[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> MMP: Why do you lie so much, Mr. Dance?   
   >>>   
   >>> There is not even a hint of evading poetic responsibility in my   
   >>> statement.   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>> 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.  Jim's poems strike the reader as   
   >>>> being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality.   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>>> Your   
   >>>> poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> 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:   
   >>   
   >> 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?   
   >> If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each   
   >> other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.   
   >>   
   >>>> Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
      
      
   Wow!  The butthurt in the above rant is palpable.   
      
   Not only are you butthurt over my post, but you're harboring old   
   butthurts from Jim and PJR.   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)