Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:58:13 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

Earth to George Dance:

Sorry, "Earth", but whatever socks you use, you're still going to be
MMP.

You can't change the content of my statements
simply by snipping them prior to replying.

Good; nothing's changed. And since you repeat it all it wouldn't matter
if it were; it makes more sense to snip it all, and deal with your
repeat posting of it.

You may *think* you can,

- or it may be that I don't think that, and you're simply being
paranoid. That's more likely, since I'm not aware that I think that
(which is a good sign I don't). How about if you stop trying to tell me
what I think, and say something about the subject.

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.

I doubt that anyone besides the three of us is reading the thread -
you've garbaged it up quite thoroughly in the few days I've been dealing
with your last screed. And I note that you're still using the term
"duplicity" incorrectly.

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.

It looks like I've already read and replied to all of it at some point,
but knowing that you're in love with your own words, I guess we'll have
to go through it all again.

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 "context" there was that you were trying to establish yourself as a
fair and impartial critic; so you tried to offer fair and balanced
criticism. But that, as I pointed out, was 7 years ago, before you
formed Team Monkey, and your "context' has changed, of course, so your
opinions of all those poems have probably changed as well. It's stupid
to point to that to show how "fair and balanced" you are now.

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.

All you do here in that paragraph is attack Will, which I've been
reading for the past 7 years and must have replied to when I thought you
believed it; and
(2) go back to playing Monkey/Donkey, which means I'll have to play it
with you (since Will is not interested in your games).

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]

I may wade through the thread and try to find it, but I'm sure it's
nothing I
haven't read and replied to before. It is funny, though, that you'd
repost a quote telling me to reread and reply to something else on the
thread; why not just repost that something else instead? As I said, WTF
is wrong with you, Michael Monkey?

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.

What you just quoted says nothing about my "work" - it's just you
patting yourself on the back about how "fair and balanced" you used to
be, and claiming that you still are.

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.

Oh, that again. That 3-line summary is clear enough, so there's no need
to read the detailed "critique". As you know, you've said that before,
when commenting on specific poems. At least in those cases we could
discuss the actual meaning of the poem, but in a criticism of my "work
in general" there's nothing to discuss.

What you write, you usually write very well.  Unfortunately, your poems
fail to hold my interest.

Fine; if you're not interested you're not interested. End of discussion.
So what are you after by reposting this? Would you like a similar
"critique" of your "work in general"? Do you want me to get all
defensive and give you what's called a "revenge crit"? Or do you want me
to pretend to agree with you, and praise you for finding "truths" about
my poetry that for some reason the writer was blind to? Or do you just
want a thank-you?
One person's opinion is all well and good, and at least I didn't have to
pay for it, but that's all it is; one person's opinion. Thank you for
giving it.