Usenet poetry newsgroups FAQ

[Will Dockery]

A FAQ and other resources for our poetry newsgroups are available here:
>
> <http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/>

Somewhat in need of updating but still some worthwhile information on Usenet and Poetry in general.

[Diana]

In article <ad99b7c3-ccff-464a...@googlegroups.com>,
hierony...@gmail.com says...
>
> 2:36 PMWill Dockery

> A FAQ and other resources for our poetry newsgroups are available here:
> >
> > <http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/>
>
> Somewhat in need of updating but still some worthwhile information on Usenet and Poetry in general.
>

> You're too generous, Will. The site is a relic at best. The whole thing is so outdated as to be essentially worthless, but if the fool wants to keep posting links to it, what the fuck. Let him.


I think it's worthwhile to read the FAQ and is still helpful for people
who post here and people who want to post here. I've not checked the
other resources to see if they are outdated or not.

<cries while viewing the relic>

[Chuck Lysaght]

Fuck off, Pete.

[Chuck Lysaght]

Pete. You're a kook.

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> (Needless to say, by "the regulars" I don't mean the gang of
>
> plagiarist

Oh, your friend, the poetry thief and copyright abuser Michael Cook has returned, Peter?

I haven't noticed.

We do have /you/ though, Peter... a lying hypocritical supporter of plagiarists, copyright abusers and thieves such as Cook and his ilk.

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> I notice that the Subject line was changed

Because what little up-to-date information in the FAQ applies just as well to rec.arts.poems or alt.poetry.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:29:59 PM UTC-4, Chuck Lysaght wrote:
> Pete. You're a kook.

PJR's even worse, Chuck, he's a lying hypocritical kook.

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous House" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad99b7c3-ccff-464a...@googlegroups.com...
> 2:36 PMWill Dockery

> You're too generous, Will. The site is a relic at best. The whole thing is
> so outdated as to be essentially worthless, but if the fool wants to keep
> posting links to it, what the fuck. Let him.

Sure, it keeps him busy, I reckon.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:28:57 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 18 May 2013 15:36:32 -0700 (PDT),
>
> just came in his pants.

You're still having your usual homoerotic fantasies, I see, PJR.

At least it keeps you busy... heh.

--
Music & poetry from Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> a lying hypocritical kook

Your admission is noted, Peter.

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Will_Dockery_userphoto.jpg>

Thanks for the plug.

[Diana]

In article <slrnkpfu9...@pjr.no-ip.org>, p...@example.invalid
says...

> Hello, Diana!

Hello, Peter!


> As far as I'm aware, there have been no revolutionary discoveries
> about how to write, critique and revise poems during the past decade,
> so the FAQ and related resources are not outdated, except in a few
> small details.

I think I pretty much agree with you here.
>
> The FAQ remains the official FAQ for this newsgroup, and I expect it
> to continue to be so until the regulars collectively decide otherwise

And here, too.

> (Needless to say, by "the regulars" I don't mean the gang of

> plagiarists, self-promoters, illiterates, drunkards, drug-addicts,
> spammers, support-group trolls and paedophile clowns who are
> temporarily infesting the group. If they want to produce a rival FAQ,
> they're welcome to try, as long as they don't steal from ours.)

This is the part where I have a hard time replying because of the
conflict involved and then conflicting nature of where I really stand on
this (this issue and what constitutes being a "regular") myself. I
sometimes feel like I'm still illiterate or semi-literate in the way
grammar works, have made posts in the past that made no sense at all
because I was drinking that night, have not informed myself completely
on usenet netiquette or the way Usenet operates. In conclusion, I still
feel very much like a newbie at times and perhaps have been detrimental
to AAPC (and to RAP) in the past.

I hope that wasn't too ranty.

>
> I'm aware of a few small problems, notably the large number of broken
> links to external sites. If ever I find the time, I'll send Jim some
> updates.


I hadn't checked for broken links but thought that might have been the
case. That happens with any rarely updated document with links to
external sites.

Maybe somebody with more time could check, if there's an interest to do
it.

>
> A supplementary FAQ on plagiarism and copyright abuse, naming notable
> offenders who still infest the group, could be useful. This is again
> something I'll do if ever I find the time. My recently updated "Chuck
> Lysaght Plagiarism Mini-FAQ" would be its starting point.



> Notes on how and why to use a killfile or scorefile and the pros and
> cons of the "X-No-Archive: Yes" header might also be helpful.

I agree here and would find them helpful, myself, especially the "X-No-
Archive: Yes". I have some vague reasons why I think "X-No-Archive:
Yes" is a good idea and not a good idea at the same time.

>
> Does anybody (regulars, occasional visitors or newcomers, not the
> aforementioned gang of assorted vermin) have any other suggestions?

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> A supplementary FAQ on plagiarism and copyright abuse, naming notable
> offenders

<snip>

Since Michael Cook (who stole the poem "Karma Bombs" and tried to pass it
off as his own, for one example) has been gone for years, there's hardly any
reason for bothering, PJR.

Although you continue to defend and even applaud his thievery, Cook himself
admitted to the theft, and returned the stolen material before leaving the
newsgroups, so all is well at this point.

[Chuck Lysaght]

Also in the FAQ are ways to deal with trolls like Peter J. Ross.

[Chuck Lysaght]

Pete. You're in full tilt kook mode again.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:41:31 PM UTC-4, Chuck Lysaght wrote:
> Pete. You're in full tilt kook mode again.

I think PJR is pretending to have you Killfiled, Chuck... heh.

[Will Dockery]

"Chuck Lysaght" <theguyo...@veryfast.biz> wrote in message
news:398dd022-96b4-4f30...@googlegroups.com...

> Also in the FAQ are ways to deal with trolls like Peter J. Ross.

Indeed, here's what the Usenet poetry FAQ advises on dealing with a troll
like PJR:

http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/faq.html#36

What is a troll? What do I do about them?
A troll is an inflammatory, controversial message posted with the intent of
causing an argument or " flame war" (ongoing exchange of insulting,
inflammatory posts). The term also applies to the person making said post.
To check out the psychology of trolls, tryfaqs.org or the anti-troll-faq.

The best response is no response. Trolls are looking to get people riled up;
if you ignore them, they'll usually go away. If a post is particularly
offensive or insulting, you may want to consider taking action with the
poster's ISP. Keep in mind, though, that the "professional" trolls know all
the tricks of hiding their identity over the internet, so you may be in for
a few days of intense research in order to identify them. A detailed guide
to tracking down the sender of a particular email or post can be found
athttp://www.faqs.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq/spam-faq/index.html

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > Michael Cook
>
> Do you have a Michael Cook

A Michael Cook Plagiarism FAQ?

No, that's more the speed of Obsessos like you with your Chuck fetish, PJR.

Here's a recap of Michael Cook's history of poetry thiievery and copyright
infringement, since you seem to have forgotten about it, though, from
another recentr thread:

http://alt.arts.poetry.narkive.com/19XMR7GA/karma-bombs-will-dockery.3

=============[Begin Quoted Text]===============================

Of course I can, even a senile old fool like you should be able to
understand the facts of the "Karma Bombs" story by now. Here's a
repost of what I wrote to Michael Cook himself, yesterday, which sums
the story up pretty well for you:

Hey Michael! This is a really rare occasion, where have you been all
these years?

What can you say? Well at the time, when I wrote "Hey! You stole my
'Karma Bombs' poem!"

You wrote: "Not stolen, borrowed."

Then, when I began using the theft for my advantage, for publicity and
as a presentation of my work, and also to solidly establish that the
work was mine, since when you "borrowed" the poem without my knowledge
or permission, you also forgot to credit me as the writer of the poem
on your website (something Rik Roots is still screaming about Tom
Bishop over, when TB did that to RR), so by promoting your site with
proper credit I was establishing that.

Then, you gave me the track to do with as I wanted -which included
adding music to it, as you quoted me above- and I set it up on another
site, for that purpose. So everything worked out in the end.

Anyway, so where have you been so long, Michael?

Similarly, Tom Bishop has been missing for quite a while now, even
speculation that he's died... he vanished right after the hubbub over
when he seemed to be emulating you and stole Karla Rogers' poem
"April", put it on a video without her knowledge, permission or credit
to her. I suppose he thought that nobody on the newsgroups, including
Karla, would have a problem with the theft, since you'd been doing it
for years here with no problems.

I saw as soon as Cook posted the link to his website with the stolen
material on it that his plan was to rile me up just as he had Bishop,
a move that Bishop later used so well against Rik Roots, who hasn't
stopped whining about it to this day, and not so well when Bishop
tried it again with Karla Rogers, likewise, exactly the same sort of
theft that Cook had done so well the year before with his theft of my
"Karma Bombs", and, after making it clear that he had stolen the poem
from me, took a different approach, having a different reaction... I
thanked him for his "help" with promoting /my/ work, and proceeded to
make posts leading to his link, with proper credit to me as the writer
of the poem restored. Since his thievery backfired on him Cook quickly
gave up and actually "gave" me my own poem back.

==============[End Quoted text]======================

Hope this helps, and have a nice day, PJR.

[Will Dockery]

"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnkpfu9...@pjr.no-ip.org...

>
> My recently updated Chuck Lysaght

Project much, PJR?

[Will Dockery]

"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message news:slrnkpgc9...@pjr.no-ip.org wrote:
>
>> Chuck Lysaght
>
> Do you have a [Chuck Lysaght] duvet on your bed?
>
> Do you have "[Chuck Lysaght] owns me" tattooed on your forehead?
>
> How many [Chuck Lysaght] mugs, teeshirts, action figures, shower gel
> dispensers, etc etc, do you own?
>
> Just curious.

"We know."

[Diana]

In article <slrnkpgbq...@pjr.no-ip.org>, p...@example.invalid
says...

> Not at all.
>
> I don't recall any occasions when your contributions to AAPC or RAP
> have been detrimental. You've certainly made far fewer off-topic posts
> than many regulars, including me. You're an AAPC regular, in my
> opinion, and your opinions about the newsgroup and its FAQ ought to
> count.

I just wish there were more voices to share opinions about the newsgroup
and its FAQ. I lurk and don't share much. If a lot of people are doing
what I'm doing, we have a lot of people reading and not posting. Are
people who are posting trying to make up for the lack of posting? I
don't know. Maybe people think Usenet is a thing of the past. I don't
want it to be.


> Some of the links need to be updated, and some need to be removed,
> including some that could technically be updated.

>
> > Maybe somebody with more time could check, if there's an interest to do
> > it.
>

> If somebody (e.g. you) expresses an interest, I'll be more likely to
> make an effort.

As is implied in the "(e.g. you)", it wouldn't be worth your time to do
that unless other people expressed an interest in it as well. Also, I
feel that anyone who notices a broken or outdated link should have a
hand in mentioning it. But I'm not as good about following my own
advice.

> >> Notes on how and why to use a killfile or scorefile and the pros
and
> >> cons of the "X-No-Archive: Yes" header might also be helpful.
> >
> > I agree here and would find them helpful, myself, especially the "X-No-
> > Archive: Yes". I have some vague reasons why I think "X-No-Archive:
> > Yes" is a good idea and not a good idea at the same time.
>

> If you express your vague reasons, discussion may help to clarify
> them.

I think I've read about XNA before but don't remember what I've read.

> There have been discussions of XNA elsewhere many times, but there are
> special issues that may apply in AAPC, where the mud people have often
> stolen our work "for the archives". The use of XNA makes such thefts
> more obviously thievish in the eyes of Google abuse admins.

I don't know about the motivations of why it might be done and hadn't
completely thought of the reason you mention. Maybe people do it because
they don't want their responses to others to be archived and seen later
on Google. Maybe it's like trying to use both sides of a piece of paper.
To conserve.

>
> OTOH, newcomers to the group may arrive via Google Groups, and the
> regulars' use of XNA will distort their impression of the group's
> contents.

I agree and the retention of articles in news servers that aren't Google
are limited, in my experience of news servers, anyway. It's hard to go
back to an old post for reference, or for educational purposes.

[Diana]

In article <slrnkpgbq...@pjr.no-ip.org>, p...@example.invalid
says...

> There have been discussions of XNA elsewhere many times, but there are
> special issues that may apply in AAPC, where the mud people have often
> stolen our work "for the archives". The use of XNA makes such thefts
> more obviously thievish in the eyes of Google abuse admins.

I re-read what I wrote and also meant my recent post to include the fact
that the "stolen our work "for the archives""was a special issue as
well. I'm not really good with realizing the motivations of others,
though.

[Will Dockery]

Diana wrote:
> In article <slrnkpgbq...@pjr.no-ip.org>, pjr says...

>
> > There have been discussions of XNA elsewhere many times, but there are
>
> > special issues that may apply in AAPC, where the mud people have often
>
> > stolen our work "for the archives". The use of XNA makes such thefts
>
> > more obviously thievish in the eyes of Google abuse admins.
>
> I re-read what I wrote and also meant my recent post to include the fact
> that the "stolen our work "for the archives""was a special issue as
> well. I'm not really good with realizing the motivations of others,
> though.

Well, part of the problem of archived poetry here can be with with folks like Micahel Cook, who stole mypoem "Karma Bombs" to make a sound recording, which he did without permission, then posted on his wensite without credit to me as the writer of the poem.

Something very similar happened with a poem written and posted here by Karla Rogers, when someone repeated the moves of Michael Cook when he took my poem "Karma Bombs", without my knowledge or permission, made a recording of it and posted it to his website, without credit to me as the writer (and owner,
under US Copyright Law) of the poem. Karla sued the alleged copyright infringer/plagiarist for what has been said to be a large amount of money, and won.

So, use of the "no archive" deal in theory may help stop sych thievery of poetry.

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous House" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4bcaa6a3-6570-4306...@googlegroups.com...
> I wrote what I thought was a clever article for Christmas one year without
> using the letters E or L, "No-e-l". Several years
> later I had a couple vets tell me they'd read my piece, unattributed to
> me, by virtue of it having been passed around via email > on a military
> base overseas. When I first told them I wrote it they were all like yeah,
> right. That didn't matter at the moment
> because I was still flattered as all get out by the fact that somebody's
> read and remembered something I'd written, even though
> they didn't know it was me. Of course that doesn't have anything to do
> with anything. It's all about ME!

Interesting story, and an example of the "danger" of being an interesting
writer.

[Chuck Lysaght]

It's time to market my Usenet personality!

[Diana]

In article <cac9a551-5765-4572...@googlegroups.com>,
will.d...@gmail.com says...

OK. I've read about XNA in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-
Archive

and also some of the article by Stephen Harris under the external links
heading in XNA wikipedia entry.

I had noticed that you still see followups of a XNAY posts and so they
still get archived in Google. Which I think some people might do to keep
most of a XNAY article in the Google archives. Though perhaps
motivations for that may be somewhat varied for different posters. Don't
know, though.

[Diana]

In article <MPG.2c030fb98...@news.solani.org>,
Diana_of...@excite.com says...

>
> OK. I've read about XNA in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-
> Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive


There's the link again without problems.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:32:08 AM UTC-4, Diana wrote:
> In article <slrnkpgbq...@pjr.no-ip.org>, p...@example.invalid
> says...
>
>

> I just wish there were more voices to share opinions about the newsgroup
> and its FAQ. I lurk and don't share much. If a lot of people are doing
> what I'm doing, we have a lot of people reading and not posting. Are
> people who are posting trying to make up for the lack of posting? I
> don't know. Maybe people think Usenet is a thing of the past. I don't
> want it to be.
>

It doesn't have to be, but if Usenet is going to compete with web-based forums, it has to be at least as easy to access as those forums. Very few people are going to go out and buy special apps to get on a glorified mailing list / social forum, when there are all sorts of those out on the web, from Facebook to Free Republic, that one can access as easily as logging in. If there was something special here on Usnet, it might be different, but that's not the case, and hasn't been the case for at least a decade.

Of course there's google, web-tv, and other web-based ways to access Usenet, but you probably know how ~PJ~ and his fellow AUKtrolls verbally abuse the web-based users. The lying and smearing they engage in is probably enough to make almost any sane person leave, all but a few stubborn ones who choose to stay and give back in kind. But there's more: in the past couple of years they've begun reporting Google Groups users to google just to get them barred from Groups. First they tried using the cc: feature, to accuse google users of "spamming" their inboxes, but that didn't work so well; so now they've begun reporting them to google for 'copyright violations' (ie, violating their copyright to their work by quoting it in replies), and believe it or not they're making some headway with that. So as long as that sort of troll is infesting Usenet, there aren't going to be many web users coming here and sticking around.

> > Some of the links need to be updated, and some need to be removed,
> > including some that could technically be updated.
>
> > > Maybe somebody with more time could check, if there's an interest to do
> > > it.
>
> > If somebody (e.g. you) expresses an interest, I'll be more likely to
> > make an effort.
>
> As is implied in the "(e.g. you)", it wouldn't be worth your time to do
> that unless other people expressed an interest in it as well. Also, I
> feel that anyone who notices a broken or outdated link should have a
> hand in mentioning it. But I'm not as good about following my own
> advice.
>

That last line is the reason why the links won't be repaired, but not for the reason you think. The problem is that no one, including PJ, is personally interested in using the old FAQ. He's not going to look up any answers, because he doesn't have any questions; he's not going to source anything on a link, because he doesn't think there's anything he doesn't know. His motivation is only to use it to bash newbies if he feels like it; that's how he's been using it, and that's all he'll be doing with it. He doesn't need to fix any links in order to do that.

> > >> Notes on how and why to use a killfile or scorefile and the pros
> and
> > >> cons of the "X-No-Archive: Yes" header might also be helpful.
> > >
> > > I agree here and would find them helpful, myself, especially the "X-No-
> > > Archive: Yes". I have some vague reasons why I think "X-No-Archive:
> > > Yes" is a good idea and not a good idea at the same time.
> >
> > If you express your vague reasons, discussion may help to clarify
> > them.
> I think I've read about XNA before but don't remember what I've read.
>

The way it's used in AUK, RAP, and now AAPC is as a trolling feature, to allow AUKtrolls like PJ and gg to say what they want about whomever they want without taking responsibility. Its use started accelerating after that lawsuit of Charles Novins's. (Novins lost, but it spooked a lot of the trolls; AUK has never recovered).

The trolls have even used it as a new strategy in a game they play on AAPC, started by a troll called Cythera who was here a couple of years ago: as soon as anyone mentioned one of her posts, she'd immediately delete it and then demand a cite (which of course usually couldn't be given). Using XNAY lets a troll like PJ do that for all of his posts that are at least a week old.

Do you remember how PJ and his ilk began calling everyone else on the group "mud people" a couple of years ago, and the name I came up with for them to stop? I won't repeat that name, but I can remind you of how they whined and cried about it, saying that it was so unfair: none of them had ever, ever used the term "mud people". In fact, as the next quote shows, they've been using it ever since; but since they've also been using XNAY, if someone calls one of them out, they can go right back to claiming that they've never, ever etc. etc.

>
> > There have been discussions of XNA elsewhere many times, but there are
> > special issues that may apply in AAPC, where the mud people have often
> > stolen our work "for the archives". The use of XNA makes such thefts
> > more obviously thievish in the eyes of Google abuse admins.
>

Remember, Diana, the "theft" PJ is talking about is the quoting of his words when replying to them: he can (and probably will) whine to google that this post of mine is 'theft' of his earlier post; so could you; so could I, if you write back quoting my words. The result, as you can see everywhere, are threads with most of the messages gone: either removed by the poster (automatically using XNAY, or manually after the fact), or by google in response to bogus DMCA complaints.

The opportunity to read the little that's left isn't much of an incentive for anyone to participate here, alas; none at all really. I don't particularly like the fact, but there it is.

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Diana, is there any way to email you privately?
Thanks,

[George Dance]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34:29 PM UTC-4, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> Diana, is there any way to email you privately?
>
> Thanks,

If you use the Google Groups interface, there's a "reply to author" option that you can check; that works if the author used his or her actual e-mail address as the address displayed on the post. You can find it on the top-right of messages.

If you're using another means of access, you can always copy and paste her address from the original message into your email program.

[Will Dockery]

Diana wrote:
> Will Dockery says...

> > Diana wrote:
>
> > > I re-read what I wrote and also meant my recent post to include the fact
>
> > > that the "stolen our work "for the archives""was a special issue as
>
> > > well. I'm not really good with realizing the motivations of others,
>
> > > though.
>

> > Well, part of the problem of archived poetry here can be with with folks like Michael Cook, who stole my poem "Karma Bombs" to make a sound recording, which he did without permission, then posted on his website without credit to me as the writer of the poem.

>
> > Something very similar happened with a poem written and posted here by Karla Rogers, when someone repeated the moves of Michael Cook when he took my poem "Karma Bombs", without my knowledge or permission, made a recording of it and posted it to his website, without credit to me as the writer (and owner,
>
> > under US Copyright Law) of the poem. Karla sued the alleged copyright infringer/plagiarist for what has been said to be a large amount of money, and won.
>

> > So, use of the "no archive" deal in theory may help stop such thievery of poetry.

>
> OK. I've read about XNA in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-
>
> Archive
>
>
>
> and also some of the article by Stephen Harris under the external links
>
> heading in XNA wikipedia entry.
>
>
>
> I had noticed that you still see followups of a XNAY posts and so they
>
> still get archived in Google. Which I think some people might do to keep
>
> most of a XNAY article in the Google archives. Though perhaps
>
> motivations for that may be somewhat varied for different posters. Don't
>
> know, though.

Well, something every poster has to know is that if they make a post here, responses to that post are to be expected.

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> As I've said many times before, we need only a handful of committed
>
> people

And we have them, and yes, it is working.

For once we agree, Pete.

--
Music & poetry from Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:45:24 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 20 May 2013 15:34:29 -0400,

>
> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>
>
>
> > Diana, is there any way to email you privately?
>
> > Thanks,
>
>
>

> Of the numerous women you've stalked on Usenet

Can you prove this accusation, PJR?

Didn't think so.

--
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery/song/11596860-gone-too-far--dockery-mallard-snipe
— with Brian Mallard and 4 others at The Shadowville All-Stars.

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> The concept of "fair use" is relevant. If something I've written is
>
> quoted in order to add a comment

This alt.arts.poetry.comments, PJR.

If you post here, you should expect comments, including those you may not agree with.

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> malicious copyright abusers of the Dockery

<lies noted and snipped>

You just can't resist posting these lies compulsively, can you?

I would write "post proof" but we both know you wouldn't be able to do that anyway.

[Chuck Lysaght]

Go fuck yourself, Ross.

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:17:39 PM UTC-4, Chuck Lysaght wrote:
> Go fuck yourself, Ross.

He seems to be doing that to himself with every post... heh.

[Chuck Lysaght]

He's a social reject.

[Chuck Lysaght]

Another homoerotic episode from Peter J. Ross.

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 19 May 2013 05:20:36 -0700 (PDT),

> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > Well, part of the problem of archived poetry here can be with with
>

> > folks like Michael Cook, who stole my poem "Karma Bombs" to make a

>
> > sound recording, which he did without permission, then posted on his
>

> > website without credit to me as the writer of the poem.
>
> What really happened was that God, alias Michael Cook, kindly made a
> recording of your

Exactly.

Cook made this recording without my permission or knowledge, and without crediting me as the writer of the poem he recorded.

That's copyright infringement, poetry theft, and since he attempted to pass it off as his own writing, plagiarism.

[Chuck Lysaght]

I can't believe Ross refers to Michael Cook as God. What an imbecile!

[George Dance]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:45:24 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 20 May 2013 15:34:29 -0400,
>
> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> > Diana, is there any way to email you privately?
>
> > Thanks,
>

> Of the numerous women you've stalked on Usenet over the years, how
> many have reported you to the police?
>
> The answer is "not enough", since you seem not to have been sent to
> prison yet.
>
> --
>
> PJR :-)
>

Libelling someone else today, are you ~PJ~?

I think we'd better keep this example of your "work" in the archives, too, troll-boi.

[Chuck Lysaght]

You're a fucking liar, Ross. And you're sick. Get some professional help.

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> You seem to be suffering from the delusion that your lies are worth
> refuting

<snip>

Since here you are every time doing just that, it appears I may be, PJR?

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> Having been caught lying and thieving

<snip>

Having been caught lying and thieving (his theft of my poem "Karma Bombs" being just one example), Michael Cook eventually left the newsgroups.

"We know."

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:56:03 PM UTC-4, Diana wrote:
> In article <slrnkpfu9...@pjr.no-ip.org>, p...@example.invalid
>
> says...
>
>
>
> > Hello, Diana!
>
>
>
> Hello, Peter!
>
>
>
>
>
> > As far as I'm aware, there have been no revolutionary discoveries
>
> > about how to write, critique and revise poems during the past decade,
>
> > so the FAQ and related resources are not outdated, except in a few
>
> > small details.
>
>
>
> I think I pretty much agree with you here.

A FAQ, even for a poetry ng shouldn't be instructions on how to read or critique poetry but rather a list of questions frequently asked by new members in order to ease the assimilation process. This one is dated because:

1. No one new really comes here
2. No one really asks any questions.
3. The questions that are asked are no longer reflected in the FAQ. An updated version would include mostly questions related to enemies lists.

Peter is a wainwright angrily shaking his fists at Henry Ford and confidently predicting the death of the auto and return of the carriage.

[George Dance]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:22:35 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:

>
> I've certainly noticed that you've been perpetrating less copyright
> abuse since I smacked your chum George Dunce twice in two weeks for
> his Google thievery.

Twice, now, is it, troll? Up until now you'd only claimed that you'd got google to remove one of my posts (and, as I've noted, google hasn't yet told anyone that it's removed any). So let's have the details: where is this other claimed copyright violation?


> You're wise to want to keep your Google account,
>

Actually, PJ, you can't mention anyone's Google account in any of your complaints, because then you'd run the risk of Google notifying that person of your complaint -- a Catch-22 that I'm sure I've already explained to you.

[Chuck Lysaght]

Go fuck yourself, Ross.

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:59:45 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 24 May 2013 15:28:53 -0700 (PDT),

>
> qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Peter is a wainwright angrily shaking his fists at Henry Ford and
>
> > confidently predicting the death of the auto and return of the
>
> > carriage.
>
>
>

> Aww. How sweet that a pathetic little spammer is fantasising about me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> PJR :-)
>
>
>
> πολλοῖς δ' ἀντιλέγειν μὲν ἔθος περὶ παντὸς ὁμοίως,
>
> ὀρθῶς δ' ἀντιλέγειν, οὐκέτι τοῦτ' ἐν ἔθει. (Euenus)

OK, tommie-boi, the benefits of pretending to killfile me are that you have to pretend you can't see what I say.

Get it straight, n00b.

[Gwyneth]

On 23/05/13 20:14, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 19 May 2013 02:32:08 -0400, Diana
> wrote:
>
>> In article <slrnkpgbq...@pjr.no-ip.org>, p...@example.invalid
>> says...
>>
>>> Not at all.
>>>
>>> I don't recall any occasions when your contributions to AAPC or RAP
>>> have been detrimental. You've certainly made far fewer off-topic posts
>>> than many regulars, including me. You're an AAPC regular, in my
>>> opinion, and your opinions about the newsgroup and its FAQ ought to
>>> count.
>>
>> I just wish there were more voices to share opinions about the newsgroup
>> and its FAQ.
>
> I think a higher priority is to find (or recover) voices to critique
> poems.

There have to be poems posted that prompt c&c. As far as I'm concerned,
c&c can take hours, and I am not likely to spend more time on a poen
than the author has.
I'd also like to see other critters and the original posters willing to
enter into discussion.

> Regular posting of a pointer to the FAQ is one of the best ways
> to achieve such an aim.

It certainly shouldn't do any harm - except when other posters simply
argue about its validity and applicability, the motivation behind the
posting, etc.

Still, it should at least indicate that there is something still going
on here and that there may be something to the group other than
squabbling and vanity posting.
>
>> I lurk and don't share much. If a lot of people are doing
>> what I'm doing, we have a lot of people reading and not posting.
>
> What can we do to tempt the lurkers out of hiding?
Keep posting the FAQ. Keep posting poetry, comments and on-topic
discssion. Not get too side-tracked by trolls.

I suspect one problem is that there is seldom more than a dialogue at
any one time. I think lurkers see it as an imposition to interrupt two
people who are clearly comfortable with what they are discussing.
When there was more on-topic discussion, it was easier to believe that
another voice might be accepted.
>
>> Are people who are posting trying to make up for the lack of
>> posting?
>
> I don't think the people who flood the group with rubbish are trying
> to be helpful. Some of them (the drunks and drug-addicts) may be
> unable to stop themselves; others are malicious.
It's annoying to be discussing something and then come back an hour
later and find that the discussion has been pushed way back by a whole
host of off-topic noise. And in general that noise remains visible on
the news servers even if it's wiped from Google Groups.

> There may even be
> well-meaning people why think that filling the group with poetry is
> helpful, but they're wrong. This is a forum for critique, not a forum
> for reading poems.
>
If the poems are posted for critique or for some discussion purpose, it
makes sense.

And there's so much noise that I can understand why someone might think
it appropriate to post new work every day if they are producing a lot of
drafts. At least it keeps some poetry threads current.
However, such prolific posting - particularly of what seem to be
unrevised drafts - doesn't encourage me to spend time on c&c.

>> I don't know. Maybe people think Usenet is a thing of the past. I
>> don't want it to be.
>
> As I've said many times before, we need only a handful of committed
> people in order to take AAPC back from the vermin.
The problem is that this may need to be coordinated: since we all have
other commitments, our availability doesn't coincide and the individual
efforts remain isolated rather than resulting in something greater than
the sum of the parts.

Of course, the whole point is that there is no behind-the-scenes
coordination.

> Meanwhile, I'll
> continue pointing to the FAQ at regular intervals, as well as posting
> poems (if I write any), comments (if anybody seems to want them) and
> reminders to the vermin that they're here only to be pointed and
> laughed at.

And I'll continue c&c-ing anything that interests me enough to spend the
time on it. I'll even post my comments if I think it's likely to be
appreciated.

g.
>

(snipped discussion of archiving as that's something I don't want to get
into.)

[Will Dockery]

That may be why that post by PJR has been flagged:

"This message has been hidden because it was reported it for abuse. To see it anyway, click here."?

[Will Dockery]

Diana wrote:
> In article <slrnkpfu9...@pjr.no-ip.org>, pjr says...
>
> > (Needless to say, by "the regulars" I don't mean the gang of
>
> > plagiarists, self-promoters, illiterates, drunkards, drug-addicts,
>
> > spammers, support-group trolls and paedophile clowns who are
>
> > temporarily infesting the group. If they want to produce a rival FAQ,
>
> > they're welcome to try, as long as they don't steal from ours.)
>
>
>
> This is the part where I have a hard time replying because of the
>
> conflict involved and then conflicting nature of where I really stand on
>
> this (this issue and what constitutes being a "regular") myself. I
>
> sometimes feel like I'm still illiterate or semi-literate in the way
>
> grammar works, have made posts in the past that made no sense at all
>
> because I was drinking that night, have not informed myself completely
>
> on usenet netiquette or the way Usenet operates. In conclusion, I still
>
> feel very much like a newbie at times and perhaps have been detrimental
>
> to AAPC (and to RAP) in the past.

I think every poster here might move into those areas sometimes, Diana.

Certainly PJR is one of the most frequent to move into that flaked out mode.

[Gwyneth]

On 25/05/13 00:28, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:56:03 PM UTC-4, Diana wrote:
>> In article <slrnkpfu9...@pjr.no-ip.org>, p...@example.invalid
>>
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hello, Diana!
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello, Peter!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> As far as I'm aware, there have been no revolutionary discoveries
>>
>>> about how to write, critique and revise poems during the past decade,
>>
>>> so the FAQ and related resources are not outdated, except in a few
>>
>>> small details.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think I pretty much agree with you here.
>
> A FAQ, even for a poetry ng shouldn't be instructions on how to read or critique poetry but rather a list of questions frequently asked by new members in order to ease the assimilation process.

Surely it's not inappropriate to include some pointers to places where a
newcomer can learn before taking the plunge? i.e. "related resources",
not the actual FAQ,

> This one is dated because:
>
> 1. No one new really comes here

Can you really be sure how many (or few) people view the group and don't
join in because of the noise to poetry ratio?

> 2. No one really asks any questions.

Who would they ask?
And if they did ask a question here, any answer would be almost certain
to trigger an outcry by another poster. (Note how c&c now more often
results in mud-slinging about past issues than it does in argument about
the actual comments, let alone in helpful or interesting on-topic
discussion.)
I actually think there's a lot to be said for a FAQ written years ago by
people no longer posting to the group. For the same reason, I can see
advantages to leaving it as is, except for adding a rider explaining its
age and apologising for broken links.

> 3. The questions that are asked are no longer reflected in the FAQ. An updated version would include mostly questions related to enemies lists.

Those 'litses' tend to get posted fairly regularly anyway. And I'd
imagine that anyone who lurks soon sees who is worth listening to.

>
> Peter is a wainwright angrily shaking his fists at Henry Ford and confidently predicting the death of the auto and return of the carriage.
>

For what it's worth, until last year, my neighbour's only mode of
transport was a burro; I think the death of a single donkey is a lot
more poetic than the death of the automobile.

g.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:26 PM UTC-4, Gwyneth wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, until last year, my neighbour's only mode of
>
> transport was a burro; I think the death of a single donkey is a lot
>
> more poetic than the death of the automobile.

May depend on who was driving the car.

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:26 PM UTC-4, Gwyneth wrote:

> On 25/05/13 00:28, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:56:03 PM UTC-4, Diana wrote:
>
> >> In article <slrnkpfu9...@pjr.no-ip.org>, p...@example.invalid
>
> >>
>
> >> says...
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Hello, Diana!
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Hello, Peter!
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> As far as I'm aware, there have been no revolutionary discoveries
>
> >>
>
> >>> about how to write, critique and revise poems during the past decade,
>
> >>
>
> >>> so the FAQ and related resources are not outdated, except in a few
>
> >>
>
> >>> small details.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I think I pretty much agree with you here.
>
> >
>
> > A FAQ, even for a poetry ng shouldn't be instructions on how to read or critique poetry but rather a list of questions frequently asked by new members in order to ease the assimilation process.
>
>
>
> Surely it's not inappropriate to include some pointers to places where a
>
> newcomer can learn before taking the plunge? i.e. "related resources",
>
> not the actual FAQ,

yah, that is the "other resources" part.

>
>
>
> > This one is dated because:
>
> >
>
> > 1. No one new really comes here
>
> Can you really be sure how many (or few) people view the group and don't
>
> join in because of the noise to poetry ratio?

actually, the statistics are available and they are telling. It is not this group that is faltering singularly it is all of Usenet. There are a number of reasons:

1. Better social media offerings - Today, twitter, tumblr, Facebook, etc. are more popular.
2. ISP's no longer offer free Usenet access - when then internet was newer, free Usenet access was included with every standard internet package which led a burgeoning internet community to test the waters. Almost all of the bigger providers have stopped promoting, including for free and some even offering at all Usenet service.
3. Lack of promotion - I know, personally, of more than a dozen people under 30 that have never heard of Usenet. I don't know of anyone under 30 that has heard of Usenet or has any passing interest in discovery.

>
>
>
> > 2. No one really asks any questions.
>
> Who would they ask?
>
> And if they did ask a question here, any answer would be almost certain
>
> to trigger an outcry by another poster. (Note how c&c now more often
>
> results in mud-slinging about past issues than it does in argument about
>
> the actual comments, let alone in helpful or interesting on-topic
>
> discussion.)
>
> I actually think there's a lot to be said for a FAQ written years ago by
>
> people no longer posting to the group. For the same reason, I can see
>
> advantages to leaving it as is, except for adding a rider explaining its
>
> age and apologising for broken links.

I agree with this. I still enjoy the old FAQ. I was just pointing out that it /is/ dated and that the justification for a FAQ not being updated because reading and critiquing poetry hadn't changed was specious at best.

>
>
>
> > 3. The questions that are asked are no longer reflected in the FAQ. An updated version would include mostly questions related to enemies lists.
>
> Those 'litses' tend to get posted fairly regularly anyway. And I'd
>
> imagine that anyone who lurks soon sees who is worth listening to.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Peter is a wainwright angrily shaking his fists at Henry Ford and confidently predicting the death of the auto and return of the carriage.
>
> >
>
> For what it's worth, until last year, my neighbour's only mode of
>
> transport was a burro; I think the death of a single donkey is a lot
>
> more poetic than the death of the automobile.

Poesy frequently follows these interludes of wist. The past never actually comes back and usurps the present though. It gets tedious reading posts everyday about how the past was great and someday it will return but, hey, it's not like there is much else on . . .

[Will Dockery]

qwerty wrote:
>
> Poesy frequently follows these interludes of wist. The past never actually comes back and usurps the present though. It gets tedious reading posts everyday about how the past was great and someday it will return but, hey, it's not like there is much else on . . .

Even worse when the fact remains the "past" wasn't that spiffy here either.

[Gwyneth]

On 26/05/13 14:03, Hieronymous House wrote:
> 6:29 AMGwyneth

>
>> There have to be poems posted that prompt c&c. As far as I'm concerned,
>> c&c can take hours, and I am not likely to spend more time on a poen
>> than the author has.
>

> I could spend all day describing a da Vinci line drawing
> that likely took the master mere seconds to sketch and
> still never do it justice, or I could just call it near perfect
> in every way I can imagine and hope you understand me.
>
I fail to see the relevance.
c&c isn't about describing a poem.
Last time I looked, the people posting here weren't writing poetry on a
level with da Vinci's drawings.

g.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:18:38 PM UTC-4, Gwyneth wrote:
>
> Last time I looked, the people posting here weren't writing poetry on a
>
> level with da Vinci's drawings.

Van Gogh and Picasso, maybe... but not da Vinci.

--
Music & poetry from Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[Gwyneth]

On 26/05/13 19:03, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:26 PM UTC-4, Gwyneth wrote:
>> On 25/05/13 00:28, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:56:03 PM UTC-4, Diana wrote:
>>
>>>> In article <slrnkpfu9...@pjr.no-ip.org>, p...@example.invalid
>>

(various snips to try and keep this to a reasonable length. (Where do
all those extra line breaks come from on G-groups?))

>>>>> As far as I'm aware, there have been no revolutionary discoveries
>>>>> about how to write, critique and revise poems during the past decade,
>>>>> so the FAQ and related resources are not outdated, except in a few
>>>>> small details.
>>
>>
>>>> I think I pretty much agree with you here.
>>
>>> A FAQ, even for a poetry ng shouldn't be instructions on how to read or critique poetry but rather a list of questions frequently asked by new members in order to ease the assimilation process.
>>
>>
>> Surely it's not inappropriate to include some pointers to places where a
>> newcomer can learn before taking the plunge? i.e. "related resources",
>> not the actual FAQ,
> yah, that is the "other resources" part.
>

>>> This one is dated because:

>>> 1. No one new really comes here
>>
>> Can you really be sure how many (or few) people view the group and don't
>> join in because of the noise to poetry ratio?
>
> actually, the statistics are available and they are telling. It is not this group that is faltering singularly it is all of Usenet. There are a number of reasons:
>
> 1. Better social media offerings - Today, twitter, tumblr, Facebook, etc. are more popular.
> 2. ISP's no longer offer free Usenet access - when then internet was newer, free Usenet access was included with every standard internet package which led a burgeoning internet community to test the waters. Almost all of the bigger providers have stopped promoting, including for free and some even offering at all Usenet service.
> 3. Lack of promotion - I know, personally, of more than a dozen people under 30 that have never heard of Usenet. I don't know of anyone under 30 that has heard of Usenet or has any passing interest in discovery.
>>

I understand that Usenet is not as widely known as it might be.
That said, none of the social media platforms you mention seem to me to
be "better" for poetry workshopping.
Then again, I've never even want to be part of a moderated forum as I
think it loses a lot of the attractions and benefits of the unmoderated
chaos of usenet at its best.

I have always been surprised at how little interest there is among other
poets I know to join in here. But I think I've finally realised they are
simply not interested in joining in with any online workshop or
discussion. As I have to travel over 100 miles to find anyone to discuss
poetry with in person, online discussion appeals to me.

>>
>>
>>> 2. No one really asks any questions.
>>
>> Who would they ask?
>>
>> And if they did ask a question here, any answer would be almost certain
>> to trigger an outcry by another poster. (Note how c&c now more often
>> results in mud-slinging about past issues than it does in argument about
>> the actual comments, let alone in helpful or interesting on-topic
>> discussion.)
>>
>> I actually think there's a lot to be said for a FAQ written years ago by
>> people no longer posting to the group. For the same reason, I can see
>> advantages to leaving it as is, except for adding a rider explaining its
>> age and apologising for broken links.
>
> I agree with this. I still enjoy the old FAQ. I was just pointing out that it /is/ dated and that the justification for a FAQ not being updated because reading and critiquing poetry hadn't changed was specious at best.
>

But potential posters might well need guidance as far as c&c
expectations and norms (on the group) are concerned. My critiques have
been criticised for being over-long, and recently people have raised
doubts about interleaving the c&c with the poem, but both are the style
of c&c that was common when I first lurked, and doing this sort of c&c
has taught me a heck of a lot about poetry.

If the (aapc) accepted form of c&c had changed, then I suppose the FAQ
ought to be updated.

<...>

>>
>>> Peter is a wainwright angrily shaking his fists at Henry Ford and confidently predicting the death of the auto and return of the carriage.
>>>
>>
>> For what it's worth, until last year, my neighbour's only mode of
>> transport was a burro; I think the death of a single donkey is a lot
>> more poetic than the death of the automobile.
>
> Poesy frequently follows these interludes of wist. The past never actually comes back and usurps the present though. It gets tedious reading posts everyday about how the past was great and someday it will return but, hey, it's not like there is much else on . . .
>

It's OK. Any poem I write wistfully mourning the donkey will probably be
balanced by one about how the body was abandoned for a week in the field
where she keeled over, until the local council finally sent someone to
pick it up and dispose of it. Appropriately, it was taken away in a
horseless carriage.

g.

[Will Dockery]

Gwyneth wrote:
>
> But potential posters might well need guidance as far as c&c
> expectations and norms (on the group) are concerned. My critiques have
> been criticised for being over-long, and recently people have raised
> doubts about interleaving the c&c with the poem, but both are the style
> of c&c that was common when I first lurked, and doing this sort of c&c
> has taught me a heck of a lot about poetry.

I'm sure most of us posting poetry here appreciate some feedback, even the worthless flaming of someone like PJR is better than getting nothing at all.

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

You would be surprised (I was). I know the forum I participate on has 2 unmoderated sections (1 for poetry, 1 for other), 3 critical workshops (novice, mild, serious) a spot for posting poetry for "fun" instead of work-shopping, poetry discussion, an audio section, etc. You might find one that meets all of your needs.

>
>
>
> I have always been surprised at how little interest there is among other
>
> poets I know to join in here. But I think I've finally realised they are
>
> simply not interested in joining in with any online workshop or
>
> discussion. As I have to travel over 100 miles to find anyone to discuss
>
> poetry with in person, online discussion appeals to me.

I work in a building with over 500 people. Most I know by name. Not a single other person has any interest in poetry at all!!

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> 2. No one really asks any questions.
>
> >>
>
> >> Who would they ask?
>
> >>
>
> >> And if they did ask a question here, any answer would be almost certain
>
> >> to trigger an outcry by another poster. (Note how c&c now more often
>
> >> results in mud-slinging about past issues than it does in argument about
>
> >> the actual comments, let alone in helpful or interesting on-topic
>
> >> discussion.)
>
> >>
>
> >> I actually think there's a lot to be said for a FAQ written years ago by
>
> >> people no longer posting to the group. For the same reason, I can see
>
> >> advantages to leaving it as is, except for adding a rider explaining its
>
> >> age and apologising for broken links.
>
> >
>
> > I agree with this. I still enjoy the old FAQ. I was just pointing out that it /is/ dated and that the justification for a FAQ not being updated because reading and critiquing poetry hadn't changed was specious at best.
>
> >
>
> But potential posters might well need guidance as far as c&c
>
> expectations and norms (on the group) are concerned. My critiques have
>
> been criticised for being over-long, and recently people have raised
>
> doubts about interleaving the c&c with the poem, but both are the style
>
> of c&c that was common when I first lurked, and doing this sort of c&c
>
> has taught me a heck of a lot about poetry.

The purpose of a group is not determined by its /stated/ purpose but by its use. The purpose of this group is to post links to a personal blog, post poetry and to post other unrelated comments. It is also to follow Chuck around relentlessly reliving a 13 year old vendetta. These are the things that the FAQ should answer questions about.

>
>
>
> If the (aapc) accepted form of c&c had changed, then I suppose the FAQ
>
> ought to be updated.
>
>
>
> <...>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Peter is a wainwright angrily shaking his fists at Henry Ford and confidently predicting the death of the auto and return of the carriage.
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> For what it's worth, until last year, my neighbour's only mode of
>
> >> transport was a burro; I think the death of a single donkey is a lot
>
> >> more poetic than the death of the automobile.
>
> >
>
> > Poesy frequently follows these interludes of wist. The past never actually comes back and usurps the present though. It gets tedious reading posts everyday about how the past was great and someday it will return but, hey, it's not like there is much else on . . .
>
> >
>
> It's OK. Any poem I write wistfully mourning the donkey will probably be
>
> balanced by one about how the body was abandoned for a week in the field
>
> where she keeled over, until the local council finally sent someone to
>
> pick it up and dispose of it. Appropriately, it was taken away in a
>
> horseless carriage.
>

irony of course.

[Gwyneth]

On 26/05/13 19:37, Hieronymous House wrote:
> Gwyneth

>
> I fail to see the relevance.
> c&c isn't about describing a poem.
> Last time I looked, the people posting here weren't writing poetry on a
> level with da Vinci's drawings.
>

> Time is relative. How long an author spends on a poem
> is virtually unknowable and fundamentally irrelevant to a
> reader's appreciation of a given poem. C&C is about offering
> perspective. Nobody wants to feel they've wasted their time.
>
It would be a heck of a lot easier to follow a conversation if you
didn't snip most of it.

What I meant was that I wasn't likely to want to spend hours writing c&c
for a poem that had apparently been rattled off in minutes. It's true
that someone who has put in years of work on their poetry may be able to
write a new poem in very little time. I might be happy to invest my time
in c&c of such a piece. But if a writer can't be bothered to proofread
or if they post a slap-dash effort as if it were a finished work, then
it's not likely to make me want to give up my time.

g.

[Will Dockery]

qwerty wrote:
>
> The purpose of a group is not determined by its /stated/ purpose but by its use. The purpose of this group is to post links to a personal blog, post poetry and to post other unrelated comments. It is also to follow Chuck around relentlessly reliving a 13 year old vendetta. These are the things that the FAQ should answer questions about.

Nailed it.

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

That is the purpose for some groups. Usage defines purpose, not intent. Things are frequently repurposed as needs change.

[George Dance]

That's good, though I doubt it will come to much, since the post (like all of ~PJ's~ troll-turds) is due to be removed from the group this week anyway. Meanwhile, it probably accomplished its aim, which was to drive Orlando back into the ranks of the lurkers.

The main reason I replied was to point out, to any lurkers, that PJ's lits o' vernim is a lot bigger than the names he usually gives out; that, in point of fact, he wants to drive away most of the people who've ever posted to this group (which he's made great strides with in the three years he's been spamming it), including most of them.

[George Dance]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:35:07 AM UTC-4, Hieronymous House wrote:
> Orlando has to be driven everywhere he goes, because
> Orlando doesn't drive himself, because Orlando's blind.

Yes, he's said.

Unfortunately, when it comes to PJ and his fellow trolls, too many of the people on the groups - first RAP, and now AAPC - have shared that affliction, albeit selectively.

[Gwyneth]

On 26/05/13 20:04, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:52:42 PM UTC-4, Gwyneth wrote:
>> On 26/05/13 19:03, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:52:26 PM UTC-4, Gwyneth wrote:
>>
>>>> On 25/05/13 00:28, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
>>

(major snippage)

>>
>> Then again, I've never even want to be part of a moderated forum as I
>>
>> think it loses a lot of the attractions and benefits of the unmoderated
>>
>> chaos of usenet at its best.
>
> You would be surprised (I was). I know the forum I participate on has 2 unmoderated sections (1 for poetry, 1 for other), 3 critical workshops (novice, mild, serious) a spot for posting poetry for "fun" instead of work-shopping, poetry discussion, an audio section, etc. You might find one that meets all of your needs.
>

I have signed up for private forums and lurked on moderated sites etc.,
but have never been tempted to post to any of them. I've always felt
there was something lacking.
>>
>>
(snips)

>
> The purpose of a group is not determined by its /stated/ purpose but by its use. The purpose of this group is to post links to a personal blog, post poetry and to post other unrelated comments. It is also to follow Chuck around relentlessly reliving a 13 year old vendetta. These are the things that the FAQ should answer questions about.
>>

For me, the purpose of this group is principally to comment on poems and
discuss poetry in a workshop environment. I would post more often if
there were more poems posted (and by a wider variety of people). I would
post my own poetry more often if there were more evidence of other
people being interested in spending time over c&c.

g.

(more snips)

[Will Dockery]

Gwyneth wrote:

<snip for brevity & focus>

> For me, the purpose of this group is principally to comment on poems and
> discuss poetry in a workshop environment. I would post more often if there
> were more poems posted (and by a wider variety of people). I would post my
> own poetry more often if there were more evidence of other people being
> interested in spending time over c&c.

Well hello, Gwyneth... I've posted three poems here over the last couple of
weeks that I'd like to get some serious critique of, if you have the time,
and interest... I'll be refreshing the threads here today, would look
forward to your perspective on them...

Here's a quick sample via link of one, which will appear shortly in an
individual thread:


Problems at Salisbury Fair / Will Dockeryby Will Dockery (Notes) on
Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 7:28

https://www.facebook.com/notes/will-dockery/problems-at-salisbury-fair-will-dockery/10151597259974802

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 2:18:54 PM UTC-4, Hieronymous House wrote:
> If one offers constructive c&c, then
>
> others are more inclined to reciprocate.

A logical progression.