In my time, even I have unsubscribed from a couple of lists.
But it was always from boredom, never offence. (Remember
what Mummy taught us? 'Sticks & stones may break my bones....')
And it was always with great reluctance. My curiosity & optimism
were such that I hated to think something of interest might,
just MIGHT, have turned up after I'd gone. I keep forgetting
there are people who value tranquility above stimulation.
Tim says he has nothing against 'a good knock-down, drag-out
argument' - it's just he'd rather it didn't take place here.
Well, what DOES he want? More instruction on how to acquire
back numbers of the New Yorker? Happy memories of 'the first
time I read the Catcher'? What a quaint old buffer JDS must be
& what CAN he have stored away in that house in the woods?
Yet another deconstruction of feet? 'How I gain popularity with
my first years by invoking the ducks in Central Park'?
The sad fact is these topics or similarly Salinger-based ones appear,
prompt (if they're lucky) a response or two - then sputter out like
candles in the rain.
The recent really lively exchanges - authorial intent, Foucault, et al -
bore only marginal relevance to Salinger but were powered by strong
personal convictions & engagement. What if voices WERE
occasionally raised? At least one opened the mailbox each morning
eager to find out what Jim or Robbie or the Johns or Daniel
(or even, at a pinch, Kim or Cec) had to say.
If this were all too much for the sensitive, there's no actual federal
statute that requires each post be read. And if the very name of
a particular poster were too upsetting, what about the filter facility
that, so far as I know, most internet programs now offer?
They're dead easy to trigger. Even my rheumy eye & bony fingers
can bring them into play. If you like, I'll offer guidance.
Scottie B.
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sun Mar 2 04:37:15 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 21:58:22 EDT