[continued from previous message]   
      
   Jim as said that he's written over 10,000 poems, and that in his   
   opinion, a hundred or two of those qualify as "excellent."  I haven't   
   read 10,000 of his poems, but based on what I have read, I'll readily   
   agree.  But two hundred excellent poems is quite an accomplishment --   
   regardless of how many misfires it took to produce them.   
      
   There is nothing even remotely duplicitous in my comments regarding   
   Jim's work.  When he's good, he's very, very good.  When he's bad, he's   
   bad... and I'm the first to tell him so.   
      
      
   > If you truly believed that poetry was formal verse, then you wouldn't   
   > even be reading either Jim's chopped-up prose, or FTM NG's doggerel,   
   > much   
   > less praising it or publishing it in your journal.   
      
   For the 40th time: AYoS publishes representative work by *each* and   
   *all* of the members who post poetry on our group FB page.  It doesn't   
   matter how good or bad their poetry might be in my estimation -- if they   
   post it, I publish it.   
      
   AYoS is a *sampler* wherein people who are following our FB page can see   
   what *each* of us writes in a magazine format.  That's all it is.   
   That's all it was ever meant to be.   
      
   I am not picking and choosing what goes into it.  *Every* poem that gets   
   posted automatically gets published.   
      
   Our year-end issue selects some of the best examples of each of the   
   participating poets, but *all* of the members are *always* included in   
   it.   
      
   > Do you believe your   
   > definition or not? The answer: it depends on "context".   
      
   Obviously.   
      
   If we're discussing modern poetry, I'm going to refer to it as poetry   
   out of convenience.  My insisting on referring to it as "chopped prose"   
   or "pseudo-poetry" during a discussion would be mean-spirited and petty   
   in the extreme.   
      
   If, otoh, we're discussing my *personal* definition of poetry, I will   
   use the stricter definition accordingly.   
      
   NEWSFLASH: Many words have multiple meanings.  The meaning in question   
   is generally derived from the context in which it is used.  Surely you   
   must have learned this in school?   
      
      
   > If you can   
   > "win an argument" using the above definition, you believe it; but if you   
   > can't "win an argument" with it, you don't. Your purported beliefs are   
   > whatever you think will give you that win.   
      
   See above.   
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > By "AAPC" you probably mean AYOS. It's interesting to hear that AYOS   
   > is not longer a sample of "The Year's Best Poetry" (as you say both in   
   > the chapbook and your advertising for it), but only for your "poets"   
   > to write whatever they want. That's a good example of how the "context"   
   > -   
   > changes what you think or say.   
      
   Yes, I meant AYoS.   
      
   No, AYoS is not "The Year's Best Poetry."  It is "The Year's Best Poetry   
   by AAPC Members."  And the chapbook and advertising make this abundantly   
   clear.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Aside from being a lie, Lying Michael, your sentence makes no sense. How   
   > would my running the former Sampler (at Jim's request) for a couple of   
   > weeks   
   > effect, in any way, whether AYOS ppublished poetry or just any writing?   
   > Reading my issues, I'd say the latter; but WTF does the Sampler have to   
   > do with that?   
      
   You did not step in at Jim's request.   
      
   You took it upon yourself to step in after Jim closed it down.   
      
      
   >> I publish Jim and NancyGene, and everyone else, *because* they are   
   >> members of the group.   
   >   
   > Neither Jim nor NG are currently members of aapc, Lying Michael.   
   > I could remind you that you've said yourself that they haven't been here   
   > for   
   > months, but you'll just say that's a different "context"; they're aapc   
   > members   
   > when you want them to be, and not aapc members when you don't want them   
   > to be.   
      
   AAPC does not begin and end with your little Usenet group, George.   
      
   When Google Groups shut down, the majority of AAPC's members relocated   
   to Facebook.   
      
   The FB Group includes such former Usenet members as: myself, NancyGene,   
   Jim, Ash, Bob, Corey, Karen, Richard, ME &  Wenceslas.   
      
   Your group has you, Will, Zod, Rachel, and Jordy.   
      
   Based on Majority rights, our version has the best argument for   
   retaining the AAPC name -- but I'm willing to share.   
      
   [TO BE CONTINUED]   
      
      
      
      
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > I know that's what it was created for, and what it's sold as. It's a   
   > direct copy of /April/ magazine that I've told you about (except I   
   > didn't sell mine).   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > AYOS is being marketed as a sampler to show off the poetry of *all* of   
   > aapc's members,   
   > but as I've told you it's turned into a vanity project for Team Monkey   
   > and assorted   
   > trolls, none of which are writing anything on aapc. Except you, of   
   > course, under   
   > a new sock, but I don't think you'd publish any of that on aapc.   
   >   
   >> 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).   
   >   
   > I don't think it was his list, or that it was specifically aapc.   
   >   
   >> Jim   
   >> created the "Sampler" (among other reasons) to show readers who the   
   >> current members were.  "A Year of Sundays" is merely picking up where   
   >> the "Sunday Sampler" left off.   
   >   
   > The big difference with AYOS, of course, is that it has nothing to do   
   > with aapc.   
   >   
   >> I like both Jim and NancyGene's poetry, and am glad that I'm able to   
   >> include it in AYoS.  But I don't publish it because I like it.  I   
   >> publish it because they are members of AAPC and AYoS is a "sampler" for   
   >> AAPC poets to display their work in.   
   >   
   > No, lying Michael. Neither have participated in AAPC since google   
   > stopped   
   > carrying it, except for one possible troll post each. they're members of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)