[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> poem was "illiterate". Now he's saying that he thought it was   
   >> "illiterate" when he published it in AYOS? Why would he publish an   
   >> "illiterate" poem? And why, FTM, what is holding him back from showing   
   >> why he allegedly thought it was illiterate?   
   >   
   >> (Those are rhetorical questions, of course. I think MMP is bullshitting,   
   >> and that his stated opinions did change, when he switched me from   
   >> potential ally to open adversary. But he is free to prove me wrong by   
   >> supplying credible answers.)   
   >   
   >   
   > I never saw you as a potential ally, George.  Your attachment to Will   
   > and his sock were known to be inseverable.   
      
      
      
   >>> Nor is Mr. Dance on my imaginary "enemies list."   
   >>   
   >> There is no need to even look for a quote. There is no other reason why   
   >> MMP jumped into this discussion, two years ago or now, other than to   
   >> protect Mr. Chimp from me? Or why his Mr. Chimp even started it? One   
   >> that's better than this Team Monkey vs. Team Donkey thing you now claim   
   >> to have no memory of?   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>> *****Speaking of A Year of Sundays... I'm currently compiling our 2024   
   >>> print volume, which features the work of such (usenet) AAPC favorites as   
   >>> J.D. Senetto, NancyGene, Ash Wurthing, Kevin Fries, Bob Burrows,   
   >>> Hieronymous Corey, Karen Tellefsen, Richard Oakley, Wenceslas Kabeba,   
   >>> and my oh-so-humble self; along with FB AAPC favorites, Louise Charlton   
   >>> Webster, Scott Thomas, Bruce Boston, Robert Payne Cabeen, Paul Cordeiro,   
   >>> ruth housman, Trinity-memyandi Venter, Jefferson Carter, Joseph Danoski,   
   >>> Stephen Brooke, & Devin Anderson.*****   
   >>   
   >> Congratulations; that's at least 19 people who'll buy a copy. Make that   
   >> 20; I'll probably get one to see what Bruce Boston wrote.   
   >   
   > I sincerely hope you will.  I've been working on selection and layout   
   > most of this month, and am very excited about the quality of the work   
   > we'll be showcasing.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> But I digress   
   >>>   
   >>> (backthread snipped)   
   >>>   
   >>>> 1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any   
   >>>> given form.  One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a   
   >>>> triolet.  All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the   
   >>>> format.   
   >>>   
   >>> GD: It certainly seems to be too hard for some people.   
   >>>   
   >>> MMP: What a childish and petty thing to say!   
   >>   
   >> MMP and his Mr. Chimp may believe they can write really wonderful   
   >> triolets if they felt like it. There is absolutely no reason for me to   
   >> humor them, of course.   
   >   
   > Why should we believe that when we've both repeatedly told you that we   
   > don't write triolets?   
      
   Why not?   
      
   I've written several recently.   
      
   >>>> 2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms.   
   >>>   
   >>> See above.   
   >>>   
   >>>> If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me.   
   >>>>  Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit   
   >>>> themselves to someone else's rules.   
      
   For once we agree.   
      
   >>> GD: The "Muse" is a charming idea, which I've heard of; but I don't   
   >>> remember ever seeing Her invoked to evade responsibility for one's   
   >>> writing until   
   >>> now.   
      
   Again, you nailed it again, George.   
      
   >> It's clear here that MMP is saying no one can blame him or Mr. Chimp for   
   >> what they write, because it's not their choice; their "muses" made them   
   >> write it that way. You just take dictation.   
      
   A really superstitious lot, aren't they?   
      
   >>> Quite the contrary, it stresses the importance of *not*   
   >>> sacrificing inspiration by forcing it into a preconceived format.   
   >   
   >>>> 3) Jim is a far better poet than you   
      
   Pendragon slurping Senetto noted... again.   
      
   >> This is the other side of MMP's editorial philosophy: "When Jim is seen   
   >> as a potential ally, you request his poetry." That's raw, unadulterated   
   >> reality.   
      
   Exactly.   
      
   >>>> Your   
   >>>> poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.   
      
   ^^^ This describes the sing song lackluster poetry of Michael Pendragon   
   perfectly. ^^^   
      
   >>> GD: Interestingly, MMP concludes by once again praising the work of   
   >>> an   
   >>> ally Jim ("Edward") while insulting the work of an adversary. If he were   
   >>> still here, I'm sure he'd shrug that off as just a coincidence.   
   >>>   
   >>> MMP: J.D. Senetto is an exceptionally talented poet.  In fact, my   
   >>> 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.   
      
   Don't forget to correct the botched apostrophes and the spelling and   
   grammar errors.   
      
   >> 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:   
      
   Exactly, and for the umpteenth time, you nailed it, George.   
      
   >> 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?   
      
   He's not allowed to agree at this point.   
      
   >> If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each   
   >> other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.   
   >   
   >>> 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 that Will opened the thread to expose my   
   > "secret" identity???   
      
   Not really.   
      
   As usual, it was obviously your monkey mind at work here, Pendragon.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Exactly.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Well, they didn't name him "Senile Senetto" for nothing.   
      
   And so it goes   
      
   🙂   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)