[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > 😏   
      
   I'm used to all of your idiotic stock comments, Donkey: tizzy, confused,   
   calm down, etc.   
      
   Trolls get off on pushing others into an emotionally upset state   
   ("MELTDOWN!").   
      
   It gives them a sense of power that is invariably lacking in their   
   personal lives.   
      
   BTW, I'm not seeing any sock activity here, Donkey.  Don't tell me your   
   socks have left as well.   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)