[continued from previous message]   
      
   I don't remember any "libelous stuff" coming from NancyGene, Jim, or   
   myself.  The late, unlamented Pickles was shown to be a pathological   
   liar, a thief, and a NAMBLA supporter.   
      
      
   >> It was only *after* you'd begun attacking Jim (and supporting NAMBLA)   
   >> that he asked to have his poetry removed from your blog.   
   >   
   > I don't think so, Lying Michael. As I recall, you began posting about   
   > NAMBLA only afterward. In any case, I didn't get involved in your   
   > NAMBLA discussion until afterward.   
      
   It's your recollection vs mine, George -- not that it makes one iota of   
   difference either way.   
      
   IIRC, Jim was in the middle of heated argument with Pickles regarding   
   Ginsberg's alleged sexual encounters with minors.  NancyGene posted   
   quotes the late, unlamented one had made elsewhere, wherein he   
   championed sex with both children and family members.  Pickles admitted   
   to, and defended, said quotations, and you supported him (as well as his   
   despicable position).   
      
   It was then that Jim, thoroughly disgusted by your arguments, opted to   
   have his poetry removed from you blog.   
      
   Again, not that it makes the least bit of difference.  They were Jim's   
   poems -- not yours.  Jim has a right to resubmit his poetry elsewhere.   
   First publication rights do not grant you the right to publish his poem   
   in perpetuity.   
      
   Your refusal to remove his poetry from your blog (for whatever reason)   
   constituted an act of literary theft.   
      
      
      
   >>> It is a fact that Jim cannot write anything that someone like you, for   
   >>> instance, would even call poetry. That's not an attack, just fact. But   
   >>> it's not something I told him at the time; that wouldn't have made any   
   >>> sense.   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm afraid you're confusing unconnected events that happened years   
   >>> apart.   
   >>   
   >> No, George.  I was merely providing a two examples of your behavior   
   >> toward Jim.  I am not in any way attempting to place your numerous   
   >> examples on a timeline.   
   >   
   > You're certainly contradicting the actual timeline.   
      
   Again, I have neither mentioned, nor implied any timeline.   
      
   That is an example of one of your "straw man" arguments.  You are   
   attempting to "disprove" my accusations by claiming that I failed to   
   list them sequentially.   
      
   You've behaved abominably to Jim countless times over the course of the   
   past 10 years (give or take) -- and to NancyGene, Robert, Ash, Corey,   
   and myself as well.   
      
   >> Allow me to rephrase that to your satisfaction: Over the course of the   
   >> 7+ years you've been fighting with Jim, you launched numerous attacks on   
   >> him.  One example, was when you called him illiterate.   
   >   
   > Look, I'm sorry that the snowflake is offended, but it's simple fact   
   > that   
   > Jim cannot write poetry, of any kind; and, as this thread also   
   > demonstrates,   
   > he can't even punctuate properly.   
      
   The simple fact is that *I* consider free verse to be a misnamed form of   
   prose.  Virtually everyone else on the planet considers it to be a valid   
   poetic form.   
      
   Jim writes free verse extremely well.  He is one of the best free verse   
   poets I have ever read.  His poetry was extremely popular here, and   
   remains so in The Official AAPC FB group.   
      
   I also feel that Jim is a much better writer than you.   
      
   You've made quite a few typos in this thread, George.  I have merely   
   chosen not to point them out.  And I'm sure that I've made my share of   
   errors as well.   
      
   It's Usenet -- typos come with the territory.   
      
      
      
   >> Another example   
   >> was when you challenged him to write a triolet and to pit it against one   
   >> of yours.   
   >   
   > I've challenged him to write many forms - triolets, centos, ballad   
   > meter,   
   > even haiku - but he hasn't been willing to make an effort. He's just too   
   > stupid (too wilfully ignorant) to learn. Once again, that's just a fact.   
      
   That's funny.  He's posted several Haikus to The Official AAPC page.   
      
   But do you seriously believe that everyone should be willing to make an   
   effort to write poetry in an established form simply because you've   
   challenged them to?   
      
   Jim excels at free verse.  In fact, the more prosaic Jim's poems are,   
   the better they actually read.  Jim's power as a writer is in his   
   ability to capture a sense of reality in his words.  Why should he be   
   expected to change his form and or style to suit your whim?   
      
      
   >> Happy?   
   >>   
   >> As to your claim that I wouldn't call Jim's writing "poetry," you are   
   >> intentionally falsifying my meaning by referring to my words out of   
   >> context (unfortunately this is another of your standard practices).   
   >   
   > It's the definition of "poetry" you proposed and we both agreed to,   
   > earlier on this thread. I understand that you realize you fucked up   
   > and want to switch definitions, but - nope.   
      
   Seriously?   
      
   My definition of "poetry" is my own.  If you choose to agree to it, that   
   makes two of us.  Most readers, publishers, scholars, professors, etc.,   
   would vehemently disagree.   
      
   But be that as it may.  My definition of what constitutes "poetry"   
   should have no bearing on Jim's talent as a writer.   
      
   Regardless of whether you call it "poetry" or "prose," Jim remains an   
   extremely talented author.   
      
   The fact that you are seeking to use my very limited definition out of   
   context as an implied dismissal of Jim's work, is yet another example of   
   the duplicity I'd mentioned at the start of today's post.   
      
      
   >> In your above statement, you make it appear as if I had been making a   
   >> value judgment regarding Jim's work.  Such was not the case.  I have   
   >> always defined "poetry" as "a literary form comprising rhymed-metered   
   >> verse."  The majority of Jim's works do not use rhyme or meter, so they   
   >> fall outside of my definition of poetry.   
   >   
   > Not just his work: The majority of wwhat you publish in AYOS falls   
   > outside   
   > your definition of poetry. You publish his non-verse (and NancyGene's   
   > doggerel) because they're your allies.   
      
   Again: AAPC was conceived to be a "sampler" of the writings of the   
   various poets who participate in the group.  Anyone in the group can   
   write in any style they choose.  That's the whole point of it.   
      
   You know this very well, because you had attempted to take over Jim's   
   "Sunday Sampler" (unsuccessfully) after one of Jim's sabbaticals from   
   the Usenet AAPC.   
      
   I publish Jim and NancyGene, and everyone else, *because* they are   
   members of the group.   
      
      
      
   >> They are, however, excellent   
   >> literary works -- and works which contemporary critics would define as   
   >> "Modern Poetry."   
   >>   
   >> And, FYI, Jim's work is still receiving compliments from other Modern   
   >> poets on The Official AAPC FB page.   
   >>   
   >> I am a fan of Jim's writing.  I just consider it to be extremely well   
   >> written prose.   
   >   
   > I understand perfectly. You (the anonymous person inside thw socks don't   
   > think   
   > Jim's work (and most of what you post on AYOS) is even poetry, but you   
   > (as your "Michael Pendragon" sock) have to praise his work and request   
   > it for your journal, because he's your ally. Which I've repeatedly   
   > pointed out.   
      
   That's not even remotely true, George.   
      
   AYoS is a sampler. It was created to show off the poetry of *all* of   
   AAPC's members.  It has nothing to do with my definition of poetry.  It   
   has nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes.  It merely shows   
   off the poetry of our group's members.   
      
   PJR used to post a link to a web page that described each of AAPC's   
   members (nearly all of whom were long gone by the time I joined).  Jim   
   created the "Sampler" (among other reasons) to show readers who the   
   current members were.  "A Year of Sundays" is merely picking up where   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)