Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
>
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
>
Yes, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) has returned, as Will and I
suspected. Even the name of his new sock, "HarryLime", looked like an
obvious clue to the "third man" on Team Monkey (the other two being
Jim/Edward and NancyGene). So we devised a way to have him out himself:
Will would bump up an old thread, I'd reply to it, and if "Harry" were
MMP, he wouldn't be able to resist replying. And it worked.
>
(Since the backthread has served its purpose, I've snipped most of it.)

Someone is certainly full of himself.
"Harry Lime" is the name I use on my Instagram account.  I needed to
create a new account for Nova BBS, so I used that one.
There was never anything to "out," as I was never posting incognito.

It's "Jerk store!" time, again.  George Dance re-responds to a post I
made almost two years ago (because he thinks I'm no longer here to smack
him around).

>
If further proof that this is MMP were needed, here it is: he walked
right into the trap, and he's still clueless that it even happened.

If you say so, George.  It still looks like "Jerk Store" from where I'm
sitting.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 4:13:51 +0000, Michael Pendragon wrote:

The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid
predetermined formats at all costs.  The "sentence" is incomplete.

>
GD: That's because it wasn't a "sentence" until "Edward" added the full
stop. Which demonstrates only that so-so poets should avoid
repunctuating their betters' poetry.
>
MMP: GD is now aping PJR (because PJR is no longer here to slap him
around).

>

Years conspire to decrease possibilities.

>
GD: Exactly what the poem says, which Michael would have discovered if
he
had bothered to look it up. He didn't even need to look it up on line;
he could have found it in his own "literary journal" (AYOS 2021, 10).
>
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members.  The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
>
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.

>
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.

Someone is certainly desperate for my approval.
The operative word in the out-of-context quote you've attributed to me
is "examples."  Your poem is an example of poetry.  "Poetry" (as defined
by myself, of course), denotes a literary form employing rhyme, meter,
and assorted devices such as metaphor, alliteration, and allusion.
You write formal poetry.  Few poets, nowadays, do.  Your poetry, in
general, is something that I would continue to point to as an example of
what I consider a poem to be.
Once again, this is not, nor was it ever, intended as a judgment call. "Possibilities" is a poem.  Much of Mr. Rochester's work, for example,
is not.  Ergo, your poem is better example of poetry than Edward's.
That said, I prefer many of Mr. Rochester's pieces over yours.

These too lines don't form a coherent sentence.

>
GD: I think you mean those *two* lines. They are not a sentence, even in
Edward's edit, and neither of them are a sentence in the actual poem.
Once again, Edward added a full stop that's not in the original (as
Michael would have known, if he'd bothered to read the original).
>
MMP: It seems that Mr. Dance's purpose in reopening this thread is to
re-state that Mr. Rochester mistakenly added end punctuation to his
lines, thereby making his poem appear to be more illiterate than it
actually is.

>
MMP seems completely clueless about my actual "purpose" but that's par
for the course. So let's focus on what's important:
(1) He claimed my poem was "illiterate";
(2) I pointed out that every example of "illiteracy" he found was added
by his ally Jim;
(3) Now he's claiming my poem is still "illiterate".

Your claim that you reopened this post to trap me into revealing my
identity is nonsense.  The content of my posts (whether as HarryLime or
MMP) are clearly stemming from the same hand.
I understand that it is embarrassing to have been caught playing "Jerk
Store," but play it you did, and you're not going to wriggle out of it
so easily.

Remember, again, that three years ago, when he still hoped to talk me
into becoming his ally, he considered it one of "the best poems" on aapc

Note how you've changed the quote from one of "the best examples of
poetry" on aapc to one of "the best poems" on aapc.

that year. Now that he considers me his adversary, it's "illiterate."
"When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to
him and claim he can't write."

Also note that while you have called me "Michael Monkey" in the title of
this thread (and "Michael Monkey Peabrain" in the body), I have
consistently referred you as "George" and "Mr. Dance."
One of us certainly does assign childish names to perceived adversaries,
and this thread makes it abundantly clear as to who that one of us is.

The fact that Mr. Dance feels compelled to do so nearly two years after
both the original post *and* after his original refutation demonstrates
an alarming degree of obsessive pettiness on his part.

>
LOL! Will picked the thread - and it's a good one - but there were many
other possibilities. (heh!) Suffice it to say, Jim is a fool and no one
in their right mind would judge their poetry by what he says about it.

Are you trying to make Will appear as petty as yourself?
And why are you still attacking Jim, two years after the fact?

GD: Having children restores the lost possibilities; you no longer have
them, but your children do.
>
MMP: No, they don't.  If the poem is expressing a universal principle,
then the children's possibilities will necessarily be decreased as they
mature as well.

>
Sure, onr's children will fail to realize some of their possibilities,
too; but they will also realize some that their parents did not. Just
because MMP or Jim failed to reach your own goals, for example, it does
not follow that your children will fail at their goals as well.

I'm afraid you're having difficulty understanding what you actually
wrote.  Your poem stated that time and circumstance will *always*
diminish the alleged "possibilities" one is born with, as if it were a
universal, hard-fast law of the universe.  By attempting to undercut it
later in your poem, your poem's conclusion creates an oxymoron.

This, again, is not a coherent sentence.

>
GD: Once again, that is solely due to Edward's editing.
>
MMP: "Once again,..." Quite.  And one supposes that will be repeating it
yet a third time two years from now.

>
If MMP shows up two years from now with a new sock, we might try the
same thing. But not probably with a different thread; the archives are
full of threads like this.

<yawn>
There would be no need for you to do so, then, either.
If you cannot immediately recognize my identity from my writing, then
you have no business participating in a supposed literary group.

You really spend way too much
time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.

>
GD: It figures that you'd try to blame Will; but I don't see how you can
blame him for Edward's sloppy editing.
>
MMP: Mr. Donkey serves as proof of the old adage concerning the "one bad
apple."
>
In this case, the presence of one illiterate member of a group causes
the other members to relax their standards.
>
Or, in the words of another adage, any group will inevitably settle to
the level of its lowest participant.

>
MMP repeatedly complains about me repeating this point, but it doesn't
seem to have sunk in yet, so:
The only examples of "illiteracy" that have been shown in this thread
came from Jim. (Better yet, let's "settle" to MMP's level and start
calling Jim Mr. Chimp again.)

Really, Mr. Dance.  You ought to be embarrassed to be indulging in such
infantile name calling... especially at your age.

I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
adversary. As he says: "When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write."

ROTFLMAO!  Will is illiterate.  Will cannot write in complete sentences.
 If there's a word of two or more syllables appearing in one of Will's
poems, there's an 80% chance that he's misused it.
This has nothing to do with liking or disliking Will.  It's simply a
fact.
Will is a high school drop out who never mastered basic English.
 https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/EA_gCO9_BDk/m/DWT2Fq0TBwAJ?hl=en

>

How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to
irrelevancy by years?

>
GD: As I already explained: they're restored in the next generation.
>
MMP: And as I've already explained, the next generation's possibilities
are as limited as those of their forebears.  Since time and circumstance
will *always* conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they
reach adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities at birth are
necessarily an illusion.

>
Nonsense; people can and do realize possibilities in their lives,
including those their ancestors never did. No one can do everything, of
course, but plenty of people have done enough to justify their existence
{many of whose ancestors did nothing to justify theirs, beyond - wait
for it - having families).

We are not debating the issue of whether one can realize any
possibilities (whatever one chooses that generic statement to mean). We
are debating what *your poem* actually says.
Allow me to make my out of context quote a little more clear to you:
"And as I've already explained, [your poem claims that] the next
generation's possibilities are as limited as those of their forebears. Since [according to your poem] time and circumstance will *always*
conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they reach
adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities [that according to your
poem, exist] at birth are necessarily an illusion."
Hopefully, the above edit will clear up any lingering comprehension
problems you might have.

Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences),

>
GD: I do hope we've spent enough time on Edward's pseudo-sentences.
>
MMP: LOL! If Mr. Dance actually meant what he said, he wouldn't have
reopened a two-year old thread in order to bitch about Mr. Rochester's
"edits" to his poem a second time.

>
LOL right back. I've already explained why I commented on the thread
Will reopened. But I'm serious; we've advanced the debate. MMP has not
disputed that all "illiteracy" he discovered was caused by Mr. Chimp,
but he's sticking to his story that the poem is still "illiterate"
anway, as per his editorial philosophy: "When [someone] is seen as an
adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."

Wrong again, George.
I have repeatedly shown how your poem's basic argument is
self-contradictory.  A literate writer would have avoided this.

your
poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that
the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to
achieve it.

>
What is "it"? No one realizes "unlimited" possibilites, but plenty of
people realize some, including ones their parents failed to realize.

It's your poem, George.  "It" is the "unlimited possibilities" that your
poem claims exist at birth, but are *always* diminished over the course
of one's lifetime.
You keep repeating that the children can still achieve more than their
parents, but that *according to the logic of your poem* simply is not
the case.
According to your poem the parents were born with unlimited
possibilities as well.  And, also according to your poem, these
possibilities were decreased over the course of their lives.
This doesn't mean that the parents didn't manage to achieve some of
their possibilities. It means that *everyone* (parents, children,
grandchildren, etc.) are born with infinite possibilities and manage to
achieve a few of them.

As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take
solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential
will be as unrealized as our own.

>
GD: Nothing in the poem about "compensation" - the word I used was
"justification". A person who has children has not completely wasted his
or her own life, no matter how much he or she hasn't done.

>

MMP: Sentimental hogwash.

>
Nothing sentimental about it. You or I have no idea what those children,
or their children, or their children will do. That gives one a reason to
value other people, to judge them to be at least worth not harming - but
it's a reason based purely on self-interest, not sentiment.

Pish-tosh!  I know sentiment when I smell it... and right now I'm
holding my nose.

I point to the example of "Joey" <snip>

- and I'll snip it, because it looks like another attempt to flame Will
and/or to change the subject. Instead, I'll give an example of my own.
>
One justifies one's life by adding value to the world.
Did Edgar Allan Poe add value to the world? I'd say yes, by his writing.
Did John M. Poe add value to the world? I'm not aware of anything he
did, but I'd say yes for him as well, because he was EAP's
great-grandfather - without him, there'd have been no EAP.

If the "one" in question is George Dance, then, yes.
I do not justify my life by any such sentimental tommyrot.

That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem.  Unfortunately, your
attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines
any possibilities ;-) it might have had.

>
GD: It's sad that Michael's opinion of the poem (which, as noted, he
previously published in his "literary journal") has fallen so much since
he put me on his enemy's list. I'm sure that was just a coincidence,
though.

>

MMP: Again, Mr. Dance is confusing the purpose of The Sunday Sampler,
and A Year of Sundays which is its current incarnation.

>

A Year of Sundays was created to provide a showcase for the best poetry
of each of AAPC's members. My opinion regarding Mr. Dance's poem has not
changed: it is without doubt one of Mr. Dance's better works.

>
Really? MMP claimed just days ago (in the post I'm replying to) that the
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?

1) One of the (many) reasons why Will was ejected from "The Sunday
Sampler," was that several of the members (including Mr. Senetto, who
was running "The Sampler" at that time), stated that it was insulting to
have Mr. Donkey's illiterate swill appearing alongside of their own.
You may recall that I fought long and hard to keep Mr. Donkey in "The
Sammpler."  Of course, at that time, I was only posting video links to
"The Sampler," so my poetry was not in danger of being soiled by
appearing alongside of Will's.
2) I have repeatedly explained that your poem is illiterate because its
writer fails to understand the universal, totalitarian limits imposed by
the word "always," thereby negating his argument to an oxymoron.

(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.
My oft-stated goal had been to achieve some semblance of peace in the
group, by getting you to interact in a mature, and civil, manner with
the other members.  That's all.
And, FYI, The Official AAPC (the FB group) currently has 95 members, and
19 visitors.
There have been *no* flame wars, no insults, no name-calling (unless
reminiscing about Mr. Donkey), and no drama whatsoever.  In fact, the
*only* member I have had to exclude from the group was... George J.
Dance (who used it as an excuse to spam post links to his blog).

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. Chimpfrom 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?

You sound more than a bit... off-kilter, Mr. Dance.  I strongly
recommend that you seek therapy.

*****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?

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.

You know perfectly well, that is not what I'm saying.
There are many ways for one to categorize poets, one of which is to
divide them into the following two groups: poets whose works are the
product of subsonscious inspiration, and poets whose works are the
product of their intellect.
I consider myself to be a member of the first group, and you to be a
member of the second.
Neither group is automatically superior to the other, nor are the poetic
creations of one more valuable.  (I prefer the works of inspiration over
those of intellect, but that's purely a personal call.)
I stated this in response to your challenge to compose a triolet.  It is
not an "excuse" for the quality of my poetry.  It is a very real, and
very valid excuse for my not taking you up on your challenge,

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.

LOL!  I've never had to request Jim's poetry.  Jim created the forum,
and is one of our regular contributors.

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:

It's merely a statement of fact.  Jim has posted a large number of poems
to AAPC this year (well over 100).  Many of these are excellent poems. However, since AYoS is only 120 pages long, and seeks to present a
balanced representation of its contributors, I shall have to pare that
number down to a mere dozen or so.  Since a guestimated 2/3s of Jim's
poems are top notch works, deciding which to leave out is proving to be
an extremely difficult task.

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?

That would depend upon the circumstances.
For example, if a poetry group posted poetry by Will, his Sock, and
virtually anyone else, I don't see how anyone could expect this third
person to do otherwise.

If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each
other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.

Again, this depends on the circumstances.  If Will and his sock
consistently praise one another's work, it is soon recognized for the
mutual slurpage that it is.  If, however, we are talking about a group
consisting of Will, his sock, and any two other individuals, one cannot
expect said individuals from doing otherwise.
Of course, these individuals could be insincere and offer polite
compliments to Will and his sock as well... but such would only render
their comments regarding one another's work as suspect.
I had thought that you were in the process of leading me to some
presumably logical conclusion; however, your train of thought appears to
have chugged off to parts unknown.

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.

I thought we were pretending that Will opened the thread to expose my
"secret" identity???
LOL!  Of course, you weren't fooling anyone with that nonsense.  We all
know that you thought of some new comeback... two years later.
Hence, my allusion to "Jerk Store."
["Jerk Store!" alludes to an episode of Seinfeld wherein "George"
(hmm...) comes up with what he believes to be the perfect comeback to a
coworker several hours after everyone has gone home.  The following day,
George provokes his coworker into making the same put down again, just
so he can use his perfect rejoinder... only to have it immediately met
with another put down.]

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.

Your actions belie your words.

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.

Since Mr, Senetto isn't here to defend himself, I'm sure that you can
say whatever you choose to about him, without fear of having him one up
you as a result.
Or, to allude to the immortal Mother Goose, the boys have not yet come
out to play.
--