[continued from previous message]
I'm afraid you're having difficulty understanding what you actually
wrote. Your poem stated that time and circumstance will *always*
diminish the alleged "possibilities" one is born with, as if it were a
universal, hard-fast law of the universe. By attempting to undercut it
later in your poem, your poem's conclusion creates an oxymoron.
>>> This, again, is not a coherent sentence.
>>
>> GD: Once again, that is solely due to Edward's editing.
>>
>> MMP: "Once again,..." Quite. And one supposes that will be repeating it
>> yet a third time two years from now.
>
> If MMP shows up two years from now with a new sock, we might try the
> same thing. But not probably with a different thread; the archives are
> full of threads like this.
There would be no need for you to do so, then, either.
If you cannot immediately recognize my identity from my writing, then
you have no business participating in a supposed literary group.
>>> You really spend way too much
>>> time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.
>>
>> GD: It figures that you'd try to blame Will; but I don't see how you can
>> blame him for Edward's sloppy editing.
>>
>> MMP: Mr. Donkey serves as proof of the old adage concerning the "one bad
>> apple."
>>
>> In this case, the presence of one illiterate member of a group causes
>> the other members to relax their standards.
>>
>> Or, in the words of another adage, any group will inevitably settle to
>> the level of its lowest participant.
>
> MMP repeatedly complains about me repeating this point, but it doesn't
> seem to have sunk in yet, so:
> The only examples of "illiteracy" that have been shown in this thread
> came from Jim. (Better yet, let's "settle" to MMP's level and start
> calling Jim Mr. Chimp again.)
Really, Mr. Dance. You ought to be embarrassed to be indulging in such
infantile name calling... especially at your age.
> I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
> shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
> adversary. As he says: "When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
> assign a childish name to him and claim he
> can't write."
ROTFLMAO! Will is illiterate. Will cannot write in complete sentences.
If there's a word of two or more syllables appearing in one of Will's
poems, there's an 80% chance that he's misused it.
This has nothing to do with liking or disliking Will. It's simply a
fact.
Will is a high school drop out who never mastered basic English.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/EA_gCO9_
Dk/m/DWT2Fq0TBwAJ?hl=en
>
>>> How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to
>>> irrelevancy by years?
>>
>> GD: As I already explained: they're restored in the next generation.
>>
>> MMP: And as I've already explained, the next generation's possibilities
>> are as limited as those of their forebears. Since time and circumstance
>> will *always* conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they
>> reach adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities at birth are
>> necessarily an illusion.
>
> Nonsense; people can and do realize possibilities in their lives,
> including those their ancestors never did. No one can do everything, of
> course, but plenty of people have done enough to justify their existence
> {many of whose ancestors did nothing to justify theirs, beyond - wait
> for it - having families).
We are not debating the issue of whether one can realize any
possibilities (whatever one chooses that generic statement to mean). We
are debating what *your poem* actually says.
Allow me to make my out of context quote a little more clear to you:
"And as I've already explained, [your poem claims that] the next
generation's possibilities are as limited as those of their forebears.
Since [according to your poem] time and circumstance will *always*
conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they reach
adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities [that according to your
poem, exist] at birth are necessarily an illusion."
Hopefully, the above edit will clear up any lingering comprehension
problems you might have.
>>> Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences),
>>
>> GD: I do hope we've spent enough time on Edward's pseudo-sentences.
>>
>> MMP: LOL! If Mr. Dance actually meant what he said, he wouldn't have
>> reopened a two-year old thread in order to bitch about Mr. Rochester's
>> "edits" to his poem a second time.
>
> LOL right back. I've already explained why I commented on the thread
> Will reopened. But I'm serious; we've advanced the debate. MMP has not
> disputed that all "illiteracy" he discovered was caused by Mr. Chimp,
> but he's sticking to his story that the poem is still "illiterate"
> anway, as per his editorial philosophy: "When [someone] is seen as an
> adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."
Wrong again, George.
I have repeatedly shown how your poem's basic argument is
self-contradictory. A literate writer would have avoided this.
>>> your
>>> poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that
>>> the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to
>>> achieve it.
>
> What is "it"? No one realizes "unlimited" possibilites, but plenty of
> people realize some, including ones their parents failed to realize.
It's your poem, George. "It" is the "unlimited possibilities" that your
poem claims exist at birth, but are *always* diminished over the course
of one's lifetime.
You keep repeating that the children can still achieve more than their
parents, but that *according to the logic of your poem* simply is not
the case.
According to your poem the parents were born with unlimited
possibilities as well. And, also according to your poem, these
possibilities were decreased over the course of their lives.
This doesn't mean that the parents didn't manage to achieve some of
their possibilities. It means that *everyone* (parents, children,
grandchildren, etc.) are born with infinite possibilities and manage to
achieve a few of them.
>>> As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take
>>> solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential
>>> will be as unrealized as our own.
>>
>> GD: Nothing in the poem about "compensation" - the word I used was
>> "justification". A person who has children has not completely wasted his
>> or her own life, no matter how much he or she hasn't done.
>
>> MMP: Sentimental hogwash.
>
> Nothing sentimental about it. You or I have no idea what those children,
> or their children, or their children will do. That gives one a reason to
> value other people, to judge them to be at least worth not harming - but
> it's a reason based purely on self-interest, not sentiment.
Pish-tosh! I know sentiment when I smell it... and right now I'm
holding my nose.
>> I point to the example of "Joey"
> - and I'll snip it, because it looks like another attempt to flame Will
> and/or to change the subject. Instead, I'll give an example of my own.
>
> One justifies one's life by adding value to the world.
> Did Edgar Allan Poe add value to the world? I'd say yes, by his writing.
> Did John M. Poe add value to the world? I'm not aware of anything he
> did, but I'd say yes for him as well, because he was EAP's
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
