Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:58:18 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:20:10 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:29:37 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

As to your claim that I wouldn't call Jim's writing "poetry," you are
intentionally falsifying my meaning by referring to my words out of
context (unfortunately this is another of your standard practices).

>
It's the definition of "poetry" you proposed and we both agreed to,
earlier on this thread. I understand that you realize you fucked up
and want to switch definitions, but - nope.

>
Seriously?
>
My definition of "poetry" is my own.  If you choose to agree to it, that
makes two of us.  Most readers, publishers, scholars, professors, etc.,
would vehemently disagree.

I didn't say I agreed with it, Lying Michael; I said I'd accept it as
the
definition for this thread (though, since you now want to dispense with
it,
let's do so).
I'm quite happy to accept free verse as poetry (and have even written a
few
poems in free verse). I do think, though, that a would-be
poet should know how poetry is written. Even someone who uses free verse
should have some understanding of rhyme, meter, imagery, and sonics.
Jim,
as I mentioned, has none; and he's too stupid (too wilfully ignorant)
to learn any. And every poet should be willing and able to critically
reread and revise his work; which he cannot do either. So, as far as

But be that as it may.  My definition of what constitutes "poetry"
should have no bearing on Jim's talent as a writer.
>
Regardless of whether you call it "poetry" or "prose," Jim remains an
extremely talented author.

I won't debate "talent" with you, because that's completely
subjective - you call him talented because you like his writing.
What is objective fact is that Jim has no skill at writing. Skill
has to be acquired, and Jim has no interest in
acquiring it; he's happy with whatever he churns out. Which is fine with
me;
if he doesn't want to learn to develop his talents, by
learning some writing skills, he doesn't have to.

The fact that you are seeking to use my very limited definition out of
context as an implied dismissal of Jim's work, is yet another example of
the duplicity I'd mentioned at the start of today's post.

Good; that brings us back full circle - I began by saying that you were
using that word "duplicitous" incorrectly.
In this case, your "definition" was just something you brought up to
excuse your publishing a poem you're now trashing. So you told me
that Jim doesn't write poetry. Next time you talk to Jim, you'll be
telling him he does write poetry, using some other definition. Your
definitions, like all your beliefs, are contextual; they depend on
whom you're talking to, what you think of that person at the time,
and what you want to accomplish. You'll say one thing one day, and
the opposite the next day, because the "context" has changed. The
word for that is two-faced, or (as it's called in Latin) duplicitous.
If you truly believed that poetry was formal verse, then you wouldn't
even be reading either Jim's chopped-up prose, or FTM NG's doggerel,
much
less praising it or publishing it in your journal. Do you believe your
definition or not? The answer: it depends on "context". If you can
"win an argument" using the above definition, you believe it; but if you
can't "win an argument" with it, you don't. Your purported beliefs are
whatever you think will give you that win.

In your above statement, you make it appear as if I had been making a
value judgment regarding Jim's work  Such was not the case.  I have
always defined "poetry" as "a literary form comprising rhymed-metered
verse."  The majority of Jim's works do not use rhyme or meter, so they
fall outside of my definition of poetry.

>
Not just his work: The majority of wwhat you publish in AYOS falls
outside
your definition of poetry. You publish his non-verse (and NancyGene's
doggerel) because they're your allies.

>
Again: AAPC was conceived to be a "sampler" of the writings of the
various poets who participate in the group.  Anyone in the group can
write in any style they choose.  That's the whole point of it.

By "AAPC" you probably mean AYOS. It's interesting to hear that AYOS
is not longer a sample of "The Year's Best Poetry" (as you say both in
the chapbook and your advertising for it), but only for your "poets"
to write whatever they want. That's a good example of how the "context"
-
changes what you think or say.

You know this very well, because you had attempted to take over Jim's
"Sunday Sampler" (unsuccessfully) after one of Jim's sabbaticals from
the Usenet AAPC.

Aside from being a lie, Lying Michael, your sentence makes no sense. How
would my running the former Sampler (at Jim's request) for a couple of
weeks
effect, in any way, whether AYOS ppublished poetry or just any writing?
Reading my issues, I'd say the latter; but WTF does the Sampler have to
do with that?

I publish Jim and NancyGene, and everyone else, *because* they are
members of the group.

Neither Jim nor NG are currently members of aapc, Lying Michael.
I could remind you that you've said yourself that they haven't been here
for
months, but you'll just say that's a different "context"; they're aapc
members
when you want them to be, and not aapc members when you don't want them
to be.

They are, however, excellent
literary works -- and works which contemporary critics would define as
"Modern Poetry."
>
And, FYI, Jim's work is still receiving compliments from other Modern
poets on The Official AAPC FB page.
>
I am a fan of Jim's writing.  I just consider it to be extremely well
written prose.

>
I understand perfectly. You (the anonymous person inside thw socks don't
think
Jim's work (and most of what you post on AYOS) is even poetry, but you
(as your "Michael Pendragon" sock) have to praise his work and request
it for your journal, because he's your ally. Which I've repeatedly
pointed out.

>
That's not even remotely true, George.
>
AYoS is a sampler. It was created to show  off the poetry of *all* of
AAPC's members.

I know that's what it was created for, and what it's sold as. It's a
direct copy of /April/ magazine that I've told you about (except I
didn't sell mine).

It has nothing to do with my definition of poetry.  It
has nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes.  It merely shows
off the poetry of our group's members.

AYOS is being marketed as a sampler to show off the poetry of *all* of
aapc's members,
but as I've told you it's turned into a vanity project for Team Monkey
and assorted
trolls, none of which are writing anything on aapc. Except you, of
course, under
a new sock, but I don't think you'd publish any of that on aapc.

PJR used to post a link to a web page that described each of AAPC's
members (nearly all of whom were long gone by the time I joined).

I don't think it was his list, or that it was specifically aapc.

Jim
created the "Sampler" (among other reasons) to show readers who the
current members were.  "A Year of Sundays" is merely picking up where
the "Sunday Sampler" left off.

The big difference with AYOS, of course, is that it has nothing to do
with aapc.

I like both Jim and NancyGene's poetry, and am glad that I'm able to
include it in AYoS.  But I don't publish it because I like it.  I
publish it because they are members of AAPC and AYoS is a "sampler" for
AAPC poets to display their work in.

No, lying Michael. Neither have participated in AAPC since google
stopped
carrying it, except for one possible troll post each. they're members of
your Facebook group; you just use the name of the usenet group for
advertising purposes.

Which brings us back to where we began this digression, so it's a good
place to end it, too.
>
snip

>
You are obviously jealous of Jim and NancyGene.  Your jealousy of them
has been obvious for many years.

Now, that is funny. What am I supposed to be jealous of? That you're
their
online "friend" (ie, their ally)? That you praise and publish their
"writings"?
I'm afraid that's all I can think of.

I'm sorry that you feel that way; but it is to your continued discredit
that you insist on belittling their poetry here, long after they have
been regular participating members.

Interesting. So it's "obvious" to you that anyone who belittles a poet's
work is jealous of that poet? Or does that depend on "context," too?

As always, HtH & HAND
--