you and Kamla intervened. Witness my friendliness in your own thread etc. This was an entirely unwarranted and unilateral attack on me by him - he clearly has a major personal problem .. I'm sorry, but either he gives me a unqualified apology or he goes. If he does neither I'm afraid I give up trying to help people in Passions and leave. With kind regards Rob Subj: CA Date: 21/10/02 To: not_a_poet@hotmail.com CC: wordgirl3nz@yahoo.co.nz Pete you wrote in the forum: We are not discussing poetry or even criticism of it anymore. This is not only a waste of time and effort, it is extremely unfair to SimplyGold, whose only interest was improving this particular poem." No actually Pete that is not quite right. I missed precisely what you said. The main thrust of the thread if you read it is an embarkation on writing a NEW poem - it is an experiment if you will in trying to work with SG to improve her writing by writing a new poem, about Llamas probably. She has chosen to do this willingly and we were working together amicably to achieve it. Sure she is revising "The Edge" now and then at the same time, but the thread is more about the ongoing process of the new poem. Which I might add other people are following with interest. So please sort this out as soon as ever possible. Regards Rob |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sounds pretty defensive to me, Rob. I won't even ask how you can never have written something taken out of context, because it doesn't matter who (if anyone) was right or wrong. It was defensive, as was everything you directed at Radrook. But, I have no intention of rehashing the whole thread. Since you issued a challenge, Rob, let me return the favor. Each of the posts Pete moderated was replaced with the message, "Edited by moderator. Irrelevant discussion." Show me a removed post that was even peripherally about the author's poem and we can talk about putting it back again? |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Ron You asked me if I contacted any moderators before I posted my reply that you’ve just quoted from. I not only contacted them but I asked them to do something about Radrook’s post urgently. All my e-mails are right above for you to read. You’ve picked two sections from my final reply to Radrook which followed my pleas to Pete to intervene. Also in that charming little epistle from Radrook were the sections: “or simply expecting EVERY new poet to write like a college professor regardless of educational background or personal preferences can lead to a serious case of writer's block wherein the writer winds up giving others volumes of advice but not posting anything himself. (ring a bell?)” and: “This way the forum will not become one in which its contributing members have to be defending themselves against a self-appointed poet Laureate who wishes to force his chosen but exceedingly dubious literary idiosyncrasies on everyone” and “Sort of like a self-imposed straightjacket or the proverbial centipede who thinks so much on each leg that he is rendered immobile” For heavens sake Ron by the time I made that final reply all the damage had been done I wasn’t defending my CRITIQUES I was defending MYSELF after weeks of ignoring similar personal jibes (ask Kamla, see the e-mails). I think you know full well that Radrook wasn’t attacking my critique he was attacking ME simply because he thought that my reply entitled “Critiquing - some pointers” was addressed to him. You ask me to point out deleted replies that were “on topic” - there aren’t any. I never claimed there are. My sole purpose in posting the deleted replies again was to try and get some sane person other that Craig to read the darned thread and see what really went on! Ron I’ve never asked for the deleted replies to be reinstated. I’m not interested in off-topic replies being permanently back in the forum. All I’ve ever asked for is Pete to look honestly at what he did and hopefully then admit that he was hasty in the “gentlemen, gentlemen” reply and delete it together with the “administrative edit” earlier in the thread. It would also be nice if he would now apologise and retract his accusation that I am a liar seeing as the evidence to prove him wrong is now in this thread. Rob [This message has been edited by Robtm1965 (10-27-2003 07:00 PM).] |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
~Sigh~ Ron, My originating post giving the answer to your question about writing to a moderator BEFORE I posted that reply to Radrook seems to have been deleted. You asked if I even wrote to a moderator? I wrote to TWO: Subj: sigh Date: 20/10/02 To: not_a_poet@hotmail.com, wordgirl3nz@yahoo.co.nz The man is mad I have decided. Maybe by the time you both get this he will have deleted what he wrote. He either has a massive inferiority complex or he is an inveterate misunderstander! This is the link: /pip/Forum28/HTML/000295-2.html I think it's reply 23. And here it is in full in case he deletes: "If I see that certain advice has already been given, why should I repeat? To satisfy you Rob? It certainly cannot be to help the writer since the advice has already been given--right? So sadly, for you at least, all this gratuitously- offered simple, advice has been really for naught. Why? Well, first because I am obviously not in need of it. But secondly and more importantly, because my post was simply a clarification in response to your indirect but very obvious insinuation that I am suggesting overburdening of this poet's poetry with adjectives. Since such is NOT the case I thought it wise to RESPECTFULLY clarify the issue. Yes, we do differ in our approach Rob. That is nothing exceptional. But so do most others here at PIP. I think that the reason is that we aren't clones? Anyway, I think that you should be aware that one reason why I personally do not emulate your chosen critique system, if indeed that is what it is, is because of the constant sweeping generalizations you make that I feel can very well stifle a new writer. Such all encompassing statements such as, "Never write from emotion," or "Avoid religious subjects because they are hackneyed" or 'Go away and come back in a year when you can write better." or simply expecting EVERY new poet to write like a college professor regardless of educational background or personal preferences can lead to a serious case of writer's block wherein the writer winds up giving others volumes of advice but not posting anything himself. (ring a bell?). Sort of like a self-imposed straightjacket or the proverbial centipede who thinks so much on each leg that he is rendered immobile. In short and hopefully in conclusion, feigning incomprehension and striving to prove another member to be incompetent as you are presently doing and have been doing for some time now isn't really helpful for the smooth operation of this forum. In short, it isn't very nice Rob. Better to simply listen humbly to the moderator's advice to present a united front whether we disagree or do not on major issues. This way the forum will not become one in which its contributing members have to be defending themselves against a self-appointed poet Laureate who wishes to force his chosen but exceedingly dubious literary idiosyncrasies on everyone. [This message has been edited by Radrook (10-20-2002 06:00 PM).]" _________________ To be honest I'm getting a little tired of these antics. I'm really trying hard to help Electra write a decent poem and it pisses me off (excuse expletive) that this prat is messing up the thread with his idiocy. Quite apart from the effect it has on our credibility with an interested newbie. To my certain knowledge I have been totally charming to Rad since our exchange - even having a little go at pulling together with him in Pete's thread. I'm not sure how much longer I can keep my patience though. I'm really sorry to bother you both with this again but would it be possible please just to tell the guy that I am not out to denigrate, vilify or otherwise "get at" him. I just want a nice peaceful life and a free run to try and help new people who want to learn to write to do so. Sorry if I come over as grouchy, I'm tired and that post was really annoying! Eddie is nice though |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
So, basically, Rob, you're saying it's okay to attack others as long as you feel justified in doing so? And it's okay to use words like "dialog" as long as you've sent emails, even though you know they were never received? IT DOESN'T MATTER! I'm glad you tried to pursue other options, and I'm sincerely sorry you were frustrated, first by Radrook and then by our systems. But it doesn't matter. In the end, you chose to respond to an attack with an attack. Both attacks were deleted, as was references to the attacks. Anything not relevant to the poem was removed. End of story. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Ron I responded to your mail before I saw this. “So, basically, Rob, you're saying it's okay to attack others as long as you feel justified in doing so?” Please don’t lower this to a point even sillier than it is at present Ron. Of course I don’t think that. I’ve never personally attacked anyone in this forum I don’t intend to start now. I don’t think my so called attack was an attack. An extract from my mail to you: “Radrook attacked (as he’d done on several occasions previously and was ignored) - Craig defended - Sorry, but I did NOT attack back. In my response I asked him to apologise, I pointed out why he’d misunderstood, but I didn’t launch any personal insults at all at him - in fact I don’t think under the circumstances I breached forum rules at all.” The fact is someone launched a personal attack and instead of hitting back wildly I took each of his points in turn and dealt with them, I was DEFENDING myself Ron in a robust manner. Even YOU agree with me, I quote from you above: “Sounds pretty defensive to me, Rob.” Come on Ron, please let’s stop trying to muddy the waters by broadening this into a philisophical discussion. Focus. ~~~~~~~ “And it's okay to use words like "dialog" as long as you've sent emails, even though you know they were never received? IT DOESN'T MATTER!” Yelling at me ain’t going to help Ron . Pete wrote to me and said:“I do seem to recall corresponding with you over the matter but if you sent me "many emails" then some of them did not get through for whatever reason. I believe I was using Hotmail at the time and it is known for its unreliability.” In any event I’m happy to apologise to Pete and you if my use of the word “dialogue” gave the wrong impression and I would ask you to accept this as an apology. In case it helps I’ll copy the relevant section from my e-mail to you just now: “>>> When I replied to you in the forum Pete then took it upon himself to reappear and simply say in so many words “Rob, you didn’t send me any e-mails you’re lying”. Not only was that different to what he’d said in e-mail, but also, don’t you think he might have said instead, “Rob, you may have sent me mails but as I told you in private e-mail, I didn’t receive them.”? >>> So, no Ron I don’t think it was tantamount to deception or lying not to mention that Pete had acknowledged that I might have sent him mails. I was specifically answering your question about my decision to reply to Radrook. I’m happy to apologise to Pete in the forum right now for not mentioning that - I will do so in just a minute. I said, "There was a build up over several weeks and yes I had been in dialogue with Pete about the situation in the days before." You said: “Perhaps you have a different definition of dialogue than I do. You seem to be intent on giving an impression that you now acknowledge may not be true. If that's not lying, Rob, it certainly has to qualify as deceptive. I'm going to hope it was unintentional.” >>> Maybe “dialogue” gives the wrong impression if it suggests that there was a frantic back and forth. My records show one direct e-mail from Pete and one message via Kamla. The rest is admittedly one way from me. I think my mind had more of an impression of dialogue as a result of my exchanges with Kamla. So yes it was unintentional. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that I think you personally seriously doubted that I’d made any effort to solve this via e-mail (and after all Kamla as well as Pete is a moderator), and that Pete accused me publicly of lying about sending e-mails when privately he’d already acknowledged that he might have had some.” ~~~~~~~~ “I'm glad you tried to pursue other options, and I'm sincerely sorry you were frustrated, first by Radrook and then by our systems. But it doesn't matter. In the end, you chose to respond to an attack with an attack. Both attacks were deleted, as was references to the attacks. Anything not relevant to the poem was removed.” Don’t be sorry about the failure of your Maginot Line Ron I’ve never ever expected moderators to be everywhere at once. DO however be sorry that, after the failure of that line, when a longstanding member defends himself he then gets tarred with the same brush as a known trouble maker without any subsequent willingness to retract that position. ~~~~~~~~~ “End of Story” Ron, the end of the story will only come if you either bar me from the site or Pete starts to consider the possibility of retracting his “gentlemen gentlemen gentlemen comment” together with the [administrative edit - subjective opinion] in reply #13. Plus, following the escalation by accusing me of lying, retract and apologise for that too. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
