Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:55:57 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

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.)
>

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.
>

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.
>

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".
>
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
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."
>

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.
>

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.
>

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.
>

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.)
>
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."
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).
>

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."
>

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.
>

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.
>

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.
>

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?
>
(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.)
>

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?
>

*****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.

>
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.
>

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.
>

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???
--