Christmas is finally over
Amos Keppler
Well, boys and girls, it's that time again. Time to call a spade a
spade,
CHRISTMAS IS FINALLY OVER
Christmas is over
Now we can laugh again
Christmas is over
Now we can live again
We that try to celebrate every day
the rest of the year
All this for a birth of one man
that probably never have been born
a son of a god that doesn't exist
Oh, how he would have laughed
at worshippers of this sadisticgod
A god cruel among cruel gods
Who's really the fool, cries the jester
Who's putting their faith in an insane mirage
All this for the life of greedy men
that probably laugh their false hearts out
They cheat people the whole year around
How demented they must laugh
at worshippers of the mammon god
A god cruel among cruel gods
Who's really the fool, cries thejester
Who's putting their faith in an insane venture
Civilization...
Civilization...
Religion...
Yes, call it opium for the masses
But for you that don't appreciate irony
I'll call it bullshit, call a spade a spade
Christmas is over, thank God
Or... I should perhaps thank thedevil
God probably wants it to last the whole year
Loving his subjects deaf, mute and blind
Christmas is finally over
My friend, you smiled with all the gifts
under the tree, inside your warm house
Why don't you anymore, my friend?
Is there now a season for smiling, too
Or do you dislike my smile
Who's really the fool, cries the jester
Who's putting all their faith in this world's glitter
Civilization is over
No more belief in saviors outside ourselves
No more denial of our inner, unique self
Both our strength and weakness are our own
No power from the devil, no submission before any god
One more mile beyond the next mountain
We're sitting next to the fire
Each new day is a celebration
Now we can laugh again...
Now we can live again...
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100531
Amos Keppler 1993 (western, christian time-frame)
Still counting down
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The sad and funny part of modern life... +
+ CIVILIZATION: http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100532 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The world is a comedy to those who think,
and a tragedy to those who feel".
Horace Walpole
Mike Billard
than I care to count.
Amos Keppler <civili...@civilization.com> wrote in message
news:3A4517BF...@civilization.com...
Amos Keppler
> My God (pardon the reference to a nonentity), but this is awful in more ways
> than I care to count.
Now, THAT sounds like an automated response...
Amos the Storyteller
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Feel the heat of Firewind
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100531
Stories from the edge of consciousness, beyond any contained mind
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dale Houstman
I'm an atheist and no slacker when it comes to blasphemy, but this poem
makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
Strange, huh?
dmh
Mike Billard
> Mike Billard wrote:
>
> > My God (pardon the reference to a nonentity), but this is awful in more
ways
> > than I care to count.
>
> Now, THAT sounds like an automated response...
>
It would be silly for me to put more effort in my response than you put into
the original poem. Try harder next time and I will too.
RobertSt. James (mei dominum Santiago Matamoros)
: makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
:
: Strange, huh?
:
: dmh
After you've wrung a confession from him, say a Pater Noster
for his soul and send him out to the stake.
Robert St. James
(the evil anti-Santa Claus)
j r sherman
>
>"Amos Keppler" <civili...@civilization.com> wrote in message
>news:3A4517BF...@civilization.com...
>>
>
>I'm an atheist and no slacker when it comes to blasphemy, but this poem
>makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
>
>Strange, huh?
dale, calm yourself! this sudden religious conviction is the psychopathic
reaction to a bad poem, not a true desire to believe in christian fairy tales,
okay?
and hey, see ya at christmas mass tomorrow night? we always go to the 11pm mass,
ya know, to avoid the rush of the poseur-yuppie catholics that flood the 12am,
if ya know what i mean.
merry/happy
love and kisses,
j r sherman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities
in our air and water that are doing it."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> : I'm an atheist and no slacker when it comes to blasphemy, but this poem
> : makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
> :
> : Strange, huh?
> :
> : dmh
>
> After you've wrung a confession from him, say a Pater Noster
> for his soul and send him out to the stake.
Say a Ralph Nader and a water blister while you're at it.
chuckk
Amos Keppler
That was not an automated reponse.
More like a vicious one. One ripe with misdirection and not actually a comment
on the poem itself. Thus nothing to take seriously.
Do you always behave like this?
--
Amos Keppler
> "Amos Keppler" <civili...@civilization.com> wrote in message
> news:3A4517BF...@civilization.com...
> >
>
> I'm an atheist and no slacker when it comes to blasphemy, but this poem
> makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
>
> Strange, huh?
>
Yes.
Well, there are always uncle toms hidden in the closet.
Amos the Storyteller
Amos Keppler
> in another time, another place, someone did say.....
> >
> >
> >"Amos Keppler" <civili...@civilization.com> wrote in message
> >news:3A4517BF...@civilization.com...
> >>
> >
> >I'm an atheist and no slacker when it comes to blasphemy, but this poem
> >makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
> >
> >Strange, huh?
>
> dale, calm yourself! this sudden religious conviction is the psychopathic
> reaction to a bad poem, not a true desire to believe in christian fairy tales,
> okay?
>
> and hey, see ya at christmas mass tomorrow night? we always go to the 11pm mass,
> ya know, to avoid the rush of the poseur-yuppie catholics that flood the 12am,
> if ya know what i mean.
>
> merry/happy
>
> love and kisses,
>
> j r sherman
We celebrated Yule and New Year's Eve three days ago, something far more potent and
full of Life than the trite, boring, oppressive christian modern "celebration".
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/nyerseve.html
Please, doesn't anybody have anything but automated responses to "offer"?
Amos the Storyteller
--
Mike Billard
What is an automated response? You wrote a truly bad poem. I told you the
poem was truly bad. Nothing automated about that. Your poem received the
comment it deserved. Maybe you should tell us what it is you would like us
to say about your poem and then we'll say it back to you. Will that make you
feel better?
rthr...@my-deja.com
"Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> What is an automated response? You wrote a truly bad poem. I told you
the
> poem was truly bad. Nothing automated about that. Your poem received
the
> comment it deserved. Maybe you should tell us what it is you would
like us
> to say about your poem and then we'll say it back to you. Will that
make you
> feel better?
>
Sometimes a kind word would help the rewrite.
And make the next one that much better.
r.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Kenny Chaffin
Agreed! Unfortunately it seems many of the most outspoken people in
this newsgroup would rather be vicious than encourage people to write
better poetry.
8-(
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, May all your poetic dreams come true!
KAC
--
Kenny A. Chaffin
KAC Website Design - http://www.kacweb.com
Poetry Page: http://www.kacweb.com/poems/poetryindex.html
j r sherman
>
>j r sherman wrote:
>
>> in another time, another place, someone did say.....
>> >
>> >
>> >"Amos Keppler" <civili...@civilization.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3A4517BF...@civilization.com...
>> >>
>> >
>> >I'm an atheist and no slacker when it comes to blasphemy, but this poem
>> >makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
>> >
>> >Strange, huh?
>>
>> dale, calm yourself! this sudden religious conviction is the psychopathic
>>reaction to a bad poem, not a true desire to believe in christian fairy tales,
>> okay?
>>
>>and hey, see ya at christmas mass tomorrow night? we always go to the 11pm mass,
>>ya know, to avoid the rush of the poseur-yuppie catholics that flood the 12am,
>> if ya know what i mean.
>>
>> merry/happy
>>
>> love and kisses,
>>
>> j r sherman
>
>We celebrated Yule and New Year's Eve three days ago, something far more >potent
>and full of Life than the trite, boring, oppressive christian modern
>>"celebration".
hey, sparky, did you guys ever figure out that pagans can be just as boring as
the worst christians?
> http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/nyerseve.html
i loved the movie Crimson Tide. Denzel Washington can really do action parts!
> Please, doesn't anybody have anything but automated responses to "offer"?
sure, when the pagans produce someone as smart as Thomas Aquinas, come and talk
to me.
til then, would you clowns mind waiting for the apocalypse quietly? you're
getting annoying. and we didn't burn you guys at the stake because you didn't
believe in the universal roman church, that's a myth. we burned you because you
were BORING!
and keep wanting to remain that way.
so knock it off. get some guilt and dogma. then we can take you seriously.
look at the Jews? sure, we've had our Hebrew-ques over the years, but we're
getting along with them better than ever!
so knock it off.
love and kisses,
j r "you can take the boy out of the Jesuits" sherman
j r sherman
>
>>
>> : I'm an atheist and no slacker when it comes to blasphemy, but this poem
>> : makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
>> :
>> : Strange, huh?
>> :
>> : dmh
>>
>> After you've wrung a confession from him, say a Pater Noster
>> for his soul and send him out to the stake.
>
>Say a Ralph Nader and a water blister while you're at it.
>
>chuckk
fuck that, let's cut out the middle-man and just send Nader to the stake. i'd
pay big-time pay-for-view bucks to see that.
most people would.
love and kisses,
j r "if you see the Green walking along the side of the road, kill it" sherman
j r sherman
>
>
>> "Amos Keppler" <civili...@civilization.com> wrote in message
>> news:3A4517BF...@civilization.com...
>> >
>>
>> I'm an atheist and no slacker when it comes to blasphemy, but this poem
>> makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
>>
>> Strange, huh?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Well, there are always uncle toms hidden in the closet.
and morons willing to believe ideas even more comical than christianity. you are
fun, amo. i'm glad you crossposted.
> Amos the Storyteller
yeah, amo, i read your short stories on your site. i'd keep the day job and stop
stressing the "storyteller" portion of your sig.
> Stories from the edge of consciousness, beyond any contained mind
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"bad" by any other name, huh, amo?
i hope you keep posting.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
Dale Houstman
<rthr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:925ccl$6lr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Surely some things are beyond the point of easy redemption? The overt
awfulness of the poem under discussion speaks volumes about a lack of
"seriousness" in regard to poetry which would make simple "kind words" quite
irrelevant. At this point amputation is indicated.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> Mike Billard wrote:
>
> > Amos Keppler <civili...@civilization.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A4531D9...@civilization.com...
> > > Mike Billard wrote:
> > >
> > > > My God (pardon the reference to a nonentity), but this is awful in
more
> > ways
> > > > than I care to count.
> > >
> > > Now, THAT sounds like an automated response...
> > >
> >
> > It would be silly for me to put more effort in my response than you put
into
> > the original poem. Try harder next time and I will too.
>
> That was not an automated reponse.
>
> More like a vicious one. One ripe with misdirection and not actually a
comment
> on the poem itself. Thus nothing to take seriously.
> Do you always behave like this?
>
If someone shows you a pig and calls it a Concorde, you'd be a damn fool to
go along with the idiocy and climb on board.
dmh
rthr...@my-deja.com
Mike Billard
Try taking the two minutes to read the piece in question. It is a quickly
dashed off ad hominem attack on a certain belief system (whether one is a
member of that belief system is really irrelevant). There was no serious
thought or attention put into the original work. This is a one draft and
post effort. There will be no rewrites simply because the point of the piece
is its virulent message and not its attempt at being a poem. There is no
kind word necessary for this sort of work.
rthr...@my-deja.com
>
> Surely some things are beyond the point of easy redemption? The overt
> awfulness of the poem under discussion speaks volumes about a lack of
> "seriousness" in regard to poetry which would make simple "kind
words" quite
> irrelevant. At this point amputation is indicated.
>
> dmh
>
I didn't think we were talking about a poem, anymore.
I think it is more about the interaction between
people, and that is always worth redemption.
And just a note on amputation: one amputates words,
not people. And 'seriousness' is not always the
worth of the person. We all have different motivations.
And goals. It takes all of us to be a people and
build a civilization. Without the ushers, there would
be no opera. Without the patrons, there would be no
reason to hire the ushers and your art would fall on
deaf ears. The problem with poetry is that so few
that are not poets themselves actually patronize the
poet. Poetry needs no ushers, but to shoot another
poet is to shoot a patron. Poetry is a small town.
rthr...@my-deja.com
While I cannot subscribe to his line of thought,
I thought it best not to say anything. No word
of encouragement, no word of outrage. Perhaps,
he is better suited to the short story... no matter
the content or message. Poetry is not a strong
point of his, but nonetheless, he is entitled to
his opinion. I cannot see this as a one draft and
post since it was dated years ago. He wrote it,
and kept it close and dear. He posted it, so what?
True, perhaps, not revised since 1993. Seven years
of laying quiet and unheard - as perhaps it should.
It is not of even good quality writing, but perhaps
he could learn to self edit, and make it better,
and make it more modern, and, in that Alester
Crowley thought, make it his own, not a splatering of
digested material from another's manefesto. And
certainly not presented as it is. Perhaps, it would
be better after a rewrite or two or three...
Perhaps, it belongs in the scrap bin,
but he needs to learn from this something
that isn't in that poem: humanity.
Humanity would make this poem better,
or perhaps the next one.
Perhaps, I should not have said anything.
Perhaps, I should have spoken up sooner.
Perhaps, my sanity is in question.
Perhaps, a kind word is never misplaced.
Mike Billard
<rthr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:925m1i$d50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <925jng$ki$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> "Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Try taking the two minutes to read the piece in question. It is a
> quickly
> > dashed off ad hominem attack on a certain belief system (whether one
> is a
> > member of that belief system is really irrelevant). There was no
> serious
> > thought or attention put into the original work. This is a one draft
> and
> > post effort. There will be no rewrites simply because the point of
> the piece
> > is its virulent message and not its attempt at being a poem. There is
> no
> > kind word necessary for this sort of work.
>
> While I cannot subscribe to his line of thought,
> I thought it best not to say anything. No word
> of encouragement, no word of outrage. Perhaps,
> he is better suited to the short story... no matter
> the content or message. Poetry is not a strong
> point of his, but nonetheless, he is entitled to
> his opinion.
He posted to two *poetry* newsgroups, not to two *opinion* newsgroups. I
responded to his *poem*, which is in line with the purpose of the
newsgroups. You should also note that I did not comment on his opinion,
which I couldn't care less about, I commented on his poem. I am curious,
though, how you can on one hand take exception with my opinion, but on the
other hand defend Amos for speaking his opinion. This is not about
entitlement, it is about a bad poem.
> I cannot see this as a one draft and
> post since it was dated years ago. He wrote it,
> and kept it close and dear. He posted it, so what?
He posted it to at least one newsgroup (the one from which my comments
originated) whose specific purpose is for commenting on poems. I don't see
what your problem is. He posted a poem. It was bad. I said it was bad.
That's the way AAPC is *supposed* to work. You seem to be thinking my
remarks to his poem were made to his opinions expressed in the poem. They
weren't.
Dale Houstman
<rthr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:925jdg$bg7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
important at an opera, but one would have to be crazy not to fire an usher
who came to work naked and bloody. The poem under question - and we ARE
still talking about a poem despite your notion - lacks "seriousness" - but
by this I do not mean "grimness" or "sobriety" but dedication and knowledge.
And it isn't - as you say elsewhere - that the poem only lacks humanity to
achieve a higher ground: I for one like anti-lyrical attitudes, and satire,
and blasphemy: it is just that the poem lacks poetry. A small thing perhaps
in your estimation, but not in mine.
I am not - in the least - concerned about patrons, and particularly about
patrons that demonstrate such a lack of discernment. One wants to be
appreciated and read of course, but it does matter how and by whom you are
noticed. The writer of this particular piece has no interest for me either
as a poet or as a possible patron: whatever that might mean.
As for it requiring all kinds of people to "build a civilization" this is
obvious and thus not really worth stating, especially in such a didactic
tone. But in building a civilization one would be smart to assign people to
the right tasks. If you picked the writer of this piece to be your poet
laureate, you would soon be the laughing stock of the budding nations. So
while it takes all kinds, those kinds should find their talents and use the
in the correct areas. This person's arena is not poetry. That this isn't
obvious to you is hardly my problem, but it is obvious to me.
And as for the poem having been around a long time: this doesn't preclude
its composition from having been a perfunctory performance. In fact this
only makes the poem's awfulness that much more awful: all that time spent
for such a little spurt.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"j r sherman" <jr...@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:925d...@drn.newsguy.com...
> in another time, another place, someone did say.....
> >
> >"RobertSt. James (mei dominum Santiago Matamoros)" wrote:
> >>
> >> : I'm an atheist and no slacker when it comes to blasphemy, but this
poem
> >> : makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
> >> :
> >> : Strange, huh?
> >> :
> >> : dmh
> >>
> >> After you've wrung a confession from him, say a Pater Noster
> >> for his soul and send him out to the stake.
> >
> >Say a Ralph Nader and a water blister while you're at it.
> >
> >chuckk
>
> fuck that, let's cut out the middle-man and just send Nader to the stake.
i'd
> pay big-time pay-for-view bucks to see that.
>
> most people would.
>
stink about the miserable 2 to 3 percent of the vote Nader supposedly
"stole" from Gore (as if he were king presumptive), but the truth is Gore
ran a bad campaign, lost his own damn state, and the fact is 10 times as
many Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader. Something went very
wrong over in Al's camp, but it wasn't Ralph, who - as an American - had
every right to run and every right to get votes. Up to 60 percent of Nader's
voters said they wouldn't have voted for anyone if not him, while 40 percent
of America found it convenient not to vote at all. If Gore couldn't
glavanize support from all those people to the tune of 1 or 2 percent, then
he failed himself and his little corporate sockpuppet of a party.
Gore's numbers were at thier height directly following his convention. Why?
Becuase (as even the conservative media noted) he stressed progressive
ideals, and allowed Clinton to participate. Soon after he began trying to
sound more and more like Bush, and locked out his best campaigner, Bill. He
deserved to lose.
At any rate, both Bush and Gore hold ideas I - and a lot of other people -
no longer have the stomach to vote for: support for the death penalty, the
continuation of the drug war, higher defense budgets (here, Gore's numbers
are even larger than Bush's). They also both fail to address issues I - and
a lot of other people - hold dear: what to do about the corporatization of
every aspect of American life, how to strengthen the power of the working
man, how to protect us from police gone nuts, what to do about the grwoing
numbers of homeless, many of whom work at least 40 hours a week, but still
cannot afford basic comforts. The list goes on and on: the most amazing
thing about this election (and other elctions) is what they refuse to
discuss, rather than what they are willing to discuss.
I'd rather hang Gore next to Bush and throw stones at them both.
dmh
j r sherman
>While I cannot subscribe to his line of thought,
>I thought it best not to say anything. No word
>of encouragement, no word of outrage. Perhaps,
>he is better suited to the short story... no matter
>the content or message. Poetry is not a strong
>point of his, but nonetheless, he is entitled to
>his opinion. I cannot see this as a one draft and
>post since it was dated years ago. He wrote it,
>and kept it close and dear. He posted it, so what?
>True, perhaps, not revised since 1993. Seven years
>of laying quiet and unheard - as perhaps it should.
>It is not of even good quality writing, but perhaps
>he could learn to self edit, and make it better,
>and make it more modern, and, in that Alester
>Crowley thought, make it his own, not a splatering of
>digested material from another's manefesto. And
>certainly not presented as it is. Perhaps, it would
>be better after a rewrite or two or three...
>Perhaps, it belongs in the scrap bin,
>but he needs to learn from this something
>that isn't in that poem: humanity.
if you hear loud laughter, it's mine.
>Humanity would make this poem better,
>or perhaps the next one.
killing the poet in question and taking it away from, then having someone who
knows what they're doing write it over again might "save" this poem.
but i wouldn't be betting on it.
>Perhaps, I should not have said anything.
>Perhaps, I should have spoken up sooner.
>Perhaps, my sanity is in question.
>Perhaps, a kind word is never misplaced.
to list, this is what happened:
a) bad poet posts bad poem knowing someone will say it's bad(that it is makes
the whole process easier, really).
b) someone gives the poem an honest comment.
c) bad poet complains about the comment or comments said, of course looking
clearly two-faced in the response because the poet knew damn well the response
he was going to get.
humanity has nothing to do with this.
got it? cool.
now, isn't there a Green Party meeting you need to attend, or something?
your nobility is commendable. and if i ever meet Prince Valiant, i'll let him
know of you, ASAP!
love and kisses,
j r sherman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
rthr...@my-deja.com
HUMANITY from US would help the poem (or perhaps just the author).
> achieve a higher ground: I for one like anti-lyrical attitudes, and
satire,
> and blasphemy: it is just that the poem lacks poetry. A small thing
perhaps
> in your estimation, but not in mine.
I don't believe you know what I think of the piece, nor the author.
>
> I am not - in the least - concerned about patrons, and particularly
about
> patrons that demonstrate such a lack of discernment. One wants to be
> appreciated and read of course, but it does matter how and by whom
you are
> noticed.
Really. So sad that you place that kind of value on a certain
group's oppinions.
> The writer of this particular piece has no interest for me either
> as a poet or as a possible patron: whatever that might mean.
>
Not sure, but perhaps he does like our would like to read your
poetry. But, then, that may be tainted by the way he was
treated. But, then, others may feel the same because of his
treatment, that may be all they think of when they see your
name.
> As for it requiring all kinds of people to "build a civilization"
this is
> obvious and thus not really worth stating, especially in such a
didactic
> tone. But in building a civilization one would be smart to assign
people to
> the right tasks.
Are you the architech of this great civilization? Do people not
find their own way? Why must you think they to be assigned a task?
Do you believe yourself more capable than they? Do you find yourself
in a position of leadership or just despotism? Well, taskman, the
author in question, nor any other man, woman, or child could possibly
agree with you. How many people have died for the right to do and
say what this person has done? People died for him, and you, too.
So, it wasn't good, need you attack it? Need you lock the door?
Without people to come up with something completely different and
bad, we will never have a catalist for change. And if you lock that
door, any door, there will be someone to knock it down and kill you
where you stand, even if it is not the room of thier calling. They
will die to ensure that they are not barred from entering the room
where they belong.
> If you picked the writer of this piece to be your poet
> laureate, you would soon be the laughing stock of the budding
nations.
It is absurd, sorry you would take it that far.
But just to bring you back to reality...
Isn't that how WE picked our president?
Regardless of your intentions, when you entered
the booth, you are part of a society that is
the laughing stock of the entire world. Then,
you let him and his minions pick your laureate...
Simple, but true. It would be different if the
laureate were not a political appointee, but this
position is but a tiny closet at the library.
>So
> while it takes all kinds, those kinds should find their talents and
use the
> in the correct areas. This person's arena is not poetry.
Oh, sounds like socialism. I detect a note of middle right.
> That this isn't
> obvious to you is hardly my problem, but it is obvious to me.
>
It isn't the material that is in question, but the
attitudes that attack it. That is all I am saying.
> And as for the poem having been around a long time: this doesn't
preclude
> its composition from having been a perfunctory performance. In fact
this
> only makes the poem's awfulness that much more awful: all that time
spent
> for such a little spurt.
See, there is that attitude again...
>
> dmh
rthr...@my-deja.com
No, a more general topic than that. The comments I read are without
regard to him as person. To anyone as a person. Not that it came from
you or anyone else, I don't want to point fingers. Just noting a
general attitute from this (and other) groups and individuals.
Our humanity is at stake - in the here and now, as ever.
Manners, kindness, and respect for strangers will never
go out of style. There is a reason for manners, it started
when people, particularly men, sat down to eat together.
The knife presented an opportunity to kill, as it often
led to this. Manners were developed to keep men from
killing each other at the dinner table (that is why the blade
is always turned in toward oneself). To turn the blade outward
at anytime is offensive and considered an act of aggression.
Keep the knife turned in-- and use your words kindly, either
to encourage or cause change, but not to harm.
rthr...@my-deja.com
j r sherman <jr...@Earthlink.net> wrote:
> now, isn't there a Green Party meeting you need to attend, or
something?
Middle Anywhere is not a place for me.
Not Democratic, not Fascist, not even Green.
I am offended that you would say such a thing.
Yes, I am pro-business. Today, I like the
Republicans, because it will improve business
activities. Tomarrow, who knows. I vote what
is best for ME, not you. I am selfish, I like
making money, and I like freedom that allows
you to do what-ever-it-is-that-you-do, because
that is good for me, too.
But since you attacked me on a political basis,
which is interesting, to say the least,
I will point out that this is precicely the
behaviour that I commented about in the
first place...
Dale Houstman
<rthr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:925vlh$jm9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
is that civilization did not move forward from cave to skyscraper by a
series of bland acceptances such as you outline. Although kindness is a
marvelous process which we could all use more of, within disciplines this
sort of attitude has NEVER been the mark of progress. It's no different from
a bunch of nuclear engineers gathering and loudly rejecting some one's
uneductaed opinion on fission, just so as to avoid "unpleasantness." Such an
attitude at the point where "things matter" is counter-productive. And -
like it or not - for some of us here poetry "counts" as much as the correct
construction of a nuclear plant or a skyscraper. This may be hard for you to
swallow, but nevertheless it is true, and no amount of "Pollyanna" poofery
is going to change that.
It so happens that a person who has been writing poetry for decades probably
can tell if a particular presentation is meant as a sincere (if flawed)
subject of comment, or is only put forth with no intention of being open to
criticism. This seems to be the case here.
And even if this is not so, art evolves by a series of triumphs and
disappointments. If the person who fronted this truly horrible poem is
dedicated to getting it right, no amount of negative response can dissuade
them. And - from personal experience - I know that too much unfounded
positivism is deadlier for a growing poet than too much negativism, since a
writer must learn to be their own worse critic. This is done by observing
the criticism of others.
dmh
j r sherman
idiot. when Bush strip mines all of Alaska we'll thank you.
>People make a big
>stink about the miserable 2 to 3 percent of the vote Nader supposedly
>"stole" from Gore (as if he were king presumptive), but the truth is Gore
>ran a bad campaign, lost his own damn state, and the fact is 10 times as
>many Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader.
where did i say there weren't idiots in the Democratic party. Jane Fonda was a
Demo for years.
>Something went very
>wrong over in Al's camp,
yeah, it was the rigged results in Florida.
you're still an idiot to vote for Nader. we'll get to that.
>but it wasn't Ralph, who - as an American - had
>every right to run and every right to get votes.
no one said he didn't. but idiots have run for president before, and more of
them have voted for said idiots.
you're just following in a long standing tradition of americans who are idiots
who vote for idiots.
you certainly have a right to be an idiot.
>Up to 60 percent of Nader's
>voters said they wouldn't have voted for anyone if not him,
Hitler had those kind of numbers, too.
>while 40 percent
>of America found it convenient not to vote at all.
this is said in every election.
>If Gore couldn't
>glavanize support from all those people to the tune of 1 or 2 percent, then
>he failed himself and his little corporate sockpuppet of a party.
as opposed to the humorous little silly party that the Greens are now. with your
help you've made a very stupid and ignorant man president.
GEE, how can we repay you for that?
>Gore's numbers were at thier height directly following his convention. Why?
>Becuase (as even the conservative media noted) he stressed progressive
>ideals, and allowed Clinton to participate. Soon after he began trying to
>sound more and more like Bush, and locked out his best campaigner, Bill. He
>deserved to lose.
sorry, sparky, the Bill factor doesn't play out. i've seen the numbers from both
independent polls and the Gore campaign, the Bill factor didn't do anything for
him. in places it helped, he already owned, like PA and NY and the west coast.
in border states, like Florida, which he did win, despite the supreme court's
opinion, Bill did nothing for him.
no, what lost Florida for him(or put it into a position where the Repos could
more easily rig it) was the 90,000 idiots who voted for Nader.
again, thanks for putting Bush in the white house.
>At any rate, both Bush and Gore hold ideas I - and a lot of other people -
>no longer have the stomach to vote for: support for the death penalty, the
>continuation of the drug war, higher defense budgets (here, Gore's numbers
>are even larger than Bush's). They also both fail to address issues I - and
>a lot of other people - hold dear: what to do about the corporatization of
>every aspect of American life, how to strengthen the power of the working
>man, how to protect us from police gone nuts, what to do about the grwoing
>numbers of homeless, many of whom work at least 40 hours a week, but still
>cannot afford basic comforts. The list goes on and on: the most amazing
>thing about this election (and other elctions) is what they refuse to
>discuss, rather than what they are willing to discuss.
the classic white liberal straight male comment. you "voted" your conscience.
but you guys have nothing to lose. who did vote for Gore? women, blacks,
latinos(discounting the Cuban maniacs in Miami), gays and lesbian, older
liberals(read non-skateboarding adults), labor unions, and intelligent enviros.
why? because they all knew that they had something to lose in a Bush
administration.
you didn't have anything to lose. so, you could be cute and cool and fashionable
and buy into the myth that there was no difference between the two and voted
your ignorant conscience.
well, thanks. when Bush appoints three psychopathic clowns to the supreme
court(along with the countless stupid mistakes that he's certain to make in the
next four years), we can come and thank you, and all you straight, white, male
Greens who voted for Nader.
you had nothing to lose. now the Greens have nothing. you're a joke party with
no money and the laughing stock of american politics. instead of building a
coalition you've pushed yourself even further to the fringe.
congratulations.
>I'd rather hang Gore next to Bush and throw stones at them both.
i'd rather there be an intelligence test for males under 30 who vote. at least
the morons who don't vote aren't hurting anyone.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
j r sherman
>
> j r sherman <jr...@Earthlink.net> wrote:
>> now, isn't there a Green Party meeting you need to attend, or
>something?
>
>
>Middle Anywhere is not a place for me.
>Not Democratic, not Fascist, not even Green.
>I am offended that you would say such a thing.
sue me.
>Yes, I am pro-business. Today, I like the
>Republicans, because it will improve business
>activities.
yeah, like they did under Reagan and Bush, with the highest public debt in human
history. they did a great job with the economy.
>Tomarrow, who knows. I vote what
>is best for ME, not you. I am selfish, I like
>making money, and I like freedom that allows
>you to do what-ever-it-is-that-you-do, because
>that is good for me, too.
so you're just narrow minded. okay.
>But since you attacked me on a political basis,
>which is interesting, to say the least,
>I will point out that this is precicely the
>behaviour that I commented about in the
>first place...
yeah, well, not to swerve off the point, let's get back to it.
the idiot child posted a poem he knew would get the response it got, and now
he's bitching about it.
that you've come in and asked us all to be "human"(whatever that is) about it
only adds to the comedy that is our daily world.
humanity has nothing to do with this.
good poetry has everything to do with this.
that's the point sparky, okay?
cool!
Dale Houstman
<rthr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:925uvc$j2l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
But I think not. And - also - I do not define humanity - as you appear to -
as being the same as "ungrounded positivism."
>
> > achieve a higher ground: I for one like anti-lyrical attitudes, and
> satire,
> > and blasphemy: it is just that the poem lacks poetry. A small thing
> perhaps
> > in your estimation, but not in mine.
>
> I don't believe you know what I think of the piece, nor the author.
Well I know that you think that the poem (and the author) are sincere
entities: that the poem is presented in a sincere search for commentary, and
that the wrier sincerely wishes to learn. This is precisely where I disagree
with you.
>
> >
> > I am not - in the least - concerned about patrons, and particularly
> about
> > patrons that demonstrate such a lack of discernment. One wants to be
> > appreciated and read of course, but it does matter how and by whom
> you are
> > noticed.
>
> Really. So sad that you place that kind of value on a certain
> group's oppinions.
Quite the contrary, as anyone can tell you. It was you who brought up the
idea of "patron" and of "softening the blows" so as to seed some invisible
pool of patrons. Speaking to this (dubious) notion, and trying to meet you
halfway, I stated that even this idea would not preclude criticism, even
harsh criticism.
>
> > The writer of this particular piece has no interest for me either
> > as a poet or as a possible patron: whatever that might mean.
> >
>
> Not sure, but perhaps he does like our would like to read your
> poetry. But, then, that may be tainted by the way he was
> treated. But, then, others may feel the same because of his
> treatment, that may be all they think of when they see your
> name.
So?
>
>
> > As for it requiring all kinds of people to "build a civilization"
> this is
> > obvious and thus not really worth stating, especially in such a
> didactic
> > tone. But in building a civilization one would be smart to assign
> people to
> > the right tasks.
>
> Are you the architech of this great civilization? Do people not
> find their own way?
Not in a civilization they don't.
Why must you think they to be assigned a task?
It's not so much an assignment as a discernment.
> Do you believe yourself more capable than they?
Silly reductionism of a more complex process.
> Do you find yourself
> in a position of leadership or just despotism? Well, taskman, the
> author in question, nor any other man, woman, or child could possibly
> agree with you. How many people have died for the right to do and
> say what this person has done?
I seriously do not know how many people have died for the right to post bad
poems on the Usenet, but so what? How many people have died for the right to
express their opinions at all? You seem to feel this freedom of expression
only applies to the original poster, not the people who may wish to comment
on his poem, or its lack of poetry.
>People died for him, and you, too.
Precisley my point. So why are you attempting to deny me the right to
express my opinions about the poem? Or - like so many people - do you really
believe only "good" things have the right to be expressed?
I am not stopping the poster from expressing anything, and wouldn't even if
I did have that power. But you do seem awfully anxious to stop other people
from freely expressing their thoughts. Who's the despot, Sunny Jim?
. > So, it wasn't good, need you attack it?
The group is about poetry AND comments. Comments need not be all sunbeams
and posies.
Need you lock the door?
> Without people to come up with something completely different and
> bad, we will never have a catalist for change.
And without someone (like you above) to tell others that something is bad,
we will never be able to change. BTW: the poem under discussion was bad, but
it was not "completely different." It was in fact bad and entirely common.
>And if you lock that
> door, any door, there will be someone to knock it down and kill you
> where you stand, even if it is not the room of thier calling. They
> will die to ensure that they are not barred from entering the room
> where they belong.
Anyone ready to speak the word "hysteria"? Maybe "drama queen"?
dmh
rthr...@my-deja.com
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> While I don't deny the importance of manners in social lubrication,
the fact
> is that civilization did not move forward from cave to skyscraper by a
> series of bland acceptances such as you outline.
Wrong. Conflict and resolution enable progress. Conflict, no matter
how nasty or warlike in the field, is settled by gentlemen at a table
with pens. And, as always, trade resumes between friends. Manners
are the base of diplomatic relations and protocol between any
two people or peoples. Even in the midst of war, gentlemen don't
loose sight of trade relations with brothers resuming after the
conflict is over, and their exchanges in the heat of battle are
guided by this. That is why officers, by act of congress, are
gentlemen. The object is to win, but not completely. There is
a difference between being right and being rich. It is true that
we hail our heros, we need them, too, but the conflict is resolved
through humanity, courtesy, and the use of manners to cause change.
Force is always a last resort (economic prosperity is usually enough-
remember 'the mouse that roared?'). That is why the leaders before will
be the leaders after and why assasination (of heads of state)
is illegal, even in war. One cannot kill those in economic power,
for we will need them to make more money (and pay for the effort),
later. I have never heard of a conflict resolving itself, even
in death, it is not resolved, only one side remains represented,
and economic caos ensues, and the effort goes unrewarded.
Peter J Ross
<much snipt>
> you're just following in a long standing tradition of americans who are
idiots
> who vote for idiots.
I can't believe that *either* of the principal candidates was as stupid as
he seemed to be. I've felt much the same way about all the US elections I've
observed. Is it something to do with the election being decided on TV?
Gore may be more intelligent than Bush, but his campaign was a joke, as far
as we Britons were concerned. (Which doesn't mean we weren't afraid of
both.)
Every time, whoever wins, life goes on, I suppose. My life has just
progressed to opening a second bottle of wine, because, hey, it's one
o'clock on Christmas Morning here, and I've fallen for the sentimental
Christmas spirit just as I do every year.
j r: I'll go so far as to wish you a riotous Christmas, and as many of those
Canadian girls as you can lay hands on. (Which doesn't mean I'm not looking
for revenge for the "tea-slurpin limey popinjay" crack.)
PJR :-)
--
"poetry is everywhere...."
j r sherman, though it sounds like David Bowie :-)
rthr...@my-deja.com
>
> Anyone ready to speak the word "hysteria"? Maybe "drama queen"?
>
> dmh
Of course I go way-out-of-bounds.... I didn't failed crayola class, ya
know.
I keep going and going and going, until my point is absurd.
That way, I don't really offend anyone by keeping it short
and to the point... if I stretch it out just enough, it
sounds crazy and eventually ludicrous.
r.
Amos Keppler
You kow, that great dubah quote and still you're unable to come up with anything
other than an automated response... General insults don't impress me. You gotta come
up with something better...
Amos the Storyteller
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Feel the heat of Firewind
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100531
Amos Keppler
> "Amos Keppler" <civili...@civilization.com> wrote in message
> news:3A462514...@civilization.com...
> > Mike Billard wrote:
> >
> > > Amos Keppler <civili...@civilization.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3A4531D9...@civilization.com...
> > > > Mike Billard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My God (pardon the reference to a nonentity), but this is awful in
> more
> > > ways
> > > > > than I care to count.
> > > >
> > > > Now, THAT sounds like an automated response...
> > > >
> > >
> > > It would be silly for me to put more effort in my response than you put
> into
> > > the original poem. Try harder next time and I will too.
> >
> > That was not an automated reponse.
> >
> > More like a vicious one. One ripe with misdirection and not actually a
> comment
> > on the poem itself. Thus nothing to take seriously.
> > Do you always behave like this?
> >
> Some "poems" do not deserve extended commentary.
>
> If someone shows you a pig and calls it a Concorde, you'd be a damn fool to
> go along with the idiocy and climb on board.
>
> dmh
yawn
rthr...@my-deja.com
> yeah, like they did under Reagan and Bush, with the highest public
debt in human
> history. they did a great job with the economy.
I don't know where you were, but I made a shit-load of money...
Reaganomics worked for me. Ya know, you should really learn
to take advantage of circumstances - it's the only way to get
ahead. Sort of like the impending doom of a depression - wahoo!
time to start buying! It's all a matter of running buffalo off
a cliff, take their money on the way down... just let them go,
they will find their own way.
> only adds to the comedy that is our daily world.
Glad I could be of service.
Amos Keppler
> In article <925ccl$6lr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, rthr...@my-deja.com says...
> > In article <925b22$cp3$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> > "Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > What is an automated response? You wrote a truly bad poem. I told you
> > the
> > > poem was truly bad. Nothing automated about that. Your poem received
> > the
> > > comment it deserved. Maybe you should tell us what it is you would
> > like us
> > > to say about your poem and then we'll say it back to you. Will that
> > make you
> > > feel better?
> > >
> >
> > Sometimes a kind word would help the rewrite.
> > And make the next one that much better.
> > r.
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
> >
>
> Agreed! Unfortunately it seems many of the most outspoken people in
> this newsgroup would rather be vicious than encourage people to write
> better poetry.
> 8-(
>
Don't worry, I'm used to the sad fact that there are vicious people in most
newsgroups and discussion groups. It *is* quite interesting, sociologically
speaking, that the web bring forth the best... and worst in people. It's as
if all the stops are removed. I kinda like that...
A person can be a quiet mouse in daily life. Here, he or she may behave as a
roaring lion...
I'm used to the presence of vicious people in discussion groups, but I don't
take them seriously. For me to do that one quite different response is
needed.
Amos the Storyteller
Amos Keppler
I'm quite happy for sparking such a debate here. Seems like it's needed.
There are a lot of people full of themselves. that's never any good when
"evaluating" other people's work... or a person's own...
Good ol' Dale seems very full of himself. ;)
And a traditionalist to boot. Jeepers.
Amos Keppler
I agree.
Though you got it wrong, too. Humanity is precisely what the poem is
about.
Are there only traditionalists here?
It is funny, you know. Your commentary is the first real commentary about
the actual poem (worth taken seriously)
btw I post it every year...
The sad part is that the commentaries don't change much from year to year.
It's very revealing concerning the people fraternazing this group.
In other words, it says a lot more about you than you about the poem. ;)
Amos the Storyteller
--
Peter J Ross
news:3A46A73E...@firewind.com...
[KAC wrote:]
> > Agreed! Unfortunately it seems many of the most outspoken people in
> > this newsgroup would rather be vicious than encourage people to write
> > better poetry.
> > 8-(
> >
>
> Don't worry, I'm used to the sad fact that there are vicious people in
most
> newsgroups and discussion groups.
You posted to a poetry newsgroup where criticism is aimed at finding the
faults in the poem. Most of the regulars who post are grateful to be told
that their poem isn't good. But there were so many faults in yours that
nobody wanted to take time to specify them. That ought to make you think
again about the quality of your work.
> It *is* quite interesting, sociologically
> speaking, that the web bring forth the best... and worst in people. It's
as
> if all the stops are removed. I kinda like that...
Yes. We can say what we really think, without fear. Is there anything wrong
with that? Usenet is the world's first true anarchy.
> A person can be a quiet mouse in daily life. Here, he or she may behave
as a
> roaring lion...
>
> I'm used to the presence of vicious people in discussion groups, but I
don't
> take them seriously. For me to do that one quite different response is
> needed.
You mean, of course, that somebody with a tin ear and a frontal lobotomy has
to say that your "poem" is good. Then the tone-deaf idiot will be your
friend for life.
Why do we all bother? I sometimes wonder.
PJR
--
"This may wel be rym dogerel," quod he.
"Why so?" quod I, "why wiltow lette me
Moore of my tale than another man,
Syn that it is the beste rym I kan?"
Geoffrey Chaucer
Amos Keppler
I knew there would be a lot of automated responses, yes. How you can call
yourself a poet is beyond me. Your words say nothing about me (or my poem), but
much more about you.
It seems like one of your many stupid claims is that greens can't be poets?
btw I've written poems for ten years and they and this one are quite established
in a variety of reading forums. Most of the forums more progressive than this one,
I gather...
My opinion is that traditionalists aren't poets, but type-writers.
he he
Amos the Storyteller
JAS Carter
<civili...@civilization.com> wrote:
> All this for a birth of one man
> that probably never have been born
This is an automated response.
To hear me laugh at you for your grammar error, press 1.
To hear me laugh at you for your historical inaccuracies, press 2.
To compose your own witty reply, press control alt delete twice.
--
Julie Carter
Amos Keppler
> "Amos Keppler" <fire...@firewind.com> wrote in message
> news:3A46A73E...@firewind.com...
>
> [KAC wrote:]
>
> > > Agreed! Unfortunately it seems many of the most outspoken people in
> > > this newsgroup would rather be vicious than encourage people to write
> > > better poetry.
> > > 8-(
> > >
> >
> > Don't worry, I'm used to the sad fact that there are vicious people in
> most
> > newsgroups and discussion groups.
>
> You posted to a poetry newsgroup where criticism is aimed at finding the
> faults in the poem. Most of the regulars who post are grateful to be told
> that their poem isn't good. But there were so many faults in yours that
> nobody wanted to take time to specify them. That ought to make you think
> again about the quality of your work.
Faults?
That is funny. I've never heard that word before in connection with a poem.
Except in the most *conservative circles*.
Perhaps I should have read the faq for once. These are poem groups, right? New
poems? Not blond reciting of older. "established" poems, full of dust vinegar?
>
>
> > It *is* quite interesting, sociologically
> > speaking, that the web bring forth the best... and worst in people. It's
> as
> > if all the stops are removed. I kinda like that...
>
> Yes. We can say what we really think, without fear. Is there anything wrong
> with that? Usenet is the world's first true anarchy.
Yes, that is indeed great. It's chaos. Too bad people like you are always
attempting to get it "back on track", if you get my drift.
Do you?
>
>
> > A person can be a quiet mouse in daily life. Here, he or she may behave
> as a
> > roaring lion...
> >
> > I'm used to the presence of vicious people in discussion groups, but I
> don't
> > take them seriously. For me to do that one quite different response is
> > needed.
>
> You mean, of course, that somebody with a tin ear and a frontal lobotomy has
> to say that your "poem" is good. Then the tone-deaf idiot will be your
> friend for life.
>
> Why do we all bother? I sometimes wonder.
>
That is funny. You do seem lobotomized to me. You don't bother.
Your post is so full of presumption that I can never fully describe it. Tell
me, do you always react like this when someone is moving outside the norm,
*your* norm?
Most of you are so full of yourself. Arrogance is one thing. Having
bullet-proof belief in your own importance is quite another.
Peter J Ross
> j r sherman wrote:
> > to list, this is what happened:
> >
> > a) bad poet posts bad poem knowing someone will say it's bad(that it is
makes
> > the whole process easier, really).
> >
> > b) someone gives the poem an honest comment.
> >
> > c) bad poet complains about the comment or comments said, of course
looking
> > clearly two-faced in the response because the poet knew damn well the
response
> > he was going to get.
To which an idiot replied:
> I knew there would be a lot of automated responses, yes.
By which you mean "unfavourable responses".
> How you can call
> yourself a poet is beyond me.
Where exactly has anybody in this thread called himself a poet? Mostly they
are, in fact, poets. You ought to try reading them. You might learn what
poetry is. If that's too hard, you might learn to read a newsgroup before
you post to it.
> Your words say nothing about me (or my poem), but
> much more about you.
"This poem is crap" says nothing about the poem, of course.
> It seems like one of your many stupid claims is that greens can't be
poets?
>
> btw I've written poems for ten years and they and this one are quite
established
> in a variety of reading forums. Most of the forums more progressive than
this one,
> I gather...
>
> My opinion is that traditionalists aren't poets, but type-writers.
I write in traditional forms myself. Others are more experimental. But we
all judge each other's work on its merits, not according to preconceived
ideas (such as your preconceived idea that you're interesting). Your work
was judged on its merits, and found to be bad. Whether you like it or not,
that's the answer you received from a wide range of readers.
> he he
Not to mention LMAO.
> Amos the Storyteller
But, since it's Christmas, best wishes to you.
PJR
--
"I thank you for nothing, because I understand nothing."
John Lyly
Peter J Ross
news:3a46ae6f...@news.supernews.com...
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:22:21 GMT, Amos Keppler
> <civili...@civilization.com> wrote:
> > All this for a birth of one man
> > that probably never have been born
> This is an automated response.
>
> To hear me laugh at you for your grammar error, press 1.
> To hear me laugh at you for your historical inaccuracies, press 2.
> To compose your own witty reply, press control alt delete twice.
And if that fails, give your computer a good shake. Or give yourself a good
shake. I'd enjoy the latter more.
Where do these people come from? I despair.
Peter J Ross
<snip>
> Your post is so full of presumption that I can never fully describe it.
Tell
> me, do you always react like this when someone is moving outside the norm,
> *your* norm?
Amos, you're not "moving outside the norm". You're doing what I've seen done
ten times a week in RAP and AAPC. In fact, what you're trying to do in your
"poem" was done by Swinburne (rather more successfully) about 140 years ago.
It was scandalous then, but it isn't scandalous now. In these poetry groups,
we don't object to originality. We look for it eagerly. It's only such stuff
as your tired old clichés that makes us yawn contemptuously.
JAS Carter
<peter....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>It was scandalous then, but it isn't scandalous now. In these poetry groups,
>we don't object to originality. We look for it eagerly. It's only such stuff
>as your tired old clichés that makes us yawn contemptuously.
I have never mastered the contemptuous yawn. It's next on my list
after the portentous chortle.
Dale Houstman
<rthr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9266cv$o1t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3a469103$0$89537$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
You know: I don't much care about the parameters of this very stupid
discussion. The real point is you are attempting to limit our responses to
something and by doing so you are negating your own stated principles. All
these dull histrionics over whether or not we liked or disliked a bad poem!
Quite silly.
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> > While I don't deny the importance of manners in social lubrication,
> the fact
> > is that civilization did not move forward from cave to skyscraper by a
> > series of bland acceptances such as you outline.
>
> Wrong. Conflict and resolution enable progress. Conflict, no matter
> how nasty or warlike in the field, is settled by gentlemen at a table
> with pens.
You agree with me then? Truth is you cannot have resolution without
conflict: you agree. That's the process that is going on here. What you
appear to want is resolution without conflict. You wish us to "assume" an
issue is resolved before the issue has been set upon. Like I said:
civilization does not move forward by such a set of bland acceptances. So -
by your own admission - I'm not wrong.
dmh
Dale Houstman
>
> Yes, that is indeed great. It's chaos. Too bad people like you are always
> attempting to get it "back on track", if you get my drift.
>
> Do you?
>
It's easy: you appear to be all drift.
dmh
Dale Houstman
>
Snore... Another genius so full of himself he thinks that he came up with a
great idea all by himself, and that his lame statements are made brilliant
by the fact others disagree with him.
Snore...
Peter J Ross
> I have never mastered the contemptuous yawn. It's next on my list
> after the portentous chortle.
The philosophical giggle is a good one.
PJR :-)
--
"I should never call myself a book lover, any more than a people lover: it
all depends what's inside them."
Philip Larkin (from "Required Writing")
Amos Keppler
Are you for real? You don't object to originality? This is so obviously
dishonest and filled ot the brim with misdirection that you should consider a
career in journalism.
Additionally you seem to have little knowledge of your professed "theory".
Anybody who have ever read Swinburne knows that isn't in any way comparable.
Something you seem to "agree" with. So why bring it in, you tired old
traditionalist.
It is interesting that you're so different from any other poetry group I have
attended or participated in. You have found your little place on usenet, I
gather, where you're a ruler of two or three or four.
Congratulations. The impression I got in my lurking period has been more than
confirmed. I would try to get a life, if I was you. That is one of the most
important factors of writing and "understanding" poetry, you know.
I guess you didn't enjoy Dead Poet's Society very much...
Mike Billard
This is at least the second time you've used the term "traditionalist", but
you've yet to define what you mean by it. I should hope, since you are
posting in poetry newsgroups, that you are accusing those of us who find
your poem lacking of being poetic traditionalists. If you are, I wonder how
your bad poem indicates such a distinction. I would appreciate a detailed
explanation of your reasoning. Of course, if you're calling us
traditionalists in some other area, that's simply so much nonsense. Here,
let me try to get you back on track: Regardless of your political,
religious, or socio-economic position and opinions, the poem you posted was
a piece of very bad writing. Had you employed the same style to praise the
virtues of masturbation, or to examine the life of the snail darter, or to
speak at length on certain geologic features found only in the Appalachian
Mountains, your poem would have still been bad. It really is that simple.
Neither agreement nor disagreement with your "message" has any relevance on
the quality of the work you posted. Now, please, take however much time you
need to explain how that makes me a traditionalist.
>
> It is funny, you know. Your commentary is the first real commentary about
> the actual poem (worth taken seriously)
>
> btw I post it every year...
>
> The sad part is that the commentaries don't change much from year to
year.
> It's very revealing concerning the people fraternazing this group.
>
> In other words, it says a lot more about you than you about the poem. ;)
You're probably right. It says that my aesthetic values have not been
compromised to the point where I might consider such skilless writing to be
any good. Thank you for that.
Amos Keppler
> <rthr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9266cv$o1t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3a469103$0$89537$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
>
> You know: I don't much care about the parameters of this very stupid
> discussion. The real point is you are attempting to limit our responses to
> something and by doing so you are negating your own stated principles. All
> these dull histrionics over whether or not we liked or disliked a bad poem!
>
> Quite silly.
>
What is silly, is your automated response and you acting like power mongers in
a garbage dump. Now, that's silly...
Did you call it discussion? You should have been present in a real poetry
group then, and perhaps realized what you've been missing (probably not, but
hope springs eternal, right).
I can tell you that this poem has received both praise and not, but never such
a one-sided trite response. That should tell you tired, old traditionalists
something.
JAS Carter
wrote:
> I can tell you that this poem has received both praise and not, but never such
>a one-sided trite response. That should tell you tired, old traditionalists
>something.
How do I plonk thee, let me count the ways
Amos Keppler
Something you should take to heart is that this poem presented during
countless poetry groups and readings have gotten both praise and not, but never
such a trite one-sided "response". as here. That should tell you tired, old
traditionalists something.
I did lurk a bit this year. Nothing has changed from previous years. You're
still a bunch of cultural nazis.
>
>
> > he he
>
> Not to mention LMAO.
>
> > Amos the Storyteller
>
> But, since it's Christmas, best wishes to you.
>
Typical hypocrite.
Amos the storyteller
Amos Keppler
> "JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3a46ae6f...@news.supernews.com...
>
> > On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:22:21 GMT, Amos Keppler
> > <civili...@civilization.com> wrote:
>
> > > All this for a birth of one man
> > > that probably never have been born
>
> > This is an automated response.
> >
> > To hear me laugh at you for your grammar error, press 1.
> > To hear me laugh at you for your historical inaccuracies, press 2.
> > To compose your own witty reply, press control alt delete twice.
>
> And if that fails, give your computer a good shake. Or give yourself a good
> shake. I'd enjoy the latter more.
>
> Where do these people come from? I despair.
>
There are fewer of us true poets. I agree. You small time tyrants, however,
are like cockroaches, found everywhere.
Happy New Year (that was 3 days ago)
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
> I knew there would be a lot of automated responses, yes. How you can call
>yourself a poet is beyond me. Your words say nothing about me (or my poem), but
>much more about you.
troll du jour
Poser boy.
> btw I've written poems for ten years and they and this one are quite established
>in a variety of reading forums.
Name them.
>Most of the forums more progressive than this one,
>I gather...
Name them.
> My opinion is that traditionalists aren't poets, but type-writers.
So far, you're just a run of the mill troll who writes really bad
poetry.
Oh, Crowley freak. heh
Been there, did that.
gg
love is the law
love under will
uh huh.
Amos Keppler
Yawn.
A typical traditionalist. Using a lot of words saying exactly
nothing
Amos the Storyteller
Peter J Ross
that you object not only to me, but also to the consensus of opinion in the
two most frequented international poetry newsgroups on usenet. That's all
right: you're entitled to your opinions. But I'd be grateful if you stopped
wasting my time by sharing them with me. Not that I'll be reading any more
of them, of course.
Merry loony-version-of-Saturnalia to you.
PJR
--
"A killfile is a glorious thing, God wot...."
Mike Billard
>
> I guess you didn't enjoy Dead Poet's Society very much...
>
I think this says far more than you intended.
Mike Billard
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> > "JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3a46ae6f...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > > On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:22:21 GMT, Amos Keppler
> > > <civili...@civilization.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > All this for a birth of one man
> > > > that probably never have been born
> >
> > > This is an automated response.
> > >
> > > To hear me laugh at you for your grammar error, press 1.
> > > To hear me laugh at you for your historical inaccuracies, press 2.
> > > To compose your own witty reply, press control alt delete twice.
> >
> > And if that fails, give your computer a good shake. Or give yourself a
good
> > shake. I'd enjoy the latter more.
> >
> > Where do these people come from? I despair.
> >
>
> There are fewer of us true poets.
Tell me what makes you a "true poet". Take as much time as you need. Then
tell me what makes everone esle something other than "true poets". Again,
take as much time as you need. And I'm serious. I want to know what, other
than writing poems, makes one a true poet. Care to explain?
Amos Keppler
is there
doing that
And a lot more
Bergen festival of 2000, 99'
London alternative 98
Gothenburg
Poem Gathering on the net. Gathered and dissolved summer 98
Praha spring/summer 97
Diaries of Traveling poets Europe 97
Hundreds of smaller and bigger arrangements with names that would tell you exactly
nothing (even if you were on the level)
Amos Keppler
You're such a piece of work. Posting your "truth" as if it's gospel.
Well, there have been a lot of dictators claiming to be poets.
Mike Billard
"this poem . . . *have* gotten"? You aren't acquainted with even the most
fundamental aspects of grammar. Or is the construction indicative of a
"progressive" (read not traditionalist) poet? And before you wax
grandiloquent on this and that, recognize that your oh so non-traditionalist
poem is chocked full of such garbage. You aren't even capable of writing
three or four comprehensible sentences, yet you think you can write poems
that are above criticism. I'd rather be a "tired old traditionalist" than an
illiterate moron.
Amos Keppler
It was meant as a sort of ambiguous statement. Not the sort of
ambiguous statement you probably dreamt up, though.
You would claim that people enjoying the movie Dead Poet's Society are
stupid amateur poets, right? I disagree, of course. I think that movie
did more for poetry than a thousand boring traditional groups. But did
you at all get my other hints?
Since I'm a good guesser and interpreter of closed mindsets I can make
a fairly good guess of what you're hinting at, but since I'm not a
mindreader, perhaps you can tell me.
You're not a very deep person, are ya?
Amos the Storyteller
--
Mike Billard
>
> Yawn.
>
> A typical traditionalist. Using a lot of words saying exactly
>
> nothing
>
I'll consider that a cop out. I should have expected as much from one with
such limited communication skills as you have. I suppose I should be
thankful you didn't break into a long winded explanation. God (oops, there's
that nonentity again!) only knows what sorts of strange, almost English but
not quite, sentences you would have concocted.
Amos Keppler
Keep going at it. I need to sleep soon. A cop out? You're talking about
yourself, right?
Yes, honest mike strikes again.
Peter J Ross
> Oh, Crowley freak. heh
> Been there, did that.
>
> gg
> love is the law
> love under will
> uh huh.
Just this once, I beat you, Gary. I killfiled him first. :-)
Amos Keppler
Okay, you got me. Congratulations. I'm just a pretender to the throne. You're
at the top of the heap. Congratulations.
After replying to you shitheads for hours, I've finally done one mistake.
I'll willingly admit that a spelling and grammar error does mean a bit more
here than in other newsgroups, but in my experience it's the persons who most
eagerly point them out who have the least to say...
I'll bet you're sitting in front of your word processor all day, looking for
other peoples typos, making sure you do none yourself. Some of us do try to do
without a spell checker, you know.
Correct Mike strikes again.
Amos the non-perfect Storyteller
Dale Houstman
> Mike Billard wrote:
>
> > Amos Keppler <fire...@firewind.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A46C74F...@firewind.com...
> > >
> > > Yawn.
> > >
> > > A typical traditionalist. Using a lot of words saying exactly
> > >
> > > nothing
> > >
> >
> > I'll consider that a cop out. I should have expected as much from one
with
> > such limited communication skills as you have. I suppose I should be
> > thankful you didn't break into a long winded explanation. God (oops,
there's
> > that nonentity again!) only knows what sorts of strange, almost English
but
> > not quite, sentences you would have concocted.
>
> Keep going at it. I need to sleep soon. A cop out? You're talking about
> yourself, right?
> Yes, honest mike strikes again.
>
it is - rather pathetic. I'll bet you need a lot of sleep to recharge that
tiny littlr battery you call a mind.
No more of you... talk to yourself. It will help you sleep no doubt...
dmh
Amos Keppler
It's easy. I was being a bit ironic, since I don't believe in the concept.
That's your line. You're the one who are attempting to push all other poets
inside your definition, by speaking of "bad" and "good" poems, so I thought I
should turn the tables a bit. Glad to see I was successful. Quacks like you
need a bit of your own medicine. You need it much more often than you actually
get it.
Poetry is Life and you're dead as a doornail!!!
Get it, bad poet?
Amos the Storyteller
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
> Okay, you got me. Congratulations. I'm just a pretender to the throne. You're
>at the top of the heap. Congratulations.
If only you knew.
> After replying to you shitheads for hours, I've finally done one mistake.
No, you made your biggest mistake in your second post.
> I'll willingly admit that a spelling and grammar error does mean a bit more
>here than in other newsgroups,
Amazing, isn't it? A writer's group that cares about grammar.
Pigeon hole that, poser boy.
>but in my experience it's the persons who most
>eagerly point them out who have the least to say...
Maybe you need more experience then.
> I'll bet you're sitting in front of your word processor all day, looking for
>other peoples typos, making sure you do none yourself. Some of us do try to do
>without a spell checker, you know.
Your 15 minutes of trolldom are just about up.
*plonk*
gg
"The ability to write is a gift, if one does not believe that, then
please take notice in the reasoning why your words need to be
written."
crowstouch
j r sherman
>
>"j r sherman" <jr...@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:9261o...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
><much snipt>
>
>> you're just following in a long standing tradition of americans who are
>idiots
>> who vote for idiots.
>
>I can't believe that *either* of the principal candidates was as stupid as
>he seemed to be. I've felt much the same way about all the US elections I've
>observed. Is it something to do with the election being decided on TV?
perhaps. do the study and you'll find Clinton to be leaps and bounds more
intelligent than Bush of 92, and Dole of 96. Clinton also masterfully out
manuvoured the insane Repo Congress of 94-95 as well as the slightly lesser
insane Repo congress of 98, when they preceeded to impeached him. Richard Nixon,
sleaze bag that he was, noted that Clinton was probably the best politician
sitting in the white house since FDR, and quite rightly so.
>Gore may be more intelligent than Bush,
PLYWOOD is, Pete. one celled animals.
dust. you name it.
>but his campaign was a joke, as far
>as we Britons were concerned. (Which doesn't mean we weren't afraid of
>both.)
how was his campaign a joke? Gore would have made a great prime minister, but
unfortunately we possess an electorial republic. his problem was he wasn't
Clinton.
>Every time, whoever wins, life goes on, I suppose. My life has just
>progressed to opening a second bottle of wine, because, hey, it's one
>o'clock on Christmas Morning here, and I've fallen for the sentimental
>Christmas spirit just as I do every year.
do you brits sit around reading Dickens on christmas eve? just curious.
>j r: I'll go so far as to wish you a riotous Christmas, and as many of those
>Canadian girls as you can lay hands on. (Which doesn't mean I'm not looking
>for revenge for the "tea-slurpin limey popinjay" crack.)
not tonight, Pete, too much christmas wine myself.
>PJR :-)
love and kisses,
j r sherman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities
in our air and water that are doing it."
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
rthr...@my-deja.com
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> You agree with me then? Truth is you cannot have resolution without
> conflict: you agree. That's the process that is going on here. What
you
> appear to want is resolution without conflict. You wish us
to "assume" an
> issue is resolved before the issue has been set upon. Like I said:
> civilization does not move forward by such a set of bland
acceptances. So -
> by your own admission - I'm not wrong.
>
> dmh
>
>
Perhaps not entirely wrong... just without
any tact, nor any diplomacy.
What I want is civil conflict. Without civility there
can be no resolution. Again, the idea is to win
without going too far. And, at 3:07am, I am glad
that Christmas IS finally over. Good night, my
Merry Gentlemen...
A management consultant once asked of us,
on the issue of morals and principle,
"Would you rather be right or rich?"
Her name was Hilda Cadenas. She was a
wiser woman than we had anticipated.
I ask that question of myself everyday.
r.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Ray Heinrich
< a good roll >
god sent me an email today:
"so i lied about Jesus
he wasn't really my son
he was a philosopher
just trying
to practice his ideals
the rest
was a story i made up
you see
my religion wasn't going too good
and i had lots of competition
from the other gods
i needed an event
it wouldn't have to be a Woodstock
but i needed something
to get the ball rolling
when here comes this carpenter
who thinks
he's figured out the golden rule
but i think
here's my man
it just took a few rumors
to get him crucified
and a few more stories
whispered
in the right ears
and bingo
i had me a thing goin
Zeus was pissed
and the Earth Mother
got her panties in a twist
while i
settled in for a good roll"
- - -
up all night
http://wordbiscuit.com
twisting dna
Ray Heinrich
>Mike Billard wrote:
>
>> Amos Keppler <fire...@firewind.com> wrote in message
>> news:3A46C160...@firewind.com...
>>
>> >
>> > I guess you didn't enjoy Dead Poet's Society very much...
>> >
>>
>> I think this says far more than you intended.
>
> It was meant as a sort of ambiguous statement. Not the sort of
>ambiguous statement you probably dreamt up, though.
>
> You would claim that people enjoying the movie Dead Poet's Society are
>stupid amateur poets, right? I disagree, of course. I think that movie
>did more for poetry than a thousand boring traditional groups. But did
>you at all get my other hints?
>
> Since I'm a good guesser and interpreter of closed mindsets I can make
>a fairly good guess of what you're hinting at, but since I'm not a
>mindreader, perhaps you can tell me.
>
> You're not a very deep person, are ya?
>
> Amos the Storyteller
< a good roll >
Ray Heinrich
< a good roll >
Ray Heinrich
rthr...@my-deja.com
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> No more of you... talk to yourself. It will help you sleep no doubt...
>
> dmh
>
>
Hi Dale!
I take 3mg of Melatonin. It seems to help establish
regular sleeping paterns...
rthr...@my-deja.com
in any conflict before there is any hope of a resolution.
I have seen more civility in a nursery school class and
even on a middle school bus on the way home on a Friday
afternoon. I really believe that bus drivers should be
paid a lot more... perhaps more than congressmen.
rthr...@my-deja.com
rthr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3a46d1bc$0$89528$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >
> > No more of you... talk to yourself. It will help you sleep no
doubt...
> >
> > dmh
> >
> >
>
> Hi Dale!
>
> I take 3mg of Melatonin. It seems to help establish
> regular sleeping paterns...
>
> r.
I just took another 3mg, must be the holidays or something...
j r sherman
>
>
>debt in human
>> history. they did a great job with the economy.
>
>I don't know where you were, but I made a shit-load of money...
good for you. and this means... what?
>Reaganomics worked for me.
sure, all you rich, fat white people. good for you, and again, this means.... ?
>Ya know, you should really learn
>to take advantage of circumstances - it's the only way to get
>ahead.
well, i don't have anything against people who want to fuck their fellow man,
it's just that when you fuck your fellow man, it's not a good idea to inflict
cigarette burns while you're fucking them. that they tend to remember.
>Sort of like the impending doom of a depression - wahoo!
>time to start buying! It's all a matter of running buffalo off
>a cliff, take their money on the way down... just let them go,
>they will find their own way.
yeah, but we must be nice to a bad poet because that would improve the humanity
of it all? i see.
>> only adds to the comedy that is our daily world.
>
>Glad I could be of service.
not at all. your comedic level is always appreciated.
j r sherman
>
>
>> in another time, another place, someone did say.....
>> >
>> >
>> >> "Amos Keppler" <civili...@civilization.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3A4517BF...@civilization.com...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I'm an atheist and no slacker when it comes to blasphemy, but this poem
>> >> makes me want to join the Church, and put you on the rack.
>> >>
>> >> Strange, huh?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> >
>> > Well, there are always uncle toms hidden in the closet.
>>
>>and morons willing to believe ideas even more comical than christianity. you are
>> fun, amo. i'm glad you crossposted.
>>
>> > Amos the Storyteller
>>
>>yeah, amo, i read your short stories on your site. i'd keep the day job and stop
>> stressing the "storyteller" portion of your sig.
>>
>> > Stories from the edge of consciousness, beyond any contained mind
>> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>> i hope you keep posting.
>>
>> love and kisses,
>>
>> j r sherman
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities
>> in our air and water that are doing it."
>> ...Governor George W. Bush, Jr..
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>anything
>other than an automated response... General insults don't impress me. You gotta
>come
>up with something better...
>
> Amos the Storyteller
what gives you the impression that you're worth the effort?
j r sherman
> I knew there would be a lot of automated responses, yes.
so automated responses are those that think your poem is bad?
>How you can call yourself a poet is beyond me.
where did i call myself a poet? i said you're poem was bad, and it was.
>Your words say nothing about me (or my poem), but
>much more about you.
of course it does, dumbass. that was my intention. man!
> It seems like one of your many stupid claims is that greens can't be poets?
i never said that, ever. i said Greens are dumb, misguided, politically
ignorant, easily manipulated(i might have not said that recently, but i've said
the before. i even said that at a dinner party this evening), and idiotically
idealistic, but i never said they couldn't write poetry.
>btw I've written poems for ten years and they and this one are quite
>>established in a variety of reading forums. Most of the forums more
>>progressive than this one,
it's not the subject matter of the poem that makes it bad. it was the way you
wrote it that made me both laugh and cringe for you.
as far as the other "forums" that you speak, i don't think your mom telling it,
"oh, that's really nice" counts.
>I gather...
this should be good.
> My opinion is that traditionalists aren't poets, but type-writers.
it was.
so, how was your poem untraditional? is that another word for bad?
as it's been pointed out to you, you have given no explanation for the word, so
until you do your whining will continue to look ridiculous.
i highly doubt that it will improve with an explanation on your part, but give
it a try.
j r sherman
>
>
> Well, there have been a lot of dictators claiming to be poets.
>
> Amos the Storyteller
god, i just went and looked at your website. christ.
here's the first two paragraphs of your supposed "short story" Fire Burning in
the Wind. egads this is bad.
as i quote you:
"Heat became hot. Sea rose. The Wind increased in strength. Heat became visible
in the very air. With the heat came the sneaking, violent Death. Land turned to
sea bed."
isn't there an Eagles' song that goes like this?
"The whisper of the wind turned to the roar of the Storm. Stone deserts of the
world, once called cities, was crushed to dust. It was said that many did not
leave their habitats in time. This, I know, is difficult to comprehend,"
kinda like your prose. heh.
"but know that this came to pass in a time when humanity was as countless as
ants in the ground. They, each one of them, it seemed,"
child, about the only author who can get away with the constant comma is Gore
Vidal, and even he goes overboard sometimes, and he know what he's doing. you
don't. that equals bad in any book.
"ruled their one private hill and convinced themselves it was the whole world.
The stone desert that the sea didn’t take, took time. Everything disappeared in
green and brown. In mud and dirt. And blood and vomit and decaying corpses.
Disease and corruption ruled so terrible, so brutal, that no one could resist."
this reads like a bad high school writing assignment.
"Those who were not taken away by the water and the wind, they were drowned by
another kind of flood."
a ninth grade writing assignment.
"They were torn asunder from without, from within. Humanity didn’t feel like
kings of their hill anymore. Fire burned in the wind anew..."
god, this is bad. on your website you claim that:
"You'll find stories here, from the edge of imagination and Beyond".
for that alone you should have your fingers broken and cast into the land of
Nod.
your prose makes Sidney Sheldon look like F. Scott Fitzgerald.
no easy feat.
Martijn Benders
Amos Keppler wrote:
> That's your line. You're the one who are attempting to push all other poets
> inside your definition, by speaking of "bad" and "good" poems,
I bet you push all other beerdrinkers in your definition when you
mention that certain beers taste like shit.
so I thought I
> should turn the tables a bit. Glad to see I was successful.
You're a clueless moron, of the usual Crowleyan variety - 'tastelessness
is a lifestyle too'
Quacks like you
> need a bit of your own medicine. You need it much more often than you actually
> get it.
> Poetry is Life and you're dead as a doornail!!!
>
> Get it, bad poet?
We grovel at the infinite scraps of wisdom springing forth from
every whim of the merciful Master. Teach Us, Oh Lord of Immaculate
Rubber Hair!
Martijn
DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK
http://www.cacaofabriek.com/
'Schilderijen bestaan niet. Er bestaan alleen
interpretaties. Iedereen maakt tijdens het kijken
zijn eigen schilderij. Om daar toch enige invloed op
te hebben kan een titel tegenwoordig nog wel eens
een wonder doen.'
Peer Metselaar
Mike Billard
j r sherman <jr...@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
> in another time, another place, someone did say.....
> >
> > You're such a piece of work. Posting your "truth" as if it's gospel.
> >
> > Well, there have been a lot of dictators claiming to be poets.
> >
> > Amos the Storyteller
>
> god, i just went and looked at your website. christ.
>
> here's the first two paragraphs of your supposed "short story" Fire
Burning in
> the Wind. egads this is bad.
>
> as i quote you:
>
> "Heat became hot. Sea rose. The Wind increased in strength. Heat became
visible
> in the very air. With the heat came the sneaking, violent Death. Land
turned to
> sea bed."
>
> isn't there an Eagles' song that goes like this?
You are obviously a traditionalist. How dare you call yourself a short story
writer? And I think it was a song by America you're thinking of.
Mike Billard
> Mike Billard wrote:
>
> >
> > Tell me what makes you a "true poet". Take as much time as you need.
Then
> > tell me what makes everone esle something other than "true poets".
Again,
> > take as much time as you need. And I'm serious. I want to know what,
other
> > than writing poems, makes one a true poet. Care to explain?
>
> It's easy. I was being a bit ironic, since I don't believe in the
concept.
> That's your line. You're the one who are attempting
". . .one who *are*. . ."? Just another typo? I don't think so.
> to push all other poets
> inside your definition, by speaking of "bad" and "good" poems,
I spoke of one bad poem--yours. And no amount of whining on your part is
going to make it anything other than bad.
> so I thought I
> should turn the tables a bit.
Bullshit. This comment is directly in line with most of your other comments,
as well as some of the nonsense on your webpage. You *are* a "true poet", at
least in your own mind. You may have slipped up in revealing your
magnificent self among the traditionalist peasants, but you most certainly
said what you believe.
> Glad to see I was successful. Quacks like you
> need a bit of your own medicine. You need it much more often than you
actually
> get it.
> Poetry is Life and you're dead as a doornail!!!
I'd ask you to explain this bit of nonsense, but I suspect you would only
reply with more nonse ("I was *obviously* being facetious. I knew I'd catch
you again, blah blah blah")
>
> Get it, bad poet?
Oh, I am so smitten. you must be terribly distraught over that one poem's
failure to go on like this.
Rik Roots
> after the portentous chortle.
>
You got a portentous chortle for crimbo?
Bugger! Now I'm really jealous!
>
>
> --
> Julie Carter
>
>
> http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
Rik, knee deep, reusing his snuffly huff...
--
http://homepages.enterprise.net/rikroots/index.html
Pop in for a browse, when you have a moment to spare...
j r sherman
>
>
>j r sherman <jr...@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:92709...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> in another time, another place, someone did say.....
>> >
>> > You're such a piece of work. Posting your "truth" as if it's gospel.
>> >
>> > Well, there have been a lot of dictators claiming to be poets.
>> >
>> > Amos the Storyteller
>>
>> god, i just went and looked at your website. christ.
>>
>> here's the first two paragraphs of your supposed "short story" Fire
>Burning in
>> the Wind. egads this is bad.
>>
>> as i quote you:
>>
>> "Heat became hot. Sea rose. The Wind increased in strength. Heat became
>visible
>> in the very air. With the heat came the sneaking, violent Death. Land
>turned to
>> sea bed."
>>
>> isn't there an Eagles' song that goes like this?
>
>You are obviously a traditionalist.
indeed. mom always cooks turkey on thanksgiving and ham at christmas. i come
from a long line of them.
>How dare you call yourself a short story
>writer?
short story writer, poet, tinker, soldier, spy, they're all the same. ;)
>And I think it was a song by America you're thinking of.
at first i thought it was early Supertramp, or, as i said, Eagles.
but i think you are correct, such a line as the one quoted above could only
sound like an America song. it has that "traveling through the desert on a horse
with no name" feel to it, don't you think?
:D
merry/happy/no one die today.
j r "from the edge of imagination and Beyond my hangover" sherman
rthr...@my-deja.com
If I were rich, I wouldn't have
any use for the Internet...
I'd be too busy drinking a martini
and smokin a stogie.
Nope, I'm just one of those
Ugly, Fat, Dumb people that
are suppressed by society
and taken advantage of through
the tax system. Yup, I had
to help pay for all that
unemployment because I wasn't
rich enough not to pay taxes...
r.
In article <926u9...@drn.newsguy.com>,
j r sherman
>
>
>> Amos Keppler <fire...@firewind.com> wrote in message
>> news:3A46C74F...@firewind.com...
>> >
>> > Yawn.
>> >
>> > A typical traditionalist. Using a lot of words saying exactly
>> >
>> > nothing
>> >
>>
>> I'll consider that a cop out. I should have expected as much from one with
>> such limited communication skills as you have. I suppose I should be
>> thankful you didn't break into a long winded explanation. God (oops, there's
>> that nonentity again!) only knows what sorts of strange, almost English but
>> not quite, sentences you would have concocted.
>
> Keep going at it. I need to sleep soon. A cop out? You're talking about
>yourself, right?
> Yes, honest mike strikes again.
>
> Amos the Storyteller
>
hey, amos, i'm trying to get some idea of of what you consider a tradionalist,
ya know?
in another post i made reference to F. Scott Fitzgerald. just incase you don't
know who he was, F. Scott was some minor writer of the early 20th century, and i
guess you could call HIM a traditonalist. many have attempted to copy his style,
and i guess in your opinion that wouldn't be a good idea, because Fitzgerald was
a traditionalist, right?
well, let's compare and contrast, shall we? here is the differences in prose and
writing ability between Fitzgerald, that old, hack, traditionalist, and YOU, the
cutting edge, beyond imagination, etc, etc, new style writer, as you set the
foundation of the new way of writing, okay? cool!
here are the first few paragraphs of Fitzgerald's short story, May Day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
***There had been a war fought and won and the great city of the conquering
people was crossed with triumphal arches and vivid with thrown flowers of white,
red, and rose. All through the long spring days the returning soldiers marched
up the chief highway behind the strump of drums and the joyous, resonant wind of
the brasses, while merchants and clerks left their bickerings and figurings and,
crowding to the windows, turned their white-bunched faces gravely upon the
passing battalions.
Never had there been such splendor in the great city, for the victorious war had
brought plenty in its train, and the merchants had flocked thither from the
South and West with their households to taste of all the luscious feasts and
witness the lavish entertainments prepared --and to buy for their women furs
against the next winter and bags of golden mesh and varicolored slippers of silk
and silver and rose satin and cloth of gold.
So gaily and noisily were the peace and prosperity impending hymned by the
scribes and poets of the conquering people that more and more spenders had
gathered from the provinces to drink the wine of excitement, and faster and
faster did the merchants dispose of their trinkets and slippers until they sent
up a mighty cry for more trinkets and more slippers in order that they might
give in barter what was demanded of them. Some even of them flung up their hands
helplessly, shouting:
"Alas! I have no more slippers! and alas! I have no more trinkets! May Heaven
help me, for I know not what I shall do!"
But no one listened to their great outcry, for the throngs were far too busy
--day by day, the foot-soldiers trod jauntily the highway and all exulted
because the young men returning were pure and brave, sound of tooth and pink of
cheek, and the young women of the land were virgins and comely both of face and
of figure.
So during all this time there were many adventures that happened in the great
city, and, of these, several --or perhaps one --are here set down.****
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW, let's produce a few paragraphs from you, the cutting edge, beyond
imagination writer, Famous Amos the Story Teller!
i'm all excited! this is first few paragraphs of your short story "DEATH AND THE
MAIDEN", let's read and compare writing philosophies, shall we!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Jointed, disparate images come to me.
I walked on the road past the old house. I walked in darkness, under the road
lights. Road lights of the old type. Not those with the great orange glow, but
the ones satisfied with glowing in blue and pale. I turned off the main road
where there rarely drove any cars at all at night, to the smaller road. I walked
across the bridge over the roaring river (there was no river). On my right where
I walked on the tarmac covered private road, a small yacht stood on a pedestal
for all to look at and admire. It had been there virtually forever, fit for
pedestals no longer. For some reason this particular, (older) pedestal, keep
reminding me of the way the American Indians supposedly was «burying» their
dead.
That’s when I see her. She has been walking some distance ahead of me for some
time, but I haven’t really seen her before now, before Now. I study her back.
She doesn’t turn around. The sleek, black hair is covering her back. She dress
in black. Black jacket, black pants. I walk only ten meters behind her. I want
to cry out to her. She would then turn around and I would see the face I do not
see now.
She turned off into another road. I do know these parts well, having wandered
through them since childhood. I walked merely ten meters behind the lovely snake
body, when i turned abruptly around and hurried back the same way I had come.
Over the bridge, over the main road again, towards home.
The red gate, the green gate. Some minutes later. Hundred thousand years. I walk
by the old white house, empty, ethereal. I’m always looking at the dark windows
to see if anybody are standing inside. There was no one this night either. But
as always I’m hearing noises. Creaking of the old, decaying floor, rustling
behind green bushes, the howl of poltergeists in the treetops. I ran the last
stretch to my home one hundred meter away. It’s a wise habit of mine, that I’ll
let the lights stay turned on, when leaving the house for my nocturnal walks.
I stood as frozen on the concrete stairs fumbling with my keys, and watched my
shadow casting long shadows in the light from the kitchen. My shadow, I told
myself. I had never felt so shaken before and I had walked long trips in the
night for many years now. What had changed? What?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
i guess we've finally discovered what the difference is between a stuffy, old
traditionalist like F. Scott Fitsgerald and yourself, right?
merry christmas!
love and kisses,
j r sherman
p.s i liked the "What had changed? What?" thing that you did in the last
paragraph. it was really breaking out of labels and confines right to the edge
of imagination and Beyond.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
gga...@excite.com
>i guess we've finally discovered what the difference is between a stuffy, old
>traditionalist like F. Scott Fitsgerald and yourself, right?
Cruel, but effective.
Most sensible people would fold tent and slink away at this point.
I guess that means he won't.
gg
"I am alive I scream aloud
More time left to live
From now on though
From my heart more I shall to you give"
Candice Lee
Ilse
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Amos Keppler wrote:
>
> Since I'm a good guesser and interpreter of closed mindsets
"Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have."
-- Emile Chartier
j r sherman
>
>
>>traditionalist like F. Scott Fitsgerald and yourself, right?
>
>
>Cruel, but effective.
proving that the stupid who think they're smart are truly stupid is god's work.
>Most sensible people would fold tent and slink away at this point.
you KNOW i don't want that to happen.
>I guess that means he won't.
another part of god's work is egging the stupid on to even higher feats of
stupidity so that there can be no doubt.
look at chuckles the clown? he's moved stupid into an art form.
>"I am alive I scream aloud
>More time left to live
>From now on though
>From my heart more I shall to you give"
>Candice Lee
and just as i was mentioning stupid.....
merry christmas brother gary.
j r sherman