Ann
Bogle emailed me recently to apologise for her part in a public dispute we had
with each other last year. For those interested, here are links to my blog
posts where the dispute is explained:
Response to Ann Bogle:
Second Response to Ann Bogle:
Third Response to Ann Bogle:
In her email of apology Ann said:
“I
apologize to you for an event that led to other events in August last year. I
hope you will accept my apology, in particular for bringing up Bobbi Lurie's
email correspondence with you in the OtherStream thread. It was not appropriate
to bring it up there or to air it. It was in a flaming thread that you
initiated because I had persisted in adding comments about Prosetics (my
coinage) in poetry contexts, most particularly, in The Argotist Group.
Country
Without a Name will become a book this year to be published by Veery Imprints.
Acknowledgement of Argotist Ebooks as its first publisher will be included in
its pages. I appreciate your steadiness in working as an e-publisher and your
own poetry, when I can find it, and I wish I could find more of it. We were
indeed allies and I hope you will view it that way once again.”
In response to this, I replied:
“Thanks
for your apology. I can only accept it, though, if you are willing to make it a
public apology. I will then accept it publically.”
Ann replied:
“I will
post my apology, first, along with this note, mine, second, in response to
yours of today, July 5, 2013, at Ana Verse as a Page (rather than as a blog
entry) called “My Apology to Jeffrey Side” -- unless you have had thought of
de-posting the several blog posts that critique me and Bobbi Lurie. Then our
posts will not be permanently available on the Internet, as per Bobbi's
request. Perhaps you plan and prefer to leave your critiques of us posted as an
explanation of part of history.
In
keeping with the artistic design of Ana Verse, the related entry I wish could
remain at Ana Verse is “American Candid” -- that I view as a
spontaneously-written collaborative play and that I de-posted at the request of
Bobbi Lurie, who has asked both you and me not to use her name publicly in any
connection with the word “psychotic,” for reasons she had stated in a comment
she at first allowed to be posted at Ana Verse following my single-entry
response to you and that she later asked me to de-post because her name appears
there in connection with the word “psychotic” -- as do these THREE or FOUR
emails.
Please let me know your wishes.”
She then posted her apology at
her blog, notifying me thus:
“Jeff, there I posted my email to
you verbatim:
http://annbogle.blogspot.com/p/my-apology-to-jeffrey-side.html”
I replied:
“I am satisfied with your
posting your apology email at Ana Verse but please amend the sentence:
‘I hope you will accept my
apology, in particular for bringing up Bobbi Lurie's email correspondence with
you in the OtherStream thread.’
to:
‘I hope you will accept my
apology, in particular for bringing up Bobbi Lurie's email correspondence with
you in the OtherStream thread, and misrepresenting what you said about her in
relation to the word “psychotic.’
And also amend the sentence:
‘It was in a flaming thread that
you initiated because I had persisted in adding comments about Prosetics (my
coinage) in poetry contexts, most particularly, in The Argotist Group.’
to:
‘It was in a thread that you
initiated because I had persisted in adding comments about Prosetics (my
coinage) in poetry contexts, most particularly, in The Argotist Group.’
Also please remove my email
address from the header of your apology email.
Once you have made these
amendments (and not reposted “American Candid”) I will post your apology at my
blog, with a note saying I accept it. I will also remove the several blog posts
that critique you and Bobbi Lurie.”
She replied:
“I'll amend the Apology I posted
without the word “flaming” in it as a compromise; otherwise, STET, no mention
of the word “psychotic.”
STET,
for those who don’t know, means: “let it stand”, and is used as an instruction
on a printed proof to indicate that a correction or alteration should be
ignored. So here, Ann has agreed to remove the word “flaming” from one
sentence, but not to amend the crucial sentence:
"I hope you will accept my
apology, in particular for bringing up Bobbi Lurie's email correspondence with
you in the OtherStream thread."
to:
“I hope you will accept my
apology, in particular for bringing up Bobbi Lurie's email correspondence with
you in the OtherStream thread, and misrepresenting what you said about her in
relation to the word “psychotic.”
I replied to Ann:
“I can’t accept your apology
without your mentioning in it the reason why I was in dispute with you in the
first place, namely that you said that I had called Bobbi “psychotic”, when in
fact I only said her later emails to me were. It is perfectly possible for
someone’s writing style to be “psychotic” when they themselves are not. I made
this clear to you at the time.
Without your apology being
amended in this way, I can’t accept it, nor can I remove my blog posts
regarding the issue. For me to accept the apology as it stands, would mean I
would have to leave my blog posts in situ in order to contextualise your
apology, which you probably wouldn’t like.”
Ann, however, was adamant that
no further compromise on her part should be made, replying:
“Jeff, it's okay to me if you do
not accept correct apology, but it's a shame in terms of peace and friendship.”
Her
apology (albeit without the inclusion of the word “flaming”) can be found at
her blog here:
In this apology, she also links
to another part of her blog where she has reproduced fully the thread from the
Otherstream Facebook group that initiated my dispute with her. That she should
do this after both Bobbi and myself requested she not do so, demonstrates a
lack of consideration, especially towards Bobbi whom, as far as I can tell, Ann
has no grievance with. Incidentally, as far as I know, no one who has taken
part in the thread has given her permission to publish their private comments
in it. This probably constitutes an infringement by Ann of Facebook’s privacy
policy, which she might or might not be aware of.
Given this, and her apology
being incomplete, and possibly insincere, I am in no reasonable position to
accept it as an apology.
