My apologies to Indy for inadvertently deleting the post that followed mine directly above. My intention was to stop the conversation from there

So indy, if you recall what you said, please post it.

Christopher, you began your post that followed saying something about it taking a while for people, including me, to catch on. Wrong. I have been on this each day.

This hijacking is stopping here. There is no need to prolong it any further, to make any more examples of how-to. We all know now that it is possible for anyone who feels there is nothing better to do, to argue each minuscule point ad infinitum, resulting in a boring hijacking.

It’s over now. We can all breathe easier.
Comment by Clattery MacHinery — September 20, 2009 @ 12:03 pm


Reply [This post, a reply, in fact, was “discarded” immediately. That was the first indication I had that I had been banned. C.W.]

That’s good of you to apologize to Indy, Clattery, but why don’t you also apologize to Terreson, Thomas Brady, and myself? You deleted a dozen comments all at once, but only one poster gets an apology.

Why is that?

And why did Indy send you the next post, #1439, by e-mail anyway? That’s peculiar. I mean, as Terreson pointed out (in another deleted post), Indy has been a faithful Clattery regular right from the start. So why would Indy suddenly start posting by e-mail?

Sounds more like you want an excuse not to restore the others. Sounds more like stone-walling.

Sounds like Nixon.


Comment by Christopher Woodman — September 21, 2009


I found indy’s comment in my e-mail. Here it is:

It wasn’t the content of his comment that made Joe Wilson a
heckler; it was where and when he chose to make the remark. Wilson
was free to take to the floor of Congress and say Obama was lying
about this or that; he just wasn’t free to do it while the
President was addressing a joint session of Congress. If Wilson made
his comment during a regular session, other members would then be
free to refute his statement and correct the record.

“Indy, without charm, or wit, or example, insulted me”

I thought there were one or two moments of wit in my posts, and they
were brief, but perhaps wit, like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. I did give you an example though: “here, now.”

“the motive was solely ‘get Thomas Brady,’ and ‘make Thomas
Brady look bad’ and again”

My motive wasn’t to make you look bad but to point out to you why,
IMO, you do look bad and how you, perhaps unwittingly, do a
disservice to the ideas you are promoting and the causes you are

“I was discussing with Woodman and Swords privately that there are
any number of psychological and prideful reasons why Tere/Clattery
might resent the gang”

My comments had nothing to do with foetry. I know very little about foetry.

“it perfectly exemplifies the sort of shallow, status quo spirit
which finds Thomas Brady and Christopher Woodman dangerous, the
jealousy of the pragmatic and bland towards the truthful and

I don’t find either one of you dangerous. Nope, not jealous.

Whether you see my comments as feedback or insults depends in large
part on what you do with them. If you continue to chalk them up to
jealousy, fear and animosity, you will mostly likely repeat the
pattern you have experienced at Poets & Writers,,
Harriet’s blog, and now here, elsewhere. “Wherever you go, there
you are.”

Comment by Clattery MacHinery — September 20, 2009 @ 12:10 pm


harriet: still dead.

They can cut and paste; they can link.

They seem unable to have conversations.

Now Terreson of ‘pee in the pool’ fame, (’pee’ a kind of lite–very, very lite) is single-handedly attempting to breathe life into the poetry foundation blog, but unsuccessfully, alas.

Someone named Tonya has given us one of these typical ’stream-of-consciousness-quote this-quote that-what-does-it-all-mean?’ pieces of gibberish which has made Terreson all excited: ‘This is great! I want to see more…gibberish.’

A poster named Wendy aptly ends the comments (a total of 4) with “Does meaning have to make ’sense?’” This harriet comment stream is bound to take off in the days to come. uh…not.

The ‘Keats movie’ post on Harriet, now in its third day, has one post.

The single post–by Terreson–asks, ‘if anybody from filmdom is here…’ and suggests other stories for films, that he, Terreson, is certain would make great films. Uh…Terreson, old bean, no one from filmdom is on Harriet…NO ONE is on Harriet.

harriet has nothing to say about Keats (who is keats?) or the film, which has been getting good reviews…
but if you’re looking for film ideas…

Terreson… on Harriet… is your man.

Good thing Travis Nichols is at the controls on Harriet, though.

Travis, the Harriet chief, will keep the Keats thread (with its single comment) safe, and free from pee.
Mr. Nichols is there to make sure no one “hijacks” the Keats thread.

Thank goodness!
Comment by earl of essex — September 20, 2009 @ 3:23 pm


My apologies, Clattery, for losing my temper. Chalk it up to the cumulative effect, which is still no excuse. I should heed my own advise and simply ignore these gentlemen.

Comment by Terreson — September 20, 2009 @ 5:44 pm


Where is that thread in which you really lost your temper, Tere? You know, the one in which you said “Indy is good people” and you wouldn’t lie back and let us flame someone as  “good” as that? That you’d take us on all by yourself alone?

That was the angry one.

Maybe that’s why all the others got deleted, to prevent anyone from seeing it!

So what about it? Maybe Clattery could restore the one in which you expressed what you really, truly meant? He restored Indy’s ad hominem against me, so why not restore your true anger? Then we’d have a complete view of the Clattery management, not just the numbers.


It’s called cutting off your nose inspite of your face.

Comment by Christopher Woodman — September 21, 2009 @ 2:11 am


lattery, this is for the record. Higher math escapes me but I remember how to count.

The text of my post says:

‘Between 1 Sep and today, 20 Sep, 229 posts were made on the blog, Clattery MaChinery’s ‘Pee in the Pool.’ Brady, using various names, posted 60 times. Woodman (aka Henriette) posted 52 times. The combined total is 112 posts. This is 5 shy of half the total posts in 19 days.

I call this kind of on line behavior spamming, especially since the combined total amounts to little of substance. And I call the motivation hijacking. Add to this the insults meted out by the two posters, by Woodman in particular, I commend the blog’s owner for his tolerance.

(For the record this poster weighed in at 24 posts in the same time period.)

Can there be any wonder why boards and blogs have come to shudder when they see Messrs Brady and Woodman coming?’

I’ve always thought undue attention has been given to the portion of my essay devoted to bad management practices. I don’t know. Maybe the topic is sexy or something. I’ve always thought that the greater concern is with posters showing bad faith. Lousy critics operating in the compensatory fashion, spammers, hijackers, and cyber vandals. And I remember something Clattery said maybe a year ago. He gave the problem(s) facing poetry boards a degree of historical perspective. From memory, he said the draconian reaction of poetry boards (and blogs) was brought about by the cyber vandal problem that entered into the scene. This makes sense to me.

So here is the confounding question. How does a poetry board (and blog) negotiate between the two extremes? Too much management is a killer, especially, since, at their core all artists are a bit of the anarachist. And in the best sense. On the other hand cyber vandals are killers of conversation too. And that is the thing, isn’t it? Every poet comes on line looking for real conversation with other poetry minded people. How the hell to keep it vital, keep it alive? Anybody got any answers or silver bullets in their pockets?

I guess I need to revise my post count for the last 19 days from 24 to 25.

Comment by Terreson — September 20, 2009 @ 10:24 pm


Just as long as you also admit that Clattery deleted in one flaming tranche 5 of my posts all of which were trying to reach out to you and help to get this thread back on topic.

That’s what you were so afraid of, the fact that what we were doing here was actually constructive. That’s what you didn’t want anybody to see, and that’s what you deleted. Because the simple fact was that Tom, Desmond and myself were always interesting, always respectful, and always on topic.

What you and Clattery have revealed here is the very crudest form of On-line Poetry Board manipulation. The worst Management Abuse of all, the most self-serving and the most hypocritical.

You’ve revealed your own inner silverback, Tere. Everybody else knows about it but you — ask around on the web and tell me I’m not right!

Comment by Christopher Woodman — September 21, 2009 @ 1:51 am


Tere: #1442

Clattery’s lucky I’m here.

60 posts? So what? Who’s counting?

You are, evidently, and that’s the problem: Content of the posts? Who cares! There’s too many!

Memo to the dense: my 60 posts did NOT prevent anyone else from posting. According to your data, Tere, there was 229 posts on clattery from 9/1 to 9/20.

Now, you can surely find…I just did. It only took me a second.

Let’s compare 229 posts in those 20 days to June 7 to June 27 on Clattery, 2008, shall we?

From 6/7/08 to 6/27/08 there were 12 posts.

Of those 12 posts, 9 were by Terreson.

Are 12 posts, 9 by one person, BETTER than 229 posts, 60 by one person?

It all depends, doesn’t it? If you’re a poor reader, you might prefer 12 posts in 20 days. If you’re a good reader, YOU MIGHT JUST ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE POSTS.

Oh, and the discussion on Clattery during those 20 days in June, 2008? The fact that Terreson was banned by TCP, and, also of interest and sympathy to the clattery-ites, was the fact that Homprang, Christopher Woodman’s Thai wife, was banned from and 20 of her posts were deleted.

Comment by earl of essex — September 21, 2009 @ 12:56 am


Some Headlines on WebNews:






Comment by Christopher Woodman — September 21, 2009 @ 1:55 am


  1. cowpattyhammer said,

    September 21, 2009 at 9:55 am

    We would prefer you to comment on the Homepage so your thoughts will not be buried. That’s up to you, of course, but if you’d like to be read we would suggest that you go back and post over there.


  2. cowpattyhammer said,

    September 21, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Right after the Meltdown, and after everything had been deleted, a poster came in and asked:

    Hey Terreson, how come you deleted all the posts of Chris and Brady, please?
    Comment by Desmond Swords — September 21, 2009 @ 5:48 am

    Clattery replied, as if it were obvious, with this classic Moderator riposte:

    Hi Desmond,
    We are done with their tedious, argumentative posts here, just as we have been done with the foul language they were using earlier. The last few weeks of posts are a good enough example of how such flamers can take over a thread. They went in two offensive stages. The first was the use of foul language, language they would be comfortable with, but that many onlookers would be repulsed by. The second significant phase was to be argumentative to absurdity, to become repulsive to anyone who wanted to conjure the energy to respond to them.
    Comment by Clattery MacHinery — September 21, 2009 @ 11:02 am

    Since you’ve got a whole lot of deleted material just above, you might enjoy going back and looking for all that foul language! Thomas Brady has now replied to this accusation, and so have I, and you may find that exchange also amusing. Click here.


  3. cowpattyhammer said,

    September 22, 2009 at 3:11 am

    Oops, too late, it’s all been, yes you guessed it, DELETED!

    Fortunately, we have a copy, and the 5 missing posts are all reposted on Blog:Scarriet. Return to “THE PEE IN THE POOL OF ON-LINE POETRY” article and you’ll find them there in Comment #3.

    There’s also quite a lot more discussion about all this at BLUEHOLE:

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.