[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> mature as well.   
   >>   
   >> Sure, onr's children will fail to realize some of their possibilities,   
   >> too; but they will also realize some that their parents did not. Just   
   >> because MMP or Jim failed to reach your own goals, for example, it does   
   >> not follow that your children will fail at their goals as well.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> 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 thi   
   >   
   >>> 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 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.   
      
   Look who's talking.   
      
   🙂   
      
   >> 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."   
      
   Exactly, since Michael Pendragon is a lying hypothetical troll.   
      
   >>> 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."   
      
   Exactly, you nailed it again, George.   
      
   >>>> 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   
   >> great-grandfather - without him, there'd have been no EAP.   
   >   
   > If the "one" in question is George Dance, then, yes.   
   >   
   > I do not justify my life by any such sentimental tommyrot.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem.  Unfortunately, your   
   >>>> attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines   
   >>>> any possibilities ;-) it might have had.   
   >>>   
   >>> GD: It's sad that Michael's opinion of the poem (which, as noted, he   
   >>> previously published in his "literary journal") has fallen so much since   
   >>> he put me on his enemy's list. I'm sure that was just a coincidence,   
   >>> though.   
   >>   
   >>> MMP: Again, Mr. Dance is confusing the purpose of The Sunday Sampler,   
   >>> and A Year of Sundays which is its current incarnation.   
   >>   
   >>> A Year of Sundays was created to provide a showcase for the best poetry   
   >>> of each of AAPC's members. My opinion regarding Mr. Dance's poem has not   
   >>> changed: it is without doubt one of Mr. Dance's better works.   
   >>   
   >> Really? MMP claimed just days ago (in the post I'm replying to) that the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)