[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> You sure have Michael Pendragon in a tizzy today.   
   >>   
   >> 😏   
   >   
   > Oh no!  Not the dreaded tizzy!   
   >   
   > How will I ever live it down???   
   >   
   > --   
      
   You should be used to it by now, Pendragon.   
      
   😏   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)