KIDYPORN "PC" FREAKOUT!

This poem has an extremely emotional, controversial and perhaps interesting history.   I read it at a pagan erotic poetry performance event.  Before I was half way through, the High Priestess jumped up and loudly interrupted me to angrily proclaim that she was OFFENDED, and we would "have to talk about this."  Others immediately started hissing, and perhaps a quarter or more in attendance had walked out by the end of the short piece.  No one applauded.  Astonishingly intense massed hatred palpably filled the room.  The next piece I read [Erography] was quickly interrupted by the Emcee, complaining that it ALSO was personally offensive to her and others, and suggesting that I should perhaps stop reading immediately.  I finished the piece, which was greeted by general but not over-enthusiastic applause from the remaining audience members.

After the show ended, a female writer approached me personally to THANK ME for the poem.  She commented that it was a "difficult subject."  That was the only positive comment I got on it that evening.  I was almost immediately set upon by the High Priestess, indignantly, aggressively and accusatorily DEMANDING to know if I really molested children, why I had deliberately ruined the entire evening, etc.  She was soon joined by the Emcee and others, hysterically and hatefully telling me how awful I was for having subjected them to such a horrifying experience, reviling me for my absymal moral character, castigating me for my obvious criminal sexual perversions, etc.. 

I was as polite as possible, answered their questions, and explained to them that I wasn't trying to get everyone uncontrolably hysterical.  They seemed calmed down, and I thought the matter had ended.

The next day I got a call from the High Priestess cancelling our prior appoint at the very last moment, telling me that I was no longer welcome to attend coven functions, and refusing to talk about her upset.   I pointed out that NOT handling it immediately was the worst possible [non-]action.   She solemly promised she would call me in seven days to handle it.    She has not spoken to me since.

Soon after, I received some absolutely astonishing email.  I reproduce it and my replies below.  Since my intention in publishing this exchange is not to embarrass generally identifiable individuals, but to show the rampant insanity, hysteria, hypocrisy, violence, hatred and massive intolerance in a community that is proudly and openly "committed" to tolerance, compassion, non-violence, understanding, diversity, nuturing, and all the other "politically correct" absurdities, [along with aggressively disciminating against men] I have replaced all real names with pseudonyms and deleted a few identifying remarks.   Other than those minor edits, our correspondence is basically unaltered.

"Gracie" is in mauve?   Mr. Poet [me] is in blue.  "Blind One" is in black.  

Date:  29 March
Subject: Walking out

Hi, Mr. Poet

I just wanted you to know that I walked out on your performance, not in
condemnation of you (I went out too early to have formed any complete judgment
about your piece), but because what you read was very disturbing to me, and I
could not handle it emotionally. I do not watch TV or many movies (and avoid
violent ones), nor do I read the paper often. I think, therefore, that I have
not been desensitized to violence or exploitation as many people have, and am
therefore rather sensitive. Also, I have two small children of my own, and I
have a very close relationship with them. To hear how they appear to a
pediphile is extremely disturbing to me. I am able to discuss child molestors
rationally and even compassionately, but I cannot but help having an intense
emotional reaction to witnessing their actual thought processes, their
illness.

I tried to reconnect with you after the show, but I was still feeling a little
fragile, and did not have the stamina to wait until High Priestess was finished talking
with you. I was with her this morning and heard what she said to you on the
phone, and I want you to know that I fully support her point of view, and her
need to take care of herself while being responsible to the community. Neither
of us wishes you to be scapegoated. I like you, and I want to handle this with
integrity and compassion.

Take care,
Gracie

MARCH 29
RE: WALKING OUT

Gracie:

Thanks for writing.

I appreciate your good faith in attempting to resolve an upset by communicating further, rather than abandoning communication.

=================
>Hi, Mr. Poet
>
>I just wanted you to know that I walked out on your performance, not in
>condemnation of you (I went out too early to have formed any complete judgment
>about your piece), but because what you read was very disturbing to me, and I
>could not handle it emotionally.

I have no disagreement with that. I didn't intend it to be an unconfrontable experience for you. Given that it obviously WAS, walking out seems eminently logical to me.

Some people were hissing. I neither expected that nor enjoyed it, but I have no philosophical problem at all with them doing that. *I* often hiss when people recite the pledge of allegiance [which they don't seem to expect or enjoy]. On the other hand, I don't think they are evil, just misguided, and I'm happy to talk with them about why I hiss. So far, I haven't found them to be interested.

I clearly totally misjudged the effect the piece would have on other people.

I see it as a piece attacking "politically correct" hypocricy.

Apparently, people saw it as endorsing child molestation.

I expected LAUGHTER, I was amazed to get massed hatred.

Clearly, it was very bad judgement on my part to be reading heavy political satire at that function.

>I do not watch TV or many movies (and avoid
>violent ones), nor do I read the paper often. I think, therefore, that I have
>not been desensitized to violence or exploitation as many people have, and am
>therefore rather sensitive. Also, I have two small children of my own, and I
>have a very close relationship with them. To hear how they appear to a
>pediphile is extremely disturbing to me. I am able to discuss child molestors
>rationally and even compassionately, but I cannot but help having an intense
>emotional reaction to witnessing their actual thought processes, their
>illness.

I really like your integrity and your sensitivity, they make you extremely charming.

My intention was to provoke THOUGHT about the hypocrisy of blaming pornography on pornographers, as if the people who buy it are "innocent victims," NOT to induce hysteria. Clearly, I under-estimated the emotional impact it would have on others. That's the first time I ever read that piece to any one else, so I had no prior reactions to guide expectations.

>I tried to reconnect with you after the show, but I was still feeling a little
>fragile, and did not have the stamina to wait until High Priestess was finished talking
>with you.

I'm sorry we didn't get to talk then. I'm happy to talk with you any time you like. I have always enjoyed your presence. You have the number.

>I was with her this morning and heard what she said to you on the
>phone, and I want you to know that I fully support her point of view, and her
>need to take care of herself while being responsible to the community. Neither
>of us wishes you to be scapegoated. I like you, and I want to handle this with
>integrity and compassion.

Thank you for communicating. Refusal to communicate is a form of psychic violence. Only more discussion will resolve the upsets and hurt feelings.

>Take care,
>Gracie

MARCH 31
From: "blind one"
Subject: Your performance & future in our community


Mr. Poet,

We attended the Erotic Poetry Night and witnessed your entire reading.
We have some concerns and questions.

Did you feel that your pieces were erotic and appropriate to the venue?

Did you believe that the pieces you chose to read that night were
entertaining to the audience?

What did you think when both High Priestess and Emcee intervened to say that the
material was upsetting to them?

Why did you continue to read when a large percentage of the audience
chose to leave the room rather than listening to the remainder of your
performance?

Was the discomfort you created enjoyable for you?

If you were playing some kind of mind game on us, your win was
temporary. If you were running something up a flagpole to see how we
would accept it - it didn't fly. If you were calling out for help,
there are members of the community with professional expertise who might
be willing to help you.

The Coven as it is today, is the result of a lot of work by
quite a few people. This was a public event to raise money, and many
members of the audience were not part of the C of C family (yet) or even
part of the local pagan community. You have not only damaged your
credibility and trust level within our group, you may have damaged the
reputation of The Coven in the larger community.

Your presence at our circles and meetings will now be a source of
extreme discomfort, not only for those who were present the other night,
but many others. Already people are saying that they do not wish to
attend events if you are there. I am not sure if or how you could redeem
yourself but I can tell you that attempting to justify in vague or
intellectual terms either as to what your intent or message was will not
cut it with these witches. Enough of them saw what they saw; you were
naked in front of us as surely as you had removed your clothes. It was
only a sense of shock and civility that protected you from physical
and/or psychic harm the other evening. Do not count on that in the
future.

Based on your performance the other evening, we want nothing more to do
with you. You took a joyous, funfilled event and sullied it, making
people who took sacred risks feel unsafe, cheapened and disempowered. If
you were somehow able to rehabilitate your standing with enough of us,
we might be able to be somewhat comfortable seeing you at public events,
providing you stay far away from any children present. Beltane will
certainly be too soon. Don't come... you won't be welcomed.

This may seem like extreme language but we assure you that you have
provoked some extreme feelings. We are sending this to you from our
"blind" account and are also forwarding this to other Pagan community
leaders. We do not owe you the knowledge of our identities - we feel our
message speaks for enough members of the community that it doesn't
matter who it is from.

APRIL 1
Re: Your performance & future in our community

Dear Blind One:

I think Jesus said something about removing the log from one's OWN eye being beneficial to eyesight. Your mileage may vary. Perhaps that doesn't apply in the loving, sophisticated, "sensitive" and "tolerant" pagan community.

>Mr. Poet,
>
>We attended the Erotic Poetry Night and witnessed your entire reading.

That's good, someone else who didn't walk out, and actually heard me out.

>We have some concerns and questions.

That's good. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. I have some also.

For starters, why do you waste a great deal of my time with this amazing bullshit?

>Did you feel that your pieces were erotic and appropriate to the venue?

One was erotic and received general applause. I judge it as clearly appropriate.

One was political/satirical on erotic topics, and [in retrospect] not appropriate for much of the audience. It was MUCH too adult for many of the elderly children in attendance.

>Did you believe that the pieces you chose to read that night were
>entertaining to the audience?

To some of the audience, YES. More than half of the audience was there at the end and applauded. A female ["designated victim"] writer thanked me personally after the performance for the poem that High Priestess disliked. Obviously, YOU disliked it intensely.

>What did you think when both High Priestess and Emcee intervened to say that the
>material was upsetting to them?

Since I was up on stage reading poetry at the time, I didn't have a lot of time or attention to think about their [actually quite rude] interruptions of my performance. However, I have now thought carefully about it:

I believe their report that the material was upsetting to them.

Apparently they have a lot of "stuff" connected with it.

I'm sorry they have so much "stuff."

I certainly didn't create their "stuff."

I didn't intend to melt them down emotionally into a puddle of victimhood.

I'm sorry I overestimated their emotional stability.

I hope their upset would provoke thought that would help them resolve their "stuff."

I am sympathetic towards them about their upsets, and discussed the situation with them after the performance. They apparently lost interest and I thought their upset was resolved.

I don't share their "politically correct" opinion that they have a "right" to pre-emptively silence anyone else who might say anything that is upsetting to them. I don't believe they have a right to live in a world in which no one ever says anything which might upset them in any way.

I am of the reactionary opinion that freedom of speech is still in effect, particularly in a situation which has been specifically defined as "adults only," and one actually has a "right" to assume the people he is speaking to are adults, who take responsibilty for their OWN "stuff."

Or is "ADULT" poetry NOW confined solely to lovey-dovey poems about Santa Claus living happily ever after with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? [Actually, now that I think of it . . . that sounds a little KINKY . . . maybe their IS a poem there! I know Santa owns a camera!]

I am QUITE SURE that SOME PEOPLE would be EXTREMELY UPSET by a graphic account of Captain Kirk deep throating Mr. Spock's stiff throbbing cock. Of course, that's just THEIR "STUFF," and the AUTHOR is NOT responsible for THEIR emotional reactions. SHE has a RIGHT to talk about THAT! SHE is an ARTISTE, and THEY are . . . BOORS!

Controversy is GOOD because it stimulates DIVERSITY and DIALOG! That's the function of ART! Maplethorpe's [or other's] depictions of [Christ getting buggered with a bullwhip, or whatever . . . you can fill in your own blanks] are GOOD because they perform the SOCIAL SERVICE of showing how UPTIGHT the sexual REACTIONARIES are! They DESERVE to be upset . . . those nastly sexless intolerant anti-love PERVERTS! The fact that the foolish Christians go BERSERK when they see it . . . just shows what warped degenerates they are.

But if a PAGAN [especially a "designated victim" FEMALE] gets upset, THEY don't have "STUFF" they need to handle. . . THEY are INNOCENT VICTIMS of MALICIOUS CULTURAL OPPRESSION!

If I don't like YOUR poetry . . . I'M INTOLERANT.

If YOU don't like MY poetry . . . I'M EVIL!

. . . THANK YOU FOR SHARING!

I appreciate your tolerance of my diversity.

Do you know what a "CLUE" is?

Did your mother ever tell you to "GROW UP!"?

>Why did you continue to read when a large percentage of the audience
>chose to leave the room rather than listening to the remainder of your
>performance?

The ones who left obviously weren't listening.
The rest of the audience stayed and appeared to be listening very intently.
Apparently, THEY wanted me to continue, so I did.

>Was the discomfort you created enjoyable for you?

No. My intention was to provoke THOUGHT, not knee-jerk hatred. Clearly, I erred for much of the audience, though I WAS successful with SOME.

>If you were playing some kind of mind game on us, your win was
>temporary. If you were running something up a flagpole to see how we
>would accept it - it didn't fly. If you were calling out for help,
>there are members of the community with professional expertise who might
>be willing to help you.

I was reading poetry.
I'm sorry you didn't like it.

>The Coven as it is today, is the result of a lot of work by
>quite a few people. This was a public event to raise money, and many
>members of the audience were not part of the C of C family (yet) or even
>part of the local pagan community. You have not only damaged your
>credibility and trust level within our group, you may have damaged the
>reputation of The Coven in the larger community.

Because you didn't like one of my poems? That is quite amazing to me. What happened to "tolerance" and "diversity?" I guess the "credibility and trust level within our group" wasn't even worth two shits, since it apparently all evaporated during one two-minute poem. It must have been just a bunch of "politically correct" SHAM and PRETENSE.

>Your presence at our circles and meetings will now be a source of
>extreme discomfort, not only for those who were present the other night,
>but many others.

Because you didn't like my poetry? I didn't like some of the poetry that night either, but I don't find myself unable to be civil to the authors or readers.

And did everyone there, PLUS many others, ALL deputize YOU to speak for them? Or have you ASSUMED this authority on your own? And were those "many others," [who weren't even there], upset by ME [who hasn't even talked to them]. . . or by YOU [who told them how evil I am]? I'm sure you wouldn't BLAME ME for an upset that YOU CREATED . . . would you? That's NOT the PAGAN WAY . . . is it?

>Already people are saying that they do not wish to
>attend events if you are there.

Don't worry, I won't read that poem again. It's definitely an "adult" poem, not for consumption by emotional children and designated victims. It seems more people disliked it than liked it.

>I am not sure if or how you could redeem
>yourself but I can tell you that attempting to justify in vague or
>intellectual terms either as to what your intent or message was will not
>cut it with these witches.

Redeem myself for attempting to get them to think? Surely you jest.

Have you thought of how you will redeem YOURSELF for this absurd, premeditated, malicious and very deliberate personal attack on me?

>Enough of them saw what they saw;

How many are "enough?"
What about all the others?
Actually, I'm sure they ALL "saw what they saw."
However, different people clearly saw different things, because they had MUCH different reactions.

>you were
>naked in front of us as surely as you had removed your clothes.

???? Do you believe that everything you hear is autobiographical ????

You must be extremely niave, as well as overly impressionable.

I hope you don't watch TV, you might wind up believing ALL SORTS of wierd stuff.

Perhaps it is YOU who are removing your psychic clothing HERE.

Some people apparently "liked me naked."

Perhaps you saw YOURSELF in my poem and responded badly?

>It was
>only a sense of shock and civility that protected you from physical
>and/or psychic harm the other evening. Do not count on that in the
>future.

You have clearly recovered from your unexpected bout of civility.

YOU THREATEN ME with "physical and/or psychic harm" . . .
because you don't like my poetry!

They have a special place for people who behave like you . . .
it's called the "PSYCH WARD!"

Actually, I think *YOU* HAVE JUST COMMITED A *CRIME* under state law.

I didn't threaten YOU in ANY way. I just read a two-minute poem.

WHO is manifesting psychotic intolerance and violence?

WHO is naked in front of who?

And you think *I'M* disturbed?

Surely, you must see the absurdity of this. I might be willing to help you, if you are seeking assistance for this problem, but you would have to start acting rationally and civily first.

>Based on your performance the other evening, we want nothing more to do
>with you.

That is certainly your privilege.

I have no idea who you are, but based on this letter, I'm not overly eager to spend time with you either. You don't strike me as very sane. In fact, you seem intolerant, hate-filled, and violent to me. That's not very appealing. I'd be afraid to have YOU around MY children. You would clearly be a BAD influence and a very POOR role-model. For all I know, you would feel compelled by your out-of-control "stuff" to commit "physical and/or psychic harm" upon them. Based on your letter, I think you are a clear and present danger to our community.

>You took a joyous, funfilled event and sullied it, making
>people who took sacred risks feel unsafe, cheapened and disempowered.

Boy, they must have a lot of *STUFF* going on to be so threatened by a two-minute poem.

I can't imagine how MY POEM made THEM feel "unsafe, cheapened and disempowered" about THEIR POETRY. This connection eludes me entirely. If my poem was BAD, that should make theirs look EVEN BETTER!

And what is WRONG with the people who DIDN'T feel "unsafe, cheapened and disempowered?" Are they "stuff-deprived"? Are you donating your "stuff" on their behalf?

I guess *I* didn't take any RISKS ridiculing "politically correct" hypocrisy . . . after all, I didn't get any HATRED or THREATS or anything like that, so I guess it must have been perfectly SAFE for ME to express MY thoughts through POETRY.

>If you were somehow able to rehabilitate your standing with enough of us,

I'm NOT trying to rehabilitate MYSELF because YOU didn't like my poetry. The idea never even occurred to me. I don't even know who you are. Clearly, your opinion about poetry is quite fallible, as not all your fellow pagans share your extremist hateful viewpoints. You flatter yourself with your imagined importance to me.

>we might be able to be somewhat comfortable seeing you at public events,
>providing you stay far away from any children present.

Are you afraid I will read my poetry to children?
I seriously doubt they would be interested.

>Beltane will certainly be too soon. Don't come... you won't be welcomed.

If everyone is as "tolerant" and "sensitive" to "diversity" as you . . . it probably wouldn't be much fun. I much prefer the company of ADULTS, who don't blame me for THEIR childish or even infantile "stuff."

>This may seem like extreme language but we assure you that you have
>provoked some extreme feelings.

It *IS* extreme language when you THREATEN people with "physical and/or psychic harm" [because you don't like their poetry!], and mail out your anonymous hate-crime threats to others, apparently soliciting co-conspirators for your threatened crimes against me. I think the legal term for that [used in criminal indictments] is "INCITING HATRED."

Apparently, you are unable to consider ideas as ideas, and can't separate them from your extremist feelings and overactive imagination. That's a shame. I don't find that I have to hate or threaten people, even if I detest their awful poetry.

Did you call the Sheriff on Woody Harrellson when you saw "Natural Born Killers?" I understand he kills LOTS of people . . . just for the thrill of it . . . all the time. He's WAY BADDER than Charlie Manson, who never even actually killed ANYBODY. Woody probably has tons of bodies buried under his house. I heard the state took his children away because he's OBVIOUSLY an unfit parent. He glorified violence! I think that's a CRIME all by itself . . . isn't it? They should lock him up and throw away the key . . . the PERVERT!

>We are sending this to you from our
>"blind" account and are also forwarding this to other Pagan community
>leaders.

OTHER LEADERS?

You consider yourselves "leaders?"

We are all in deep shit now!

Anonymous hate mail with physical threats . . . Circulated widely . . . Soliciting Co-Conspirators . . . Inciting Hatred . . . HOW CHARMING!

THAT certainly reflects well upon the pagan community! Everybody will LOVE you for that! ESPECIALLY if it gets out into the general community and becomes public! Why aren't you PROUD to put your names on it? You're not ASHAMED of being IDIOTS . . . are you?

>We do not owe you the knowledge of our identities -

A dubious sign of "good faith" . . . but a standard tactic of violent self-righteous fanatics who threaten "physical and/or psychic harm" through anonymous hate-mail. How "New Age!"

Are you afraid I'll come to your house and . . . read poetry to you? I guess you must be absolutely terrified! Maybe you need a pentagonal electric fence to keep me out, and an air-raid siren to drown out my bad poetry? OR . . . maybe a bed in the PSYCH WARD?

How about a catchy Symbolic Identity like "Masked Avengers" or something like that? Oooops, I'm sorry . . . you already have one of those . . . "Blind One." How appropriate!

> - we feel our
>message speaks for enough members of the community that it doesn't
>matter who it is from.

And does it speak for those who applauded my performance and THANKED me for the poem that "compelled" YOU to threaten me with "physical and/or psychic harm"?

What's WRONG with them, that THEY didn't also feel compelled to threaten me with "physical and/or psychic harm"? Are they in the thrall of Satan? But you broke free?

Or do they deserve no voice, because THEY TOO are EVIL? Do you also speak for them, because their opinions are BAD, and they therefore have NO RIGHT to express them?

I can't help wondering if perhaps the VIOLENCE of your emotional response reveals yourhysterical upset about your own HYPOCRISY . . . and renders YOU "naked in public."

Maybe my poem was TOO DAMN GOOD!, and cracked the mask hiding your soul . . . revealing something that you are DESPERATELY AFRAID OF, in yourself?

Are you aware that sending THREATS via Hotmail is a VIOLATION of your Terms Of Service . . . and if I complain to Hotmail, I can CERTAINLY have your account revoked?

I can probably also complain to the POLICE and have your true identity revealed. I might be able to bring CHARGES against you. Do you know what a "HATE CRIME" is? The Superior Courts have frowned very hard on WITCH HUNTS lately, or didn't you hear?

I might be able to SUE you for HARASSMENT, THREATS, DEFAMATION, VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, etc. Would you like to be a DEFENDANT? Would you like to retain a lawyer? Would you like me to conduct DISCOVERY against you? Would you like to read about your case in the papers? Would you like your EMPLOYER to read about your case in the papers? Do you want to be on TV? Do you want to be FAMOUS? Would you like to contribute to my retirement? Would you like to be homeless? Would you like a cardboard sign reading: "STUPID! PLEASE HELP!'

Did you consider these OBVIOUS possible consequences beforehysterically, maliciously, and anonymously mouthing off with hate-mail threats to your mailing list?

Fortunately, you don't have to worry about those options of mine. Those actions would be just as ridiculous as your response to my poem, and I would be acutely EMBARRASSED to act so inappropriately. [Unless, of course, you are brain-dead, hate-filled and psychotic enough to actually COMMIT *ANY FURTHER* "physical and/or psychic harm" upon me, in which case it would be not only appropriate . . . but absolutely necessary.]

But YOU must think that it is PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE to make anonymous hate-crime threats of "physical and/or psychic harm," . . . based on your personal dislike of my poetry!

Your MILITANT WHININGhysterical "PROFESSIONAL" VICTIMHOOD speaks VOLUMES about the self-proclaimed "leaders" of the pagan community, and it's "adult," "rational," "sensitive" and "tolerant" mentality. You certainly set a fine pagan example for the entire LOCAL Community. You're NOT a kook, crackpot or wierdo! You're NORMAL!

I'm sure your reactionary threats are a wonderful advertisement for pagan love, grounding, pan-sexuality, and remarkable cosmopolitan sophistication . . . to ALL citizens.   Perhaps you should write to the local papers about the extremely dangerous threat posed by . . . POETRY! . . . that YOU don't like! I can see the headlines now: "WITCH HUNT, BY WITCHES! Evil Poetry Burnt at Stake!" I'm sure High Priestess will GLOW with pride when she sees THAT from her covenettes! Maybe "60 Minutes" would like to investigate? If so, I strongly suggest that you remain anonymous! Laughter IS good for the soul, but only if it's YOURS.

By the way, what is your attitude toward the good Christians and Jews who firmly believe that Yahweh COMMANDS THEM to STONE TO DEATH ALL LESBIANS, HOMOSEXUALS AND ADULTERERS, *NOT* for a harmlesss two-minute poem, but for ACTUAL SEX ACTS that are an "ABOMINATION TO GOD"? [With violent psychotics like THAT on the loose, you might consider having ARMED GUARDS at Beltane to protect yourselves from harm?]

Do THEY have a RIGHT to make anonymous threats of "physical and/or psychic harm" towards YOU . . . based on their ABSOLUTELY REAL "extreme feelings" . . . and flood the community with anonymous threats and hate mail ABOUT YOU?

Are they justified in putting YOU on THEIR public SHOOT-TO-KILL lists . . . based on YOUR "ABOMINABLE VIOLATION" of GOD'S COMMANDMENTS?

OR, are THEY stupid, intolerant, reactionary, prejudiced, closed-minded, insensitive, childish, violent, bigots and criminals . . . PRETENDING to be wise and worldly adults?

I am VERY INTERESTED in your response to these questions.

I have replied to EVERY ONE of your questions and concerns on a LINE-BY-LINE basis.

I TRUST YOU WILL DO ME THE SAME GOOD-FAITH COURTESY.

I am also VERY INTERESTED to see if you have the INTEGRITY and COURAGE to IMMEDIATELY forward my response herein, [and LATER, your thoroughly detailed reply], to EVERYONE to whom you have sent anonymous threatening hate mail about me.

Obviously, you are upset. If I knew that you would come so TOTALLY UNGLUED, I would not have read the poem. I was expecting an ADULT audience, not a bunch of crying children. If you just want to blame me for YOUR "STUFF," there is little I can do about it. Unfortunately, as long as you blame your "stuff" on others, it will NEVER resolve, and you will get stupider and stupider. That's a simple irrevocable fact of life that I have NO control over.

If you are interested in resolving the upsets about which you have threatened me with "physical and/or psychic harm" [over poetry!] you can publicly retract your threats, apologize for making them, act in a civil and rational manner, and I would be happy to talk with you.

Under those circumstances, I'm sure we could shortly reach an amicable understanding.


Mr. Poet

APRIL 2
From: "blind one"
Subject: our first response

Mr. Poet,

Thank you for answering. We plan on responding to all of the content of
your letter in time but wanted to make a few statements to you right
away.

We did not personally threaten you. Read our letter carefully. We are
merely reporting what we heard and saw. I saw you being threatened to
your face after the performance and am amazed you didn't note it
yourself. We have heard of continued threats towards you but believe
that they are mostly just people talking through their anger. You are
safe from us. I would be very careful what I chose to read if I were
you, though, because there are people who would get (more) in your face
next time. Some other people who have read our letter have taken the
comments about "physical and/or psychic harm" to be a threat and other,
more careful readers have realized our intended meaning. Sorry it
wasn't more clear.

We were asked to write to you and confront you. It is not something we
have done via e-mail before and is not our style. We have taken a lot
of guff for doing so anonymously but we have valid reasons for
maintaining our privacy. We do not expect you to understand or approve.
We did set this up so you could respond to us; we could have just set
one up, bombed you and never looked back.

You seem to worry that this e-mail was widely distributed. Don't. We
are talking about the members of five or six households. Everyone
involved in the e-discussions has heard all of our words and will hear
all of yours. However, you should know that your performance was very
widely discussed.

As far as Beltane is concerned we were speaking for ourselves, although
there are others who may concur. Bottom line: let us know if you are
going and we will not.

There is a lot in your letter to comment upon but we just wanted you to
get the main points outlined above for now.

APRIL 4
RE: OUR FIRST REPONSE

>Mr. Poet,
>
>Thank you for answering.

You're welcome.

>We plan on responding to all of the content of
>your letter in time but wanted to make a few statements to you right
>away.

Thank you.

Enclosed is some more content for you to reply to.

>We did not personally threaten you. Read our letter carefully. We are
>merely reporting what we heard and saw.

I DID read your letter very carefully. I suggest YOU read it, VERY carefully.

It IS a definite and unmistakable threat. IF you don't make the threat on your own behalf [which I NOW see is GRAMMATICALLY SLIGHTLY ambiguous, much more on this below], you are AT LEAST concealing the identities of those who ARE threatening. THE FINE POINTS OF ARGUABLE GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS DON'T CHANGE THE CLEAR AND DEFINITE THREAT.

A simple ANONYMOUS email with just your three words "BE VERY CAREFUL" would be way beyond the threshold of a clear and unmistakable threat. Your extensive anonymous threats, intimidation, and incitement to hatred, clearly copied to unknown persons, are many orders of magnitude beyond that threshold. Your threats continue in this letter.

Very clearly, you have either made threats on your own behalf, or made them on behalf of a criminal conspiracy. In this very letter to me you yourself proclaim that "someone else" asked you to do this, and that you are circulating your hate literature to others. It is now a matter of record that you are part of a criminal conspiracy to threaten me and wreak "physical and/or psychic harm" upon me.

THAT ADMITTED CONSPIRACY IS IN ITSELF A *FELONY* UNDER FEDERAL LAW, FOR ALL ITS MEMBERS, whether any FURTHER damage to me results from it or not. Conspiracy is usally a VERY difficult crime to prove, but in this case your incredibly stupid email [because you DISDAINED to talk with me when I was totally willing to talk at great length with anyone who wanted to] has already made it an incontestable matter of record.

All you had to do was be curteous and civil, and TALK to me, and this whole thing could have gone away with nothing but a little whimper of deflated victimhood. But you weren't willing to do that. You wanted to make a BIG DEAL out of it. Contratulations, now it *IS* a BIG DEAL! Perhaps you would NOW like to reconsider just exactly how BIG you want it to be.

Please don't give me any more CRAP about not threatening me. Unequivocal RETRACTIONS and profuse APOLOGIES would be MUCH more appropriate.

>I saw you being threatened to
>your face after the performance and am amazed you didn't note it
>yourself.

I have no such recollection.

How could I be threatened to my face and not note it?

Shekhina washysterically out of control and frothing over with vicious violent vindictive victimhood. Her ATTITUDE was clearly very belligerent and threatening, but I didn't hear any specific verbal threats from her. Perhaps she made some out of my hearing.

WHO threatened me?

Have you sent THEM threatening anonymous hate mail telling them that they are no longer welcome at any community events, and they had better be "very careful" of physical and/or psychic harm? And have you copied that THREATENING LETTER to UNKNOWN OTHERS?

If not, why not? You seem VERY concerned with attacking someone who is NOT a threat, and yet you deliberately IGNORE someone who DECLARES that they ARE? That can only be duplicity, double standard, and selective attack on your part. What is your HIDDEN AGENDA? Why do you HIDE your admittedly violent co-conpirators, but attack me?

You gleefully warn other people of my NON-threat to them, and incite them to hatred of me, but you DON'T warn me of WHO ACTUALLY HAS threatened me. Your concern with "public safety" seems strangely selective. What is your HIDDEN AGENDA?

Don't you think your duty to warn me of precise actual threats is MUCH stronger than your non-duty to warn others of my non-threats? Don't you understand your ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NEGLIGENCE should any harm come to me, especially as a consequence of your stupid and irresponsible incitement-to-hatred? Don't you think your priorities are REALLY WEIRD?

Don't you think those VIOLENCE-PRONE people are the ones who should be screened out of COC events? I never threatened any one, but you seem to think I am dangerous, rather than those who DO make threats. Don't you think this shows extremely poor judgement on your part, as well as active maliciousness? What is your HIDDEN AGENDA?

>We have heard of continued threats towards you but believe
>that they are mostly just people talking through their anger.

Yet you heard NO threats from me, but are adamantly convinced that I am a danger to you . . . because you don't like my poetry! Do you operate on "Whatever they say, they don't mean it . . . but I know what they REALLY intend" . . . all the time, or just when you feel like it?

Amazingly enough, sometimes there IS fire where there is smoke. Your inflamatory letter certainly isn't calming down any violence-prone people. You seem to be operating on:
No smoke = [they obviously really mean whatever I think they mean] = FIRE for sure!
Big smoke = [they don't really mean what they say, I know better] = NO FIRE!

But you assume you are competent to judge me and send out your inflamatory hate-inciting judgement anonymously to people unknown to me! Why should I give you ANY credibility at all? Absolutely NO reason that I can see!

Don't you think ALL those violence prone people should be barred from ALL future events?
If not, WHY not? Isn't our community "committed to non-violence," like I hear everyone mouthing off about [in between threats]? Or are we really non-violent . . . except when we FEEL LIKE hurting somebody? I am getting the LOUD AND CLEAR message that poetry you don't like is UNACCEPTABLE, but violent threats are OKAY . . . especially if you are a designated VICTIM or they fit into your HIDDEN AGENDA, whatever that is.

You assert it's MY FAULT that "OTHERS" ARE THREATENING ME . . . because they don't like my poetry. Did it ever occur to you that if THEY threaten me . . . THEY are the problem?

>You are safe from us.

Your letter IS a threat and a clear incitement to violence. It admits criminal conspiracy. You could easily incite someone else's violence, even IF that is not your personal intention. That doesn't make me safe in any way. It OBVIOUSLY increases the threat to me. You ARE a danger to me. Your absurd denial of that obvious fact just make you look more stupid.

>I would be very careful what I chose to read if I were
>you, though, because there are people who would get (more) in your face
>next time.

ANOTHER *BRAND NEW* VERY CLEAR THREAT from the "non-threatener," [on behalf of his criminal co-conspirators?], who does NOT warn me WHO I am in ACTUAL danger from.

And did you warn THEM that MAKING threats is a crime, and EXECUTING them is a FELONY, and that you are NO LONGER WILLING to attend any events at which they might be? If not, why not? WHY are you DISCRIMINATING against me? Did you report THEM to the police for their threats? Are you aware that YOU are now an ACCOMPLICE to any crimes they might commit against me, in addition to being guilty of a FELONY for your participation in this charming little hate-crime conspiracy?

By the way, HOW do you "FEEL" about those absurdly violent and savage Moslems who have condemned Salman Rushdie to DEATH for HIS POETRY? They CLEARLY DO have "extreme feelings" about his Satanic Verses, you know. I guess that makes HIM a violent perverted criminal who clearly should be EXECUTED? Don't you think so? If not, why not?

Or is it more "politically correct" to say that Moslems on a witch hunt are barbaric pagans, but Witches on a Witch Hunt are NOBLE VICTIMS exercising their absolute right to "express their feelings," "get in touch" with their "inner assholes" and vent their "authentic stupidity and primitive violence" by enabling each other's criminal irresponsibility for their own psychoses?

If the Moslem Imans issue a Fatwah to "get Rushdie," does that make it OK? If the High Priestess of a Pagan Wicca Coven issues a "fatwah" to "get Mr. Poet," does that make it OK?

Enquiring Minds Want to Know!

Given the reaction I got last time, I have no current plans to read any poetry.

I don't object to people getting "in my face" if it's done with sane motives. If I do or say something that gets people upset, I want to know about it, since that is not my intention. I don't appreciate antagonism and blame, but I can deal with it. I talked with High Priestess and Emcee as long as they wanted. THEY ended the conversation in APPARENT agreement with me, and I thought their upset was resolved at that point.

I was quite willing to work with anybody who was upset to sort out the causes for it, but no one was interested. I can only conclude that they are more interested in being "empowered" by their victimhood than in handling their "stuff." Your letter is PROOF of that.

Anonymous criminal hate-threat letters sent to other people don't benefit anyone that I can see, and certainly make YOU liable for ANY stupid things they might do.

>Some other people who have read our letter have taken the
>comments about "physical and/or psychic harm" to be a threat and other,
>more careful readers have realized our intended meaning. Sorry it
>wasn't more clear.

It's really hard for me to comprehend how ANYONE, particularly YOU, could make such an INCREDIBLY STUPID AND COMPLETELY BRAIN-DEAD STATEMENT.

I went back and reread your original threats once again.

Try THIS on for size, YOU BLAZING ANONYMOUS IDIOT:
"I am not sure if or how you could redeem yourself but I can tell you that attempting to justify in vague or intellectual terms either as to what your intent or message was will not cut it with these witches. Enough of them saw what they saw; you were naked in front of us as surely as you had removed your clothes."

HOW DOES IT FEEL TO EAT YOUR OWN SHIT, YOU BRAIN-DEAD ASSHOLE?

While you are fitting yourself for a straight jacket so you'll be well dressed in the PSYCH WARD, try this on for size too:
"Some total idiots who heard my poem have taken my comments about a completely imaginary pornographer as a threat to kidnap them or their children, but other MUCH SANER people have realized my intended meaning and THANKED ME. Sorry you are so psychotic."

YOUR LETTER *IS* A CLEAR AND DEFINITE THREAT.
Would you like to have a JURY decide what you "REALLY MEANT?"

I grant you that it IS grammatically somewhat ambiguous WHO the threat is from [POSSIBLY not from you personally as the executioner, though that interpretation had not occurred to me before]. The threat itself, and its clear intention to frighten and intimidate, permeates the entire original letter and is undeniable. Your continue your threats herein.

Having read my response, [and *FINALLY* realizing what an EXTREMLY SERIOUS AND TOTALLY STUPID MISTAKE you made, and the possibly HORRIFIC legal and other consequences], you are now trying to wriggle out of your threat by assigning it to someone else through retroactive reinterpretation. "Oh Wait!" "*I* didn't really mean it!" "I'm a VICTIM of misinterpretation!" "It's really SOMEONE ELSE who is REALLY threatening you." "I'm just RELAYING their threats because THEY ASKED ME TO." Get a clue, idiot!

Actually, its WORSE for you to be making the threats on behalf of someone else, because you have the additional FELONY of CONSPIRACY, and you are just as guilty of the threat as the person who fully intends to carry it out himself. You would have been MUCH better to simply say "I'm sorry I threatened you. It was really stupid and I take it all back. I was out of my mind and I'm seeking professional help for my clueless idiocy. I'm going to classes for anger management. I'll talk to my co-conspirators and make it clear to them that THEY are the criminals in this scenario, NOT you." Denying that you threaten me just makes you look EVEN MORE STUPID for your CONTINUED AND COMPOUNDED STUPIDITY.

I refer you AGAIN to your very own words:
"I am not sure if or how you could redeem yourself but I can tell you that attempting to justify in vague or intellectual terms either as to what your intent or message was will not cut it with these witches. Enough of them saw what they saw; you were naked in front of us as surely as you had removed your clothes."

I can see you whining to the jury:
"BUT I DIDN'T MEAN IT LIKE . . . *THAT* . . . HONEST!"

YOU ARE *ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN* YOU KNOW *EXACTLY* WHAT MY THOUGHTS AND INTENTIONS ARE . . . NO MATTER WHAT I SAY ABOUT THEM . . . IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT YOUR FELLOW PAGANS DISAGREE WITH YOU . . . BUT I MISINTERPRETED *YOU* COMPLETELY . . . JUST LIKE YOUR FRIENDS DID!

TRY AGAIN, ANONYMOUS IDIOT!
YOU NEED A FUCKING CLUE . . . REALLY BAD!

I'm sure even you must recognize the SUPREME IRONY of this assertion that YOU WERE MISINTERPRETED [even by your very own unknown friends and allies, much less by the person you were anonymously threatening!] and IT'S JUST A BIG MISUNDERSTANDING.

Let's see if I understand you NOW:
"You had better BE VERY CAREFUL or 'physical and/or psychic harm' will befall you . . . BUT WAIT, NO, IT'S NOT *REALLY* A THREAT! . . . and SOMEONE ELSE really said it anyway . . . but you better BE VERY CAREFUL ANYWAY . . . and don't attend any community functions . . . and stay FAR away from any children . . . you know what I mean."

Did you notice that my poem was about HYPOCRISY?
Is THAT why you are so upset?

Do you see the INCREDIBLE ARROGANCE of your blithe expectation that I should just forget about the fact that I have been threatened by some anonymous hate-letter writer AND his fellow conspirators . . . because YOU *NOW* SAY you "REALLY" meant no harm.

ASSUMING for purposes of argument that you really never intended to threaten me [which is clearly and obviously absurd] . . . Isn't this EXACTLY what this is all about, and YOU CLEARLY AND UNDENIABLY FUCKED UP MUCH WORSE THAN I DID, even AFTER you saw how badly a misunderstanding could mess things up . . . and took upon yourself the NOBLE BURDEN of chastising me FOR THE AWFUL CRIME OF *ALLOWING* MYSELF TO BE MISINTERPRETED AND MISUNDERSTOOD by a bunch of whining "victims" who didn't like my poetry because it poked fun at hypocrites?

I find myself cast as a reprehensible criminal . . . desperately in need of "redemption" and "rehabilitation" . . . which wouldn't be enough to make me socially acceptable anyway . . . by an anonymous hate-mail threatener speaking for an unknown criminal conpiracy! . . . who wants to interrogate me about MY "bad intentions" . . . BECAUSE, during the two minutes I was reading my poem . . . while I was ALSO dealing with several very rude interruptions by neurotic "victims" acting out their passive-aggressive disorders . . . I didn't know EXACTLY what YOU were thinking . . . and INSTANTLY take whatever action you NOW think was "politically correct" [and would "of course" have pleased EVERYONE in the room].

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

If that question is too overwhelming for you, try this one:

Is there ANYTHING RIGHT about this picture?

But YOU, on the other hand, who had DAYS and DAYS to talk with your co-conspirators and calmly compose your absurd and libelous threats, must be EXCUSED for THREATENING me, because . . . you didn't really mean what you said . . . and you NOW CLAIM you were misinterpreted and misunderstood, and SOMEONE ELSE was making the threats.

GET A FUCKING CLUE, YOU ANONYMOUS ASSHOLE!

Don't you think that you should have been EXTREMELY CAREFUL not to be misinterpreted on such a sensitive issue as inflamatory anonymous hate-mail threats sent out to unknown third parties? Don't you see that this reckless action, in and of itself, PROVES you ARE a danger to the community? Don't you notice that it's not a matter of damage you MIGHT cause? YOU have ALREADY WREAKED HAVOC!

Don't worry about the crimes that YOU IMAGINE I *MIGHT* COMMIT, worry instead about the SERIOUS FELONY CRIMES THAT *YOU* HAVE *ALREADY* COMMITTED.

Don't you feel that I have a RIGHT to be EXTREMELY UPSET about your BLATANT DISREGARD for my safety and MY "PRECIOUS FEELINGS"? Don't you feel a MORAL OBLIGATION to remove yourself from the community forthwith? Don't you feel like a BLITHERING IDIOT? You SHOULD, because you ARE!

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that perhaps you misunderstood and misinterpreted me, just as you NOW claim that I [and even your friends!] misinterpreted you.

You seem to think *I* should just take your CURRENT about-face assertion of non-threat [containing new further threats] as simple fact. On the other hand, you are not at all disposed to admit your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of me, and want to continue making a BIG DEAL out of something that should have been handled with a laugh, a brief converstion, or a resounding "GROW UP!" . . . instead of this bizarre email lynching-charade.

Here is my response to your present claim that you did not [really] threaten me [while further threatening me]:
"I am not sure if or how you could redeem yourself but I can tell you that attempting to justify in vague or intellectual terms either as to what your intent or message was will not cut it with these witches. Enough of them saw what they saw; you were naked in front of us as surely as you had removed your clothes."

>We were asked to write to you and confront you. It is not something we
>have done via e-mail before and is not our style.

Then why do it? It's extraordinarily stupid and dangerous. Whoever asked you to do their sleazy dirty work has serious problems. Let them handle their problems themselves. Let them grow up and be responsible for themselves. In the meantime, YOU are committing crimes and incurring liabilities on their behalf. Why be their dupe?

Oh! I see . . . SOMEONE ELSE ASKED YOU to do something brazenly dangerous, stupid, dishonest and completely illegal . . . SO THAT MAKES IT OKAY! I should have thought of that! Did it occur to you that some OTHER idiot is going to construe your incitement-to-hatred letter as YOU ASKING THEM to commit "physical and/or psychic harm" to me?

You've already told me that they ALREADY got EXACTLY that message from you. THAT MAKES IT OKAY FOR THEM! RIGHT? You asked them to do it . . . so you can't bitch if they comply with your request. Someone asked you to threaten me, so you did! Please tell me again about how you are not a threat to me . . . I keep forgetting

>We have taken a lot of guff for doing so anonymously

I WOULD HOPE SO!
You richly deserve it, you blazing idiot.
You are undoubtedly going to get a LOT MORE.
Listen to your friends on this issue, they're not ALL wrong.
And PLEASE don't whine to me about YOUR problems.
Now you want MY SYMPATHY? You're even MORE CLUELESS than I thought!
I hope you're not trying to tell me that *I* caused your "victimhood" in this area!
I'm not very sympathetic to your self-induced crime and stupidity problems right now.

>but we have valid reasons for maintaining our privacy.

You expect me to justify myself to you [some anonymous hate-mail threatener who conceals the identity of those in his criminal conspiracy who also threaten me, but demands "redemption" and "rehabilitation" from me . . . for the awful crime of . . . POETRY you don't like] . . . but you feel NO accountability to me. What a fucking bad joke! Can we say "stupidity" "criminality" "double standard" "bad faith" and "hypocrisy" here? Do you work for the government? I thought only HUD, OSHA and DMV employees could be SO stupid!

>We do not expect you to understand or approve.

That's the most sensible thing you have said so far.
Your very realistic expectations are completely fulfilled.
I hope you don't expect anyone else to understand or approve.

>We did set this up so you could respond to us; we could have just set
>one up, bombed you and never looked back.

OH YES! YOU CERTAINLY COULD HAVE!

I DO appreciate that you ARE engaging in dialog,
[as stupid as it is!] rather than just attack and run.

I suppose I would also appreciate it if you gave me a quarter to call an ambulance . . . after you clubbed me over the head, shot my girlfriend, and stole my wallet and my car. Thanks a lot! I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN FOR MY WELFARE . . . MR. IDIOT!

YES, you very definitely COULD HAVE taken that even MORE criminal and dishonest action. BUT IF you HAD done that, YOU would have already heard from the police, and I would have posted your malicious threatening hate-letter, and my responses [including my poem and a short history of the situation with ALL the relevant names], to alt.culture.local, alt.pagan, alt.religion.wicca, ETC., as an insurance policy. It would now ALL be PUBLIC record.

What a BOON to the Pagan Community THAT would be! Wouldn't High Priestess LOVE THAT! Hey, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS "BAD" PUBLICITY! Think how much INTEREST your stupid paranoid-victim hate-fiasco would attract from the general public! High Priestess's phone would be ringing night and day. Reporters would want to talk to her. Wouldn't that be KEEN!

Of course, now that you have insanely distributed your idiotic masterpiece of delusional paranoia and criminal confession to your co-conspirator practicing professional victims . . . there's no guarantee one of them won't do the very same thing . . . because YOU ASKED THEM to give me some "physical and/or psychic harm." Congratulations, Mr. Brain-Dead! You've clearly thought this out really well! You put your foot in your mouth so far you're biting your own balls off . . . AND BLAMING IT ON ME! Good Luck, Stupid!

>You seem to worry that this e-mail was widely distributed. Don't. We
>are talking about the members of five or six households.

. . . and everyone THEY know . . . and everyone THEY know in turn . . . ad infinitum.

Once you create an incitement-to-hatred-and-violence inflamatory document and send it to even ONE person, especially whining children begging to have their victimhood empowered, you no longer have ANY control over where it goes or what effects it creates, though YOU retain ETERNAL liability. A loose copy can wind up anywhere at any time in the future. Any violence prone idiot who feels it empowers his or her victimhood is likely to do something EXTREMELY STUPID with it [without being ANY dumber than you are]. You demonstrate extraordinarily bad judgement to even create it, much less to send it out to ANYONE.

>Everyone
>involved in the e-discussions has heard all of our words and will hear
>all of yours.

And will you personally ensure and guarantee ALL my correspondence is forwarded to and IS ACTUALLY READ BY ALL those unknown people in the ad infinitum chain cited above that you have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF OR CONTROL OVER? Get a clue!

Thank you for sharing your extremely mistaken and deluded concept of the witch-hunt reality that you have recklessly and maliciously deliberately created. [At least your erroneous thought shows SOME semblance of good faith INTENTION in this Kafaesque charade, even if your actions are totally dangerous, destructive, illegal and incompetent.]

>However, you should know that your performance was very
>widely discussed.

Given the reaction I observed, that seems a given. I don't need a criminal conspiracy to write me anonymous threatening hate letters to break the news. I figured it out all by myself. Please don't pretend you are doing ME a social service.

>As far as Beltane is concerned we were speaking for ourselves, although
>there are others who may concur. Bottom line: let us know if you are
>going and we will not.

After the absurd stupid malicious criminal threats and incitement-to-hatred you have been circulating about me, I'm dumbfounded you would dare show your face. I think you're WAY OVERDUE for a LOT more "GUFF."

>There is a lot in your letter to comment upon but we just wanted you to
>get the main points outlined above for now.

Thank you for writing.

While you have backed off on thehysterical hatred and extreme threats of your first letter, this one is just as stupid, perhaps even more so. Sincere and profuse PERSONAL [non-anonymous] apologies to me for your malicious brain-dead part in this criminal conspiracy witch-hunt farce would be clearly appropriate.

Written retraction of your hate-letter and sincere separate individual PERSONAL apologies from ALL your co-conspirators for their felonious threats [in lieu of looking at their own preposterous victimhood and dealing with their own outrageous "stuff"] would START to UNDO SOME of the serious damage that you have ALREADY DONE with your self-righteous, holier-than-thou, delusional, paranoid, psychotic, hate-filled, criminal CRAP.

Have a nice day,


Mr. Poet

APRIL 5
Subject: Escalation

Dear Mr. Poet,

I have just finished catching up on my e-mail -- I got back late last night
from Spring Mysteries. All of your dialog with "Blind One" has been forwarded
by them to me and a few other people. I have to say that I am very distressed
about the level this dialog has escalated to.

"Blind One" sent me (and other close friends) their original letter to you
and received from us both negative and positive feedback. All of us who wrote
to them were concerned about the threatening paragraph and most of us about
their chosen anonymity. There is no conspiracy. High Priestess merely asked people who
had strong feelings about your performance to write or call you personally,
rather than to expect her to represent everyone. That seems fair to me -- I
myself had chosen to do just that, partly to take responsibility for
representing myself, and partly because I have my own connection and
responsibility to you. The dialog from others who have been following this
reassures me that they are being responsible (more so than I, even) and have
put quite a bit of critical thought into responding both to Blind One's
messages to you, and to your messages to them. I know it's somewhat natural
to feel paranoid when you sense all this stuff going on that you are not
privy to. But there is NO conspiracy -- just long-time friends trying to
support and challenge each other in a difficult situation.

I now want to get into how I am feeling about all of this. I left your
reading for the reasons I outlined to you earlier (I felt that I made a
responsible decision to take care of myself emotionally) and because, as a
leader, I wanted to support others who also made the choice to leave. I do
not see myself as emotionally immature or as a "designated victim", nor do I
see other people who were restimulated as being that way.

I am very dismayed that you have chosen to escalate the hostility of Blind
One's original letter, rather than to diffuse it and be open and vulnerable
about your feelings and intentions. Instead you chose to insult not only
them, but also the people who had negative reactions to the piece you read.
You continued to do this even after they admitted that they had made a
mistake in threatening you. You never asked for clarification of their intent
or actions.

Nor have you in any communication with any of us apologized for disrupting
the atmosphere of the poetry reading (which was a sharing of people's adult,
consensual fantasies in a loving, supportive environment) with a discordant
political piece about the sensitive issue of exploitation and degradation of
children, which left unclear the intent of the writer. It was precisely the
open vulnerability of the evening which made your piece seem so shocking and
unsafe to many of the people there. People wondered how you could be so
insensitive. It is similar to something a lover of mine did once: after
sharing what I thought was profound emotional and physical intimacy, he
launched into an abstract intellectual discourse on women being
interchangeable. Had he gone into it at another time, I might have found his
words merely annoying or even thought-provoking, but IN THAT CONTEXT, it was
an emotional blow that showed his lack of sensitivity to me, and his lack of
appreciation for the moment. Does this help you to understand a little more
what happened that night?

At this point, I am distressed that scathing intellectualism seems to be
ruling the day, rather than open dialog with the intent of understanding the
others' point of view. It doesn't matter who started it or what someone
"deserves". Anyone can jump off that bandwagon into productive dialog at any
time. I am not some hippy dippy PC new-ager either. I am a person who is
present to my emotions and others, and who values these as much as
intellectualism, especially when intellectualism is being used as a stick
with which to beat each other. It is SO easy to rationalize away peoples'
feelings, to stamp them as inappropriate or crazy. But I am much more alarmed
by haughty and angry words thinly disguised as cool logic and urbanity. I am
also aware, however, of the danger of letting emotions and paranoia get the
upper hand. And very few people in this entire dialog are completely "clean"
as far as that is concerned, and I am not one of them.

So, how can we share our emotions and reactions without having it escalate?
How can we state our intent without rationalizing or diminishing others'
experiences? How can we be open when we have created an unsafe dialog? How
can we act with integrity and good will?

Take care,
Gracie

P.S. I will be forwarding this e-mail to Blind One and the others who have
been following this entire dialog.

APRIL 5
RE: ESCALATION

Gracie:

Thanks for writing.

>Dear Mr. Poet,
>
>I have just finished catching up on my e-mail -- I got back late last night
>from Spring Mysteries. All of your dialog with "Blind One" has been forwarded
>by them to me and a few other people. I have to say that I am very distressed
>about the level this dialog has escalated to.

I understand that. It clearly distresses me also. Please do not think that my response to "Blind One" was projected at you.

>"Blind One" sent me (and other close friends) their original letter to you
>and received from us both negative and positive feedback. All of us who wrote
>to them were concerned about the threatening paragraph and most of us about
>their chosen anonymity.

Thank you. That shows some eminent good sense that Blind One lacks. [He might have gotten feedback from you on his letter BEFORE sending it to me, for instance.] Those communications of yours were NOT forwarded to me. [I also had some sense, perhaps incorrect, that you were letting Blind One handle this for you.] The ONLY person talking to me this week was Blind One. I replied to Blind One based ONLY on what Blind One sent me, NOT on what good and sensible thoughts you or others had which I know nothing about.

>There is no conspiracy. High Priestess merely asked people who
>had strong feelings about your performance to write or call you personally,
>rather than to expect her to represent everyone.

I have NO problem with that.
I think that's totally sane!
Why should High Priestess "represent" others to me?
Can't they talk for themselves?
I'm not hard to get hold of.
I was TOTALLY WILLING to talk to ANYBODY about it.

But NO ONE did that.

And Blind One did something TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
He "represented" everybody . . . with nonsense, threats, and bullshit.

>That seems fair to me -- I
>myself had chosen to do just that, partly to take responsibility for
>representing myself, and partly because I have my own connection and
>responsibility to you.

I appreciate that, and I don't think you got ANY hostility from me. I curteously responded to your email, and made an additional courtesy phone call several days later when I didn't hear from you. I was only sorry that you let it "sit" instead of spending a few minutes to sort it out immediately. I WAS dismayed at the apparency Blind One was representing you also.

>The dialog from others who have been following this
>reassures me that they are being responsible (more so than I, even) and have
>put quite a bit of critical thought into responding both to Blind One's
>messages to you, and to your messages to them.

But I wouldn't know ANYTHING about that, because they are NOT talking to ME. What good does it do to "respond" to my messages . . . if I never get the "responses?" Except for your thoughts here, I have seen NONE of that. ALL I have seen is Blind One's stupidity and threats, and I responded to them exactly as I thought they deserved . . . just as I respond to you exactly as I think you deserve. Based on your sane and polite communication, I have a TOTALLY different attitude towards you.

>I know it's somewhat natural
>to feel paranoid when you sense all this stuff going on that you are not
>privy to.

Like when NO ONE talks to you . . . except anonymous hate mail threatening "physical and/or psychic harm." I'd say that's VERY natural. When people TELL me they're out to get me . . . that's usually a clue about what IS going on. I have no reason to DISbelieve them.

>But there is NO conspiracy -- just long-time friends trying to
>support and challenge each other in a difficult situation.

Blind One wrote and threatened me on behalf of others.
What am I to assume . . . that he is lying?

The bad/upsetting situation that *I* created by stupidity/accident was *MADE* DIFFICULT to resolve by people refusing to do the simple and sensible things like . . . talk to ME about their upset with ME! . . . and instead doing really unnecessary, bizarre and damaging things. I didn't make those choices, they were presented to me as givens. I reacted accordingly.

>I now want to get into how I am feeling about all of this. I left your
>reading for the reasons I outlined to you earlier (I felt that I made a
>responsible decision to take care of myself emotionally) and because, as a
>leader, I wanted to support others who also made the choice to leave.

I have no problem with that whatsoever. I've walked out of plenty of things I didn't like for one reason or another. I have more respect for someone who walks out than for someone who stays in their seat to "be polite" or because they're afraid to show disagreement. Hey, I even wrote a POEM trashing hypocrisy! [Not many people noticed.]

>I do
>not see myself as emotionally immature or as a "designated victim", nor do I
>see other people who were restimulated as being that way.

I don't see you that way either . . . because you don't behave that way. Other people WERE belligerent, rude, nasty, blamed me for their "stuff," assumed all kinds of bizarre things about me, and weren't at all interested in dialog or inquiry, only in threats and accusations.

>I am very dismayed that you have chosen to escalate the hostility of Blind
>One's original letter, rather than to diffuse it and be open and vulnerable
>about your feelings and intentions.

I was totally willing to talk to anybody who was upset, and work with them to sort out their upsets. NOBODY wanted to talk to me. Instead, I got anonymous threatening hate-mail, promsing "physical and/or psychic harm," to which I responded exactly as I did then, and still do, think it deserved. I don't respond to YOUR communication in that way at all.

WHO ESCALATED a stupid misundertanding and upset about a two minute poem into MAJOR BULLSHIT? Not me! I attempted right from minute one to calm things down and sort it out. NOBODY else wanted to do that. They all wanted to make a BIG DEAL out of it. And THEY DID, not me.

>Instead you chose to insult not only
>them, but also the people who had negative reactions to the piece you read.

I insulted anonymous people who asked Blind One to threaten me anonymously. They deserve to be insulted. If that's NOT the situation . . . don't look at me, talk to Blind One who gave me that data.

>You continued to do this even after they admitted that they had made a
>mistake in threatening you.

NO. They DENIED they ever threatened me [while extending the original threat].
That's a *BIG* difference. I have a low tolerance for double-talk and hypocrisy.

>You never asked for clarification of their intent
>or actions.

I didn't? Not only did I spend MANY MANY hours answering EVERY SINGLE question they asked, but I wrote pages and pages of questions of my own for them to answer. They're very good at asking insulting and hate-filled questions, but they haven't answered ANY of mine yet. Pardon me if my annoyance at their stupidity showed. I wasn't trying to hide it.

>Nor have you in any communication with any of us apologized for disrupting
>the atmosphere of the poetry reading (which was a sharing of people's adult,
>consensual fantasies in a loving, supportive environment) with a discordant
>political piece about the sensitive issue of exploitation and degradation of
>children, which left unclear the intent of the writer.

That's not true. I talked with High Priestess and Emcee before I left, and explained that I wasn't trying to upset people they way I did. They asked if I thought it was appropriate and I said NO, it clearly was NOT, from the way it was perceived. I thought they were calmed down and we understood each other before I left. When I got your email, I responded promptly and also called you up and personally told you I didn't intend to create the emotional effect you reported in your email. I offered to talk about it right then. You declined.

My week-old email to you explains:
"I clearly totally misjudged the effect the piece would have on other people.
I see it as a piece attacking "politically correct" hypocricy.
Apparently, people saw it as endorsing child molestation.
I expected LAUGHTER, I was amazed to get massed hatred.
Clearly, it was very bad judgement on my part to be reading heavy political satire at that function."

Later in my email to you, I further explain:
"My intention was to provoke THOUGHT about the hypocrisy of blaming pornography on pornographers, as if the people who buy it are "innocent victims," NOT to induce hysteria. Clearly, I under-estimated the emotional impact it would have on others. That's the first time I ever read that piece to any one else, so I had no prior reactions to guide expectations."

I say similar things in my email to Blind One, but I wasn't making any great effort to be polite to him.

I'm VERY SORRY I read the poem. In retrospect, it was an ABYSMAL MISTAKE. I had NO CONCEPT how it would be perceived. I had NO DESIRE to cave people in. Unfortunately, I can't go back and "unread" it, so I have to deal with the upsets that I caused.

I was NOT AT ALL antagonistic to you or your upset. Everybody has "stuff." I'm sorry I stirred yours up. I appreciate your informing me that I caused an unintended unpleasant effect on you. I have repeatedly offered to talk about it with you, both by email and by fone.

It's a little different when someone accosts me with blazing hatred and rage and informs me that I'm evil and I've deliberately driven them insane and they know all about me . . . and what I "really" meant by my poem [even though they weren't really listening to it at all] . . . and I am a totally depraved criminal . . . and they don't want to hear any of my lies and justifications for why I deliberately messed them up . . . and even if I was to "redeem" and "rehabilitate" myself I still wouldn't be socially acceptable . . . and they don't want to talk to me . . . and they don't ever want to be where I am again, even in public. [Which is more or less the composite message I've gotten so far . . . except from you.]

My response to THAT MESSAGE is . . . WOW! you really have a *LOT* of MAJOR, BIG-TIME "STUFF," and I clearly did NOT cause it, although I obviously DID stir it up by stupidly reading an apparently explosively upsetting piece of poetry.

My LIFE'S WORK has been helping people LOOK AT and DISSOLVE their "stuff." I've been doing it for about 30 years, and I'm VERY good at it. Many of my clients have been OTHER HIGHLY SKILLED THERAPISTS. I have repeatedly offered at COC functions to teach people FOR FREE how to help each other look at and resolve their "stuff." I am VERY SYMPATHETIC towards anybody who wants to do something ABOUT their stuff.

However, when all they want to to is ATTACK me *WITH* their stuff, BLAME me FOR their stuff, and PROJECT their stuff ON me, I have VERY LITTLE tolerance for it. The best and most helpful thing I can do for BOTH of us in that situation is to hold up a mirror and throw ALL their stuff right back at them, with the correct indication of where it is really coming from.

THAT is the difference between how I respond to Blind One and how I respond to YOU.

>It was precisely the
>open vulnerability of the evening which made your piece seem so shocking and
>unsafe to many of the people there. People wondered how you could be so
>insensitive.

I think it's called "Bozone." I thought they would think about it for a second . . . and LAUGH OUT LOUD. The only thing I knew was how *I* react to it, and I know it thoroughly. Obviously [in retrospect] I should have tried it out on a few other people to see their reaction . . . but then . . . that's what I WAS doing . . . I just didn't get the reaction I expected. I see it as loosely related to C's Spock/Kirk piece [which I thought was VERY funny] . . . looking at familiar archetypes in new ways or situations and seeing different things about them. From MY viewpoint, I would have guessed that Kirk/Spock and my piece would be comparably upsetting [with laughter]. Obviously, I didn't have much of a clue about what OTHER people would get upset about.

>It is similar to something a lover of mine did once: after
>sharing what I thought was profound emotional and physical intimacy, he
>launched into an abstract intellectual discourse on women being
>interchangeable.

Even *I* can see that as a major big-time insult. He was probably frightened by the intimacy and trying to distance himself. He may have been remarkably successful in that endeavor!

>Had he gone into it at another time, I might have found his
>words merely annoying or even thought-provoking, but IN THAT CONTEXT, it was
>an emotional blow that showed his lack of sensitivity to me, and his lack of
>appreciation for the moment. Does this help you to understand a little more
>what happened that night?

Yes. I more or less understood what had happened right away, but it was of course too late to unreel the film.

>At this point, I am distressed that scathing intellectualism seems to be
>ruling the day, rather than open dialog with the intent of understanding the
>others' point of view.

I'm distressed about that too. That's ALL I WAS trying to do from minute one. Instead, I got Blind Ones Bullshit, to which I replied as I thought appropriate.

>It doesn't matter who started it or what someone
>"deserves". Anyone can jump off that bandwagon into productive dialog at any
>time.

I have replied to your attempts at that ONLY in the same spirit. What's wrong with Blind One that he can't talk sense like you?

>I am not some hippy dippy PC new-ager either.

I don't think so either. That's why I like you.

>I am a person who is
>present to my emotions and others, and who values these as much as
>intellectualism, especially when intellectualism is being used as a stick
>with which to beat each other.

I agree with that.
I think I was "present to my emotions" with Blind One.
Don't you agree?

>It is SO easy to rationalize away peoples'
>feelings, to stamp them as inappropriate or crazy. But I am much more alarmed
>by haughty and angry words thinly disguised as cool logic and urbanity. I am
>also aware, however, of the danger of letting emotions and paranoia get the
>upper hand. And very few people in this entire dialog are completely "clean"
>as far as that is concerned, and I am not one of them.

You are the ONLY one who has made an actual INQUIRY of me, attempting to FIND OUT and RESOLVE. I'd say that makes you extremely clean.

>So, how can we share our emotions and reactions without having it escalate?

You don't seem to have ANY problem with that.
I don't perceive any escalation problem with you.

>How can we state our intent without rationalizing or diminishing others'
>experiences? How can we be open when we have created an unsafe
>dialog? How can we act with integrity and good will?

You don't seem to have any problem with that.

>Take care,
>Gracie
>
>P.S. I will be forwarding this e-mail to Blind One and the others who have
>been following this entire dialog.

Please forward this response from me also.

best wishes,


Mr. Poet

April 6
Subject: Re: Escalation

Thank you for writing back, Mr. Poet. I have forwarded your message to
everyone. I do want to say that I did not feel on Wednesday that I had the
time or emotional energy to deal with this topic in a manner with which I
would be satisfied. As it was, it took half the day today to read through
everything, think through everything, and write what I did. We left at 6 AM
Thursday and got back late last night. I didn't check e-mail until this
morning. I wish I (or High Priestess, who went with me) had been here to help diffuse
things, but I wish even more that it had not been necessary to do so.

Take care,
Gracie

April 6
Subject: Fwd: a critique

Mr. Poet,

This was sent to me by one of the people who have been following this whole
dialog with me and Blind One. I asked permission to forward it to you:

"Now, poetry is not my first language, but I still don't see how his poem is
being critical of "politically correct hypocrisy." Some of our artists have
said that they have read poems/stories/songs written from the perspective of
fictional characters who enjoyed violence (and undoubtedly have offered
disclaimers before and/or after regarding their own perspective/intent). But
that's not his explanation. He claims that the poem offered some political
analysis/criticism, which he also claims should be obvious. He now seems to
be equating child pornography with the consensual homosexual sex in C's
piece.

"Since my recollection of the poem is that it refers to the supposed
"hypocrite" in the 2nd person (i.e., "you"), it doesn't seem that far fetched
that the some audience members might think that he was saying that this poem
is about how the audience members were/are hypcrites for saying the child
pornographer is bad. It also doesn't seem far fetched that some audience
members might think that he's saying that this poem intends to criticize
people who are "not like us" as hypocrites; but the poem still seems to
invite the reader to sympathise with the child pornographer, as if the child
pornographer were somehow better than the "hypocrite."

"Hypocricy is, I think, usually assigned to someone who criticizes behavior
in others that they condone in themselves, so it seems a reasonable
interpretation that his "satirical" political poem about PC hypocricy
suggested either that we're as bad as the child pornographer (after all, he
now seems content to compare his "satirical" piece about the child
pornographer with C's piece about consensual and loving sexual relations
between two fantasy characters) or that compared to some other (unnamed)
really bad person (i.e., the "hypocrite"), the child pornographer is not so
bad. Neither explanation is comforting or one that we would endorse. I still
don't think we've gotten a very good explanation about the meaning of the
poem (which he seems to think is so obvious that it doesn't need to be
explained) or his intent in reading it."

MORE CONTENT
APRIL 18

Dear Blind One:

It has now been several weeks since your multiple anonymous threatening hate-mails to me.

You have a hair-trigger for firing off insulting demanding libeling defaming questions and allegations, but your ability to respond to and ANSWER questions posed in return seems remarkably unassertive. What happened to all your indignant self-righteous bluster?

?? Where are all your snappy answers to the pages and page of questions I sent you ??

In the meantime, of ALL the people who are apparently SO upset with me . . . NONE of them have bothered to discuss their upset with ME. I can only conclude that people are much more interested in being VICTIMS [of poetry they don't like!] and BLAMING others . . . than in actually DOING anything constructive . . . like discussing and resolving their upsets personally. As far as I can tell, there has been a lot of talk about how awful I must be . . . because you don't like my poetry . . . but there has been ABSOLUTELY NO talk WITH me.

Gracie wrote me several emails which I promptly answered [including one which asserted several false facts]. But when I called several times, she didn't want to actually TALK to me.

Ms. Unaligned DID call me several times, and I promptly returned her calls. When we said hello for one minute, she was going out the door and said she would call me back in an hour or two. That was last week, and I haven't heard from her since.

I talked to High Priestess the day after the poetry reading (monday the 29th, the day of the full moon ceremony). She didn't want to HANDLE the upset. Apparently, she had more important things to do. However, she solemnly promised her PERSONAL COMMITMENT to me that she would call me as soon as she got back in town the next monday, April 5th. Since I haven't heard from her since, clearly her personal commitments aren't a high priority to her.

In fact, we had a self-discovery session scheduled for that very day, monday the 29th, which was clearly and obviously the easy way to fix her upset . . . by LOOKING at it in depth. However, rather than wanting to look at and handle the upset, she apparently decided that being a victim was much more important to her . . . so she cancelled our already scheduled session . . . at the last minute. . . because she was upset . . . by my poetry.

When you're too upset to handle your upset . . . you're in big trouble! Everybody has "stuff," and I'm sorry I got her's all riled up. On the other hand, at some point you just have to grow up and be bigger than your stuff, and DO something about it, or else . . . you never grow up.

Refusing to talk with someone you're upset with doesn't strike me as a very ADULT way of handling the situation . . . particularly from a professional therapist who has both generally and philosophically as well as personally and particularly commited to do the opposite.

I pointed out that NOT dealing with the situation IMMEDIATELY was the WORST possible way to [NOT!] handle it, and that as a therapist herself she should be extremely well aware of that fact, but she was totally uninterested. When she insisted on putting it off "for a week" I fully expected her to never deal with it again . . . and apparently my assessment was correct.

In the same conversation, she also told me that I was NOT welcome to come to the full moon ceremony. She made the further observation that this was a very important ceremony, as a number of NEW people had been invited, and that she had also DISinvited someone else who "may have" beaten up his wife, and therefore was unacceptable to the coven.

I find it extremely interesting that NEW people, who may or may not even be interested, are MORE important than people who are already involved in the community and participate and contribute regularly . . . and that PR APPEARANCES are much more important than what is REALLY going on . . . and that the coven's way of dealing with any kind of upset is . . . NOT dealing with it. That doesn't speak very highly of the coven's social responsibility.

Organizations that function on this policy tend to have a high rate of turnover . . . constantly seeking new politically correct membership . . . at the expense of those who who are already members and have been contributing. It also doesn't speak highly of the commitment of the coven to HELP anyone who might need assistance in dealing with their problems. Maybe that's why they are attending coven functions? Or must one be perfect FIRST to join?

In my very short conversation with High Priestess on this subject, she pointed out that her responsbility was to protect the women and children [i.e. the "designated victims," as I term them] from harm [obviously at the hands of the evil "designated oppressor" men].

When I pointed out that she was OPENLY ADVOCATING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN, she a unhesitatingly agreed, citing the "fact" that we have a "male dominated" society as the NECESSSITY for this ["politically correct"] and perfectly acceptable policy.

Of course, the FACT is that OUR SOCIETY is about three quarters women. ALL of its leaders are women. And MANY of them are DOMINATING bisexuals. So naturally, we MUST discriminate against ["designated oppressors"] MEN. After all, it's "politically correct!"

It IS politically correct to notice that, if a woman is really screwed up, SHE is a victim, and it's probably her FATHER [or other male] who screwed her up.

It is NOT politically correct to notice that, if a MAN is really screwed up, HE is a victim, and it's quite likely that his MOTHER abused him in one way or another. . . .
. . . Ooooops, me bad! . . . Let me rephrase that. . . . If a man is screwed up, HE is an OPPRESSOR, and his mother is certainly a VICTIM. . . . There, that's better, isn't it?

And I'm QUITE CERTAIN that it is politically INcorrect to point out that:
If you are a victim . . . you are a victim.
If you are screwed up . . . you are screwed up.
If you don't LIKE being a screwed up victim . . .
. . . YOU had better DO something . . .
. . . ABOUT YOURSELF!

Blaming your parents, mate, oppressors, etc. for your own screwups and victimhood has mutiple technical designations: passive-aggressive, childish, infantilism, etc.. In theory, it went out of fashion long ago. In practice, it has ZERO workability as a therapeutic modality.

The ONLY successful cure is: GROW UP and DO SOMETHING about YOURSELF!

[Showing people how to do that effectively is still my life's major focus.]

While checking for social purity before admitting people to coven functions, in addition to seeing if WE dislike their poetry [which obviously makes THEM criminal], or they are male [an equally obvious outpoint], I suggest we might also check for the following heinous crimes:

    Beating, spanking, or otherwise abusing your children.
    Intentionally provoking your husband/boyfriend to violence, so you can hold the threat of police or other action against them . . . to completely dominate them psychologically and socially [without, of course, actually LEAVING them and supporting yourself].
    Beating the shit out of your husband.
    Being sexually unfaithful in any way to your mate if not in an "open" relationship.
    Committing ritual genital mutilation on your helpless children.
    Failing to keep ALL of your personal committments to coven members.
    [Feel free to add more items to the list. Covenites MUST be PURE!]

Perhaps we should have a written form to be filled out and attested to before admittance? We CERTAINLY wouldn't want to have any unclean criminals polluting the sacred circle!

Anyway, you didn't like my last poem, so I wrote you another. I hope you like it better.


"WE BE P C"

I am a Perfect Cretin
I'm Politically Correct.
I tolerate opinions,
Dictated to my minions.
I love ALL within my ken,
[Except of course, those evil men!]

Question not my coven,
Or suffer then the oven.
We'll get your goat,
And cut his throat.
We'll cook your goose,
Then turn you loose.

I'm Proud to be a victim,
It proves I must be Pure.
Someone else was BAD to me,
To hate YOU is my cure.

For my Right,
To Whine I'll Fight.
If I feel Sad,
I know you're Bad.

It's all your fault,
My wounds I salt.
If I must cry,
I'll hang you high.

If I have the urge to hate,
That's proof that ME you violate.
I must feel good All the time,
Or else you've thought on me a crime.

My victimhood is sacred,
Look down and bow your head.
Apologize for thinking,
Or else I'll hex you dead.

My head is in the sand,
My thoughts and feelings canned.
Your questions I can't stand,
So your poetry is Banned.


Have a nice day,


Mr. Poet

April 23
Subject: A clearing meeting
CC: High Priestess

Hi Mr. Poet,

High Priestess has been trying to reach you by phone, but your phone has been busy, so
she asked me to write to you since her computer is fried. As she promised you
a couple of weeks ago, she has set up a clearing meeting to give you a chance
to speak with a few members of the community about the poetry reading and its
aftermath. She and I will both be there, and a few others as well. It is our
goal to have a reasonable discussion.

D and C have offered their home as a meeting place, this
coming Sunday, at noon, if you would care to join us. We would ask
that you bring the videotape of the Erotic Poetry Night -- many people have
inquired about it -- and the manuscripts for your poems, so that we may look
at the latter under conditions that are less charged.

Thank you,
Gracie

APRIL 23
RE: A CLEARING MEETING

Gracie:

Thanks for writing.

I work on weekends and this one is especially crammed with catch-up stuff, so sunday is not good for me. I'm usually free to go into town on tuesday through thursday evenings.

After all thehysterical hate threats about me not reading any more poetry . . . I am amazed that you want me to bring poetry . . . most especially since my poem has been the hottest page at my web site lately . . . which I can only assume is because lots of pagans who hate it are abusing themselves by reading it to prove to themselves that they really ARE victims.

I'm really not interested in discussing POETRY.
It's hardly relevant to all this NONSENSE.

If you want to copy my poetry from my web site, you are welcome to.
But please don't complain to me if you do so and don't like it.

On the other hand, IF you are interested in resolving YOUR UPSETS, I am totally willing to work with you on that.

Best wishes,


Mr. Poet

=================================

>Hi Mr. Poet,
>
>High Priestess has been trying to reach you by phone, but your phone has been busy, so
>she asked me to write to you since her computer is fried. As she promised you
>a couple of weeks ago, she has set up a clearing meeting to give you a chance
>to speak with a few members of the community about the poetry reading and its
>aftermath. She and I will both be there, and a few others as well. It is our
>goal to have a reasonable discussion.
>
>D and C have offered their home as a meeting place, this
>coming Sunday, at noon, if you would care to join us. We would ask
>that you bring the videotape of the Erotic Poetry Night -- many people have
>inquired about it -- and the manuscripts for your poems, so that we may look
>at the latter under conditions that are less charged.
>
>Thank you,
>Gracie

April 26
Subject: Re: A clearing meeting

Could you meet Tuesday evening at 5:30? It would be myself, Emcee, and High Priestess.   Please bring the videotape.

Thanks,
Gracie

APRIL 26
RE: A CLEARING MEETING

Gracie:

I'll be picking up and delivering a fridge at about that time. However, independent of scheduling difficulty, I increasingly question the sincerity of your purposes for such meeting.

I can't imagine why you are SO interested in videotape of poetry nite. It can't have anything to do with resolving any of your upsets . . . it could only serve some kind of weird political agenda . . . certainly nothing to do with "clearing". Were you planning to replay the events that so "offended" you for the general amusement of the Cafe patrons? Would that be a social service? Were you planning to discuss personal upsets, which are so serious and disturbing that they compel adult witches to act like vicious spoiled bad tempered whining children, in a public cafe? That hardly seems like a suitable context. Aren't you afraid that public patrons might become so upset that they would walk out without paying their tabs?

Your proposed meeting obviously is NOT designed to resolve any personal upsets. As I said before, I'm not interested in talking about poetry. You have made it clear YOU don't like my poetry [though other people DO]. The more foolishness, non-confront, and irrelevancy I get from self-designated victims, the less I am interested in having anything to do with them.

Since you witches appointed "Blind One" to talk for you, and wasted ENORMOUS amounts of my time responding to his incredible threatening crap, I think the political aspects of your bizarre WITCH-HUNT would best be resolved by your responding IN DEPTH to ALL of the points and questions I raise in my emails to you, just as I patiently and thoroughly responded to ALL the items you sent me. I am MOST CURIOUS about your PROMISED responses, which to date have been totally and completely lacking. COMPLETE RETRACTION of and APOLOGY for your insane threats and allegations appears to me as the ONLY appropriate resolution and "clearing" of this absurd delusional vindictive sexist political psycho-drama.

As I have said over and over, IF you are interested in resolving any personal upset you might have with me, feel free to call at any time. From your total non-response, I assume not.

Mr. Poet

=======================================

>
>Could you meet Tuesday evening at 5:30? It would be myself, Emcee, and High Priestess. Please bring the videotape.
>
>Thanks,
>Gracie

April 27
Subject: Re: A clearing meeting

Mr. Poet,

I am interested in resolving this issue as a matter of community
responsibility. Please know that both High Priestess and I have been extremely busy
these past few weeks getting ready for Beltane, and though we do wish to
resolve this with you, honestly, it has not been our greatest priority. We
did not ask Blind One to represent us, and I do not feel that they did -- I
already told you that when I did take half a day to process all the stuff
that happened while I was away at Spring Mysteries. Blind One was one voice.
Other people who were interested in dialoguing with you shied away after your
excalated response to their message. Please realize that you have not made
this at all easy for us -- you were evasive with High Priestess when she originally
spoke to you about it after the reading, and you have not shown any
compassion for the people you insist on calling "designated victims" merely
because they had a strong negative emotional response to what you read
(which, *please*, was entirely predictable). You keep writing to people in an
all caps, emotionally-laden, blaming way, instead of reaching out in a caring
way. Yes, Blind One's response was inappropriate in a few instances, but not
all they said was out of line. You've chosen to focus on one thing that they
said and make a federal case out of it, rather than choose to see that they
are people who were very scared by your reading and acted badly in the
moment. You have had absolutely no compassion for them, and have instead
focused on your *own* victimhood, with a self-righteousness that I can't
really relate to. I could understand this more if you weren't a counselor.

My request for the videotape again comes from my sense of responsibility to
the community. Several of the people who performed that night feel
uncomfortable with the fact that they are on tape with no control over that
tape. They have asked for it the tape -- I was hoping you would oblige.
Obviously we cannot demand that you give it to us, but I know that it would
make people feel more at ease if you would -- consider it a conciliatory
good-will gesture.

I am sorry that things turned out this way, sorry that Blind One was
irresponsible in their letter to you, sorry that you chose to escalate the
hostility rather than to recognize their fear and deal with it as a counselor
would. But I am thankful that you have given us plenty to think about, and
that we are now considering how we want to respond to similar situations in
the future -- hopefully we can do it with more grace.

Take care,
Gracie

APRIL 28
RE: A CLEARING MEETING

>Mr. Poet,

>I am interested in resolving this issue as a matter of community
>responsibility. Please know that both High Priestess and I have been extremely busy
>these past few weeks getting ready for Beltane, and though we do wish to
>resolve this with you, honestly, it has not been our greatest priority.

So I surmised.

>We
>did not ask Blind One to represent us, and I do not feel that they did --

Blind One says he was asked to represent others. Someone else [you? I don't remember, said High Priestess asked them to deal with me directly]. There are a lot of unknown who's who's out there for me. It's rather difficult for me to tell exactly who is representing who. Since Blind One claims to represent others, and NO ONE else at all who was upset [except you] has been dealing directly with me, the apparency is that he represents everyone else.

>I
>already told you that when I did take half a day to process all the stuff
>that happened while I was away at Spring Mysteries. Blind One was one voice.

And your point is . . . ? You didn't bother to deal with ME about it, though you alluded to being upset in email. I have spent MANY DAYS dealing with this incredible bullshit.

>Other people who were interested in dialoguing with you shied away after your
>excalated response to their message.

So was Blind One just speaking for himself, or for others?
You state both as though they are not contradictory.
You can't have it both ways.

I READ A POEM.
Other people felt compelled to throw hissy fits, because they didn't like my poem.
Other people felt compelled to threaten me with "physical and/or psychic harm," because they didn't like my poem.
But now I'm inappropriate and an "escalator" because I responded to their threats by calling idiocy idiocy, and WITHOUT even threatening "physical and/or psychic" harm in return?

I don't think you are seeing or reporting accurately.

If they were interested in dialog with me, they had plenty of opportunity. I return ALL my calls. I responded to EVERY ONE of their questions. WHY haven't they responded to mine? Clearly, they are NOT interested in dialog, or they could have it.

>Please realize that you have not made
>this at all easy for us --

Oh, . . . and you've made it SO easy for me:
Massed hatred . . .
Anonymous hate mail and threats . . .
Being told NOT to attend community functions. . .
That's SO EASY to deal with!

Much easier than hearing a poem you don't like . . .
or walking out so you don't have to hear it.

I apologize for calling idiots idiots.
I guess that upsets them.
Apparently that isn't politically correct.

>you were evasive with High Priestess when she originally
>spoke to you about it after the reading,

High Priestess was rude, insulting, accusatory, unglued, and hysterical . . . and in spite of that I answered ALL her questions directly. You weren't listening, so you don't know what was said. She can say I was "evasive" all she wants, but that doen't make it true in any way, or even faintly relevant. And what about ANONYMOUS "Blind One"s failure to answer ANY of MY many questions, after weeks and weeks. Is that not [dare I say it?] "evasive?"

>and you have not shown any
>compassion for the people you insist on calling "designated victims" merely
>because they had a strong negative emotional response to what you read

NO! You are FALSIFYING the situation.

Because they sent me anonymous hate mail threatening "physical and/or psychic harm," ETC. There is a BIG difference, which you don't seem to be able to understand. They don't deserve any compassion for that. They designated themselves as victims, and assigned themselves the right to threaten me, because they didn't like my poem. They ARE assholes!

>(which, *please*, was entirely predictable).

NO, *thank you.*

You are IGNORING the FACTS.

SOME PEOPLE LIKED my poem. Ms. Sci-Fi, a writer herself, and YOUR close buddy, THANKED ME for it. Most of the audience applauded for the last piece. Ms. Unaligned loved BOTH pieces, and told me that, IF I WAS A WOMAN, I would have gotten a standing ovation.

PLEASE deal with REALITY, not your "politically correct" OPINIONS of what SHOULD BE.

>You keep writing to people in an
>all caps, emotionally-laden, blaming way, instead of reaching out in a caring
>way.

I'm sorry for writing in caps. In addition to my other crime, [of poetry you don't like], I guess that makes me a pretty awful person. Would it be more "caring" if I anonymously threatened YOU with "physical and/or psychic harm" . . . but I did it in lower case? Your amazingly astute sense of politically correct importance completely eludes me here. Me bad!

>Yes, Blind One's response was inappropriate in a few instances, but not
>all they said was out of line.

Well, god bless them. They're not ALL stupid!

And has everything I've said been out of line since you've known me?

And has Blind One been threatened by and ostracized from the community for his CRIMES?

>You've chosen to focus on one thing that they
>said and make a federal case out of it, rather than choose to see that they
>are people who were very scared by your reading and acted badly in the
>moment.

WHO focussed on ONE thing I said, and made a "federal case" out of a POEM that they didn't like? Who had days and days to consider EXACTLY what they said before they "acted badly"? I am NOT the one who has committed premeditated FELONIES here.

I responded to EVERYTHING they said, line by line.
You are welcome to respond to my answers in turn.
I would LIKE to see what you have to say in defense of the indefensible.

But they have a RIGHT to be frightened by a POEM, while I should show "compassion" and "caring" . . . when I am deliberately and anonymously threatened with "phsysical and/or psychic harm?" Honestly, sometimes I think you ARE a hippy-dippy PC mental retard.

>You have had absolutely no compassion for them,

And WHAT, pray tell, did they do to deserve my compassion?
Threaten me anonymously with hate-mail? Please get a clue!

>and have instead
>focused on your *own* victimhood, with a self-righteousness that I can't
>really relate to.

But you CAN relate to them threatening me over a POEM?
Obviously, "relating" is extremely "relative."

>I could understand this more if you weren't a counselor.

You seem to have a major misunderstood on doing counselling. When people ask me to do counselling, I often do counselling. When people THREATEN me because they don't like my poetry, I don't consider that a plea for help, I consider it a THREAT. It IS a clear sign of mental instability, hysteria, victimhood, delusion, hallucination, criminality, and various other pathologies, but that is THEIR problem, not mine. MY problem is that they ARE threatening me. I respond accordingly. I have nothing to apologize for in this area. I do not apologize.

>My request for the videotape again comes from my sense of responsibility to
>the community.

Why doesn't your sense of responsibility to the community require you to tell them: "GROW UP!"?

>Several of the people who performed that night feel
>uncomfortable with the fact that they are on tape with no control over that
>tape.

DUH! They were PERFORMING IN PUBLIC! They were delivering THEIR MESSAGE TO THE WORLD! Anybody could have been there. What were they expecting? The camera was right in front of them! Now they are worried that someone might RECEIVE THEIR COMMUNICATION? They are PROUD to be out of the closet . . . BUT they don't want anyone to know? Maybe you should tell them to "GET A CLUE!"

>They have asked for it the tape -- I was hoping you would oblige.

NOW, for the first time, I understand that you are asking me to give you MY COPY of MY HOME MOVIE/LIFE RECORD. I had thought you were asking me for a COPY, and I couldn't understand why you were so fixated on it.

Forget about it. I was there. I participated. I recorded. Anyone else could have brought a camera too. It was OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. I am not willing to delete my record of my life to please someone whose mental stability is non-existent. Everyone was HAPPY to be on tape, until they didn't like my poem, and now they are "uncomfortable"? Didn't they know that a mass murderer might have been in the audience and seen them perform? High Priestess in fact THANKED ME publicly for my SERVICE to the community in taping the event. Only ONE person requested NOT to be taped, and I IMMEDIATELY complied with her request.

Don't worry, I can't exploit them commercially by selling the tape without their permision. I don't think there is a market for it in any case. Pamela Anderson doesn't have to worry about losing her market share to us, and few of our poets need worry about big bucks Hollywood film offers tempting them to "sell out" to satan. I think it's just another home movie of my life.

>Obviously we cannot demand that you give it to us, but I know that it would
>make people feel more at ease if you would -- consider it a conciliatory
>good-will gesture.

Let's see now, you people have shown me so much GOOD WILL! You've done EVERYTHING to make ME "feel more at ease," haven't you? I feel so OBLIGATED by your generous treatment of me! There has been SO MUCH "compassion" and "caring," I'm faint!

>I am sorry that things turned out this way,

Me too. If I had know there would be so much BS, I would have skipped the entire thing.

>sorry that Blind One was
>irresponsible in their letter to you,

Me too.

AND that NOT ONE of the "victims" bothered to show ANY RESPONSBILITY AT ALL.

>sorry that you chose to escalate the
>hostility rather than to recognize their fear

I am sorry that you have doubly misrepresented the situation here.

I DO RECOGNIZE their psychotic hallucinatory delusional fear . . . and that it makes them very dangerous. However, I didn't threaten any "physical and/or psychic" harm to them. I COULD HAVE escalated with complaints, police, lawyers, publicity, and other responses.

?? Where is your PROFOUND THANKS for MY RESTRAINT IN >NOT< ESCALATING ??

>and deal with it as a counselor
>would.

I believe that when a counselor is threatened, they typically call the police, just as a minister, a doctor or a mother would. You seem to have some other idea. I think it is a very weird one. I have, in fact, REFRAINED from doing A LOT of things which would be considered VERY appropriate by many people, because I believe that pointing out in detail EXACTLY how STUPID this whole thing has been is probably actually the BEST way to calm it down. Blind One hasn't made any more insane accusations or threats, and I haven't come to any physical harm yet, so my approach seems to be working so far, at least to a limited extent.

>But I am thankful that you have given us plenty to think about, and
>that we are now considering how we want to respond to similar situations in
>the future -- hopefully we can do it with more grace.

Thank you.

>Take care,
>Gracie

Best Wishes,


Mr. Poet

MAY 2
YOUR EMAIL THREATS

Dear Blind One:

Copied below is an article that may be of interest to you.

It recounts the case of some people who committed an email crime very similar to yours, which is the object of much notoriety, and is currently being investigated by the police.

Very curiously, the people in this other case ALSO received anonymous hate mail and were threatened with physical harm for SAYING something which others thought was socially unacceptable . . . because THEY didn't consider it "politically correct" . . . and therefore felt obliged to retaliate against those who odiously dared to speak their minds in public.

I find it very interesting that in both situations those who consider themselves politically correct liberal progressives feel perfectly free to censor the thoughts, opinions and speech of others, but that their criminal threats of physical violence are somehow perfectly justified.

Is massive stupidity and total hypocrisy universal in "politically correct" circles?

My continuing and ernest advice to you is to completely and thoroughly retract and apologize for your threats and libels against me, in writing, non-anonymously. That would at least show SOME good faith on your part, which to date has been EXTREMELY lacking.

Please be advised that your continued silence in the face of notice and demand is an implied extension of your earlier threats against me, and seriously compounds your original felony by clear and unmistakeable WILLFUL INTENT. Your criminal liability is compounding daily.

pentagrammatically yours,


Mr. Poet

=============================================

Press Release April 30

For immediate release

DUKE FRESHMEN THREATENED FOR PRAISING WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

"WE WILL BEAT YOU WITHIN ONE INCH OF YOUR LIFE!" SAY THUGS.

"IT WAS PROBABLY JUST A SCARY WAY OF BLOWING OFF STEAM," DUKE PRESIDENT NAN KEOHANE SAYS.

CRIMINAL PROBE UNDERWAY

"WE PLAN TO PROSECUTE," SAY THE TWO VICTIMS.

_______________


DURHAM, NC---A series of letters to the editor at Duke University's student newspaper has ignited a controversy resulting in hate mail, physical confrontations, and death threats directed at two students.

Their crime?

Freshmen Berin Szoka and Jay Strader expressed a preference for Western Civilization over Indian Civilization in an argument over whether Duke should institute a major in the study of the Hindi language.

Responses to Szoka and Strader ranged from the obscene to the insulting to threats of physical violence. Duke University Police are now involved, because the threats have gotten so out of hand.

"If we ever see you out of your room around East [Campus], WE WILL BEAT YOU WITHIN ONE INCH OF YOUR LIFE and step on you like the little s--- that you are," said one anonymous e-mail threat. "Don't be surprised if between now and the end of the year, bad things start happening to you and your room...we will find you, and when we do, you could only wish that you had never learned to write you little p----."

Szoka contacted the Duke University Police Department, and Detective Thessie Mitchell has been assigned to the case. An investigation is underway.

The controversy began April 15, when Strader wrote a letter to the Chronicle, Duke's student-run daily paper, in response to an article a few days earlier calling for the creation of a Hindi major. Strader observed that there is little actual demand for Hindi classes, as evidenced by the low enrollment in the few classes already offered (17 out of 60 class seats). Strader immediately began receiving hate mail via the Internet accusing him of racism and "ethnocentrism."

Early that afternoon while he was in class, vandals broke into his room and left the message, "We're going to kick your ass&mdash;Mother India," on his computer screen. That evening, Diya, Duke's Southeast-Asian student group, convened an emergency meeting to plot a response to the "crisis." The group organized a letter-writing campaign to the Chronicle and posted a message on four Internet newsgroups asking readers to deluge Strader with hate mail.

On April 23, Berin Szoka's letter appeared in the Chronicle in Strader's defense. Szoka echoed Strader's point that there was insufficient demand for a Hindi major. He also addressed the question of whether cultures embody specific values and whether those values can be judged. Szoka declared the values of Western civilization-- "the power of reason, the sanctity of individual rights and the unfettered pursuit of happiness"--to be morally superior to values of Indian culture.

That started a barrage of hate mail. That evening, three Indian students confronted Szoka in his room, called him a "racist," threatened him with violence and refused to leave until Szoka threatened to call the police. On April 25, Szoka received an anonymous death threat.

The Chronicle was ambivalent when asked to print a follow-up letter or story on the subject.

"We don't print that kind of thing," said University Life Assistant Editor Jaime Levy. "Your letter wasn&rsquo;t exactly mainstream. What sort of response did you expect when you wrote that kind of letter?"

When asked by Strader how she would respond to a death threat like those received by Szoka, University President Nan Keohane replied, "My hunch is, it was just a scary way of blowing off steam."

Szoka is steadfast about the issue and somewhat puzzled at the strident response.

"I would have enjoyed having a rational discussion about the issue and merits of cultural relativism with my critics," Szoka said. "Instead, I've been subjected to the type of threats one might find in an uncivilized, Third World backwater. I understand their anger-- they've lost the argument, so they lash out. My critics, in fact, are proving my point about the superiority of Western Civilization and its tradition of rational discourse. What disturbs me most about this is that, in the same week as a tragedy like the massacre of 15 students in Littleton, Colorado, anyone could actually claim that a death threat is just an upset student&rsquo;s way of &lsquo;blowing off steam&rsquo;."

Strader and Szoka both lamented what they called the "sorry state" of the intellectual environment at Duke, whose mission is "To promote a sincere spirit of tolerance&hellip; and a commitment to learning, freedom and truth."

"This irrational and strident response promotes an environment of hostility and hate," Szoka said. "This is unacceptable, and we plan to prosecute these thugs to the fullest extent of the law."

Szoka and Strader said that no lawsuit has yet been filed.

[PARTS OF QUOTED ARTICLE DELETED]