Tue 26 Aug 2008
Peter Nunns ‘08 writes:
After visiting France and the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, Walter Benjamin commented that artists found themselves in opposite positions under socialism and capitalism. In the capitalist democracies, artists had freedom but no power; in the USSR, they had power but no freedom.
He pointed out a curious truth about liberal free-market societies. In them, we have freedom to create, write, and speak freely, but our works are only socially relevant insofar as they are directly profitable. Art is no more than a private passion - much like this diary.
By contrast, art was held up as a means of social transformation in the bad old spaces of communism - but artists could only hew into reality works that had been approved by the Party. Art could be a public passion, but it could not represent its creator’s own view.
Benjamin sought, or hoped for, a world in which the artist, with his expressive individuality, could be reconciled with the interests of society. A world in which the artist would have both freedom and power. Although the latter part of Benjamin’s dilemma passed out of existence almost two decades ago, we are still pierced by the first clause.
I would venture the speculation that the marketing and advertisement industry is the largest employer of art-school graduates in the country. In today’s capitalized America, artists are only deemed useful when they can augment the bottom line. To survive - and create - they (we?) must turn their talents to works that have been approved by the upper management.
The interesting question, of course, is this: At what point does a lack of power lead directly to a lack of freedom?
When one can’t live (or pay for canvas and paint) without selling all of their creative labour to a corporation, when health care is unavailable without doing so, when rents are too high to live near other artists and gas prices are too high to commute - then we might say that artists lose the license to create freely. If us creative individuals have no power over our society, we rapidly lose our practical freedom of expression.
When television rips all the eyeballs away from paperback fictions and zines, when advertising posters cover all the walls, when public space is supplanted by skyscrapers, what does the First Amendment mean? We become vox clamantis in deserto - voices silenced by the lack of an audience in the desert of the real.
What part of the word “freedom” does Peter not understand? There are more people doing art in America today then ever before, either in raw numbers or as a percentage of the population. Capitalism, and the wealth that it generates, makes this possible. I just love the phrase “today’s capitalized America.” Does Peter think that the America of 1980 or 1880 was any less capitalized? Does he believe that the America of 100 years ago was filled with artists, unfettered by the need of approval from “upper management?”
Or perhaps this is a parody of the incoherent musings of a rich, spoiled Eph? If so, it’s brilliant!
August 26th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Like wilful children, we all want to do as we damn well please and to have someone else pay for it.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:10 am
David,
Do you realize how much of a condescending a-hole you sound like in your comment? You’re like a political attack dog, EXCEPT THIS ISN’T POLITICS. Actually, a better description: you sound like the jackass in the back of the classroom who mutters under his breath about how stupid everyone else in the class is because he is unwilling to even consider whether or not they have a point because it doesn’t fit his specific worldview. It was better when you were muttering to yourself, honestly, instead of on a blog.
this is not what an eph should sound like.
OH, and btw, Nunn’s even SAYS that Benjamin got it right in the 1920s–so of course he acknowledges that the basics of the problem haven’t changed, just that today they are in advertising as opposed to the older patronage system of art that one could argue was more vibrant and more free than today’s commercialized system of art.
of course, you were too busy muttering to realize/acknowledge that.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:20 am
It was a reading comprehension test. That’s what happens when you rush through.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Artists with power? Funny, that didn’t work out so well for the world last time. Hell hath no fury like a painter scorned.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Is this post supposed to be a parody of the paranoid rantings of David Kane?
August 26th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I hate to agree with David on anything, but I have to agree: Peter’s post is egregious nonsense.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Rory is correct that my tone could be better. Apologies all around. But, really, would anyone care to defend the central thesis of Nunn’s post: “If us creative individuals have no power over our society, we rapidly lose our practical freedom of expression.”
This strikes me as either gibberish or dangerous nonsense. If it means anything, “freedom” means my right to ignore your art. Feel free to create whatever you like, but don’t expect to have the “power” to make me (or anyone else) pay attention.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:53 am
David,
Please, please stop posting in this way.
I, and several others have raised this point over and over. It is so unfair to the original writer (in this case Peter), and it immediately sets the thread in a certain direction. The point of a discussion shouldn’t be about whether a commenter agrees or disagrees with you, unless the post is your material.
When you ‘cloak’ the post, oftentimes even inserting your opinions within it, you become the heckler in the back of an audience, or as Rory said, the grumbler in the back of the room. And IMO, you bastardize that which you profess to love; freedom of speech.
If you are going to post someone’s (oftentimes heartfelt) opinions, then at least give them the courtesy of ‘having the podium’. Let the gist of what they have to say be theirs. Let it sink in for at least a moment before you start hurling the tomatoes.
I actually have a response for Peter. And though I disagree with much of what he says, I respect his willingness to take a stance in defense of the artist. Perhaps later, when I have had some time to separate out my reaction to you, I will be able to focus on a comment to him.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:57 am
david,
thank you for the apology. and looking back, i probably went too far in attacking you on it.
while i think a lot of blog posting (as this is, let’s not forget) is overdramatic, the central thesis is an interesting philosophical question similar to the tree falling in the woods question. What is the use/value of freedom of expression if no one ever listens?
it’s not a completely terrible question. and it’s the type of questions artists struggle with constantly as they debate selling their creations for advertising money vs. staying authentic to what they want to say/write/create. The balance is not as easy to find as us non-artists may think.
would i have written it that way? no. but i’m not in the middle of figuring out my way through that artistic dilemma.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I would also like to know more about the context of Peter’s statement. Was it a response to another comment, or part of a larger discussion, or an essay presented as a topic post, or…?
The ‘blocked’ link doesn’t tell me any of this, and I think it’s important information.
A blog comment, can be ‘overdramatic’ (as Rory states), precisely because it is often a quick, emotional, unedited response. By the same token, it can also be prone to bad grammar, misspellings and ‘loosely formed’ thoughts.
This thread alone, is evidence of that. Several of us have already made second comments that are attempts to clarify, or modify, our first.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Heaven forfend -less than perfect grammar, spelling, thoughts. Not I. How about you?
August 26th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The science of context is an important area of knowledge where the belief system of a world with continuous disharmony and destruction, passes from the individual into the mass mind. People are programmed into denying the validity of their own perceptions with fear and disbelief. This suppression is found both within capitalist and socialist societal constructs.
Peter Nunn’s observations are valid which raises the question: How does one create unsuspecting exploitabiity within society? How does our population perpetuate this unsuspecting exploitability? What are the mechanism of mind programming that are used in private and state media channels, ranging from subliminals, to specific media and educational programs and even every facet of visual and oral input?
The manipulation and formation of contexts with its endless repetition generates powerful and overwhelming contexts necessary to holding your understanding in its proper relationship.
The suppression of human beings, from preventing the expansion of consciousness through the bombardment of programs, repeated patterns of fixed thinking and the formation of hidden contexts, seek alignment with controlled information. While appearing to be open minded, the programmed instruction merely programs the participant with much disparity creating the basis for unsuspecting exploitability.
With the degradation of art and music, our society is unable to advance culturally which is vital to the sanity and survival of any civilization. The subconscious effects of good music and art is essential to higher qualitative existence seeking greater unity. Quality contains unity, while quantity contains fragmentation.
Good art and good music communicates with a higher frequency, offering beneficial results within one’s consciousness. With evolution, our frequency spectrum rises, thus acknowledging an eventual scalar wave spectrum.
Educational instruction must emphasize qualitative curricula, with the mechanics of honesty, integrity, and ethics. Quality is substantial as a dimension of energy.
Generally, education only recognizes structure, that is, fixed paths of thought (programs). Consciousness has in itself un-programed, infinite flexibility and corresponds to the quantum reality of all probabilities in quantum physics. Being unbounded, this consciousness unfortunately is thoroughly formatted in the human race. We are extremely prejudiced in perception and thinking as limited by the number of finite patterns or formats or programs.
Because a person’s thinking is forced into fixed and limited modes of consciousness, our structures are generally extremely rigid and thus our unconscious is fixed with the imprint of these patterns which act as hidden contexts forcing individuals to reference these contexts in a most discouraging manner.
In other words, left brain consciousness suppresses right brain representation because groups within our society are delimited by their lower social development, where the control of populations forces thinking into linear societies reducing wholes into parts as opposed to quantum regeneration or the resonance of undivided wholeness.
It is not capitalism or communism that impedes evolutionary tendencies of human consciousness but the overemphasis on structure which is based on objective learning and the encouragement of exploring separation rather than unity and quality. With structure dependence, man succumbs to unsuspecting exploitability irrespective of governance.
August 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
A friend just sent this on to me - as usual, David Kane didn’t give me the courtesy of asking me whether or not he could quote me, or even telling me that he was going to.
Here’s the context for the post:
1. I did not study art. I don’t have any particular interest in being an artist. Aside from a vague interest in art, I have no personal stake in the “artists are free/artists are unfree” problem.
2. As a political science major, I am very concerned about the effect that high levels of inequality are having on Americans. Simply put: When the salary of a marketing executive is ten times the “starving artist” rate, potential artists tend to be pushed into the higher-paying job due to their need for goods such as housing, health care, education for their future children, whose prices are being distorted upwards by the high willingness-to-pay of the top income group. My comments above are a bit of preliminary thinking-through of the consequences of this in the cultural sphere.
Finally, I am fairly disgusted by David Kane’s behavior here. He quoted me with the goal of attacking me, without offering me a chance to respond. (Perhaps he believes that I read Ephblog. I don’t, unless someone points out something in it.) His comments did not (a) substantially engage with the points in my post or (b) relate the discussion to a Williams issue. Rather, the point seemed to be making an ad hominem attack against another Eph.
August 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Relax! Almost all frequent EphBloggers know that David is merely a petty provocateur. If one lets him get under one’s skin, then he wins,
August 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
However, I am not a frequent Ephblog poster. If this is how David Kane gets his kicks, I would prefer not to be part of it.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Well said, Peter. David’s normal rejoinder would, I’m sure, be: if you blog then whatever you say is fair game because you are writing for the public sphere. In all events, that wouldn’t undermine anything you are saying. But what you are saying is particularly compelling in light of the fact that your blog is private and by invitation only … and certainly not intended to be cut and paste, sans context, as a jumping off for one of DK’s pet rants.
David, I’m curious, how many hours per day do you spend trolling around for any random blog post or article remotely affiliated with Williams or one of its alumni, that will provide you the flimsiest shred of an excuse to launch into one of your various pet crusades?
August 26th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
This is like listening to religious people argue whether morality justifies their god or their god justifies morality. Certainly neither DK nor Peter are right, but they are, as Pauli said, “not even wrong” — discussing small and trivial aspects of a situation without producing any tangible results or testable predictions — missing the forest for the trees.
In both societies, artists — and intellectuals in general — were/are supported if they, in turn support/ed the power structure of that society. Comparing 20’s USSR to anything is crazy because the country just got out of one of the bloodiest civil wars in history (WW1 didn’t help either). By the 1970’s the Soviet artist was essentially in the same boat as the American one today: work for the propaganda machine or be ignored. Just to preemptively rebuff the inevitable “persecution argument”: note that the incarceration rate in the U.S. today is higher than the USSR’s at any point in the 1970’s.
Actually 1970’s Soviet Russia seems sadly familiar: an incompetent leader surrounded by unscrupulous imperialists, a collapsing economy, domestic manufacturing shifted to state controlled weapons and aviation industries, and a population whose belief in the bright future ahead is quickly fading.
The main, point, however, is that the intellectual elite of both societies served fundamentally the same purpose — these chicken and egg freedom arguments don’t provide any new insight.
Also: what the hell is this quantum consciousness bullshit? That couldn’t seriously be a Williams graduate writing, could it? Only David Brooks is that idiotic.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Peter,
Thanks so much for providing context. You raise some very valid points. And as I said before, I really admire your willingness to take a stance in defense of artists.
Pursuing a life in the arts is not for the faint of heart…or at least not for those anticipating a mortgage. And you are so correct in saying that there is not nearly enough encouragement, support and advantages, for those who choose this path.
It is a very risky and unpredictable career arc. One in which many artists accept early on, that they will need to work other jobs for much of the journey. And then, life happens, and bills need to be paid, and quite often, the jobs that are meant to be temporary, become permanent. So, in a sense, ‘freedom of expression’ can be squelched; dreams not realized, talents not utilized…because the right support was not provided at a particular point in time.
However, I disagree that artists involved in marketing and advertising are forced into that career. There is as wide a range of ‘creative’ jobs for creative types, as there are ‘finance’careers for financial experts; my point being that depending on what ‘floats your boat’, marketing can be a legitimate choice…one that many artists find incredibly exciting.
As well, conditions have improved in that there are now more opportunities available for the emerging ‘fine’ artist. There are grants, fellowships, artist in residencies, competitions, etc. With discipline and perseverance (qualities an aspiring artist need develop anyway) these opportunities can be had. And they not only provide some income, but are a valuable resource in other ways as well.
However, it is not enough. And the fact that a political science major is putting consideration, and expertise, towards improving the lot of the artist, is, IMO, truly admirable. Kudos to you!
August 27th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Damn commies!
August 27th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Oh and Peter- I’d appreciate your vote.
The mode of production is Williams College. It has gone beyond being part of the superstructure… not enough money in that. It now controls all the capitol in the Berkshires, as well as Amherst’s SAT scores.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Peter writes:
The way the internet works is that everyone assumes that, if you write something in public (in a blog, an op-ed, or your front door), you don’t mind if people read it and quote it. Do you think that Dan Drezner ‘90 or Derek Catsam ‘93 or any other Eph writer asks for permission before they quote someone’s blog? Of course not. This is not how the world works.
But, if you would prefer, I would be happy to delete the posts
In theory, this is a reasonable concern. But, in actual fact, less so. First, below the 98th percentile, it is not clear how much inequality has increased in America. Second, if this were a real concern, then we would expect to see fewer artists today then we have in the past. But, of course, we see the opposite. There are more artists now (both in total numbers and as a percentage of the population) than there have ever been at any other point in American history.
Well, that I can fix! Write whatever you like either here or in an e-mail to me. I will put your response in the main post (which more people read than the comments) and then bump the post to the top. This will guarantee that as many people see you response as saw my initial post.
Well, I could be fairly sure that someone who does read EphBlog would forward you the link, and they did. (This is true of most people in recent classes.)
I did try to engage in the main point of your post. See also my comments above.
Anything written by an Eph is, by definition, part of All Things Eph.
And, as noted above, I do apologize for the ad hominem nature of the last sentence. And, more importantly, those comments make no sense to someone who isn’t a regular reader of your blog, as I was. But, for anyone who is, there is a delicious contradiction inherent in readings rants against “capitalized America” from someone who is not exactly being crushed under the boot of the system . . .
(For those who do not read Peter’s blog, he has spent the summer after his Williams graduation traveling to a variety of fun destinations and considering his future plans. Not that there is anything wrong with that!
August 27th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Jeff assumes to much when he writes:
No. Peter’s blog has only recently gone private. (I don’t know when.) I originally wrote this post a few weeks ago. I would not quote from a private blog without permission, obviously.
The trolling is the easy part! Don’t you read Eph Planet? There is new material there every day.
The time consuming part is actually writing the posts: the linking, the quoting and, of course, the scintillating comments that keep our readers coming back for more. I spend about as much time blogging as similar Ephs (men my age in finance) spend golfing. Perhaps I should be hitting the links instead!
August 27th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Like the “Misreporting SAT” thread, Kane has access to the author (or expert resource), with whom he could choose to consult to clear up the HIS questions about the material.
Instead of inquiring, he draws his own conclusions and posts them.
While it can be entertaining to watch Kane tweak others and frame their work in his terms, our understanding of the issues would be better served if Kain would avail himself of the resources available; an approach that would demonstrate Kane is as interested in the subject as he is providing his own unique (and currently under informed) take on it.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:37 am
David,
as to the actual argument (more artists = we’re alright!) there’s tons of omitted variable bias in your simple argument that inequality should lead to fewer artists. cmon. It’s not extremely hard (in terms of time management) to be an artist and have a job today (I would guess). It was certainly MUCH harder to do that in 1900. unfair!
as to your comment about posting other people’s stuff, while it is true that the internet is public, it is also true that it is common courtesy to inform someone that you’re repasting AND DISAGREEING with their blog post on your blog. It’s a form of respect to let someone know you’re using their material.
To offer Peter the chance to respond only after making your attack is not fixing the problem. It’s too late. It should have been the first response to your post, if he so chose.
Actually, that’d be an interesting version of author meets critic within ephdom…if any others are willing to go under your sword. i wouldn’t be–you get too personal for me.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Rory writes:
I don’t think that this is true, but corrections are welcome. Do Dan Drezner and Derek Catsam send e-mails to people when they quote and criticize them? I doubt it. Indeed, the standard among bloggers is that one should link to the quoted material (as I try to always do). The quoted blogger will then automatically see a “trackback” — I am hazy on the technical details — and know that someone has quoted them along with a link to where.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
i doubt dan and derek are picking random ephs writing randomly on random subjects for their quoting. I doubt they are quite so condescending.
Look, the real point is simple: Peter Nunns had no idea you were attacking him until someone told him. To assume he knows and understands and has trackbacks is a bad assumption. As a courtesy to a fellow eph, it’d be nice to tone it down and let them know. it also appears that his blogspot blog might not have trackback enabled. not everyone with a blog is tech-savvy/tech-interested like that
August 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
David,
Just take a look at this thread for evidence that the discussion gets skewed by the way in which you post it.
If you were to post the material in a way that invited discussion, then I am sure that Peter, and others would welcome the feedback. Instead, you post and attack in the same breath. And then the entire thread becomes about the attack. And whomever you posted is stuck in the middle of it all, while their original thoughts get jumbled, and misrepresented, and even tossed aside.
There are some very fine minds here, that could have contributed to Peter’s ideas. Instead the entire thread becomes hurtful, rather than helpful…a colossal waste of time and energy.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
And take a look at the first few comments to see how you ’set the tone’. Such wise and helpful musings and suggestions for a fellow eph…and a student at that.
I suppose someone will come on and tell me this is ‘tough love’…the way ‘Ephs help shape other ephs’ or some such nonsense…
August 27th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Peter Nunns,
I’m sorry you (through no fault of your own other than throwing out some thoughts for consideration on your own blog and going to Williams) were put in the pit of pungi sticks of epgblog.
You have the satisfaction of knowing many hands helped pull you out, hopefully unscathed. And that the receiver of many points covered with fecal matter appears to be the poster.
I would like to, however, offer one thought on your original rumination. The rhetoric device of the ‘false choice’ is a common and many times successful tactic used by political writers of all persuasions, including Marxists.
I don’t accept the framing false premise of ‘Power v Freedom’, just as I don’t accept the false premise of ‘The Economy v The Environment’.
Again, sorry for very poor situation in which you found yourself!
Dick Swart
August 28th, 2008 at 12:04 am
[W. Kaufmann '45, dedication to Existentialism from Doestoevskii to Sartre; paraphrased]
August 28th, 2008 at 2:18 am
One small note - something that has been missed in the furore around this issue:
I never actually claim that artists in our society are “unfree” - rather, the point of the post was to ask whether such a situation could arise. I asked:
And then proceeded to make a series of “if… then…” statements around that general theme. Every sentence in the last two paragraphs was of that general form: “If artists can’t afford x without doing y, then they are not actually free to create.”
Furthermore, I didn’t claim that any of those “ifs” were necessarily true in the U.S. - to decide that, one would need more data. (I no longer have access to that sort of data, as I have been rudely graduated from my beloved academic databases.) In other words, Kane has attacked me for writing things that I never actually wrote.
The intelligent response would have been to provide information that would either uphold or disprove my “if… then…” statements.
Also, I’m not just spending a summer traveling, as Kane stated in the following passage:
Rather than spending my time in unproductive hedonism (as Kane implies), I have moved to a small Pacific island nation to find a job. I am pleased to say that I have succeeded in this endeavor.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Also: For the purposes of this discussion, I would define “power” rather modestly as the ability to earn a living doing what you choose.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Peter,
Where you are and what you are doing (job or otherwise) should have had no relevance to this thread, especially considering the context of your comment, and how it was lifted and posted here. Why it was a point of attack, still has me baffled.
And speaking of ‘power’, there was certainly an abuse of it here, and at your expense.
Possibly not your original point, but enlightening nonetheless.
Good luck in your new ‘endeavor’.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Well, I’ve been invoked so probably ought to respond. Dave asked the following: “Do Dan Drezner and Derek Catsam send e-mails to people when they quote and criticize them?”
The simple answer is: It depends. But to be fair to the spirit of Dave’s question, the answer is, generally, no. Now that comes with a caveat or two that might differentiate my situation from this one.
I pretty much always punch above my weight. If I go after someone, it is usually either in a published format (online or otherwise) and written by a professional writer, or by someone with a high profile blog. Dcat tends to be more free flowing than the FPA Africa blogs, where I really am wearing my Africanist (or, since I split time/work between US and Africa, “Halfricanist”) hat. Those blog entries tend to be more like opinion or analytical pieces, even some of the shorter ones.
At dcat if i take someone on, I may well send them a fair warning link, though of late I’ve done that less and less, simply because years of basically being ignored by an Andrew Sullivan has an effect on a man. Plus, it is amazing how many of the bigger folks out are remarkably hard to contact.
Then there is the arrogance of some of the newspaper folks who won’t even respond to basic emails. Not to critical emails, mind you, but to a whole range — inquiries about submitting op-eds, etc.
Now in this case, we have a different scenario in terms of the sort of source Dave went after and so forth. But on the whole the argument really ought to rise and fall on its merits. It is probably always best to give fair warning, but bloggers probably cannot bitch about that. If Peter is going to complain, he had better be able to say that he has also contacted every single person he has ever mentioned or criticized in his blog.
I’ll avoid the merits of the argument-qua-argument, as the discussion has fared just fine without my input.
dcat
August 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Derek,
You make a good argument for legitimacy of lifting and posting from other blogs. In particular, your rule about ‘punching above one’s weight’ applies an interesting sort of ethics to the doing of it. Unfortunately, I think it’s an unspoken rule that one either comes by naturally, or not.
I think it would be silly for any of us to expect David or anyone else to get permission every time a topic is posted. As well, to expect the poster to withhold and/or suppress all opinion in the posting, is impractical.
I guess what it comes down to, is defining the difference between a post that expresses opinion…from one that attacks. Again, like your ‘unspoken rule’, it is a civility not easily defined…a mode of behavior more innate than not.
However, beginning the discussion with insulting language like “incoherent musings”, and “rich and spoiled eph”, IMO, firmly tips the post to an attack, puts the victim in defense mode, and discourages the likelihood of fair consideration.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Soph Mom –
I’m not going to kid you. With my own writing, I’ve attacked. I’ve been brutal. But usually toward a Victor Davis Hanson or David Hajdu or someone of that ilk, someone who has achieved a level of renown for their work but who have written something that just calls for skewering. As you might guess from some of the arguments here, I’ll throw my share of haymakers. But the target does, to my mind, matter.
dcat
August 28th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
The old realpolitik principle that the ends justify the means!
August 28th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
derek,
to be clear, Peter didn’t complain. I did. I think it’s unseemly to attack an eph’s views on ephblog without that eph either being a regular commentor or a public figure or already been contacted. Seems we’re basically in agreement.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Lol. Give me a break. Dcat used to lambaste me in here all the time! I absolutely loved it. Completely fair. He was not always right of course, but clearly superior in form and ability!
That is not what the theme of this thread is about however. This is about calling someone an idiot (rather than just an obtuse freshman). An idiot and a communist! Lol.
Cheers!
August 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Rory –
Peter did write “as usual, David Kane didn’t give me the courtesy of asking me whether or not he could quote me, or even telling me that he was going to,” which was the complaint to which I was referring. Don’t get me wrong — when he found out and came over sna dweighed in I thought he acquitted himself well and he and I have no issue that I know of.
And yes, you and I are fundamentally on the same page.
PTC –
I was not always right? I, sir, am shocked and dismayed. Dismayed, I say!
dcat