[continued from previous message]   
      
   changed: it is without doubt one of Mr. Dance's better works.   
      
   Nor is Mr. Dance on my imaginary "enemies list."   
      
      
   *****Speaking of A Year of Sundays... I'm currently compiling our 2024   
   print volume, which features the work of such (usenet) AAPC favorites as   
   J.D. Senetto, NancyGene, Ash Wurthing, Kevin Fries, Bob Burrows,   
   Hieronymous Corey, Karen Tellefsen, Richard Oakley, Wenceslas Kabeba,   
   and my oh-so-humble self; along with FB AAPC favorites, Louise Charlton   
   Webster, Scott Thomas, Bruce Boston, Robert Payne Cabeen, Paul Cordeiro,   
   ruth housman, Trinity-memyandi Venter, Jefferson Carter, Joseph Danoski,   
   Stephen Brooke, & Devin Anderson.*****   
      
   But I digress.   
      
      
   (backthread snipped)   
      
   > WTF is wrong with you, George?   
   > You didn't mention any book in this thread.   
   > And no one is talking about a book that may or may not have happened   
   > (whatever that is supposed to mean).   
      
   > 1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any   
   > given form.  One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a   
   > triolet.  All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the   
   > format.   
      
   GD: It certainly seems to be too hard for some people.   
      
   MMP: What a childish and petty thing to say!   
      
   > 2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms.   
      
   See above.   
      
   > If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me.   
   >  Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit   
   > themselves to someone else's rules.   
      
   GD: The "Muse" is a charming idea, which I've heard of; but I don't   
   remember   
   ever seeing Her invoked to evade responsibility for one's writing until   
   now.   
      
   MMP: Why do you lie so much, Mr. Dance?   
      
   There is not even a hint of evading poetic responsibility in my   
   statement.  Quite the contrary, it stresses the importance of *not*   
   sacrificing inspiration by forcing it into a preconceived format.   
      
      
   > 3) Jim is a far better poet than you.  Jim's poems strike the reader as   
   > being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality.  Your   
   > poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.   
      
   GD: Interestingly, Michael concludes by once again praising the work of   
   an   
   ally Jim ("Edward") while insulting the work of an adversary. If he were   
   still here, I'm sure he'd shrug that off as just a coincidence.   
      
   MMP: J.D. Senetto is an exceptionally talented poet.  In fact, my   
   greatest difficulty in selecting which poems to include in AYoS' year   
   end print journal, is in deciding which of Jim's poems to leave out.   
      
   > That's childish.   
      
   > That's even more childish.   
   >   
   > Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.   
      
   GD: Well, we can ask the readers who won this round: Michael's   
   adversary,   
   whose poem was edited by an illiterate; or Michael's ally, the   
   illiterate who did the editing.   
      
   MMP: I think it abundantly clear that Mr. Rochester is the winner, since   
   his "edit" of your poem has weighed so heavily on your consciousness   
   that you felt compelled to address it a second time... nearly two years   
   after the fact.   
      
   OTOH, I doubt Jim has given it a single thought.   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)