[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Now, that's as adulatory as if the Chimp wrote it himself - and just as   
   > meaningful, I'm afraid. As I've said, and not just to MMP and his team:   
      
   It's merely a statement of fact.  Jim has posted a large number of poems   
   to AAPC this year (well over 100).  Many of these are excellent poems.   
   However, since AYoS is only 120 pages long, and seeks to present a   
   balanced representation of its contributors, I shall have to pare that   
   number down to a mere dozen or so.  Since a guestimated 2/3s of Jim's   
   poems are top notch works, deciding which to leave out is proving to be   
   an extremely difficult task.   
      
      
   > If a poet consistently praised his own and only his own work, that   
   > wouldn't be seen as a comment on the work but on the poet. Do you agree   
   > so far?   
      
   That would depend upon the circumstances.   
      
   For example, if a poetry group posted poetry by Will, his Sock, and   
   virtually anyone else, I don't see how anyone could expect this third   
   person to do otherwise.   
      
      
      
   > If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each   
   > other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.   
      
      
   Again, this depends on the circumstances.  If Will and his sock   
   consistently praise one another's work, it is soon recognized for the   
   mutual slurpage that it is.  If, however, we are talking about a group   
   consisting of Will, his sock, and any two other individuals, one cannot   
   expect said individuals from doing otherwise.   
      
   Of course, these individuals could be insincere and offer polite   
   compliments to Will and his sock as well... but such would only render   
   their comments regarding one another's work as suspect.   
      
      
   I had thought that you were in the process of leading me to some   
   presumably logical conclusion; however, your train of thought appears to   
   have chugged off to parts unknown.   
      
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > That should be "clear" to anyone. Rereading the thread and thinking of   
   > new things to say would be enough to explain why I'd comment again.   
      
   I thought we were pretending that Will opened the thread to expose my   
   "secret" identity???   
      
   LOL!  Of course, you weren't fooling anyone with that nonsense.  We all   
   know that you thought of some new comeback... two years later.   
      
   Hence, my allusion to "Jerk Store."   
      
   ["Jerk Store!" alludes to an episode of Seinfeld wherein "George"   
   (hmm...) comes up with what he believes to be the perfect comeback to a   
   coworker several hours after everyone has gone home.  The following day,   
   George provokes his coworker into making the same put down again, just   
   so he can use his perfect rejoinder... only to have it immediately met   
   with another put down.]   
      
      
      
      
   > There's no no reason to think that I'd thought of Mr. Chimp's edit in   
   > the intervening time, and I certainly can't say that I have. For   
   > another, I did not address his edit in my reply; I tried to keep the   
   > focus consistently on MMP's "third man" intervention into the flame war   
   > Mr. Chimp had begun; and the new points I made in that respect were   
   > enough to merit a new reply.   
      
   Your actions belie your words.   
      
      
      
   >> OTOH, I doubt Jim has given it a single thought.   
   >   
   > That's possibly true. It's questionable whether Mr. Chimp gives anything   
   > he does much thought.   
      
      
   Since Mr, Senetto isn't here to defend himself, I'm sure that you can   
   say whatever you choose to about him, without fear of having him one up   
   you as a result.   
      
   Or, to allude to the immortal Mother Goose, the boys have not yet come   
   out to play.   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)