Thanks, Gunnar, for opening my eyes to the problem in perception here.
While "fiercely liberal" (your characterization) and "incredibly abusive"
(Michelle Hadden's) may be overstatements (or maybe not), does it take much
imagination to see that they occupy here, if not fill up, two sides of the
same perceptual coin?

  For my part, unless the sky really is falling, I didn't see any language
in John Ryskamp's post or Peter Montgomery's post that should have
warranted any declarations of abusive language, let alone "the most
offensive message ever posted on this list" etc.  I mention both because it
was not at all clear who could have been the "offender." One can only
wonder what the perceived offense was, and wonder at the remark itself
which seems to manage at the same time to be baseless, off-base, and base.
Though, unintentionally, one presumes.

  We do seem to get in a snit in December, don't we?

  Given TSE's belief, Gunnar,  that ours is an age (ours and his are not
different in that character, are they?) worm-eaten by liberalism, what do
you think he would make of a "fiercely liberal" commentator on his poetry,

  Ken Armstrong