[continued from previous message]   
      
   feelings regarding yours and Mr. Donkey's poetry in my previous post in   
   this thread."   
      
   Why was it necessary for me to repeat this? Because you keep insisting   
   that I was referring to my critiques in the Sunday Sampler "7 years ago,   
   before you   
   formed Team Monkey," when I was specifically referring to my comments in   
   *this* thread which I had made, not 7 years ago, but only the day   
   before.   
      
      
   >> As you can see, I was referring you to what was then "my previous post"   
   >> -- which I kindly reposted for you above.   
   >>   
   >> As to said quote, it is not just a "rehash" of my comments regarding the   
   >> illiterate nature of your triolet.  It is a statement regarding your   
   >> work in general.   
   >   
   > What you just quoted says nothing about my "work" - it's just you   
   > patting yourself on the back about how "fair and balanced" you used to   
   > be, and claiming that you still are.   
      
   Please tell my that you're play the dunce strictly for the sake of   
   trolling me!   
      
   For the 7th time: "And, FWIW, I have provided my feelings regarding   
   yours and Mr. Donkey's poetry in my previous post in this thread."   
      
   Allow me to add some ALL CAPS to the above to make it clearer to you:   
   "And, FWIW, I have provided my feelings regarding yours and Mr. Donkey's   
   poetry IN MY PREVIOUS POST IN THIS THREAD."   
      
   That means that you have to scroll up (what was at the time only one   
   post) in order to see my critique of your poetry.   
      
      
      
   >> And, as I said, a close reading will show you that   
   >> this is true. I praise your technical skill, but find your content   
   >> commonplace, maudlin, sentimental, and generally uninspired.   
   >   
   > Oh, that again. That 3-line summary is clear enough, so there's no need   
   > to read the detailed "critique".   
      
   A three-line summary is not the same as a more in-depth critique,   
   George.  However, I am not the least surprised to hear you admit that   
   one negative comment about your poetry automatically negates any   
   positive comments that might have accompanied it.   
      
   > As you know, you've said that before,   
   > when commenting on specific poems. At least in those cases we could   
   > discuss the actual meaning of the poem, but in a criticism of my "work   
   > in general" there's nothing to discuss.   
      
   Yes, George, I've said that before.  I tend to be consistent in my   
   critiques.   
      
      
   >> What you write, you usually write very well.  Unfortunately, your poems   
   >> fail to hold my interest.   
   >   
   > Fine; if you're not interested you're not interested. End of discussion.   
      
   "Fine" is the reaction of a butt-hurt five-year old, and should always   
   be said with the lower lip jutting forward and accented with the   
   stamping of a foot.   
      
   I have said that "you usually write very well."  That is hardly an   
   antagonistic stance to take.   
      
      
   > So what are you after by reposting this? Would you like a similar   
   > "critique" of your "work in general"? Do you want me to get all   
   > defensive and give you what's called a "revenge crit"?   
      
   A "revenge crit" would be pointless, as your object would be to belittle   
   my writing.  This can be easily accomplished by heaping a lot of   
   disparaging adjectives in its direction without taking the time to point   
   out relevant examples and explaining *why* such adjectives apply.   
      
   If you would like to provide an in-depth critique of one or more of my   
   poems, pointing out specific examples that either work or fail to do so,   
   and *explaining* precisely *why* they work or fail, I would be   
   exceedingly grateful.  However, I am neither asking you, nor attempting   
   to goad you into, providing one.   
      
      
   > Or do you want me   
   > to pretend to agree with you, and praise you for finding "truths" about   
   > my poetry that for some reason the writer was blind to? Or do you just   
   > want a thank-you?   
      
   I would like you to stop pretending that my critiques are positive or   
   negative base on my current "alliances."  I think you are a very   
   skillful poet. I have always held this position.  I also believe that   
   your poetry lacks emotion, and find the "messages" to be commonplace and   
   often cloying   
      
   You can take that as a "put-down," stomp your foot, stick out your lower   
   lip, and mutter insults like "monkey" and "peabrain," or you can take   
   that as constructive criticism and figure out a way to write more with   
   your emotions and less with your head.   
      
   > One person's opinion is all well and good, and at least I didn't have to   
   > pay for it, but that's all it is; one person's opinion. Thank you for   
   > giving it.   
      
   Every opinion matters as long as it is offered with sincerity.  Opinions   
   are not proclamations carved in stone.  They are windows through which   
   you can see how your writing appears to your readers.   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)