Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:06:05 -0500 (EST)
Peter, who is keeping this up? I didn't respond this morning, so you're
needling me again, somewhat harder, tonight?
Yesterday I quoted a sentence you wrote that you knew perfectly well at
the time was untrue. It amounted to collusion with my tormenter, to your
shame. No matter how you flail at this moment, it stands on the record.
Your other innuendo at the time, also on record, I do not pursue, but it
amplified your collusion, and was equally unbecoming.
You would like to fudge facts now, with spin, accusations and a pious
lecture to me. I stand on the record -- of then and now.
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Peter Marshall wrote:
> I plead guilty of having tried to accuse you of some common sense, and to
> pour a little light (perhaps where the teapot comes in) into some of the
> darker areas of your misconceptions. I should obviously have left you -
> like tea - to stew in them. I apologised at the time for having done so!
> (:-))
I don't know what you're talking about.
>
> I can't understand why you wish to continually bring it up.
Ahem, did you happen to notice that you are bringing "it" up for the 2nd
time today when I *didn't* reply to the first?
> As for my 'old
> friend' I wrote to him immediately telling him exactly what I though of
> his comments about you; it isn't quotable here. I'm sure I told you about
> that.
No, you did not. And when I wrote you OFFLIST to protest your onlist lie,
you did not respond.
> He may be an old friend, but that certainly doesn't mean I approve
> of all he does or always stick up for him. I do however like to see fair
> play (one of our English traditions, as well as tea) and as those who were
> here at the time will know there was a fair amount of deliberate baiting
> of him involved - and later bragged about - on the list.
I was here, Peter. And I have the file. I re-read it last night. There was
no baiting, on list or off, of your friend, but a good deal of frustration
and downright rage by others, at his behavior in general and to me in
particular.
> Your comment isn't a matter of setting the record straight, but of you
> seizing an opportunity to drag up some very cold tea and to restate your
> own opinions and interpretations of events. You're utterly convinced you
> are in the right and so far as I'm concerned you were in some ways wrong
Peter, for your own reasons, possibly just in search of thin ice, you
brought up the subject of having *corrected* my errors in Post-Factory.
That stuck in the craw. Your "corrections" were not to my mind well-meant,
as noted.
> at the time - I found some of your private communications to me both
> insulting and arrogant -
Well, that's another reason I've learned NOT to write offlist to those
with their knives out for me (sorry folks!) because they use that as
pretext for all sorts of claims ..... And there have been some lulus. If a
protest of a lie was "insulting and arrogant"... and that's about all I
remember, sobeit.
> and are even more wrong in continuing to hark
> back on it; the matter is essentially trivial and not relevant to the
> business of the list.
So trivial that you write two messages in one day, when I had indeed let
it drop? Plus 3 messages in the last two days until you needled me to
reply -- with what I'd spared you at the time, and had hoped to forget?
If indeed it's "not relevant to the business of the list", why then do you
reply to the list?
> Let's drop this personality stuff and talk about alt process and putting
> pictures on the web, both in resource material and in exhibitions and
> about photography.
Peter, dear, as I said.... you began this with repeated talk of
"correcting" my mistakes. You put it on the list, and revised and reshaped
it 3 times until you got the response you were looking for....
The theme of the thread May 5 was Judy's "bad sentence" about "the list",
as claimed by your friend. That sentence didn't exist. And you knew it.
But Peter's bad sentence is in the archive, May 5, 1998. And whatever you
now declare you said to your friend about that or anything else, you aided
and abetted him in that little caper. Perhaps if you hadn't, the rest
might have gone differently. You did him -- and yourself -- no favor.
I have no more to say on the topic .... spin as you like.
Sorry folks, all good things must come to an end. Don't you just miss
Monica & Ken and Bill and all-impeachment all the time on the radio?
What a bore NPR is now, just free trade with Mexico. Well, we do have
other fun stuff to talk about: BFK, Scanners, howlers, Bill, Ed & Ansel.
And so forth,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:51