Ian Thal

The American Dissident
A Literary Journal of Critical Thinking
In the Samizdat Tradition of Writing against the Machine
A Forum for Examining the Dark Side of the Academic/Literary Industrial Complex

Ian Thal, Ibbetson Press

The following email correspondance began with an indignant reaction by Ian Thal, former Ibbetson Press reviewer, to the January 2007 Lit Rogues cartoon: "All Things Not Considered: Andrei Codrescu and Lawrence Ferlinghetti." Be forewarned that Thal comes off as a rather passionless eunuch. Eventually, I ceased responding to him, for he simply refused to admit any points I made were on target. The following paragraph was written in a futile effort to explain the self-evident point made in the cartoon (top right):

"To better understand why you contacted me in the first place, Ian, I took another look at that Codrescu cartoon, thinking perhaps I screwed up logic-wise. That can happen. Hell, I’m not a perfect automaton like some critics and poets. In the toon, I (P. Maudit) quoted Ferlinghetti saying, “friendly fascism.” Thus, already, you should have noticed (why didn’t you?) that the term was watered down… by Ferlinghetti himself, not by me. The point that I was making was quite CLEAR and in fact formed the title of the cartoon: 'To Be Established Order and Subversive Is to Be an Oxymoron.' P. Maudit’s response, clarifying the title even more, noted that both Ferlinghetti and Codrescu were established-order literati. Are they not? I had multimillionaire Ferlinghetti wearing a patch on his shirt, noting his former title of Poet Laureate of San Francisco. Is that not an established-order literati title? Is not Codrescu’s Honorary Professor title also established order?" Thal, of course, would never agree to such clarity.

From: Ian Thal <ianmthal@gmail.com>

Date: Feb 11, 2007 8:02 PM

Subject: Re: Ian Thal dissed by the Dissident-Lit. Rogue of the

month...

To: Doug HOLDER <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>

While I am at it, I shall note Slone/Maudit's lack of talent for drawing the human form has led to him illustrating me doing stand up comedy (a form in which I do not work) instead of physical theatre (a form in which I do.) Another thing I noticed: He drew me with the full five digits on my right hand and with three fingers on my left-- with a stub for a thumb.

I clearly have ten digits in the photo he used as the basis for the cartoon. What's with that?

Ian

On 2/11/07, Ian Thal <ianmthal@gmail.com> wrote:

Doug,

I'm not even sure what point Slone/Maudit is trying to make. At least some of his cartoons comunicate a message (albeit frequently unsubstantiated.) The fact that he illustrated me in one of my clown costumes (I am guessing that the photographic source was from 2004 article in The Boston Globe), which seems to imply that he he finds it inconguous that someone might be both a clown and a literary critic. Evidently he doesn't realize that humor and criticism go hand in hand, but that should not surprise me coming from someone who believes that one can win an argument by using capitalization for emphasis.

Essentially, this only further demonstrates that the American Dissident is nothing more than an American reactionary. While I am at it, I shall note Slone/Maudit's lack of talent for drawing the human form has led to him illustrating me doing stand up comedy (a form in which I do not work) instead of physical theatre (a form in which I do.)

Ian

To call the artwork in a simple cartoon bad is akin to shooting the messenger in order to avoid or divert attention from the message. It is the same thing when one says the writing is bad without even illustrating [substantiating!!!] the point with precise examples. To say such a thing simply reflects on the person who says it… on his very inability to consider valid criticism. Most established-order personages use this shallow rhetorical tactic because They sincerely believe it aggrandizes Them, while belittling he who had the audacity to speak truth to Them. So, what was the message in the satirical cartoon? Was it the poorly drawn hand emphasized by Thal? (Well, I for one have no problem at all admitting wrong or fault—Yeah, that hand sucked. But how about Thal?) Actually, it was not the hand at all. Since the message was evidently far too complicated for Thal to grasp, I shall simplify it for him and any of those who actually take his critique seriously: Thal’s assertion that people take him “seriously” when he criticizes them because he “substantiates” his arguments—with what is anyone’s guess—is not only unfounded (Did he take a poll? If so, was I included in that poll?), but pompous and evidence of an ego with an inordinate amount of self-esteem. Indeed, Thal seems so self-confident that he’d probably believe that a person telling him he lacked logic in his argumentation was actually telling him he was a serious critic. Again, I suggest one take a look at the original object of Thal’s furious indignation: the cartoon on established-order notables Codrescu and Ferlinghetti. Having expressed my humble opinion on the latter evidently tainted, in Thal’s mind, everything I’ve ever written or drawn. Would it be better for individuals to express opinions only of the herd? Perhaps Thal would argue affirmatively. BTW, I for one find it pitiful that a poet would choose to masquerade as a clown. It simply emphasizes what little respect Thal holds for the metier… which is why I chose to draw him in his clown attire.

From: "Ian Thal" <IanMThal@gmail.com>
To: <bagelbards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:47 AM
Subject: [bagelbards] Re:Ibbetson Update/ Todd Slone Strikes again

The cartoonist, P. Maudit seems motivated less by politics than by ressentment towards poets who have had some success in terms of fame or money.
It is particularly ignorant for him to toss upon Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Andrei Codrescu the label of "Fascism." Codrescu is an expatriate from Romania, which when he left, was ruled by a particularly brutal totalitarian regime-- and covered the the collapse of that regime as a journalist. Ferlinghetti, here in America, has been, besides being the proprietor of a sucessful bookstore and publishing house, is one of a handful of literary figures who has risked career destroying fines in order secure first-amendment rights for all writers.
Despite Codrescu's tenure, and Ferlinghetti's laurels, I have seen nothing in their careers that indicates anything other than anti-fascist tendencies: Both reject all forms of totalitarianism and militarism.
Perhaps Maudit has little grasp of the meaning of the word "fascism." To which, I would suggest that he read Umberto Eco's essay "Ur-Fascism." Eco actually lived as a child under Mussolini's regime.
Then, maybe Maudit will understand that "fascism" is more than a word that little boys throw around on the playground.

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:36:12 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: [bagelbards] Re:Ibbetson Update/ Todd Slone Strikes again
To: "Doug Holder" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>

Hi Doug,
Thanks for the critique! As you can see, I feed on critique like others feed on French Fries. Does this guy actually believe that FASCISM is only a right wing phenomenon? If so, there is evidently little hope for him. Hope all well. Please publish this little letter and my response. Thank you.

To Ian Thal,
Wow! Such unusual virulence from a poet!!! Bravo! P. Maudit must have really hit a poet nerve! Good job, P. Maudit, good damn job! [P. Maudit takes a bow] The critic, Ian Thal, seems motivated less by truth than by resentment towards poets who do not worship other poets like he does. It is particularly ignorant for him to diss any poet who might actually stand apart from the poet herd as a heretic and actually “go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways” (Emerson) and otherwise let his “life be a counterfriction to stop the machine” (Thoreau). In this case, the Machine is the academic CANON, which certainly includes the well-paid likes of Codrescu and Ferlinghetti. It is far less important what these fellows once were so many, many years ago, than what they have become and are today… usually shadows of their old selves; in other words, corporate co-opted and fat-catted. It is an easy thing to babble the liberal hard line, but a difficult one to stand apart from it and speak truth, even when that truth might counter the hard line. How easy it is for a Codrescu and Ferlinghetti to yap against fascism, while raking in $15K per yap! Orthodoxy, whether right wing or left wing, is still orthodoxy. Or as Quebecois Pierre Falardeau once said, “La marde de droite ou la marde de gauche, c’est toujours de la marde!” [Horseshit from the right or horseshit from the left is still horseshit. (my translation)] Any poet with truth as his rudder must fight orthodoxy! It is the very attitude of the Ian Thal leftists that is destroying the left. In other words, THOU SHALT NOT CRITICIZE THE LEFT! If we heed this ban on critique of the left, how can the left possibly improve? Without criticism, there are no problems, and if there are no problems, there is no need to improve. Sounds like a good Stalinist line, no? Because that was the situation under that leftist FASCIST regime. If we choose to ignore Hillary’s corrupt side, how can we get her to improve her act? Perhaps Thal has little grasp of the meaning of the word "truth." To which, I would suggest that he read Solzhenitsyn’s “Live Not by Lies.” (www.theamericandissident.org/Essays-Solzhenitsyn2.htm). Solzhenitsyn actually was interned in a Gulag prison camp… which sure as hell beats Eco’s experience, n’est-ce pas? Then, maybe Thal will understand that "truth" is more than a word that little boys throw around on the playground. [BTW, Thal, there’s a hell of a lot of fascist tendencies in the American left in case your head-in-the-sand leftist self hasn’t noticed!] For a harshly critical review—I know you’re not quite used to that kind of review of your heroes and heroines, but give it a whirl, then contest the facts, rather than calling its author lame names—of the latest Codrescu book, turn your curious eyes to www.theamericandissident.org/BookReviews/codrescu.htm. Now, Thal, please send me a cartoon so I can satirize your face. Ha!

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:14:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Equity
To: ibbetsonpress@msn.com

Doug,
If of course you don't publish my letter, then you are not holding an open forum, but rather a forum for friends only. Why didn't you send me Thal's email prior to publishing it? You did that with my email. Is that equity?

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:01:58 -0500
From: "Ian Thal" <ianmthal@gmail.com>
To: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>, bagelbards@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Ian a response to your letter
CC: todslone@yahoo.com

Mr. Slone is making some rather inaccurate assumptions about my political affiliations, political leanings and my political practice, however, he is in good company, as Stephen Schwartz of _The Weekly Standard_ once accused me of supporting the torture and murder of Catholic clergy under Communist regimes-- apparently because I took issue with his characterization of playwright Dario Fo as "an untiring enemy of religion." I'll give Schwartz a little more credit for refraining from using his capslock key for emphases. Please, if you are going to engage in ad hominem attacks, at least attempt to know something of your intended target. My point is that charges of "fascism" against either Doctor Ferlinghetti or Professor Codrescu without factual substantiation amounts to a slur. That I say so does not represent an ideological commitment on my part to either man's life and works. Furthermore, Mr. Slone's response is immensely illogical, filled with irrelevent quotes from the literary canon, yet still does not counter my point that he does not substantiate his accusations that either Ferlinghetti or Codrescu are fascists (in either the right or left.) He presents no coherent argument, so there is nothing to argue against.

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:46:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ian a response to your letter
To: "Ian Thal" <ianmthal@gmail.com>

Yours is a very hollow, if not downright assinine, rhetorical tactic to place anyone critical of leftwingers into the rightwing bucket. Yours will be the downfall of the left. Conveniently, you ignored my entire argumentation about the absolute necessity of critique vis a vis the left. For your information, my thoughts and politics, for the most part, are on the left. But unlike you, most probably, I keep my ears and eyes wide open. I actively read what right wingers have to say about lefties and at times must agree entirely with their critique. Closing out all critique from, say, a Rush Limbaugh, just because he is a right winger is in itself proof of a tendance fascisante. Closing out all critique from, say, a Michael Moore, just because he is a left winger would be similar. I listen to Limbaugh sometimes and find he's got a good sense of humor and quite accurate with regards ole Hillary. Sure, he gets tedious because he is hardcore RIGHT WING. But some of his mockery is downright ingenious. Have you ever listened to his fake commercials? Brilliant! Allow me to repeat, since you basically ignored my argument: fascism can and does occur on both sides of the political spectrum... like it or not! Anybody with an open, un-indoctrinated mind can see that. I use the term fascism lightly as Ferlinghetti also used it lightly to describe anyone on the right wing of that spectrum. Capiche? Stone Soup Poets, for example, is in that sense fascist because it does not like poets apt to upset its comfy leftist harmony. Fascism implies CLOSED DOORS to debate. Codrescu has never manifested an openness to my critique, which I’ve brought to his attention on several occasions. Ferlinghetti has manifested equal closed-mindedness to critique of him and his Beatnik comrades. That is a kind of fascism, albeit leftist. “Furthermore, Mr. Slone's response is immensely illogical, filled with irrelevent quotes from the literary canon…” Unsurprisingly, you do not back your assertion with one precise example. And since you’re tagging Ferlinghetti with his honorary doctorate, as if to somehow inflate him, you might as well refer to me as Dr. Slone, since I do hold a hard-earned doctorate from the Universite de Nantes ( France ) in Canadian and Francophone Studies. I notice you simply avoided responding to most of the points made in my email, including worship of known literary figures such as Codrescu. So be it.

From: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>
To: todslone@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Equity
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:51:18 -0500

I sent your letter to the bagel bards forum

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:59:42 -0500
From: "Ian Thal" <ianmthal@gmail.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ian a response to your letter
CC: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>, ibbetsonstreetpressupdate@yahoogroups.com, bagelbards@yahoogroups.com

In response to George or Tod Slone's defense of the cartoonist, P. Maudit against my criticism: refer to me as Dr. Slone, since I do hold a hard-earned doctorate from the Universite de Nantes (France) in Canadian and Francophone Studies.

Very well.

> Yours is a [...] rhetorical tactic to place anyone critical of leftwingers into the rightwing bucket.

I did no such thing. I did, however, liken Doctor Slone's rhetorical style to that of a well known neo-conservative with whom I have also quarreled in print.

> you ignored my entire argumentation about the absolute necessity of critique vis a vis the left.

I ignored your contra-factual claim that the left does not critique the left. There are numerous critiques of "the left" from a left-wing perspective. Anyone with the slightest awareness of the factionalized nature of the left (which dates back to at least the 19th Century) is aware of these critiques. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a monolithic "Left" except in the imagination of ideologues.

> Stone Soup Poets, for example, is in that sense fascist because it does not like poets apt to upset its comfy leftist harmony.

I am not responding to irrelevent tangents about Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh or Hilary Clinton, however since I am a former member of the board of directors of Stone Soup Poets and served as Secretary, ethics demands I state my relationship to the organization. I have not attended a Stone Soup Poets event since January of 2002 and have served in no official capacity with the organization since 2001. While I do not choose to discus the reasons for my departure from Stone Soup Poets, I can assure anyone privy to this dispute between Doctor Slone and myself that his characterization of the organization as "comfy[,] leftist [or] harmon[ious]" has no basis in reality. Stone Soup did publish an anthology in 2003 that contained work of mine, but that anthology had been in the pipeline since at least 2000 when those poems were contributed.

> you do not back your assertion with one precise example [that Slone's argument is illogical].

I suggest that Slone substantiate his claim that either Ferlinghetti or Codrescu are fascists, yet all he can do in response is state that some leftists are also fascists. That some leftists are also fasicists (just as some rightists are fascists) and Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are also both leftists does not not necessitate one that conclude that Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are thus fascists. This should be covered in any first year logic course at university.

> fascism can and does occur on both sides of the political spectrum... like it or not!

I have not disputed that claim. I have asked Slone to present a supporting argument when labeling either Doctor Ferlinghetti or Professor Codrescu as fascists. The only "fact" Doctor Slone is willing to cite is that both writers in question receive very large reading fees due to their celebrity status. This further supports my suspicion that Slone's anger towards Ferlinghetti and Codrescu is ressentment as opposed to their politics.

> you're tagging Ferlinghetti with his honorary doctorate, as if to somehow inflate him

Ferlinghetti earned his PhD. from the Sorbonne for a dissertation entitled 'The City as Symbol in Modern Poetry: In Search of a Metropolitan Tradition', so it would appear that his doctorate is a genuine one. He studied in Paris during the late 1940s, long before achieving either fame or notoriety. So, he is properly addressed as "Doctor."

> I notice you simply avoided responding to most of the points made in my email, including worship of known literary figures such as Codrescu.

Somebody worships Andrei Codrescu? I confess to enjoying some of his work, but he is hardly my favorite contemporary poet.

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:07:07 -0500
From: "Ian Thal" <ianmthal@gmail.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ian a response to your letter
CC: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>, ibbetsonstreetpressupdate@yahoogroups.com, bagelbards@yahoogroups.com

Upon rereading, I noticed the following sentence from my previous note to be in error:

> That some leftists are also fasicists (just as some rightists are fascists) and Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are also both leftists does not not necessitate one that conclude that Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are thus fascists.

The proper reading should be: "That some leftists are also fascists (just as some rightists are fascists) and Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are also both leftists does not necessitate that one conclude that Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are thus fascists." This is, of course, the crux of my argument, so my apologies for the error.

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:51:23 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: FW: Re: Ian a response to your letter
To: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>

Ian,
Check out my review of Codrescu’s latest book to see why I was compelled to sketch that cartoon in the first place(www.theamericandissident.org/BookReviews-codrescu.htm). Well, you gave me a big laugh… out loud! Thank you. You state that you are “a former member of the board of directors of Stone Soup Poets.” So, that’s where this is really coming from?! Calisse de tabarnak de marde! Do poets really need CEOs and board members of poetry? Sadly, in America , they do. BUT I and others like me are adamantly against it… and the likes of you! You avoided my statement that you and your soup buddies hate criticism at your soup get-togethers! Yet you have the nerve to blablabla about the 19th century. Poets (of the left… and no doubt ofthe right) tend to hate criticism… and cannot deal with it! You and your soup buddies illustrate that point. “I have not attended a Stone Soup Poets event since January of 2002…” Neither have I! Hell, I wouldn’t want them to call the police on me for reading a poem that might be to their distaste! In fact, now I recall the TOTAL INDIFFERENCE of soup members during my protest at Walden Pond regarding the lack of free speech permitted on those public grounds. (Previously, I had been arrested and incarcerated for exercising free speech at Walden.) Yes, I recall soup members walking past me and my large sign, pitifully incurious and pitifully apathetic: NO FREE SPEECH AT WALDEN POND. In fact, weren’t you there, Doug Holder? The cops were called. Who called them? Hell, I wasn’t even speaking. I wasn’t blocking the pathway. I was standing next to a lone tree about ten feet from it. I didn’t force myself on anyone. The cops arrived and got rid of me… Soup members couldn’t have been happier. Perhaps you too, Ian, walked by me that day towards the Walden Pond amphitheater to read couplets. Perhaps you actually manifested a little unusual poet curiosity and glanced at my sign. Angry? Me? Not at all. Walden was a wonderful character-building experience, one that helped me “see” what poets were really made out of. And no doubt soup members are quite similar to any other such “literary” herd in the USA . What do such herds hate most?
1.       when somebody criticizes them
2.       when somebody criticizes their poet heroes and heroines
3.       when somebody criticizes their sacred poetry canon
4.       when somebody has the balls to “stand upright and vital” and apart from the poet herd
5.       when somebody has the guts to let his life “be a counterfriction to stop” the herd machine… even if but for a moment
Regarding the Kerouac festival small press expo in Lowell a number of years ago, I can still see Jack Powers glaring at me! Oh, I can still see his and Holder’s glowering faces looking at the title of my chapbook, FUCK MASSACHUSETTS ! Yes, they wanted my ass out of there and CENSORED. In other words, kill free speech so they might not get into trouble with the Kerouac festival mandarins. But they held their horses. Is that what poets have become today, kiss-ass to organizers, kiss-ass to money… and CEOs and board members?  I repeat, Ian: “Yours is a [...] rhetorical tactic to place anyone critical of leftwingers into the rightwing bucket.” Thanks for agreeing with me: “I did, however, liken Doctor Slone's rhetorical style to that of a well known neo-conservative with whom I have also quarreled in print.” In other words, just call me conservative or make that inference and you don’t even have to deal with my argument. How convenient and how typical!
You state: “I can assure anyone privy to this dispute between Doctor Slone and myself that his characterization of the organization as "comfy[,] leftist [or] harmon[ious]" has no basis in reality.” Well, your “assurance” will only be valid for your soup friends, who don’t even need your assurance. Stone Soup knows me. Stone Soup knows why they don’t like me. And the reason is that I dare what they do not have the balls to do. If invited to read in front of Stone Soup, I would read poetry (as I did way back when) critical of Stone Soup, of Jack Powers, of Doug Holder, of you. AND that is taboo at soup get-togethers. Only one poet, soup member Buddha, dared argue in my favor and in favor of free speech.  Regarding the term “fascist,” you apparently did not read that part of my email stating both Codrescu and Ferlinghetti closed to critique.
You state: “The only "fact" Doctor Slone is willing to cite is that both writers in question receive very large reading fees due to their celebrity status. This further supports my suspicion that Slone's anger towards Ferlinghetti and Codrescu is ressentment as opposed to their politics.” Your counter-argument makes no sense. Are you actually denying that both celebrities receive sizeable cachets? Whatever does my alleged anger have to do with their cachets? Besides, I am not angry at either of them, nor am I angry at you, Ian. Criticism does not necessarily imply anger, though those like you when criticized always, ALWAYS, seem to come to that conclusion! It does, however, imply a certain degree of passion. So, label me PASSIONATE, not angry. Perhaps YOU are angry at me, Ian. So, try not to displace your emotional state upon mine. I stand corrected on Ferlinghetti’s doctorate, though the matter is really immaterial. Normal ly, I am against fla unting titles. I only mentioned my PhD because you, Ian, decided to fla unt Ferlinghetti’s. In fact, it was the first time I’d ever seen DR. in front of his name.  By the way, Ian, what do you do for a living? Your tone sounds quite functionary, robotic or passionless, perhaps a tad academic. Are you an Accountant perhaps? Maybe a tenured high school English teacher? Your apologies for your error are accepted. “That some leftists are also fascists (just as some rightists are fascists) and Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are also both leftists does not necessitate that one conclude that Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are thus fascists." Clearly, that statement is accurate. Yet it is really irrelevant to the argument. You seem to want to skirt my point that I was using the term “fascist” lightly… as we tend to do today… as in “that fascist Rush Limbaugh” or “Bush is a fascist.” But call a Hillary “fascist” and the leftists will get pissed. Well, you’ve really taken this thing way off track, Ian. In reality, we were just talking about political leftists, but rather leftist NPR “all things considered” Codrescu and leftist multimillionaire Ferlinghetti… with doctoral degree. As mentioned, the whole poesy machine has become taboo! Dare criticize it and the poet herd will trample you… or at least attempt to do so. Your anger is a case in point, Ian. How that machine HATES someone like me! Yet my only real “sin” is to offer another possibility for what a poet could be (see www.theamericandissident.org/.ColdPassion.htm for a detailed discussion on this subject. Go on, poets, be CURIOUS!) In other words, for me being a poet is much more than writing and reading verse, much more than winning a prize or being invited to speak.   For me, a poet ought to be an individual, as opposed to a herd society member with a title as in Member of the Board of Directors. A poet ought to be an individual who manifests COURAGE to speak out and criticize what ought not to be criticized, including Stone Soup Poets. For me, a poet ought to be an individual who dares RISK, amongst other things, his very career, prizes, laurels, speaking engagements, publication possibilities, and the very ire of herd poets. But when a poet actually does that as I often do, the response is often piteous and utterly predictable in its utter lack of creativity… as in the response I received from one anonymous writer regarding my risky and unusual critique of professors published this past Sunday in the daily newspaper News-Star ( Monroe , LA ). Check out his response, you just might recognize yourself in it, Ian:    http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070128/OPINION02/701280318/1014/OPINION. Yes, label me an egotist! But aren’t all poets who send out their poems egotists? Tag me with the seventh sin (ANGER)! But I’m an atheist, so don’t give a damn about your Christian “sins.” Give me an angry man any time over a placid careerist! So, yes, I’ll take you, Ian, over a placid poet careerist… unless of course you’re not angry and are ind eed a placid poet careerist. BTW, I am not trying to convince you of anything, for I well know that it would be next to impossible to convince any overly gregarious herd poet of anything. Well, it doesn’t seem like we got anywhere at all. Yours will agree with whatever you had to say against that angry, horrible Slone… and a-men. To open the minds of closed bear-trap skulls is a Herculean feat, to say the least. And since I am not Hercules, I am not even attempting to do. I am simply defending myself.
PS: You still didn’t explain why you felt obligated to precede Ferlinghetti’s name with DR. In the context, one would have to assume that you implied that DR. somehow contradicts fascist tendencies. Yet I’ve met scores and scores of “liberal” DR.s with highly fascistic tendencies. In fact, regarding Ferlinghetti, why not consult what poet A. D. Winans had to say about those tendencies? Read all about it at www.theamericandissident.org. Allow me to quote the writer Marcel Ayme. What he said ought to be Stone Soup’s motto: « Vive donc la poésie, du moins celle qui ne détruit pas notre confort intellectuel. » [Long live poetry, at least that which does not perturb our intellectual comfort

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:54:10 -0800
From: "Ian Thal" <ianmthal@gmail.com>
To: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>, todslone@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Ian a response to your letter

Doctor Slone:
I find it amazing that it takes a day and a half to craft such a disorganized response filled with attempts to pin the behavior and opinions of others onto my person. To answer your question regarding Stone Soup: For a literary organization to receive tax-deductible donations, and receive grants for activities such as publishing books (which Stone Soup Poetry would do sporadically) it must comply with the 501c3 regulations for non-profit organizations, grant-giving institutions and private donations are less likely to be forthcoming. Having a board of directors is one of those legal requirements-- it provides a level of accountability with regards to grants and donations. I was elected to the board of Stone Soup in 2000. I began to dissociate myself from the board and from the organization in late 2001. While I have no interest in describing my reasons for leaving. It should be obvious that I do not want to be affiliated with said organization or the behavior of some of its officers. Obviously, they are not my "buddies." On neither of the two visits I made to Walden Pond during that time period, I did not witness any protesters. You and I have, to the best of my knowledge, never met. I am not party with your conflicts with the organization and some of its members and I am frankly uninterested. Far too much of my time and energies were wasted on the organization.
Stone Soup is apolitical as an organization (which it must be as a 501c3 non-profit.) Whatever political stances Jack Powers or John-Paul Pirolli (who uses an assortment of aliases, notably "Buddah" (sic)) may take, their stances do not form coherent political ideologies, and are just as likely to express right-wing sentiments as as anything else. Neither of them are leftists, though I am certain you may have heard express leftist sentiments from time to time. Like you, they both men have a tendency to divide the world into "us and them" or often "me and everyone else."

> "That some leftists are also fascists (just as some rightists are fascists) and Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are also both leftists does not necessitate that one conclude that Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are thus fascists." Clearly, that statement is accurate. Yet it is really irrelevant to the argument.

It is relevent, because it is the argument that I am interested in making. I do not use the word "fascist" lightly as it is a name of an extremist ideology, and when applied to an individual who is not strictly a member of a certain constelation of extremist groups, movements, regimes, or ideologue, admirer or imitator of the former, then it closes down any form of free debate, which I consider to b essential to a democratic society.

By that standard, some of the people you name are clearly not fascists in any sense that still gives the word some meaning. Two of the folk, by my count, might be seen as fascistic from a certain point of view (but that can be debated.) You have failed to substantiate your claim that Codrescu and Ferlinghetti are fascists. You have presented no facts, and your line of reasoning is demonstrably filled with errors. Your ignorance of even the most commonly known biographical details of Codrescu or Ferlinghetti are laughable.

> Are you actually denying that both celebrities receive sizeable cachets?

No. I am just pointing out that it was the only fact that you did present, and thus, assuming it is true, and since you mentioned it, seems more likely the cause of your ressentment than these unfounded accusations of fascism.

> you apparently did not read that part of my email stating both Codrescu and Ferlinghetti closed to critique.

Given the general inability you have demonstrated state your views logically, substantiate your claims, or even state these views without invoking some self-serving tale of how the powers that be are persecuting you, it gives little surprise that some people choose to ignore you. You contribute nothing to any debate. However, since I have no details about your interactions with Codrescu or Ferlinghetti, there is nothing for me to address. I generally address people whom I do not know personally by their title. It is an idiosyncracy of mine-- nothing more. It's true that many poets do not appreciate honest criticism. Doug Holder can testify to the number of angry letters that he received when I was a reviewer for Ibbetson Street Press. I don't really mind if my criticism is unpopular, but because I present my arguments in a certain manner, and I substantiate my arguments, I am generally taken seriously, even by those who disagree. I don't take your views seriously. Make any other contrafactual assuptions you wish about my person. However, I request that you cease from insinuating that I am a Christian.

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:01:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: FW: Re: FW: Re: Ian a response to your letter
To: "Doug Holder" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>

Ian,
To call me angry, resentful, and disorganized is entirely immaterial and only reflects on you as someone with limited capacity for logical argumentation. To better understand why you contacted me in the first place, I took another look at that Codrescu cartoon, thinking that perhaps I screwed up RE logic. That can happen. Hell, I’m not a perfect automaton like some critics and poets. It appears that, for some reason, your critique got WILDLY OFF TRACK. In the toon, I (P. Maudit) quoted Ferlinghetti as saying “friendly fascism.” Those are his words and they were used to describe other Americans, most likely with conservative viewpoints. Thus, already, you should have noticed (why didn’t you?) that the term “fascism” was watered down… by Ferlinghetti himself, not by me. The point that I was making was quite CLEAR and in fact formed the very title of the cartoon: “To Be Established Order and Subversive Is to Be an Oxymoron.” In other words, is it not possible that an INTRINSIC CONTRADICTION EXISTS BETWEEN BEING OF THE ESTABLISHED ORDER, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PARADING AROUND AS A SUBVERSIVE? What got you so ANGERED by that premise? P. Maudit’s response clarified the title even more, noting that both Ferlinghetti and Codrescu were indeed established-order literati. Are they not? In the toon, Ferlinghetti was wearing a patch on his shirt, noting his former title of Po et Laureate. Is that not an established-order literati title? Is not Codrescu’s Honorary Professor title established order? WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT REGARDING THIS? WHY EVEN DISPUTE IT? If one is established order, then why not simply accept it and I suppose enjoy it? If you’re going to parade around in Honorary Doctor regalia like Codrescu does, why pretend you’re subversive? If you’re going to parade around as a Chamber-of-Commerce poet laureate like Ferlinghetti did, why pretend you’re subversive? THAT IS THE VERY CRUX. HOW THE HELL DID YOU MISS IT? (I look forward to examine how you either avoid responding here or how you decide to skirt the crux.) Indeed, such titles would seem to indicate that both men are at the summum of the established-order literati. Somehow you seemed to entirely miss the point. Most likely you have a severe blind spot in your brain regarding both fellows. In any case, I cannot help you regarding that particular problem. Only you and your analyst (hopefully, you do have one) can do that. My suggestion that both fellows were “friendly fascists” of the literary genre is perhaps not as wild as you want to believe. I have contacted both fellows now and then throughout the years. Neither ever responded. To me their silence is typical of established-order literary fellows and is an example of “friendly fascism.” [By the way, I am really writing these emails to you as if I were writing to myself, dialoguing with myself, for I do not believe that you are sufficiently open-minded to really read them. Often, when I dialogue with myself like this, I come up with creative ideas for essays, poems, maxims, and cartoons. Thus, your emails do serve a distinct purpose for me.]
You write: “I find it amazing that it takes a day and a half to craft such a disorganized response…” Well, I was not aware I was under a time restriction! I do have other activities. Don’t you? Responding to you is certainly not one of my primary concerns. Unlike you, I do respond to each and every one of your arguments and usually in the precise order they are found in your emails. So, if that constitutes “disorganized,” then I am disorganized. In reality, calling me “disorganized” is simply yet another feeble attempt on your part to shoot with hot air the messenger and avoid his message. Besides, what makes your emails more organized than mine? Nothing at all. You waste my time with unfounded accusations. It was the way how you stated being a member of the board of directors that I found POMPOUS. I only mentioned I had a doctorate because you seemed to attach such importance to that tag RE Ferlinghetti. You are misinformed RE the 501 3c. I have filed that designation with the help of a lawyer and did not need a board of directors. What I needed was simply two other people (there names only!). Also, one need not be apolitical. Hell, The American Dissident is highly political. What one cannot do is support a particular political group. There’s a large difference.
You write: “Like you, they both men have a tendency to divide the world into "us and them" or often "me and everyone else." Should we not add you to the list, or are you the perfect EFFACED AUTOMATON?
You write: “You have failed to substantiate your claim that Codrescu and Ferlinghetti are fascists. You have presented no facts, and your line of reasoning is demonstrably filled with errors.” There is really no point in my restating my reasons. You can’t seem to read them. They are clearly stated in my previous email. What errors? You seem to have a rather “organized” tendency to make empty statements without backing them up with any examples whatsoever.
You state: “Your ignorance of even the most commonly known biographical details of Codrescu or Ferlinghetti are laughable.” Believe me, I’ve got better things to do than hunt for biographical information on either of those two characters. If you thought about what you write, perhaps you’d understand the implication in that statement that a man who does not know common bio details on those two is an ignorant man. You must really think they’re extremely important in human civilization! Well, I for one, do not… and I guess I’m an ignorant man. Woe is me. Christ, man, all I did was make a cartoon on them… and you decided to make that mole hill into a mountain. Are you perhaps currently in PSYCHOANALYSIS? You need to look at yourself in the mirror and laugh at yourself, not at my lack of knowledge regarding to poet starlets of means. Because one cartoonifies a poet or poets does not necessarily mean the cartoonist is resentful. Your coming to that conclusion probably reflects, more than anything else, your own resentment vis a vis the cartoonist. Think about it, or are you too perfect to learn?
You write: “Given the general inability you have demonstrated state your views logically, substantiate your claims, or even state these views without invoking some self-serving tale of how the powers that be are persecuting you, it gives little surprise that some people choose to ignore you. You contribute nothing to any debate.” Reread that sentence, please. It makes you sound like a great windbag lawyer arguing in the defense of a losing case. You have no passion in your writing whatsoever. YOU LACK PASSION! That seems to sum up your person. I would like to see you actually laugh. Can you laugh a hearty laugh? Or can you only laugh on paper? All you do in your hollow argumentation is name call, as in “persecuting.” This paltry rhetorical tactic does nothing at all to move the discussion. On the contrary, it acts as an anchor upon it. BECAUSE I CRITICIZE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT I THINK PEOPLE ARE PERSECUTING ME. Yours is an asinine argument, to say the least. All it does is underscore your HATRED for critics who dare criticize people you like. Perhaps you are the one with feelings of persecution, not me. After all, you received so many “angry letters”!!!
You state: “I generally address people whom I do not know personally by their title. It is an idiosyncracy of mine-- nothing more.” It is an ELITIST idiosyncrasy. Read Emerson on titles and badges. Or are you too impervious to change. Now, you got me laughing out loud: “It's true that many poets do not appreciate honest criticism. Doug Holder can testify to the number of angry letters that he received when I was a reviewer for Ibbetson Street Press.” The “angry letters” were probably elicited more by YOUR ROBOTIC, PASSIONLESS COMMENTARY AND STYLE, than what you had to say, for you don’t say much. How utterly POMPOUS of you to make this statement: “I don't really mind if my criticism is unpopular, but because I present my arguments in a certain manner, and I substantiate my arguments, I am generally taken seriously, even by those who disagree.” How do you know all those “angry letter” writers took you seriously? In fact, most likely, they did not. Yes, that will be the statement I shall emphasize in my cartoon of you. That statement actually makes you into a cartoon! If you thought about it, you’d realize it implies that those people who wrote “angry letters” also wrote how much they loved your supposed “certain manner” (whatever the hell that means) of presenting your arguments. Man, you can’t get any more POMPOUS than that statement. You write: “I don't take your views seriously.” Yet your actions disprove that very statement! Can’t you even see that? Of course, you can’t! And that is the very crux of your problem. I’ll spell it out for you, maybe that will help you see, though I highly doubt it. In other words, if my views are not serious, then why the FUCK have you spent so much time trying to rebut them? If they are indeed not serious, then one must conclude you don’t even take yourself seriously. Touche, as they say in French with accent aigu, bien sur!
PS : Would you like to compare publications, yours and mine? If my views are not “serious,” why have I been widely published by people who I don’t even know? Well, of course, you could say that they too must not be “serious.”
PPS: I will waste less time and space next time if there is a next time responding to you… UNLESS you decide to rebut my cartoon of Doug Holder. In that case, I’ll gladly dig in again! Yes, let’s bring a little attention to that cartoon! (www.theamericandissident.org/LitToon.htm)

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:23:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Ed Galing et al
To: ibbetsonpress@msn.com

Doug,
You might wish to link my Galing page with yours. There's a toon I did on Ed. I sent it to him. www.theamericandissident.org/Poems-GalingEd.htm. If the toon isn't showing, hit it. I'll continue work on it.
Ian had complained it took me 1.5 days to respond to his email. Now, it's been about 4 since my last email to him. No response. Anyhow, I'm toonifying the fellow. I'll let you know when it's up on the website.

From: "Doug Holder" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ed Galing et al
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:36:32 -0500

I think he will be tickled just to let you know Ian is a mime, holds an MA in philosophy from Boston College I will send it around everyone loves your toons,.well a good number anyway
Doug Holder

From: "Doug Holder" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ed Galing et al
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:40:07 -0500

Could I get a copy of the Galing toon is it online I will put it on the site

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:33:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ed Galing et al
To: "Doug Holder" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>
Doug,
I'd rather you link the page on Ed. Would you do that? It's up now. RE Ian, the toon is already done. Now I'll have to put it up. I'll let you know when it is up. I did draw him in his mime suit.

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:06:54 -0500
From: "Ian Thal" <ianmthal@gmail.com>
To: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: Ian Thal dissed by the Dissident-Lit. Rogue of the month...

To: Doug HOLDER <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>
While I am at it, I shall note Slone/Maudit's lack of talent fo drawing the human form has led to him illustrating me doing stand up comedy (a form in which I do not work) instead of physical theatre (a form in which I do.) Another thing I noticed: He drew me with the full five digits on my right hand and with three fingers on my left-- with a stub for a thumb. I clearly have ten digits in the photo he used as the basis for the cartoon. What's with that?

On 2/11/07, Ian Thal <ianmthal@gmail.com> wrote:

> Doug,
I'm not even sure what point Slone/Maudit is trying to make. At least some of his cartoons comunicate a message (albeit frequently unsubstantiated.) The fact that he illustrated me in one of my clown costumes (I am guessing that the photographic source was from 2004 article in The Boston Globe), which seems to imply that he he finds it inconguous that someone might be both a clown and a literary critic. Evidently he doesn't realize that humor and criticism go hand in hand, but that should not surprise me coming from someone who believes that one can win an argument by using capitalization for emphasis. Essentially, this only further demonstrates that the American Dissident is nothing more than an American reactionary. While I am at it, I shall note Slone/Maudit's lack of talent for drawing the human form has led to him illustrating me doing stand up comedy (a form in which I do not work) instead of physical theatre (a form in which I do.)

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:11:05 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Ian Thal dissed by the Dissident-Lit. Rogue of the month...
To: ianmthal@gmail.com, bagelbards@yahoogroups.com

To Ibbetson Press:
To call the artwork in a simple cartoon bad is akin to shooting the messenger in order to avoid or divert attention from the message. It is the same thing when one says the writing is bad without even illustrating the point with precise examples. To say such a thing simply reflects on the person who says it… on his very inability to consider valid criticism. Most established-order personages use this shallow rhetorical tactic because They sincerely believe it aggrandizes Them, while belittling he who had the audacity to speak truth to Them. So, what was the message in the satirical cartoon? Was it the poorly drawn hand emphasized by Thal? (Well, I for one have no problem at all admitting wrong or fault—Yeah, that hand sucked. But how about Thal?) Actually, it was not the hand at all. Since the message was evidently far too complicated for Thal to grasp, I shall simplify it for him and any of those who actually take his critique seriously: Thal’s assertion that people take him “seriously” when he criticizes them because he “substantiates” his arguments—with what is anyone’s guess—is not only unfounded (Did he take a poll? If so, was I included in that poll?), but pompous and evidence of an ego with an inordinate amount of self-esteem. Indeed, Thal seems so self-confident that he’d probably believe that a person telling him he lacked logic in his argumentation was actually telling him he was a serious critic. Again, I suggest one take a look at the original object of Thal’s furious indignation: the cartoon on established-order notables Codrescu and Ferlinghetti. Having expressed my humble opinion on the latter evidently tainted, in Thal’s mind, everything I’ve ever written or drawn. Would it be better for individuals to express opinions only of the herd? Perhaps Thal would argue affirmatively. BTW, I for one find it pitiful that a poet would choose to masquerade as a clown. It simply emphasizes what little respect Thal holds for the metier… which is why I chose to draw him in his clown attire.

From: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>
To: todslone@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Boston National Poetry Festival
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:37:50 -0500

Ed speaks very highly of you Tod!

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Boston National Poetry Festival
To: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>

Well, okay. Thanks for passing that on. How to explain Ed? Ninety and still with his mind in tact, still out there battling! I'm publishing him again in next issue. Possibly Ed found out about me indirectly via you RE that ole toon. Enjoy the day. Here it is getting hotter n hell. 83! Louisiana.

From: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>
To: todslone@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Boston National Poetry Festival
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:12:09 -0500

Did you hear that Winans was burned out of his home?

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Boston National Poetry Festival
To: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>

Well, I did. I'm not a Winans fan however. But I wouldn't have wished that on him.

From: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>
To: massbook@hampshire.edu, slowdancer2006@netzero.net, afaaw@msn.com, kathiaguero@comcast.net, info@thegreatamericanpoetryshow.com, rcdebold@mindspring.com, phostovsky@yahoo.com, Hughfoxy@aol.com, ibbetsonstreetpressupdate@yahoogroups.com, victor@quantumredhead.com, jmchickenbaby@aol.com, jean@trounstine.com, hodgen@hotmail.com, ikoronas@yahoo.com, tamlin@comcast.net, lisa@lisalocke.net, brian@poesy.org, junkietroll@yahoo.com, Marccreate@aol.com, metrotribenews@yahoogroups.com, mcantor@prodigy.net, stmoss@gmail.com, motherofallpoetrygroups@yahoogroups.com, The_New_York_Quarterly@mail.vresp.com, info@margotvansluytman.com, poetry.guide@about.com, suered@gmail.com, richard.wollman@simmons.edu, richardmoorepoet@att.net, choirofday@cs.com, LukeSalisbury3@comcast.net, dsklar@endicott.edu, david@sunnyoutside.com, thurston@sonicyouth.com, TOMOLTIME@aol.com, todslone@yahoo.com
CC: ibbetsonpress@msn.com
Subject: Next issue of Poesy features interview with Todd Slone
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:53:35 -0400

Yes Brian Morrissey has interviewed that 'bad boy" of the small press. Agree or disagree with him, Todd Slone founder of "The American Dissident" (http://www. theamericandissident.org) is a man who exists to question the status quo, authority.... Look for the definitive interview with this controversial character from the world of the small press to be released April 16... for a peak at the cover go to http://www.poesy.org

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Next issue of Poesy features interview with Todd Slone
To: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>

Doug,
Well, a smile broke out upon my mean grumpy face when I read your write-up! Thanks. It is finally my turn for the ole 15 minutes! Whoopee. Hope all well. I am interviewing your friend Ed Galing for next issue of AD. How can one not like the fellow?

From: "Doug Holder" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>
To: "zviasesling" <zviasesling@comcast.net>, "Zephyr Press" <jkates@worldpath.net>, "wunjoyous" <wunjoyous@juno.com>, "Writers Room of Boston" <writersroomofboston@earthlink.net>, "worldaudience" <mstefanstrozier@worldaudience.org>, "whatsuplitnews" <michellesedaca@hotmail.com>, "wayneCafe Review atherton" <latheris@comcast.net>, "UncleFot Andrew O" <UncleFot@aol.com>, "Tuesday Journal" <jsflescher@yahoo.com>, "traptorra" <traptorra@excite.com>, "TracyStraussEmerson Coll.Poet" <tracy_strauss@emerson.edu>, "TOMOLTIME Cambridge Poet" <TOMOLTIME@aol.com>, "Tom Daley" <tom.daley2@verizon.net>, "todslone" <todslone@yahoo.com>, "Tnrlitmag" <Tnrlitmag@aol.com>, "Timothy Gager" <ctgager37@yahoo.com>, "timgreen" <timgreen@rattle.com>
Subject: POESY - INTERVIEWS Todd Slone Exposed/ Nate Graziano Revealed
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:06:47 -0400

click on: http://www.poesy.org/interviews.htm for full view of new Poest go to http://www.poesy.org

From: "Doug Holder" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>
To: "todslone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: George
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:33:36 -0400

Glad to see the interview Brian and I discussed it and thought it would be a good idea
Could you take massbook@simmons.edu of your list I guess she can hold any more emails than she already has Thanks--Doug

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ibbetson Update/ Glines Review "The Rose Cafe"
To: "Doug HOLDER" <ibbetsonpress@msn.com>

Doug,
Would you please post this response to Ian. I don’t know how to use your blog. I have clearly identified corruption with documentation, especially regarding the academic component, on my website. Apparently, Ian chooses not to see and there is little I can do to open his eyes. As for literature, if you simply read the exchange I had with Foetry.com, you will see how childish those fellows are and in that sense corrupt, hardly to be respected (http://www.theamericandissident.org/LitFoetry.htm). Because they gained notoriety means nothing at all. Look at all the crap that gets notoriety from mass murderer Cho to Harry Potter. Come on, Ian! No innuendo there at all. Regarding my long essay, “The Cold Passion for Truth Hunts in No Pa ck,” (http://www.theamericandissident.org/ColdPassion.htm), it was rejected by nearly 50 academic literary journals, but accepted by two non-academic lit journals—one paid $150 for it and I did not know the editor. Ian has to get over his grudge and examine the facts. Evidently, he is not happy that I’ve been a critic of the Stone Soup boys. Evidently, he did not like that cartoon I did on him because of its truth component (http://www.theamericandissident.org/LitToons-Thal,Ian.jpg): poets tend to be diversionary entertainers (Ian actually adorns courtjester uniforms!), not truth tellers. These are facts, not innuendo. In fact, in each and every cartoon I create, where real people are concerned, I use their own words. That is fact, not innuendo.