Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 19:52:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:02:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:44:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:29:37 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>

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

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>

snip

>

OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry
posted to AAPC.  Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers."

>
Michael, I vaguely remember your reviews of my poems; I had no problem
with those, but you wrote them years before you put me on your "Team
Donkey" list of perceived adversaries. They should be compared with
reviews of my poetry that you've given afterward.

>
You vaguely remember something I wrote last week in this thread?

>
Michael: you did not write your ''comments" on the old

"Sunday Samplers" just 'last week in this thread'. You wrote them more
than 7 years ago.

>
It's evident that you have problems with dating, chronology, and the
whole  concept of time, but this is your most egregious example yet.

>
I realize that you're incapable of scrolling through a thread, but if
you were to scroll up (in *this* thread) to a post I'd made on January
10 (2025), you would have read the following:
>
>
>
George's triolet is a classic example of a *formal* poem.  It has a
fixed set of rules, and it adheres to them diligently.
>
As a poet, George has always been a skillful craftsman; and his poem is
a well-executed example of the triolet form.
>
In this regard, you and George may be viewed as complete opposites, as
your "poetry" is embarrassingly inept (painfully so) -- even when one
takes into account that it is "free verse," and therefore has no rules.
>
Where George has a strong understanding of poetic form, and fairly
strong understanding of the English language, you are unable to compose
in complete sentences, constantly mix tenses, misuse words, and randomly
refer to names and places from your personal life without providing any
explanation to your supposed readers.
>
That said, George's main problem as a poet is that he lacks inspiration,
imagination, and style.  George's poems, at their best, are as memorable
as Hallmark cards.  His thoughts and themes are maudlin and mundane, and
when he ventures into didacticism, he's merely parroting Ayn Rand's
Objectivist philosophy.  IOW: He is the epitome of mediocrity.
>
AAPC is a usenet group that is currently monopolized by a high school
drop out turned songwriter whose years of drug and alcohol abuse have
taken their toll on his intellect (assuming that he ever possessed one);
a homeless drunk arrested for indecent exposure, belligerence, and God
know what else, whose "poetry" rhymes everything with "red" and "blue";
and a retard who SCREAMS about President Trump and masturbates over his
nephew, who has never written a poem in his life.  George Dance is far
and away the best poet still posting there.
>
As to George's triolet: his word choice, unfortunately, renders it
self-contradictory (although one easily understands his intent).
Understanding an author's intent is *not* an excuse for poorly expressed
thoughts.  His message starts out well (everyone starts out with
unlimited possibilities, which life chisels away over the course of
time), only to end with the cringingly maudlin idea of justifying one's
own failed potential by looking to the unlimited possibilities of one's
offspring.
>
I had originally thought that George was trying to say that while we (as
examples of unfulfilled possibility) look to our children's potential to
justify our failure, we are only kidding ourselves, because life will
inevitably destroy their possibilities as well.  Regrettably, George has
since stated that such was not his intent.  I have since adjusted my own
views on his poem accordingly.
>
[END QUOTE]

>
That's just a rehash of things you've already said, in defence of your
calling yet another poem of mine "illiterate" this week. I koow you're
in love with your own words, so it's understandable you'e like to post
them over and over. But not only does it have nothing to do with
literacy, it has nothing to do with the Sunday Sampler. So let me ask a
follow-up question:
>
WTF is wrong with you, MMP?

Earth to George Dance: You can't change the content of my statements
simply by snipping them prior to replying.
You may *think* you can, but anyone who has been reading the thread (or
who is savvy enough to scroll up to check the original post) will see
through your duplicity.
You keep pretending that my statement pertained solely to "The Sunday
Sampler."  And it appears to do just that -- when you cut the second and
third paragraphs and quote it out of context.
Here's what I *actually wrote*:
[START QUOTE]
OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry
posted to AAPC.  Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers."  I provided in depth critiques on all of the poems,
and pointed out when poems submitted by my so-called "allies" didn't
work.
The only "bias" in my reviews was that when critiquing an incompetent
"poem" by an incompetent, illiterate buffoon like Mr. Donkey, I adopted
a humorous tone.
And, FWIW, I have provided my feelings regarding yours and Mr. Donkey's
poetry in my previous post in this thread.  Again, I feel that my
evaluation is both fair and balanced.  Anyone seeking proof of said
fairness need only scroll up a bit in this thread.
[END QUOTE]
As you can see, I was referring you to what was then "my previous post"
-- which I kindly reposted for you above.
As to said quote, it is not just a "rehash" of my comments regarding the
illiterate nature of your triolet.  It is a statement regarding your
work in general.  And, as I said, a close reading will show you that
this is true. I praise your technical skill, but find your content
commonplace, maudlin, sentimental, and generally uninspired.
What you write, you usually write very well.  Unfortunately, your poems
fail to hold my interest.
--