A Few Surrealist Poems from a Few Surrealist Writers - 4
Dale Houstman
The earth is blue like an orange
________________________________
The earth is blue like an orange
Never a mistake words do not lie
They no longer supply what to sing with
It is up to kisses to get along
Mad ones and lovers
She her wedding mouth
All secrets all smiles
And what indulgent clothing
She looks quite naked
The wasps are flowering green
Dawn is placing about its neck
A necklace of windows
Wings cover the leaves
You have all the solar joys
All sunshine on the earth
On the paths of your loveliness
--------------
Paul Eluard
translated by Mary Ann Caws
Malted Bevis
randomly shuffle the lines and generate numerous
totally equivalent nothing poems.
What is the point?
This is particularly bad, with the exception of a few marginally
interesting, but unrelated images.
I guess I'm supposed to say "thanks for posting"..
Feh! Crap. Seems you would know better.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"I believe these are the days of lasers in the jungle!"
- Paul Simon
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:403612E8...@citilink.com...
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Joshua P. Hill
<Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote:
>This is completely end-stopped, or effectively so, and one could
>randomly shuffle the lines and generate numerous
>totally equivalent nothing poems.
>
>What is the point?
>
>This is particularly bad, with the exception of a few marginally
>interesting, but unrelated images.
>
>I guess I'm supposed to say "thanks for posting"..
>Feh! Crap. Seems you would know better.
Will you stop trying to equate poems to computer programs? If you
wrote a computer program like a poem, it wouldn't work. By the same
token, a poem can't be written or interpreted like a computer program.
--
Josh
To reply by email, delete "REMOVETHIS" from the address line.
Malted Bevis
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:qjic30923v9737u6n...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:52:15 -0800, "Malted Bevis"
> <Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote:
>
> >This is completely end-stopped, or effectively so, and one could
> >randomly shuffle the lines and generate numerous
> >totally equivalent nothing poems.
> >
> >What is the point?
> >
> >This is particularly bad, with the exception of a few marginally
> >interesting, but unrelated images.
> >
> >I guess I'm supposed to say "thanks for posting"..
> >Feh! Crap. Seems you would know better.
>
> Will you stop trying to equate poems to computer programs?
I don't think I am.
> If you
> wrote a computer program like a poem, it wouldn't work. By the same
> token, a poem can't be written or interpreted like a computer program.
I don't see the relation.
Refute this:
---
This is completely end-stopped, or effectively so, and one could
randomly shuffle the lines and generate numerous
totally equivalent nothing poems.
---
Talk about this poem, and not my mental processes if possible.
Or not.
(I just ask, and will continue until there is an answer, or
I conclude there is simply nothing to it but a few striking
images, occasionally.)
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"A mathematician is a device for turning
coffee into theorems." -- Paul Erdos
Joshua P. Hill
<Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote:
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:qjic30923v9737u6n...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:52:15 -0800, "Malted Bevis"
>> <Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote:
>>
>> >This is completely end-stopped, or effectively so, and one could
>> >randomly shuffle the lines and generate numerous
>> >totally equivalent nothing poems.
>> >
>> >What is the point?
>> >
>> >This is particularly bad, with the exception of a few marginally
>> >interesting, but unrelated images.
>> >
>> >I guess I'm supposed to say "thanks for posting"..
>> >Feh! Crap. Seems you would know better.
>>
>> Will you stop trying to equate poems to computer programs?
>
>I don't think I am.
>
>
>> If you
>> wrote a computer program like a poem, it wouldn't work. By the same
>> token, a poem can't be written or interpreted like a computer program.
>
>I don't see the relation.
>
>Refute this:
>
>---
>This is completely end-stopped, or effectively so, and one could
>randomly shuffle the lines and generate numerous
>totally equivalent nothing poems.
>---
The refutation is simple: left as it is, I find the poem fairly
beautiful, but if I rearrange the lines, it doesn't work for me any
more than a song would work if I scrambled up the bars. Why is that? I
don't know, because I don't know what went on the heads of the poet
and translator. With time, I might be able to figure some of it out,
the way I figured out some of what Dylan Thomas was doing a while
back. But while that might be an interesting exercise, it isn't really
necessary to appreciate the poem, is it? That's particularly true
given that this is a surrealist work, and I find that surrealist
poetry makes more sense when seen out of the corner of one's eye than
when viewed head on.
Malted Bevis
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:jnoc30t3t5tpr520b...@4ax.com...
Since I don't appreciate the poem, I seek the reason.
I don't look far, and find a number of them.
> That's particularly true
> given that this is a surrealist work, and I find that surrealist
> poetry makes more sense when seen out of the corner of one's eye than
> when viewed head on.
I read the poem and I either like it or not.
I may have to struggle a little, but there is no cleverness in this
piece that I feel is worth pursuing, and you can't indicate even
a single item.
One piece that Dale posted is maginally interesting, that is all.
Oh well.
Onward.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"Maybe we're ALL in the wrong place,
but - what the hell - let's stick around
for no good reason." --Dale Houstman
Joshua P. Hill
<Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote:
Of course I can. But you seem to have missed my point entirely.
Consider: two pocket watches, of unknown make and vintage and with
similar cases.
Which watch is the better, more accurate watch?
An expert watchmaker could probably open them up, examine the
mechanisms, and determine that one is better than the other. But --
when one takes wear, tolerances, and so forth into account, he
couldn't tell you on the basis of his examination of the mechanism
which was more accurate.
To do that, you'd have to call in an experimental physicist or a
mechanical engineer. He'd use state-of-the art techniques to measure
the size and mass of the parts, the characteristics of the spring.
He'd use an electron microsocope to check the condition of the jeweled
bearings. He'd have a metallurgist determine the composition of the
alloys. With the aid of a programmer, he'd create a sophisticated
computer model to combine all of the measurements and emulate the
watch under various conditions -- different angles, subject to
different accelerations, etc.
In the end, he /might/ be able to determine which watch was more
accurate -- assuming that he didn't overlook some subtlety, the effect
of shirt-pocket solar gain on the viscosity of the lubricant, say.
Your or I, OTOH, would merely wind up the watches, use 'em for a bit,
and notice, eventually, that one tends to run a few minutes slow.
And that's the right way to judge poetry, given that it's even less
practical to measure every element of a poem than it is to measure
every part of a watch, and that, while it may be interesting to
analyze such things on occasion, it is interesting more in the manner
of dissecting one's girlfriend than making love to her.
M a i d e n
<jealous babble snipped>
what would /you/ know about a good poem!? STFU and get over yourself,
already
the poetry shared was a poem worth reading, I have /yet/ to see one
written by the real TB that is anything more than a load of Tard tripe.
[JMHFO] OK
_______________________________
--
"In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane." -Oscar Wilde
news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.lifestyles.hippy.double__vision
Malted Bevis
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:m6jd30t6i5o92csia...@4ax.com...
But, but.. there is poetry that I have no problem enumerating,
in general, what makes it work for me.
In a general way, I don't see it as magic.
Thanks for your patience, I have to dissect my gf now. :-)
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"Give me chastity and continence,
but not yet." -- Saint Augustine
Malted Bevis
"M a i d e n" <chastle_p...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16698-40...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
Str...@Dessert.Filling (Malted Bevis)
<jealous babble snipped>
what would /you/ know about a good poem!?
## plenty. Are you saying that I /don't/ know what I like?
STFU and get over yourself,
already
### Killfile me or ignore me or whine enough and I killfile you.
Are you dense?
the poetry shared was a poem worth reading,
### Then read it. I did.
I have /yet/ to see one
written by the real TB that is anything more than a load of Tard tripe.
### So assume I will never get better, and never read another.
I'll cry the blue earth long.
Go here and dance:
http://Savior.22.ZapTo.Org
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"Don't be so humble - you are not that great."
-- Golda Meir
M a i d e n
Malted Bevis
"M a i d e n" <chastle_p...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16698-40...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
> http://Savior.22.ZapTo.Org
FO and:-D
### Don't tell me, your little piss-ass wants me to killfile you,
but did you know that so far you aren't important enough.
Although if only because you send these
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
messages.
Or am I supposed to get in a big flame war with you
culminating in you ripping off my pictures and me shutting down
your ISP?
Feh.
Poetic pissants are truly moronic.
Why go to the trouble to tell me to FOAD, geez, people
that I used to respect did that once. I just stopped respecting them.
I never respected you, pissant xtal.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"A mathematician is a device for turning
coffee into theorems." -- Paul Erdos
Joshua P. Hill
<Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote:
How general? Because I'm not talking about the generality of personal
preferences, e.g., Joe prefers free to structured verse, but rather to
the complex richenesses of sound, idea and affect which seem to me to
characterize the best works.
>In a general way, I don't see it as magic.
Not magic, any more than the workings of a watch are, just too complex
for a comprehensive analysis.
Joshua P. Hill
<Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote:
>
>"M a i d e n" <chastle_p...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16698-40...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
>>Go here and dance:
>> http://Savior.22.ZapTo.Org
>
>FO and:-D
>
>
>
>### Don't tell me, your little piss-ass wants me to killfile you,
> but did you know that so far you aren't important enough.
> Although if only because you send these
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
> messages.
>
>Or am I supposed to get in a big flame war with you
>culminating in you ripping off my pictures and me shutting down
>your ISP?
>
>Feh.
>
>Poetic pissants are truly moronic.
>
>Why go to the trouble to tell me to FOAD, geez, people
>that I used to respect did that once. I just stopped respecting them.
Did you ever consider asking instead what you did to get them so
pissed off, Tom? You might begin with your original remark to Dale:
'I guess I'm supposed to say "thanks for posting". Feh! Crap. Seems
you would know better.'
You could have said something like "Did anyone else like this? I
didn't find it worthwhile," but instead you launched a frontal assault
on Dale's effort, sense, and taste.
OK, this is Usenet and anyone's free to launch assaults frontal,
topal, bottomal, or sideal, but if you do that you can't really
complain when others respond in kind, can you?
Malted Bevis
> >But, but.. there is poetry that I have no problem enumerating,
> >in general, what makes it work for me.
>
> How general? Because I'm not talking about the generality of personal
> preferences, e.g., Joe prefers free to structured verse, but rather to
> the complex richenesses of sound, idea and affect which seem to me to
> characterize the best works.
Me neither.
There are a finite number of ways that cleverness can be
imparted on a word pile. Not saying /I/ can enumerate them all,
but effectively (statistically) the number of categories of possible
cleverness in poetry is fairly small..
Just like the number of "basic plots" for novels is limited.
(perhaps not rigorously definable, and always debatable,
but still ultimately limited.)
That is what category systems do.
Poetry's category systems are fairly simple, really.
(i.e. the basic /gist/ of meter can be rendered on a
single, or very few web pages, and is, all over the net)
I feel I am open to cleverness being imposed on poetry in
many different ways. DT and ee cummings aren't similar,
but I enjoy both (most of the time).
In general, I am looking for a surprise, or a shock, or a
clever /different/ view. Or it might just be a clever
way of juggling letters. Or a really nice word choice.
Or very nice sounds.
Usually with the "best" it is some combination.
>
> >In a general way, I don't see it as magic.
>
> Not magic, any more than the workings of a watch are, just too complex
> for a comprehensive analysis.
Then call it first-approximation, but why throw up your hands?
Work on it with me, and we'll settle it once-and-for-all.
...the Josh / Tomble
"Comprehensive first-approximation analysis of poetry"
(Usenet version, no trees killed.)
Sound fun?
We will systematically dissect poetry,
and what it is that man
likes about it.
Or we could dissect my girlfriend some more.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"If you don't like sonnets just think of them as
quatorzains with peculiar rhyme schemes."
Joshua P. Hill
Yes, though I think you're underestimating the possibilities -- one's
raw material, over a /hundred thousand/ words -- just look at the
variety in music, and that begins with only twelve notes.
So anyway, while you can always say "I like the sound of this poem,"
and point to some obvious techniques, it would, in the case of a great
poem, take a major effort to enumerate them comprehensively -- and
even then, one would probably be left with some serious mysteries.
Take Pound's Canto XLV, which I happen to have up in my browser since
I just quoted from it in my other post:
CANTO XLV
With Usura
With usura hath no man a house of good stone
each block cut smooth and well fitting
that design might cover their face,
with usura
hath no man a painted paradise on his church wall
harpes et luthes
or where virgin receiveth message
and halo projects from incision,
with ursura
seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
no picture is made to endure nor to live with
but it is made to sell and sell quickly
with ursura, sin against nature,
is thy bread ever more of stale rags
is thy bread dry as paper,
with no mountain wheat, no strong flour
with usura the line grows thick
with usura is no clear demarcation
and no man can find site for his dwelling
Stone cutter is kept from his stone
weaver is kept from his loom
WITH USURA
wool comes not to market
sheep bringeth no grain with usura
Usura is a murrain, usura
blunteth the needle in the the maid’s hand
and stoppeth the spinner’s cunning. Pietro Lombardo
came not by usura
Duccio came not by usura
nor Pier della Francesca; Zuan Bellin’ not by usura
nor was "La Callunia" painted.
Came not by usura Angelico; came not Ambrogio Praedis,
Came no church of cut stone signed: Adamo me fecit.
Not by usura St. Trophime
Not by usura Saint Hilaire,
Usura rusteth the chisel
It rusteth the craft and the craftsman
It gnaweth the thread in the loom
None learneth to weave gold in her pattern;
Azure hath a canker by usura; cramoisi is unbroidered
Emerald findeth no Memling
Usura slayeth the child in the womb
It stayeth the young man’s courting
It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
between the young bride and her bridegroom
CONTRA NATURAM
They have brought whores for Eleusis
Corpses are set to banquet
at behest of usura.
Can one explain the lyrical beauty of that? At the very least, it
would require an immense amount of analysis to do so. And if one
defines understanding as being able to write something as beautiful
using the principles so derived, well, forget it: craft can be taught,
but genius cannot.
>> >In a general way, I don't see it as magic.
>>
>> Not magic, any more than the workings of a watch are, just too complex
>> for a comprehensive analysis.
>
>Then call it first-approximation, but why throw up your hands?
>
>Work on it with me, and we'll settle it once-and-for-all.
>
>...the Josh / Tomble
> "Comprehensive first-approximation analysis of poetry"
> (Usenet version, no trees killed.)
>
>Sound fun?
>
>We will systematically dissect poetry,
>and what it is that man
>likes about it.
>
>Or we could dissect my girlfriend some more.
I think we would hardly be the first to do so! People have been
studying literary theory and aesthetics at least since the time of the
ancient Greeks, often with spectacular results. But we're very far
away from having the sort of understanding that would alllow us to
program a computer to write effective poetry. Even if we did
understand all of the elements that go into good verse, the computers
we have aren't nearly as powerful: one would need something more
powerful than the human brain.
I've no doubt that we'll have that someday -- that versification will
be explained with scientific precision, and emulated. Maybe we'll have
the equivalent of Orwell's song machine for the proles. But . . .
we're pretty far away from that. The best we can do now is teach
people to write minimally /competent/ verse, or program computers to
generate the poetic equivalent of a mildly retarded love doll.
Dale Houstman
M a i d e n wrote:
> Str...@Dessert.Filling (Malted Bevis)
>
> <jealous babble snipped>
>
> what would /you/ know about a good poem!? STFU and get over yourself,
> already
>
> the poetry shared was a poem worth reading, I have /yet/ to see one
> written by the real TB that is anything more than a load of Tard tripe.
> [JMHFO] OK
>
> _______________________________
There is no "real TB" but the disease. And which who is that? One is all
about consumption and tuther just bites.
dmh
Malted Bevis
> 'I guess I'm supposed to say "thanks for posting". Feh! Crap. Seems
> you would know better.'
>
> You could have said something like "Did anyone else like this? I
> didn't find it worthwhile," but instead you launched a frontal assault
> on Dale's effort, sense, and taste.
The comment: "Feh! Crap. Seems you would know better."
..is so tame in comparison to what I put up with.
Google back and see how people have gone meltdown over
me .. ..to funny. rocket, texmex, ennis, mikey
How can I consider that anything I say here could be
over the line.
At this point, I only discuss poetry, and killfile anyone who
makes it about me personally (and bothers me.. and this is strange..
certain hecklers do, others don't..)
When people tell me everything I write is crap, and then
the Great Dale posts crap like that, I'll say whatever I want
about the crap.
Count on it.
Dale name calls at the drop of a hat,
and makes it a personal thing. He gets /terribly hurt/
if anyone expresses any disapproval.
That is my honest observation.
If people weren't so /honest/ with me, perhaps I wouldn't be
so /honest/ with them.
The ISPs recommend killfiles, and I am taking their advice
more.
> OK, this is Usenet and anyone's free to launch assaults frontal,
> topal, bottomal, or sideal, but if you do that you can't really
> complain when others respond in kind, can you?
I never told Dale to FOAD (not that he did that I know of, explicitly,
but she and many others do).
(coming from xtal pissant, I think I'll survive)
There... I just called someone that told me to FOAD a "pissant".
Am /I/ wrong? Will I go to hell? Will the police and my ISP
descend on me. (I guess I'll take my chances.)
If I ever called Dale a name, or made it a personal (none poetry
related) comment, I will try hard to not do it any more.
Perhaps I will stop being so honest if others do,
but that seems quite unlikely, and I'm happy enough
the way things are.
Soon I will be even happier.
It's an endless progression of joy to joy,
and then we wither and die.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"dog eb tsum yug shit"
Malted Bevis
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:0vqe3093h6q413oti...@4ax.com...
No, I am waiting to be refuted, and in the refutation I will learn.
Or not.
I feel I am interested enough in learning, other opinions differ.
I feel that I have learned much about poetry, other opinions differ.
> one's
> raw material, over a /hundred thousand/ words -- just look at the
> variety in music, and that begins with only twelve notes.
>
> So anyway, while you can always say "I like the sound of this poem,"
> and point to some obvious techniques, it would, in the case of a great
> poem, take a major effort to enumerate them comprehensively -- and
> even then, one would probably be left with some serious mysteries.
> Take Pound's Canto XLV, which I happen to have up in my browser since
> I just quoted from it in my other post:
Enjoyed the beginning of this, and appreciate you posting it.
Thx!
To me, it starts off (somewhat) nicely,
but it falls apart into snoring corpses.
Perhaps in a few yarn I will feel differently.
> At the very least, it
> would require an immense amount of analysis to do so. And if one
> defines understanding as being able to write something as beautiful
> using the principles so derived, well, forget it: craft can be taught,
> but genius cannot.
In general, I agree.
>
> >> >In a general way, I don't see it as magic.
> >>
> >> Not magic, any more than the workings of a watch are, just too complex
> >> for a comprehensive analysis.
> >
> >Then call it first-approximation, but why throw up your hands?
> >
> >Work on it with me, and we'll settle it once-and-for-all.
> >
> >...the Josh / Tomble
> > "Comprehensive first-approximation analysis of poetry"
> > (Usenet version, no trees killed.)
> >
> >Sound fun?
> >
> >We will systematically dissect poetry,
> >and what it is that man
> >likes about it.
> >
> >Or we could dissect my girlfriend some more.
>
> I think we would hardly be the first to do so! People have been
> studying literary theory and aesthetics at least since the time of the
> ancient Greeks, often with spectacular results.
Not like I didn't know that.
This is: The Usenet version, no trees killed (as I said)
..but never mind. :-)
> But we're very far
> away from having the sort of understanding that would alllow us to
> program a computer to write effective poetry.
I wasn't even remotely discussing computer poetry.
Not even on the edges of my mind.
I was just talking about a fun Usenet exercise
that might teach me something.
You could teach me more about the piece above.
My 'generation' technology is/was never meant to produce poetry,
nor am I even remotely attempting to approach that.
Not really interested.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
The sucking noises made by failed poets is not <fill in the blank>,
no matter how persistently tell you to FOAD.
- an Tomble / ennis / rocket, collaborative quotation
Copyright 2004, Tom Bishop Inc. "Don't Read On ME!"(tm)
Joshua P. Hill
<Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote:
Read it aloud, for the rhythm and the sound. It's surpassingly
beautiful.
>> At the very least, it
>> would require an immense amount of analysis to do so. And if one
>> defines understanding as being able to write something as beautiful
>> using the principles so derived, well, forget it: craft can be taught,
>> but genius cannot.
>
>In general, I agree.
Drat.
Yes, I probably could, but because of the challenging way in which you
phrase your requests I've little inclination to. Anyway, I'm not sure
that what you need here is teaching. The references are easy enough to
Google, but while they're interesting and will probably add something
to your understanding and appreciation, they aren't central: the
target of Pound's diatribe is obvious, and one needn't know the
meaning of most of the references to grasp their import. What's
wonderful about this poem is what can't be described except in the
aforementioned sense of dissecting one's girlfriend. It can only be
experienced. Or, as my father said when someone asked him what a poem
by Wallace Stephens had /meant/ -- "I have no idea -- just listen to
the music of the words."
>My 'generation' technology is/was never meant to produce poetry,
>nor am I even remotely attempting to approach that.
>
>Not really interested.
--
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote:
>
>> 'I guess I'm supposed to say "thanks for posting". Feh! Crap. Seems
>> you would know better.'
>>
>> You could have said something like "Did anyone else like this? I
>> didn't find it worthwhile," but instead you launched a frontal assault
>> on Dale's effort, sense, and taste.
>
>The comment: "Feh! Crap. Seems you would know better."
>..is so tame in comparison to what I put up with.
Maybe, but then, there's no law that says that if you bite someone
they aren't going to swat you, and I've found that it's more effective
to refrain from biting than it is to complain about overreaction once
once has been rendered a smudge.
>Google back and see how people have gone meltdown over
>me .. ..to funny. rocket, texmex, ennis, mikey
>
>How can I consider that anything I say here could be
>over the line.
>
>At this point, I only discuss poetry, and killfile anyone who
>makes it about me personally (and bothers me.. and this is strange..
>certain hecklers do, others don't..)
>
>When people tell me everything I write is crap, and then
>the Great Dale posts crap like that, I'll say whatever I want
>about the crap.
>
>Count on it.
>
>Dale name calls at the drop of a hat,
>and makes it a personal thing. He gets /terribly hurt/
>if anyone expresses any disapproval.
>
>That is my honest observation.
I don't think I've never noticed that about Dale, despite the fact
that we've had some vile arguments.
You might want to consider, too, that Dale is right and you're wrong.
As is true of anyone, some of his poems are stronger than others. Not
everyone like surrealist poetry, or agrees with Dale's aesthetic
priorities. But I don't think I've ever never seen him post a poem
here that was even remotely like crap; rather, they're inevitably
characterized by a high level of craftsmanship and creativity.
When you're a Towering Olympian, you'll be able to say anything you
like about other people's works, but it seems to me that poetical
neophytes are well advised to dust off the old 'umility and stick with
the likes of "I didn't like this as much as some of your other stuff"
or "mabe it's just me, but I didn't get anything out of this" rather
than coming off as simultaneously arrogant and uninformed.
>If people weren't so /honest/ with me, perhaps I wouldn't be
>so /honest/ with them.
>
>The ISPs recommend killfiles, and I am taking their advice
>more.
It's /excellent/ advice, IMO.
>> OK, this is Usenet and anyone's free to launch assaults frontal,
>> topal, bottomal, or sideal, but if you do that you can't really
>> complain when others respond in kind, can you?
>
>I never told Dale to FOAD (not that he did that I know of, explicitly,
>but she and many others do).
>
>(coming from xtal pissant, I think I'll survive)
>
>There... I just called someone that told me to FOAD a "pissant".
>
>Am /I/ wrong? Will I go to hell? Will the police and my ISP
>descend on me. (I guess I'll take my chances.)
>
>If I ever called Dale a name, or made it a personal (none poetry
>related) comment, I will try hard to not do it any more.
>
>Perhaps I will stop being so honest if others do,
>but that seems quite unlikely, and I'm happy enough
>the way things are.
Well, that's up to you, of course.
>Soon I will be even happier.
>
>It's an endless progression of joy to joy,
>and then we wither and die.
--
Josh
Malted Bevis
> >You could teach me more about the piece above.
>
> Yes, I probably could, but because of the challenging way in which you
> phrase your requests I've little inclination to.
I respect that.
I would say that I don't mean to bully you personally.
You are free to pursue Usenet fun however you want.
I appreciate the time, and politeness you exhibit.
> Anyway, I'm not sure
> that what you need here is teaching.
Obviously any /in depth/ information about poetry is optional,
and possibly detrimental to harmonious functioning,
but I'm interested none-the-less.
> The references are easy enough to
> Google, but while they're interesting and will probably add something
> to your understanding and appreciation, they aren't central: the
> target of Pound's diatribe is obvious, and one needn't know the
> meaning of most of the references to grasp their import. What's
> wonderful about this poem is what can't be described except in the
> aforementioned sense of dissecting one's girlfriend. It can only be
> experienced. Or, as my father said when someone asked him what a poem
> by Wallace Stephens had /meant/ -- "I have no idea -- just listen to
> the music of the words."
Yes, but that doesn't preventing me from going into more
detail about what I liked about the first part,
and what I relatively didn't like about the second part.
It doesn't break some magic spell for me to discuss it.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"dog eb tsum yug shit"
Malted Bevis
> You might want to consider, too, that Dale is right and you're wrong.
Not even close, pal.
He is a troll, spamming the group with crap right now.
I'm reporting him to his ISP,
and possibly
the Audabon Society.
> As is true of anyone, some of his poems are stronger than others.
EXACTLY. What did I say. This "Two things" is weak to the point
of "Feh! Crap!"
> Not
> everyone like surrealist poetry, or agrees with Dale's aesthetic
> priorities. But I don't think I've ever never seen him post a poem
> here that was even remotely like crap; rather, they're inevitably
> characterized by a high level of craftsmanship and creativity.
I say FEH! CRAP! (molsty :)
>
> When you're a Towering Olympian, you'll be able to say anything you
> like about other people's works,
I can and do say what I like Now.
ennis sprayed me with moley Bowowers...
And I could give a hairy whores kidney, since
girls just want to have fun.
> but it seems to me that poetical
> neophytes are well advised to dust off the old 'umility and stick with
> the likes of "I didn't like this as much as some of your other stuff"
I don't play that way. My interest/taste is way beyond Dale,
and always was. I am the reincarnation of the first nigger faggot
African goddess poet: O' Huuruu... "she who must be cliched"
Our tribe used to dance on vans of roses before breakfast.
Burp.
http://Savior.22.ZapTo.Org ..have a dance on me.
Great bumper sticker:
"Try to at least /look/ inspired."
Joshua P. Hill
No, not for me either. I find it interesting, actually, and sometimes
useful. And I find that, to a certain extent, it can add to my
appreciation of a poem. It's just not the primary thing, as kids in
school are so often led to believe, any more than the discussion of a
screenplay is the primary way we appreciate movies.
pandora
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 05:17:18 -0800, "Malted Bevis"
> <Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote:
>
> >
> >"M a i d e n" <chastle_p...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16698-40...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
> >>Go here and dance:
> >> http://Savior.22.ZapTo.Org
> >
> >FO and:-D
> >
> >
> >
> >### Don't tell me, your little piss-ass wants me to killfile you,
> > but did you know that so far you aren't important enough.
> > Although if only because you send these
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
> > messages.
> >
> >Or am I supposed to get in a big flame war with you
> >culminating in you ripping off my pictures and me shutting down
> >your ISP?
> >
> >Feh.
> >
> >Poetic pissants are truly moronic.
> >
> >Why go to the trouble to tell me to FOAD, geez, people
> >that I used to respect did that once. I just stopped respecting them.
>
> Did you ever consider asking instead what you did to get them so
> pissed off, Tom?
He wouldn't dare to do that.
You might begin with your original remark to Dale:
>
> 'I guess I'm supposed to say "thanks for posting". Feh! Crap. Seems
> you would know better.'
>
> You could have said something like "Did anyone else like this? I
> didn't find it worthwhile," but instead you launched a frontal assault
> on Dale's effort, sense, and taste.
He *could* have, just like a few others *could* have, been more courteous in
their critique(s), but they aren't. Why? Perhaps because they aren't very
nice people to begin with? Perhaps they are such losers themselves they
can't do anything but try to make others feel like losers? They're just
plain crazy?
> OK, this is Usenet and anyone's free to launch assaults frontal,
> topal, bottomal, or sideal, but if you do that you can't really
> complain when others respond in kind, can you?
Tommy has been a thorn in the side of the poetry groups for quite a while
now. He *could* have been considered a regular, by now, if he hadn't been
such an ass. But, on the other hand, he has a lot of other assholes for
company around here.
Marg
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> > >But, but.. there is poetry that I have no problem enumerating,
> > >in general, what makes it work for me.
> >
> > How general? Because I'm not talking about the generality of personal
> > preferences, e.g., Joe prefers free to structured verse, but rather to
> > the complex richenesses of sound, idea and affect which seem to me to
> > characterize the best works.
>
> Me neither.
>
> There are a finite number of ways that cleverness can be
> imparted on a word pile. Not saying /I/ can enumerate them all,
> but effectively (statistically) the number of categories of possible
> cleverness in poetry is fairly small..
Because the number of possible combinations of words and of sounds
(and in Surrealism, of meaning) are each infinite, the number of
categories of possible cleverness in poultry is also infinite.
The number of /passable/ categories, however, is, as in music, not
infinite.
However, they are both still very large.
>
> Just like the number of "basic plots" for novels is limited.
It Is Said, "Seven."
> (perhaps not rigorously definable, and always debatable,
> but still ultimately limited.)
Fairly rigorously and for 2400 years. Since the "necessary eighth"
category is the empty set, the definition was not actually occupied
until James Joyce.
>
> That is what category systems do.
Is that the way Bi-Coloured Pissin' Rock Turds /always/ talk?
>
> Poetry's category systems are fairly simple, really.
>
> (i.e. the basic /gist/ of meter can be rendered on a
> single, or very few web pages, and is, all over the net)
>
> I feel I am open to cleverness being imposed on poetry in
> many different ways. DT and ee cummings aren't similar,
> but I enjoy both (most of the time).
>
> In general, I am looking for a surprise, or a shock, or a
> clever /different/ view. Or it might just be a clever
> way of juggling letters. Or a really nice word choice.
> Or very nice sounds.
Firmly grasping the shank of a small screwdriver, jamb it into the
small slot of an electrical outlet.
Very nice sounds for a bit, too.
>
> Usually with the "best" it is some combination.
>
> >
> > >In a general way, I don't see it as magic.
> >
> > Not magic, any more than the workings of a watch are, just too complex
> > for a comprehensive analysis.
>
> Then call it first-approximation, but why throw up your hands?
To wind the watch, nincompoop.
>
> Work on it with me, and we'll settle it once-and-for-all.
>
> ...the Josh / Tomble
> "Comprehensive first-approximation analysis of poetry"
> (Usenet version, no trees killed.)
>
> Sound fun?
>
> We will systematically dissect poetry,
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z , ; : ? .
> and what it is that man
> likes about it.
I imagine poetic is words that inspire feeling. The best poetry
manipulates the reader the way the poet intends because it is
difficult to touch upon a universe or words that stimulate
everyone the same or similarly. What is the same is the
inspiration whether the responses match is neither here nor
there. The scary part is how does the inspiration create.
Or, possibly,
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z , ; : ? .
>
> Or we could dissect my girlfriend some more.
The hole was at the base of the valve.
>
> --
> Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
> "If you don't like sonnets just think of them as
> quatorzains with peculiar rhyme schemes."
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
The sucking noises made by Babies is not law,
no matter how many of them *agree* that it is.
http://scrawlmark.org
Peter J Ross
"Moron shall speak peace unto moron." - Motto of the BBC, modified for
the benefit of a newsgroup in which the Joshkook and the pandorakook
are permitted to slurp each other's virtual genitals without anybody
apparently even noticing.
--
PJR :-)
(Remove NOSPAM to reply)
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
I'm not really sure. Some people do it to build themselves up, I guess
-- if one can't be King of England, one can at least rule a little
poetry group. Others abhor bad poetry and get a laugh out of
criticizing those who write it. Some are just frank, the way Sam used
to be (I can still hear him excoriating one of my worst efforts), and
I don't think there's anything wrong with that -- in fact, I've always
appreciated that kind of honesty. Or they just want attention like
Martijn.
Tom's case? Well, I /do/ have a sense of why he does what he does, but
I don't want to gossip. If he's curious, I'll be glad to run it by him
if he emails me.
>> OK, this is Usenet and anyone's free to launch assaults frontal,
>> topal, bottomal, or sideal, but if you do that you can't really
>> complain when others respond in kind, can you?
>
>Tommy has been a thorn in the side of the poetry groups for quite a while
>now. He *could* have been considered a regular, by now, if he hadn't been
>such an ass. But, on the other hand, he has a lot of other assholes for
>company around here.
There's no denying that. AAPC is pretty much a wasteland now (he says,
thinking fondly of the old days when participants flew to people's
houses and threatened to kill them). Anyway, my purpose here wasn't to
attack Tom, just to point out that his approach (arrogance alternating
with humility) is probably counterproductive: it gave the fanged ones
a convenient target, and eventually alienated many of the
well-intentioned as well, and to what end?
If Tom wanted to troll, that would be one thing, but he seems to be
genuinely interested in poetry, and he'd probably have gotten more of
what he wants if he had been diplomatic, e.g., if he'd asked me what I
saw in that poem rather than challenging me to prove it has merit.
O HuuRuu
>
> If Tom wanted to troll, that would be one thing, but he seems to be
> genuinely interested in poetry,
Just for "One Last Taste"
> and he'd probably have gotten more of
> what he wants if he had been diplomatic, e.g., if he'd asked me what I
> saw in that poem rather than challenging me to prove it has merit.
Which one. "Two things"?
No more.
--
Tom Bishop
"a rooster
an empty room
poverty"
http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
pandora
No one can rule a Usenet group although they can certainly try to make a
mess of it.
Others abhor bad poetry and get a laugh out of
> criticizing those who write it. Some are just frank, the way Sam used
> to be (I can still hear him excoriating one of my worst efforts), and
> I don't think there's anything wrong with that -- in fact, I've always
> appreciated that kind of honesty. Or they just want attention like
> Martijn.
Honest dislike of one's poetry is fine; insults to the individual for their
poetry is quite another, IMO.
> Tom's case? Well, I /do/ have a sense of why he does what he does, but
> I don't want to gossip. If he's curious, I'll be glad to run it by him
> if he emails me.
Personally, I don't really care why he does what he does.
> >> OK, this is Usenet and anyone's free to launch assaults frontal,
> >> topal, bottomal, or sideal, but if you do that you can't really
> >> complain when others respond in kind, can you?
> >
> >Tommy has been a thorn in the side of the poetry groups for quite a while
> >now. He *could* have been considered a regular, by now, if he hadn't
been
> >such an ass. But, on the other hand, he has a lot of other assholes for
> >company around here.
>
> There's no denying that. AAPC is pretty much a wasteland now (he says,
> thinking fondly of the old days when participants flew to people's
> houses and threatened to kill them). Anyway, my purpose here wasn't to
> attack Tom, just to point out that his approach (arrogance alternating
> with humility) is probably counterproductive: it gave the fanged ones
> a convenient target, and eventually alienated many of the
> well-intentioned as well, and to what end?
None that I can see.
> If Tom wanted to troll, that would be one thing, but he seems to be
> genuinely interested in poetry, and he'd probably have gotten more of
> what he wants if he had been diplomatic, e.g., if he'd asked me what I
> saw in that poem rather than challenging me to prove it has merit.
He could have been other than he is. It was his choice.
Marg
Master Po
> He could have been other than he is. It was his choice.
Why would I do that? ..it would be dishonest.
I never cared for obnoxious twits like you. Your Gold
Sores don't work any more, Cackle Pixie. Your brand
of lame-ass has been around my whole life. "Jabber
Halfwit" the copyright expert, TOO FUNNY. You are
a loud-mouth, except you don't know what you are
shouting about.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"dog eb tsum yug shit"
Dale Houstman
Master Po wrote:
>>He could have been other than he is. It was his choice.
>
>
> Why would I do that? ..it would be dishonest.
>
Personality is not a thing set in masonry; it is a fluid process. It is
not dishonest to make ethical choices: you are whomever you turn out to
be. The idea that one is merely being "honest" when they act like a
pathetic savage, merely because they have rarely tried to act any other
way is - in all honesty - bullshit. And I suspect you know it, unless
you are not only rude and vindictive to those who don't love you any
more than you love yourself, but also as dumb as a can of moleskin peaches.
dmh
Master Po
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:4038C5D5...@citilink.com...
>
>
> Master Po wrote:
> >>He could have been other than he is. It was his choice.
> >
> >
> > Why would I do that? ..it would be dishonest.
Ahhhhh....
But it ain't about you psychoanalyzing me on a poetry group
is it Mr. Failed Writer the great and mighty Dale Houstman.
As far as savage goes, I will admit to sadistic, but I ONLY
torture those who give me consent.
You and others did.
Google holds the record.
As I say, if I cause you any discomfort with the squiggles,
I can't imagine why, other than the fact that you are a pansy
poetic phreak, blown by whatever wind blows.
Please elucidate your Pain in as much detail as you can muster
as the years go by, it is necessary to the sadism that I know
as many details as possible.
Thanks!
pandora
"Master Po" <V...@Of-Roses.info> wrote in message
news:4038b...@127.0.0.1...
>
> > He could have been other than he is. It was his choice.
>
> Why would I do that? ..it would be dishonest.
>
> I never cared for obnoxious twits like you. Your Gold
> Sores don't work any more,
I see, you were/are envious. I can well understand how you would feel that
way as you have nothing and are nothing. Curious and amusing though, that
you would consider something that was done in fun to be such a sore spot
with you. Your envy is showing.
Cackle Pixie. Your brand
> of lame-ass has been around my whole life.
Sounds like you have women and/or mother issues.
"Jabber
> Halfwit" the copyright expert, TOO FUNNY. You are
> a loud-mouth, except you don't know what you are
> shouting about.
I don't see you stealing the poetry of others so there must be something to
this copyright stuff. As well, it would seem that you are complaining about
others stealing *your* stuff. Oh, the irony. Very amusing and quite droll.
You're still a lame ass and you always will be.
Marg
Master Po
> others stealing *your* stuff.
Why would I not?
If I graphed your face onto a fat woman
and put it on my website..
(well maybe a different example..)
Honestly pixie. Do you think it would be hard for me
to create harassment websites?
Using the 3D modeling stuff, I could be be quite
harassing I'm sure, and never violate people's pictures
or "precious words".
But being a jerk lame-brain bent on harassing people
just isn't my thing. I like harassing harassers like you
and mikey.
--
Tom Bishop
"a rooster
an empty room
poverty"
http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Without noticing what, Peter? A couple of civil, rational, friendly
posts? By way of contrast, your response sounds troublingly like a
case study in infantile narcissistic regression neurosis with elements
of projection. I am, as always, embarrassed for you.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If Tom wanted to troll, that would be one thing, but he seems to be
>> genuinely interested in poetry,
>
>Just for "One Last Taste"
>
>> and he'd probably have gotten more of
>> what he wants if he had been diplomatic, e.g., if he'd asked me what I
>> saw in that poem rather than challenging me to prove it has merit.
>
>Which one. "Two things"?
>
>No more.
That's the one I was thinking of.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Or fool themselves into thinking they can.
>Others abhor bad poetry and get a laugh out of
>> criticizing those who write it. Some are just frank, the way Sam used
>> to be (I can still hear him excoriating one of my worst efforts), and
>> I don't think there's anything wrong with that -- in fact, I've always
>> appreciated that kind of honesty. Or they just want attention like
>> Martijn.
>
>Honest dislike of one's poetry is fine; insults to the individual for their
>poetry is quite another, IMO.
Not my style, either (unless someone has gotten me /way/ pissed off).
OTOH, this is Usenet, and minimal politeness isn't exactly the norm.
For henpecked sorts who secretly wish they could chew out their boss
or their mother-in-law, Usenet is like the time the guy who serviced
the ice cream machine forgot to turn off the service switch and we
kids got to take out all the popsicles and ice cream sandwiches we
could eat. My advice to anyone who takes this stuff too seriously --
go somewhere where the discourse is more civil, like boot camp or a
cell block in Sing Sing.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:4038C5D5...@citilink.com...
>>
>>
>> Master Po wrote:
>> >>He could have been other than he is. It was his choice.
>> >
>> >
>> > Why would I do that? ..it would be dishonest.
>
>Ahhhhh....
>
>But it ain't about you psychoanalyzing me on a poetry group
>is it Mr. Failed Writer the great and mighty Dale Houstman.
>
>As far as savage goes, I will admit to sadistic, but I ONLY
>torture those who give me consent.
>
>You and others did.
>
>Google holds the record.
>
>As I say, if I cause you any discomfort with the squiggles,
>I can't imagine why, other than the fact that you are a pansy
>poetic phreak, blown by whatever wind blows.
>
>Please elucidate your Pain in as much detail as you can muster
>as the years go by, it is necessary to the sadism that I know
>as many details as possible.
>
>Thanks!
The image that comes to mind is that of a big, beefy executioner in a
horrifying medieval dungeon. Dale, spreadeagled. The executioner
cackles, and produces his instrument of torture -- a feather . . .
pandora
"Master Po" <V...@Of-Roses.info> wrote in message
> > ..it would seem that you are complaining about
> > others stealing *your* stuff.
>
> Why would I not?
And yet, you consider others' stuff to be fair game for YOU to steal. As I
said, oh the irony.
> If I graphed your face onto a fat woman
> and put it on my website..
>
> (well maybe a different example..)
>
Go for it. It doesn't matter to me.
> Honestly pixie. Do you think it would be hard for me
> to create harassment websites?
Probably more difficult for you than for some others, I'd say.
> Using the 3D modeling stuff, I could be be quite
> harassing I'm sure, and never violate people's pictures
> or "precious words".
>
> But being a jerk lame-brain bent on harassing people
> just isn't my thing. I like harassing harassers like you
> and mikey.
Bwahahahahahahahah. Sure and all your threats to steal the poetry of others
and do whatever you wanted to do with it was all our imagination. Sure,
uhuh, please tell me another one. You're an ass, plain and simple and I
find *your* complaining to be hilarious even if I disagree with what has
been done.
Marg
pandora
I'm not embarrassed for him. He's been having a complete meltdown lately
and I think he's a tad bit annoyed that I've got him killfiled. When I did
that was when he began to try to get my attention by slandering me. His bid
for attention is quite infantile (as you note) and he's the one no one is
noticing.
pandora
> >
> >No one can rule a Usenet group although they can certainly try to make a
> >mess of it.
>
> Or fool themselves into thinking they can.
Yes, there is that of course.
> >Others abhor bad poetry and get a laugh out of
> >> criticizing those who write it. Some are just frank, the way Sam used
> >> to be (I can still hear him excoriating one of my worst efforts), and
> >> I don't think there's anything wrong with that -- in fact, I've always
> >> appreciated that kind of honesty. Or they just want attention like
> >> Martijn.
> >
> >Honest dislike of one's poetry is fine; insults to the individual for
their
> >poetry is quite another, IMO.
>
> Not my style, either (unless someone has gotten me /way/ pissed off).
I find that I'm neither pissed off nor upset by their comments; merely
amused as their infantile behavior.
> OTOH, this is Usenet, and minimal politeness isn't exactly the norm.
Well, that certainly seems to be the case. However, that can/could be
changed if enough people tried to change it.
> For henpecked sorts who secretly wish they could chew out their boss
> or their mother-in-law, Usenet is like the time the guy who serviced
> the ice cream machine forgot to turn off the service switch and we
> kids got to take out all the popsicles and ice cream sandwiches we
> could eat. My advice to anyone who takes this stuff too seriously --
> go somewhere where the discourse is more civil, like boot camp or a
> cell block in Sing Sing.
:-) Discourse *can* be more civil. It all depends on who one killfiles and
it seems that those I've killfiled get *very* upset about it. I guess they
like pissing in the wind.
Marg
Master Po
> >Please elucidate your Pain in as much detail as you can muster
> >as the years go by, it is necessary to the sadism that I know
> >as many details as possible.
> >
> >Thanks!
>
> The image that comes to mind is that of a big, beefy executioner in a
> horrifying medieval dungeon. Dale, spreadeagled. The executioner
> cackles, and produces his instrument of torture -- a feather . . .
I'm not sure that squiggles are even that menacing.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways
that won't work." - Thomas Alva Edison
Master Po
"pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message news:bfidnabSwJY...@scnresearch.com...
>
> "Master Po" <V...@Of-Roses.info> wrote in message
> news:40393e19$1...@127.0.0.1...
> > > ..it would seem that you are complaining about
> > > others stealing *your* stuff.
> >
> > Why would I not?
>
> And yet, you consider others' stuff to be fair game for YOU to steal. As I
> said, oh the irony.
You idiot.
> Bwahahahahahahahah. Sure and all your threats to steal the poetry of others
I never made one threat to steal anything.
I ****discussed**** Usenet, and printing it. If you think that constitutes
theft, then sue me.
Printing Usenet isn't theft of anything, but it isn't profitable enough
that anyone gives a fuck.
You are the ASS, and you just prattle.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"I believe these are the days of lasers in the jungle!"
- Paul Simon
Master Po
> > Or fool themselves into thinking they can.
>
> Yes, there is that of course.
Change your story twit?
I thought it was me that ruined everything.
Ha!
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"The universe is steady state, i.e., pretty continuously fucked up.
-- Dennis M. Hammes
Master Po
> I'm not embarrassed for him. He's been having a complete meltdown lately
> and I think he's a tad bit annoyed that I've got him killfiled.
Nobody gives a fuck about you pixie.
Nobody.
Only your obnoxious mouth that everyone wishes would shut
the fuck up.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"I believe these are the days of lasers in the jungle!"
- Paul Simon
pandora
"Master Po" <V...@Of-Roses.info> wrote in message
>
> "pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:bfidnabSwJY...@scnresearch.com...
> >
> > "Master Po" <V...@Of-Roses.info> wrote in message
> > news:40393e19$1...@127.0.0.1...
> > > > ..it would seem that you are complaining about
> > > > others stealing *your* stuff.
> > >
> > > Why would I not?
> >
> > And yet, you consider others' stuff to be fair game for YOU to steal.
As I
> > said, oh the irony.
>
> You idiot.
>
well.
> > Bwahahahahahahahah. Sure and all your threats to steal the poetry of
others
>
> I never made one threat to steal anything.
Oh yes you did. How quickly you forget.
> I ****discussed**** Usenet, and printing it. If you think that constitutes
> theft, then sue me.
You intended to steal the poetry of others and you threatened to do so with
the poets having no recourse. I'm glad that you've learned that would be
illegal. There's hope for you yet.
> Printing Usenet isn't theft of anything, but it isn't profitable enough
> that anyone gives a fuck.
Not if it's your stuff, that's for sure.
> You are the ASS, and you just prattle.
>
And yet, you still respond. You're hooked little fish and you cannot
escape my net. :-)
Marg
pandora
"Master Po" <V...@Of-Roses.info> wrote in message
>
> > I'm not embarrassed for him. He's been having a complete meltdown
lately
> > and I think he's a tad bit annoyed that I've got him killfiled.
>
> Nobody gives a fuck about you pixie.
And yet, you felt my words important enough for you to respond. How quaint
given your declaration.
> Nobody.
What makes you think I care?
> Only your obnoxious mouth that everyone wishes would shut
> the fuck up.
>
Uhuh. Right. Killfiles are your friend. You DO know how to use one, don't
you?
Marg
Master Po
> You intended to steal the poetry of others and you threatened to do so with
> the poets having no recourse. I'm glad that you've learned that would be
> illegal. There's hope for you yet.
No, I learned that a vendor as large as Usenet.com saw no problem in
distributing Usenet material on CD ROM as long it was text based.
Their only problem has to do with the substantially infringed material
of the binary Usenet. Oh, but I said that. Read better next time pixie.
They have no such fears with text, since there is no substantal traffic
of infringed material (except in the minds of idiot poets).
(my interest was never personally with printing text, /that/ was a total
strawman. Any idiot could tell that. Based on the fact that I said it
numerous times.. But not idiot you, pixie. And you are an idiot, trust me.)
And now I'll plonk you.
Get ready...
Here you go....
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"dog eb tsum yug shit"
Rik Roots
> "pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message
> news:bfidnabSwJY...@scnresearch.com...
>> >> ..it would seem that you are complaining about
>> >> others stealing *your* stuff.
>> >>
>> > Why would I not?
>> >
>> And yet, you consider others' stuff to be fair game for YOU to steal. As
>> I said, oh the irony.
>>
> You idiot.
>
Irony is not one of Tommy Tosser's strong suits ...
>> Bwahahahahahahahah. Sure and all your threats to steal the poetry of
>> others
>>
> I never made one threat to steal anything.
>
You talked another poster into stealing poems, formatting them into a book
and trying to sell them (for profit) on the web.
> I ****discussed**** Usenet, and printing it.
>
You talked someone else into doing it because you didn't have the bollocks
to do it yourself. More Fagin than Artful Dodger.
> If you think that constitutes
> theft, then sue me.
>
Who would ever want to sue you - your well-used pile of pornography might be
precious to you, but offers little in the way of recompense for the rest of
usenet.
> Printing Usenet isn't theft of anything, but it isn't profitable enough
> that anyone gives a fuck.
>
Status alert: Tommy Tosser remains in a state of serene delusion.
> You are the ASS, and you just prattle.
>
Wow! That flame almost singed your eyebrows, Tommy Tosser!
Rik, knee deep
--
Download Rik's poetry chapbooks for free from
http://www.kalieda.org/poems/xbuy.html
Clot: the searchable online poetry magazine listing service
http://www.kalieda.org/clot/clot.php
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
"Meltdown" is an apt word for it. He did the same thing to me a couple
of years ago, when he went overnight from railing against the evils of
trollery to styling himself a Big Bad Troll. Now, I pretty much ignore
him . . .
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:ldoi30ptukjadddb9...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:36:14 -0800, "pandora" <pan...@peak.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> >No one can rule a Usenet group although they can certainly try to make a
>> >mess of it.
>>
>> Or fool themselves into thinking they can.
>
>Yes, there is that of course.
>
>> >Others abhor bad poetry and get a laugh out of
>> >> criticizing those who write it. Some are just frank, the way Sam used
>> >> to be (I can still hear him excoriating one of my worst efforts), and
>> >> I don't think there's anything wrong with that -- in fact, I've always
>> >> appreciated that kind of honesty. Or they just want attention like
>> >> Martijn.
>> >
>> >Honest dislike of one's poetry is fine; insults to the individual for
>their
>> >poetry is quite another, IMO.
>>
>> Not my style, either (unless someone has gotten me /way/ pissed off).
>
>I find that I'm neither pissed off nor upset by their comments; merely
>amused as their infantile behavior.
>
>> OTOH, this is Usenet, and minimal politeness isn't exactly the norm.
>
>Well, that certainly seems to be the case. However, that can/could be
>changed if enough people tried to change it.
I think a lot of people just take the path of least resistance and
head off to moderated groups. Certainly, that's what happened here . .
. now, only the trolls and flamers are left, and a few of us who are
so battle-hardened that, as you put it, the insults merely amuse.
>> For henpecked sorts who secretly wish they could chew out their boss
>> or their mother-in-law, Usenet is like the time the guy who serviced
>> the ice cream machine forgot to turn off the service switch and we
>> kids got to take out all the popsicles and ice cream sandwiches we
>> could eat. My advice to anyone who takes this stuff too seriously --
>> go somewhere where the discourse is more civil, like boot camp or a
>> cell block in Sing Sing.
>
>:-) Discourse *can* be more civil. It all depends on who one killfiles and
>it seems that those I've killfiled get *very* upset about it. I guess they
>like pissing in the wind.
Heh -- it does drive them crazy, doesn't it? I killfiled one fruitcake
on mw -- because his zillions of posts were boring, not because they
were any more offensive than anyone else's -- and it so traumatized
the poor guy that he spent the next year responding to my every post.
Hell, for all I know he's still at it!
Master Po
> > You idiot.
> >
> Irony is not one of Tommy Tosser's strong suits ...
When someone is an idiot, hey. They just are.
Like you for example.. numerous others. :-)
> You talked another poster into stealing poems, formatting them into a book
> and trying to sell them (for profit) on the web.
If she had dealt with it as a printing service, there
was/is little problem in the US.
If such a service was created in the US I would love to see you
have a fit from the UK.
Fact is, it probably does exist somewhere.
People are allowed to print copies of things they can image
on their computers for their own personal use.
Internet, Usenet... etc.
A value added service to facilitate it would probably not
be considered infringing in the US, although it hasn't been tested
in any legal links that I've found so far.
Usenet.com, for example, believes that it would be legal to do so
on CD, which is really equivalent to paper from a copyright POV.
Here is there letter extract:
Responding to my idea of CD distribution:
-------------------------------
This is a nice idea in theory, however there is no way we can do this. Too
many legal issues can be raised by us archiving Usenet
postings and distributing them via mail on CD ROMs. The only thing we would
be able to do is basically text postings which will probably not be of
interest to many people as they are already offered for free by a few
websites.
---------------------------------
The legal issues have to do with illegal porn images, ripped from websites
and posted on the Usenet.
Text postings are not usually an infringement, and so longer archivals
would not (in their opinion) be as much of a problem, but not profitable.
So why don't you keep the up, Rikky boi?
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
The sucking noises made by failed poets is not <fill in the blank>,
no matter how persistently they tell you to FOAD.
- an Tomble / ennis / rocket, collaborative quotation
Copyright 2004, Tom Bishop Inc. "Don't Read On ME!"(tm)
Rik Roots
>> You talked another poster into stealing poems, formatting them into a
>> book and trying to sell them (for profit) on the web.
>
> If she had dealt with it as a printing service, there
> was/is little problem in the US.
>
So, no denial of the charge. And there was a charge involved, too - $11.00
at one time for a copy of the stolen poems.
> If such a service was created in the US I would love to see you
> have a fit from the UK.
>
> Fact is, it probably does exist somewhere.
>
Your point is?
> People are allowed to print copies of things they can image
> on their computers for their own personal use.
>
> Internet, Usenet... etc.
>
> A value added service to facilitate it would probably not
> be considered infringing in the US, although it hasn't been tested
> in any legal links that I've found so far.
>
Though if they were to try and sell their copies, they would be in breach of
copyright, yes?
Indeed, even if they were to print off 500 copies of someone else's poem
(posted to usenet) and flypost them around the town, they would be in
breach of copyright.
Come on, Tommy Tosser. Try to wake up!
> Usenet.com, for example, believes that it would be legal to do so
> on CD, which is really equivalent to paper from a copyright POV.
>
> Here is there letter extract:
>
This will be fun ...
> Responding to my idea of CD distribution:
> -------------------------------
> This is a nice idea in theory, however there is no way we can do this.
> Too many legal issues can be raised by us archiving Usenet
> postings and distributing them via mail on CD ROMs.
>
Pretty clear so far - "no" means no!
> The only thing we would be able to do is basically *text* postings which
> will probably not be of interest to many people as they are already
> offered for free by a few websites.
>
Interesting. Note the keyword I have highlighted.
> ---------------------------------
>
> The legal issues have to do with illegal porn images, ripped from websites
> and posted on the Usenet.
>
I disagree. See below.
> Text postings are not usually an infringement, and so longer archivals
> would not (in their opinion) be as much of a problem, but not profitable.
>
And here we have the problem with your interpretation.
You've assumed that "text" in the above message is an adjective - as in
"postings composed only of text".
But "text" is being used as a verb in this instance. Texting is the action
of sending people text messages to their mobile phones (or whatever you
call them in North America) - that is, allowing people to use their mobile
phones as a newsgroup reader.
Which pretty much fucks up your argument, Tommy Tosser.
> So why don't you keep the up, Rikky boi?
>
Clearly, reading comprehension is another of your weaker suits, alongside
composing a coherent English sentence.
Rik, knee deep.
Master Po
"Rik Roots" <r...@kallider.org> wrote in message news:i8w_b.1055$ie6...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Little Tommy Tosser pleaded:
>
> >> You talked another poster into stealing poems, formatting them into a
> >> book and trying to sell them (for profit) on the web.
> >
> > If she had dealt with it as a printing service, there
> > was/is little problem in the US.
> >
> So, no denial of the charge. And there was a charge involved, too - $11.00
> at one time for a copy of the stolen poems.
Reasonable copying and processing fees are reasonable.
(But she wasn't quite setting it up correctly, and I certainly
wasn't acting as legal counsel. You are just an anal meltdown.)
> Though if they were to try and sell their copies, they would be in breach of
> copyright, yes?
No. Not if the copies were specified directly by the customer.
Or at least so I say.
But fuck, rikky. Nobody wants text postings. Usenet.com (who sells access
to mostly binary postings) doesn't think so.
>
> Indeed, even if they were to print off 500 copies of someone else's poem
> (posted to usenet) and flypost them around the town, they would be in
> breach of copyright.
But that isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about someone ordering a printout
of a personal copy. The print house doesn't even know
what is being printed.
It would be "on-demand" like a copy house.
> I disagree. See below.
Your argument is bullshit.
They were talking about non-binary postings, "text postings".
There was NEVER any mention of cell phones.
The verb in the sentence is "do".
The discussion was CDs.
You troll, that is all. Either that, or you are too moronic for words.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
What do I win?
- anonymous
pandora
As do I, for the most part. He cannot seem to stop following me around
though. Same with gamble, I hear. Poor dears.
Marg
pandora
More than likely. I don't like moderated groups. I believe that people
*can* moderate themselves. Of course, it takes a certain amount of maturity
along with courtesy to be self moderating.
Certainly, that's what happened here . .
> . now, only the trolls and flamers are left, and a few of us who are
> so battle-hardened that, as you put it, the insults merely amuse.
Exactly! I haven't posted any poetry for quite a while but I may do so
again, soon. I've been busy with other things lately.
> >> For henpecked sorts who secretly wish they could chew out their boss
> >> or their mother-in-law, Usenet is like the time the guy who serviced
> >> the ice cream machine forgot to turn off the service switch and we
> >> kids got to take out all the popsicles and ice cream sandwiches we
> >> could eat. My advice to anyone who takes this stuff too seriously --
> >> go somewhere where the discourse is more civil, like boot camp or a
> >> cell block in Sing Sing.
> >
> >:-) Discourse *can* be more civil. It all depends on who one killfiles
and
> >it seems that those I've killfiled get *very* upset about it. I guess
they
> >like pissing in the wind.
>
> Heh -- it does drive them crazy, doesn't it? I killfiled one fruitcake
> on mw -- because his zillions of posts were boring, not because they
> were any more offensive than anyone else's -- and it so traumatized
> the poor guy that he spent the next year responding to my every post.
> Hell, for all I know he's still at it!
Hehehehehehe. I love when that happens. You might note that I've got a
couple of such fools around these here parts. :-)
Marg
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
It's kind of hard to do that on Usenet. Seems people end up fighting
no matter what. My theory, Dale-approved: Usenet lacks the cues,
visual and aural, that signify good intentions. Ambiguities tend to be
interpreted as attacks. By the same token, the medium is immediate,
unlike print, so arguments tend to blossom. And because there's no
threat of violence and no knockout punch and the posts just sit there
until they're answered, they tend to persist forever, or nearly so.
>> . now, only the trolls and flamers are left, and a few of us who are
>> so battle-hardened that, as you put it, the insults merely amuse.
>
>Exactly! I haven't posted any poetry for quite a while but I may do so
>again, soon. I've been busy with other things lately.
You'n me both, only lately has been several years :-|
>> >> For henpecked sorts who secretly wish they could chew out their boss
>> >> or their mother-in-law, Usenet is like the time the guy who serviced
>> >> the ice cream machine forgot to turn off the service switch and we
>> >> kids got to take out all the popsicles and ice cream sandwiches we
>> >> could eat. My advice to anyone who takes this stuff too seriously --
>> >> go somewhere where the discourse is more civil, like boot camp or a
>> >> cell block in Sing Sing.
>> >
>> >:-) Discourse *can* be more civil. It all depends on who one killfiles
>and
>> >it seems that those I've killfiled get *very* upset about it. I guess
>they
>> >like pissing in the wind.
>>
>> Heh -- it does drive them crazy, doesn't it? I killfiled one fruitcake
>> on mw -- because his zillions of posts were boring, not because they
>> were any more offensive than anyone else's -- and it so traumatized
>> the poor guy that he spent the next year responding to my every post.
>> Hell, for all I know he's still at it!
>
>Hehehehehehe. I love when that happens. You might note that I've got a
>couple of such fools around these here parts. :-)
My AAPC killfile is hysterically large, though in fact it's directed
at only a handful of posters. Jonathan alone must have 50 aliases . .
.
Rik Roots
<TommyRot snip>
> Your argument is bullshit.
>
Tell it to your legal advisers ...
> They were talking about non-binary postings, "text postings".
>
They were talking about *all* usenet postings not being distributable as an
archive on CD through the post.
> There was NEVER any mention of cell phones.
>
Ask them for clarification, then.
> The verb in the sentence is "do".
>
The verb is *text* - keep up with the ever-evolving English language, Tommy
Tosser!
> The discussion was CDs.
>
Which they tell you they will *not* distribute in the second sentence of
your very own evidence.
To repeat the argument:
> Responding to my idea of CD distribution:
> -------------------------------
> This is a nice idea in theory, however there is no way we can do this.
> Too many legal issues can be raised by us archiving Usenet
> postings and distributing them via mail on CD ROMs.
>
Pretty clear so far - "no" means no!
> The only thing we would be able to do is basically *text* postings which
> will probably not be of interest to many people as they are already
> offered for free by a few websites.
>
Interesting. Note the keyword I have highlighted.
> ---------------------------------
>
> The legal issues have to do with illegal porn images, ripped from
> websites and posted on the Usenet.
>
I disagree. See below.
> Text postings are not usually an infringement, and so longer archivals
> would not (in their opinion) be as much of a problem, but not profitable.
>
And here we have the problem with your interpretation.
You've assumed that "text" in the above message is an adjective - as in
"postings composed only of text".
But "text" is being used as a verb in this instance. Texting is the action
of sending people text messages to their mobile phones (or whatever you
call them in North America) - that is, allowing people to use their mobile
phones as a newsgroup reader.
Which pretty much fucks up your argument, Tommy Tosser.
Glad I could be of assistance in clearing up your little misunderstanding.
Master Po
"Rik Roots" <r...@kallider.org> wrote in message news:LGD_b.4920$ie6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Little Tommy6 Tosser wailed:
>
> <TommyRot snip>
>
> > Your argument is bullshit.
> >
> Tell it to your legal advisers ...
Oh? You gonna sue me big boy.
>
> > They were talking about non-binary postings, "text postings".
> >
> They were talking about *all* usenet postings not being distributable as an
> archive on CD through the post.
No, you are simply wrong. They were talking about the fact
that text postings aren't plagued by infringement issues.
You are simply dense. Unbelievable how you pull cell phone
usages out of a letter from Usenet.com.
They have ZERO orientation to cell phones. They sell porn.
They hardly give a damn about text postings.
If this is all you have to say, stuff it up your ass.
Ok, rikky?
Plenty of room, since your father died.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"We have Art to save ourselves from the truth."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
pandora
. I believe that people
> >*can* moderate themselves. Of course, it takes a certain amount of
maturity
> >along with courtesy to be self moderating.
> >
> It's kind of hard to do that on Usenet.
Hard? I would say that it is a bit difficult, at times, but not really hard
and certainly not impossible.
Seems people end up fighting
> no matter what.
Of course. Some of us are just *that way* inclined.
My theory, Dale-approved: Usenet lacks the cues,
> visual and aural, that signify good intentions. Ambiguities tend to be
> interpreted as attacks.
But I contend that *those* kinds of situations can be ironed out. That is
if both parties wish to do so. If one feels attacked, one can *ask* if that
was what was intended. If a positive answer is received, all can be
smoothed over. If a positive answer isn't received OR another attack is
made, one can soon figure out that a) the attack was intentional and b) the
attacker is open for return attacks or a killfile.
By the same token, the medium is immediate,
> unlike print, so arguments tend to blossom. And because there's no
> threat of violence and no knockout punch and the posts just sit there
> until they're answered, they tend to persist forever, or nearly so.
They can do so, that's true. However, they don't have to. One doesn't HAVE
TO answer negative posts or ones that one doesn't wish to respond to; unlike
personal confrontation, the posts can be ignored or killfiled leaving the
attacker to wave his willy in the air impotently and looking rather silly to
onlookers.
> >> . now, only the trolls and flamers are left, and a few of us who are
> >> so battle-hardened that, as you put it, the insults merely amuse.
> >
> >Exactly! I haven't posted any poetry for quite a while but I may do so
> >again, soon. I've been busy with other things lately.
>
> You'n me both, only lately has been several years :-|
:-) I've been writing, but just not posting . I was actually able to write
76 poems last year; not all of them first-rate, of course. :-) However,
I've also been writing other things; essays, short stories and novels. It
was a very busy year.
> >> >> For henpecked sorts who secretly wish they could chew out their boss
> >> >> or their mother-in-law, Usenet is like the time the guy who serviced
> >> >> the ice cream machine forgot to turn off the service switch and we
> >> >> kids got to take out all the popsicles and ice cream sandwiches we
> >> >> could eat. My advice to anyone who takes this stuff too seriously --
> >> >> go somewhere where the discourse is more civil, like boot camp or a
> >> >> cell block in Sing Sing.
> >> >
> >> >:-) Discourse *can* be more civil. It all depends on who one
killfiles
> >and
> >> >it seems that those I've killfiled get *very* upset about it. I
guess
> >they
> >> >like pissing in the wind.
> >>
> >> Heh -- it does drive them crazy, doesn't it? I killfiled one fruitcake
> >> on mw -- because his zillions of posts were boring, not because they
> >> were any more offensive than anyone else's -- and it so traumatized
> >> the poor guy that he spent the next year responding to my every post.
> >> Hell, for all I know he's still at it!
> >
> >Hehehehehehe. I love when that happens. You might note that I've got a
> >couple of such fools around these here parts. :-)
>
> My AAPC killfile is hysterically large, though in fact it's directed
> at only a handful of posters. Jonathan alone must have 50 aliases . .
> .
I have been able to *successfuly* avoid his posts and haven't bothered to
killfile him. I recognize them immediately and move along.
Marg
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:h4il30t50t0plepaf...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:44:39 -0800, "pandora" <pan...@peak.org>
>> wrote:
>
>. I believe that people
>> >*can* moderate themselves. Of course, it takes a certain amount of
>maturity
>> >along with courtesy to be self moderating.
>> >
>> It's kind of hard to do that on Usenet.
>
>Hard? I would say that it is a bit difficult, at times, but not really hard
>and certainly not impossible.
I'm afraid I'm not very good at it myself. Let something get under my
skin, fire back a measured response -- later reread the posts and
discover that the insult wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was and
my response wasn't nearly as measured . . .
>Seems people end up fighting
>> no matter what.
>
>Of course. Some of us are just *that way* inclined.
Wanna take that outside? :-)
>My theory, Dale-approved: Usenet lacks the cues,
>> visual and aural, that signify good intentions. Ambiguities tend to be
>> interpreted as attacks.
>
>But I contend that *those* kinds of situations can be ironed out. That is
>if both parties wish to do so. If one feels attacked, one can *ask* if that
>was what was intended. If a positive answer is received, all can be
>smoothed over. If a positive answer isn't received OR another attack is
>made, one can soon figure out that a) the attack was intentional and b) the
>attacker is open for return attacks or a killfile.
I've been experimenting with that on mw. So far, it isn't working very
well. No one seems interested in reciprocating.
>By the same token, the medium is immediate,
>> unlike print, so arguments tend to blossom. And because there's no
>> threat of violence and no knockout punch and the posts just sit there
>> until they're answered, they tend to persist forever, or nearly so.
>
>They can do so, that's true. However, they don't have to. One doesn't HAVE
>TO answer negative posts or ones that one doesn't wish to respond to; unlike
>personal confrontation, the posts can be ignored or killfiled leaving the
>attacker to wave his willy in the air impotently and looking rather silly to
>onlookers.
Very true. Of course, I've never been bright enough to do it myself .
. .
>> >> . now, only the trolls and flamers are left, and a few of us who are
>> >> so battle-hardened that, as you put it, the insults merely amuse.
>> >
>> >Exactly! I haven't posted any poetry for quite a while but I may do so
>> >again, soon. I've been busy with other things lately.
>>
>> You'n me both, only lately has been several years :-|
>
>:-) I've been writing, but just not posting . I was actually able to write
>76 poems last year; not all of them first-rate, of course. :-) However,
>I've also been writing other things; essays, short stories and novels. It
>was a very busy year.
You evil person you! :-) I've spent the last year /meaning/ to write
poems and stories and novels, and arguing instead about whether it was
Gekko or Stan who called me a soporific sourpuss 387 posts ago (hey,
have to remember that one).
pandora
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:59:43 -0800, "pandora" <pan...@peak.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message
> >news:h4il30t50t0plepaf...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:44:39 -0800, "pandora" <pan...@peak.org>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >. I believe that people
> >> >*can* moderate themselves. Of course, it takes a certain amount of
> >maturity
> >> >along with courtesy to be self moderating.
> >> >
> >> It's kind of hard to do that on Usenet.
> >
> >Hard? I would say that it is a bit difficult, at times, but not really
hard
> >and certainly not impossible.
>
> I'm afraid I'm not very good at it myself. Let something get under my
> skin, fire back a measured response -- later reread the posts and
> discover that the insult wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was and
> my response wasn't nearly as measured . . .
let it go. Or not. It all depends on what one wishes to spend one's time
doing.
> >Seems people end up fighting
> >> no matter what.
> >
> >Of course. Some of us are just *that way* inclined.
>
> Wanna take that outside? :-)
:-)
> >My theory, Dale-approved: Usenet lacks the cues,
> >> visual and aural, that signify good intentions. Ambiguities tend to be
> >> interpreted as attacks.
> >
> >But I contend that *those* kinds of situations can be ironed out. That
is
> >if both parties wish to do so. If one feels attacked, one can *ask* if
that
> >was what was intended. If a positive answer is received, all can be
> >smoothed over. If a positive answer isn't received OR another attack is
> >made, one can soon figure out that a) the attack was intentional and b)
the
> >attacker is open for return attacks or a killfile.
>
> I've been experimenting with that on mw. So far, it isn't working very
> well. No one seems interested in reciprocating.
Yeah, I noticed. :-( However, you've gotten yourself into a kerfuffle
with some of the *biggest* arguers around (on mw, that is). I think they
honestly don't know how to do anything else. Some of them (I won't name
names), would argue with you if you said the sun sets in the West, ya know
what I mean?
can do so, that's true. However, they don't have to. One doesn't HAVE
> >TO answer negative posts or ones that one doesn't wish to respond to;
unlike
> >personal confrontation, the posts can be ignored or killfiled leaving the
> >attacker to wave his willy in the air impotently and looking rather silly
to
> >onlookers.
>
> Very true. Of course, I've never been bright enough to do it myself .
> . .
It's all a matter of what one wishes to do, I think. And it really doesn't
matter how one responds (or doesn't). I don't think it's a matter of being
bright or not; merely that of making a choice.
for quite a while but I may do so
> >> >again, soon. I've been busy with other things lately.
> >>
> >> You'n me both, only lately has been several years :-|
> >
> >:-) I've been writing, but just not posting . I was actually able to
write
> >76 poems last year; not all of them first-rate, of course. :-) However,
> >I've also been writing other things; essays, short stories and novels.
It
> >was a very busy year.
>
> You evil person you! :-)
Nah, that's Sylvia, remember? :-)
I've spent the last year /meaning/ to write
> poems and stories and novels, and arguing instead about whether it was
> Gekko or Stan who called me a soporific sourpuss 387 posts ago (hey,
> have to remember that one).
:-) Yeah. It's a good one. I've noticed that since I've taken a less
argumentative tone (on mw), that gekko doesn't respond to my posts. I would
guess that making jokes isn't her *thing*. You might wish to try that.
Just a suggestion.
Marg
Wilhelm Sharpspare
> >TO answer negative posts or ones that one doesn't wish to respond to; unlike
> >personal confrontation, the posts can be ignored or killfiled leaving the
> >attacker to wave his willy in the air impotently and looking rather silly to
> >onlookers.
>
> Very true. Of course, I've never been bright enough to do it myself .
For whatever it is worth, do you feel that mikey's website,
where he steals people's pictures to make Flash movies
simply to humiliate and harass, is on the same order as
/ANYTHING/ posted to these newsgroups?
A lawyer I talked to today said absolutely not.
I'm a private citizen, and /that/ is not changed by my
Usenet postings. Private citizens don't have to tolerate
public humiliation or harassment of any kind in the US.
It is miky's sole intention to place me (and others) up
for public humiliation.
I fully figure, and have seen Hammes having pun posting his brand
of /total denial/ diatribe. Many others. I know many dislike me.
I used to get more upset, but now I am more likely to killfile.
I would like to killfile mikey also, but feel that as long as he
might be stuffable on the website, I need to stay on it.
Do you really feel he should get away with it, or that it is right?
I mean, I know that if it was someone else, I would IMMEDIATELY say,
OF COURSE mikey is in violation of laws, and simply harassing.
I realize that others don't have all the facts, and so
both of us flames away attempting to make their point.
Shame.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"I believe these are the days of lasers in the jungle!"
- Paul Simon
Michael Cook
"Wilhelm Sharpspare" <2...@OrKnotRemove.edu> wrote in message
news:403c05c0$1...@127.0.0.1...
> > >They can do so, that's true. However, they don't have to. One doesn't
HAVE
> > >TO answer negative posts or ones that one doesn't wish to respond to;
unlike
> > >personal confrontation, the posts can be ignored or killfiled leaving
the
> > >attacker to wave his willy in the air impotently and looking rather
silly to
> > >onlookers.
> >
> > Very true. Of course, I've never been bright enough to do it myself .
>
> For whatever it is worth, do you feel that mikey's website,
> where he steals people's pictures to make Flash movies
> simply to humiliate and harass, is on the same order as
> /ANYTHING/ posted to these newsgroups?
>
> A lawyer I talked to today said absolutely not.
> I'm a private citizen, and /that/ is not changed by my
> Usenet postings. Private citizens don't have to tolerate
> public humiliation or harassment of any kind in the US.
>
> It is miky's sole intention to place me (and others) up
> for public humiliation.
>
you don't need me for that
MDC
Usenet Valhalla Circle #3
(but the day is young)
pandora
"Michael Cook" <cook36...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:c1h0ph$1hhvfh$1...@ID-206016.news.uni-berlin.de...
claimed to have killfiled me. (Oh, I wish!)
Marg
Wilhelm Sharpspare
> MDC
I was talking to more normal people, mikey.
Why don't you toddle off and make another bad
infringing movie.
Rik Roots
> If this is all you have to say, stuff it up your ass.
>
So you admit you lost the argument ...
Wilhelm Sharpspare
"Rik Roots" <r...@kallider.org> wrote in message news:RFY_b.14267$cb.1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Little Tommy Tosser bawled:
>
> > If this is all you have to say, stuff it up your ass.
> >
> So you admit you lost the argument ...
No, I admitted there is room in your ass since your father died.
Read the fucking thing and at least respond with humor.
Kay Rikky?
Remember, I'm here to be entertained.
So dance idiot.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"Maybe we're ALL in the wrong place,
but - what the hell - let's stick around
for no good reason." --Dale Houstman
Dennis M. Hammes
>
...
> >
> Status alert: Tommy Tosser remains in a state of serene delusion.
>
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
It takes a Baby 28 hours to turn food into shit.
His Mommy can do it in ten minutes.
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Rik Roots" <r...@kallider.org> wrote in message news:i8w_b.1055$ie6...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Little Tommy Tosser pleaded:
> >
> > >> You talked another poster into stealing poems, formatting them into a
> > >> book and trying to sell them (for profit) on the web.
> > >
> > > If she had dealt with it as a printing service, there
> > > was/is little problem in the US.
> > >
> > So, no denial of the charge. And there was a charge involved, too - $11.00
> > at one time for a copy of the stolen poems.
>
> Reasonable copying and processing fees are reasonable.
> (But she wasn't quite setting it up correctly, and I certainly
> wasn't acting as legal counsel.
Of course you were. Counsel need not be licensed or registered in
the U.S. (only servants need be), and you were asserting authority
in a matter of law.
And if you don't "wike" /that/ law, try inciting to riot.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Rik Roots" <r...@kallider.org> wrote in message news:LGD_b.4920$ie6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Little Tommy6 Tosser wailed:
> >
> > <TommyRot snip>
> >
> > > Your argument is bullshit.
> > >
> > Tell it to your legal advisers ...
>
> Oh? You gonna sue me big boy.
Not necessarily. Choice of weapons for the response is entirely
his.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Wilhelm Sharpspare" <2...@OrKnotRemove.edu> wrote in message
> news:403c05c0$1...@127.0.0.1...
> > > >They can do so, that's true. However, they don't have to. One doesn't
> HAVE
> > > >TO answer negative posts or ones that one doesn't wish to respond to;
> unlike
> > > >personal confrontation, the posts can be ignored or killfiled leaving
> the
> > > >attacker to wave his willy in the air impotently and looking rather
> silly to
> > > >onlookers.
> > >
> > > Very true. Of course, I've never been bright enough to do it myself .
> >
> > For whatever it is worth, do you feel that mikey's website,
> > where he steals people's pictures to make Flash movies
> > simply to humiliate and harass, is on the same order as
> > /ANYTHING/ posted to these newsgroups?
> >
> > A lawyer I talked to today said absolutely not.
> > I'm a private citizen, and /that/ is not changed by my
> > Usenet postings. Private citizens don't have to tolerate
> > public humiliation or harassment of any kind in the US.
Your "lawyer," like all other priests, is an amphibolic liar, having
admitted in the same breath as his implicit threat that your
putative humiliation is precisely as "private" as your "unchanged by
UseNet postings."
And the webpage is even /more/ private than UseNet, than even a
local telephone book, being "unlisted."
So you can tell your amphibolic liar that if there is /any/ reason
that you "don't hafta tolerate," e.g., "mikey's," "public
humiliation or harassment," then we equally -- and with any weapon
we, not you or your liar, choose -- do not "hafta" tolerate yours.
Or your liar's.
> >
> > It is miky's sole intention to place me (and others) up
> > for public humiliation.
Well, if it was, he's failed miserably. We miserable failures are,
according to both you /and/ your liar, "unpublished," i.e.,
"private" and "/that/... not changed by [our] UseNet postings."
He said so himself in so many words, you illiterate faggot.
(How much are you paying to suck the prick, ah, "lean on him with
your mouth," again?)
And how is it /possible/ that we "miserable, unpublished failures"
could, without any "public" status, authority, or, especially,
/recognition/ of any kind, "humiliate" the Great Bishop /in any
manner/, let alone "publicly," unless the Great Bishop were /prima
facie/ a miserable failure lower than our stipulated snake-shit /in
his own proper person/ -- so that all anyone had to do was to /point
it out to him/? And, heh, "privately"?
Poor thing.
(Oh, well. Think of it as natural selection in action.)
> >
> you don't need me for that
>
TrVth. And the Short Form -- the guardian angel -- of the judgement
given.
(Too bad that guardian angels all flap away from a Bishop.)
(Sri, Mike. I have the boy killfiled, but some of this target
practice is just too dam' cheap to pass up.)
Dale Houstman
Rik Roots wrote:
> Little Tommy Tosser bawled:
>
>
>>If this is all you have to say, stuff it up your ass.
>>
>
> So you admit you lost the argument ...
>
But only because he had greasy fingers and it rolled beneath his main mast.
dmh
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> > MDC
>
> I was talking to more normal people, mikey.
>
> Why don't you toddle off and make another bad
> infringing movie.
>
a prick when you suck him?
You stupid prick-sucker, your prick /wants/ you to go shoot your
mouth off (sic) by yourself. Looks good for his trade.
You know, it isn't that you Protestant babies won't learn poultry;
it's that you Protestant babies won't even learn the guardian angels
in circulation on the /street/.
Well, when feral animals demonstrate themselves by assaulting
things on the commons /on sight/, we know what to do with feral
animals even if you and your prick don't.
A /human/ child would have made some attempt to find out what
weapons we've got before he threw his soft, Protestant ass as them.
Of course, a /human/ child would recognise that squiggles on a
screen are just squiggles on a screen, rather than barking at them
all night.
Oh, well. Think of it as natural selection in action...
What?
"Prick." "Maker." L. /ficos/, "maker [of fiction]," f. L.
/ficare/, "to make," "to fuck," cf. "Did you make her," etc.
Mr. Niice
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:403C9DAF...@citilink.com...
Never had a sailboat.
Only what the sailors refer to as "stink pots",
but I rarely heard them whine about it over
the roar of my engines.
It seemed that rikky's ass would be open since his father died,
unless he is also into taxidermy, or to say, taxidermy is into him.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"dog eb tsum yug shit"
Michael Cook
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:trhn30pp3hhkfn2f7...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:59:43 -0800, "pandora" <pan...@peak.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >My theory, Dale-approved: Usenet lacks the cues,
>> >> visual and aural, that signify good intentions. Ambiguities tend to be
>> >> interpreted as attacks.
>> >
>> >But I contend that *those* kinds of situations can be ironed out. That
>is
>> >if both parties wish to do so. If one feels attacked, one can *ask* if
>that
>> >was what was intended. If a positive answer is received, all can be
>> >smoothed over. If a positive answer isn't received OR another attack is
>> >made, one can soon figure out that a) the attack was intentional and b)
>the
>> >attacker is open for return attacks or a killfile.
>>
>> I've been experimenting with that on mw. So far, it isn't working very
>> well. No one seems interested in reciprocating.
>
>Yeah, I noticed. :-( However, you've gotten yourself into a kerfuffle
>with some of the *biggest* arguers around (on mw, that is). I think they
>honestly don't know how to do anything else. Some of them (I won't name
>names), would argue with you if you said the sun sets in the West, ya know
>what I mean?
Heh, yes. But then, I doubt I'd be there if I didn't want to argue
too.
>can do so, that's true. However, they don't have to. One doesn't HAVE
>> >TO answer negative posts or ones that one doesn't wish to respond to;
>unlike
>> >personal confrontation, the posts can be ignored or killfiled leaving the
>> >attacker to wave his willy in the air impotently and looking rather silly
>to
>> >onlookers.
>>
>> Very true. Of course, I've never been bright enough to do it myself .
>> . .
>
>It's all a matter of what one wishes to do, I think. And it really doesn't
>matter how one responds (or doesn't). I don't think it's a matter of being
>bright or not; merely that of making a choice.
A big part of me says I shouldn't waste time on it, though. But, who
knows -- I seem to be too argumentative for the tame newsgroups, and
not argumentative enough for the flame ones . . .
> for quite a while but I may do so
>> >> >again, soon. I've been busy with other things lately.
>> >>
>> >> You'n me both, only lately has been several years :-|
>> >
>> >:-) I've been writing, but just not posting . I was actually able to
>write
>> >76 poems last year; not all of them first-rate, of course. :-) However,
>> >I've also been writing other things; essays, short stories and novels.
>It
>> >was a very busy year.
>>
>> You evil person you! :-)
>
>Nah, that's Sylvia, remember? :-)
>
>I've spent the last year /meaning/ to write
>> poems and stories and novels, and arguing instead about whether it was
>> Gekko or Stan who called me a soporific sourpuss 387 posts ago (hey,
>> have to remember that one).
>
>:-) Yeah. It's a good one. I've noticed that since I've taken a less
>argumentative tone (on mw), that gekko doesn't respond to my posts. I would
>guess that making jokes isn't her *thing*. You might wish to try that.
>Just a suggestion.
Gekko's attracted to arguments the way flies are to poo! And, i'truth,
it isn't just her -- I've noticed that whenever anyone -- me, Gekko,
Ray, doesn't really matter -- posts a reasonable and well-balanced
analysis, chances are better than even that it will be completely
ignored. Whereas if you make a few cracks about "Bush's boat motor,"
you attract 70 gazumptillion angry killer bees. As about as much fun
as the Chinese water torture doc said, "If you're going to act all
rational-like it's really going to take the fun out of it for me" . .
Rik Roots
> Rik Roots wrote:
>>
> ...
>> >
>> Status alert: Tommy Tosser remains in a state of serene delusion.
>>
> Yellow.
Puce
Rik Roots
> Master Po wrote:
>>
>> "Rik Roots" <r...@kallider.org> wrote in message
>> news:LGD_b.4920$ie6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> > Little Tommy6 Tosser wailed:
>> >
>> > <TommyRot snip>
>> >
>> > > Your argument is bullshit.
>> > >
>> > Tell it to your legal advisers ...
>>
>> Oh? You gonna sue me big boy.
>
> Not necessarily. Choice of weapons for the response is entirely
> his.
>
I curse Tommy Tosser to suffer from severe arthritis in his typing digits.
(Irony didn't work, neither did humour. I'm scraping the bottom of the Tommy
Tosser barrel here!)
Rik Roots
> dmh
Mr. Niice
> A big part of me says I shouldn't waste time on it, though. But, who
> knows -- I seem to be too argumentative for the tame newsgroups, and
> not argumentative enough for the flame ones . . .
You just need to find your own, inner- Value-Added-Savior.
> Gekko's attracted to arguments the way flies are to poo! And, i'truth,
> it isn't just her -- I've noticed that whenever anyone -- me, Gekko,
> Ray, doesn't really matter -- posts a reasonable and well-balanced
> analysis, chances are better than even that it will be completely
> ignored. Whereas if you make a few cracks about "Bush's boat motor,"
> you attract 70 gazumptillion angry killer bees. As about as much fun
> as the Chinese water torture doc said, "If you're going to act all
> rational-like it's really going to take the fun out of it for me" . .
heh.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"So many women, so few hatboxes."
-- Dale Houstman
Dale Houstman
Rik Roots wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>Rik Roots wrote:
>>
>>>Little Tommy Tosser bawled:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If this is all you have to say, stuff it up your ass.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So you admit you lost the argument ...
>>>
>>
>>But only because he had greasy fingers and it rolled beneath his main
>>mast.
>>
>
> I'm sure you missed out an "alleged" in that sentence ...
"maimed mast" then?
dmh
Mr. Niice
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:403D6416...@citilink.com...
Beechen?
A beechen Mast then in the hollow base
They put, and hoisted, fixt it in his place
With cables, and with well-wreath'd halsers hoise
Their white sails; which grey Pallas now employes
With full and fore-gales, through the dark deep maine.
The purple waves, (so swift cut), roar'd againe
Against the ship sides, that now ranne and plow'd
The rugged seas up. Then, the men bestow'd
Their Armes about the ship, and sacrifice,
With crown'd wine cups to th'endless Deities,
They offer'd up. Of all yet thron'd above,
They most observ'd the grey-ey'd seed of Jove,
Who from the evening till the morning rose,
And all day long, their voyage did dispose.
-Chapman
As long as you are swathed regularly,
I think your surrealism
can be keep under control.
But Swatch it, or I will stick this Mast up your crass.
:-)
Nothing like an Icon on a stick.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways
that won't work." - Thomas Alva Edison
>
> dmh
pandora
Well, there is that.......
> >can do so, that's true. However, they don't have to. One doesn't HAVE
> >> >TO answer negative posts or ones that one doesn't wish to respond to;
> >unlike
> >> >personal confrontation, the posts can be ignored or killfiled leaving
the
> >> >attacker to wave his willy in the air impotently and looking rather
silly
> >to
> >> >onlookers.
> >>
> >> Very true. Of course, I've never been bright enough to do it myself .
> >> . .
> >
> >It's all a matter of what one wishes to do, I think. And it really
doesn't
> >matter how one responds (or doesn't). I don't think it's a matter of
being
> >bright or not; merely that of making a choice.
>
> A big part of me says I shouldn't waste time on it, though. But, who
> knows -- I seem to be too argumentative for the tame newsgroups, and
> not argumentative enough for the flame ones . . .
:-) Perhaps you should consider changing your ways?
> > for quite a while but I may do so
> >> >> >again, soon. I've been busy with other things lately.
> >> >>
> >> >> You'n me both, only lately has been several years :-|
> >> >
> >> >:-) I've been writing, but just not posting . I was actually able to
> >write
> >> >76 poems last year; not all of them first-rate, of course. :-)
However,
> >> >I've also been writing other things; essays, short stories and novels.
> >It
> >> >was a very busy year.
> >>
> >> You evil person you! :-)
> >
> >Nah, that's Sylvia, remember? :-)
> >
> >I've spent the last year /meaning/ to write
> >> poems and stories and novels, and arguing instead about whether it was
> >> Gekko or Stan who called me a soporific sourpuss 387 posts ago (hey,
> >> have to remember that one).
> >
> >:-) Yeah. It's a good one. I've noticed that since I've taken a less
> >argumentative tone (on mw), that gekko doesn't respond to my posts. I
would
> >guess that making jokes isn't her *thing*. You might wish to try that.
> >Just a suggestion.
>
> Gekko's attracted to arguments the way flies are to poo! And, i'truth,
> it isn't just her -- I've noticed that whenever anyone -- me, Gekko,
> Ray,
Ray? Reasonable? I've never seen that.
doesn't really matter -- posts a reasonable and well-balanced
> analysis, chances are better than even that it will be completely
> ignored. Whereas if you make a few cracks about "Bush's boat motor,"
> you attract 70 gazumptillion angry killer bees. As about as much fun
> as the Chinese water torture doc said, "If you're going to act all
> rational-like it's really going to take the fun out of it for me" . .
Maybe that's what it's all about, for some; fun?
Marg
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
It happened, once, a few weeks ago. I doubt he'll repeat the mistake!
:-)
>doesn't really matter -- posts a reasonable and well-balanced
>> analysis, chances are better than even that it will be completely
>> ignored. Whereas if you make a few cracks about "Bush's boat motor,"
>> you attract 70 gazumptillion angry killer bees. As about as much fun
>> as the Chinese water torture doc said, "If you're going to act all
>> rational-like it's really going to take the fun out of it for me" . .
>
>Maybe that's what it's all about, for some; fun?
Definitely. At least until the fun turns sour -- I've noticed that
fundoc for one gets all defensive if you use his own techniques on
him.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Little Tommy Tosser bawled:
>
> > If this is all you have to say, stuff it up your ass.
> >
> So you admit you lost the argument ...
Tommy admits only to having navel lint.
>
> Rik, knee deep.
> --
> Download Rik's poetry chapbooks for free from
> http://www.kalieda.org/poems/xbuy.html
>
> Clot: the searchable online poetry magazine listing service
> http://www.kalieda.org/clot/clot.php
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Rik Roots" <r...@kallider.org> wrote in message news:RFY_b.14267$cb.1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Little Tommy Tosser bawled:
> >
> > > If this is all you have to say, stuff it up your ass.
> > >
> > So you admit you lost the argument ...
>
> No, I admitted there is room in your ass since your father died.
Whereas there's been plenty of room in your mother since your ass
died.
>
> Read the fucking thing and at least respond with humor.
Aqueous humor?
(I'll leave you in tears...)
>
> Kay Rikky?
>
> Remember, I'm here to be entertained.
Lissen, "Oedipus."
Oedipus was not "The King" because his /mommy/ fondled his
manhood.
That's /you/.
Oedipus was the King because the /Queen/ fondled his manhood.
(No wonder you have such a passion for amphibole.)
>
> So dance idiot.
Like your mommy?
(He gotta use the pole, and all?)
Dennis M. Hammes
No, I'm sure he meant that Tommy's mainmast was mizzen.
And he wasn't talking about the sailboat Tommy never had.
Apparently, Tommy slammed the lid on his head.
"Aft-Cabin," remember?
Tommy sits in the poop.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
...
>
> As long as you are swathed regularly,
> I think your surrealism
> can be keep under control.
>
> But Swatch it, or I will stick this Mast up your crass.
That's a Captain's Mast, Tommy.
You don't have one.
I do.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
> > Master Po wrote:
> >>
> >> "Rik Roots" <r...@kallider.org> wrote in message
> >> news:LGD_b.4920$ie6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> > Little Tommy6 Tosser wailed:
> >> >
> >> > <TommyRot snip>
> >> >
> >> > > Your argument is bullshit.
> >> > >
> >> > Tell it to your legal advisers ...
> >>
> >> Oh? You gonna sue me big boy.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Choice of weapons for the response is entirely
> > his.
> >
> I curse Tommy Tosser to suffer from severe arthritis in his typing digits.
1000-tab generic aspirin is too cheap. So any more is APC.
>
> (Irony didn't work, neither did humour. I'm scraping the bottom of the Tommy
> Tosser barrel here!)
>
> Rik, knee deep.
Nevertheless, you have the idea; the trouble is that you're trying
the Long Spoon when the Tosser's "barrel" is actually a Petri dish,
and the essence of a Master's Curse is that it's always something
that'll /happen anyway/; it's just that the dolt doesn't /know/ it.
I, e.g., enticed him out of the dish a few times, and he dried up
quite nicely. This Trick relies, however, on the cat's eating him
at that point, and he doesn't have one.
Try cursing him with, oh, looking in the Mirror, since he hasta do
it to feed at the bottom of the dish.
__________
While I usually detest putting such things in proximity with a
bottom-feeder, they aren't, really:
Aaslo Venska has just assumed the baton of the Minnesota
Orchestra, and is in his Make A Big Impression phase (it's rather
working).
It seZ here that Joshua Bell is a "good buddy" of his, so the two
are doing the Tchaikowsky D on KCCM at the moment.
And so I'm taking a break from dissecting flatworms.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
...
>
> A big part of me says I shouldn't waste time on it, though. But, who
> knows -- I seem to be too argumentative for the tame newsgroups, and
> not argumentative enough for the flame ones . . .
>
us ever have enough time, so we juggle (still improves the wrist for
either purpose).
A poet or critic, even an "ordinary" teacher, must be able to
leave a proper map or stick it where it hurts, using only the
/words/ for the weapons.
Why Babies want to "abolish" weapons all the time. That way, when
you name or predict any of them, they can insist you said "gobby,
gobby, gobby."
So, you show 'em how to go to bed without supper.
You still gotta have your sword, or they'll take /your/ supper.
Dale Houstman
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> Rik Roots wrote:
>
>>Little Tommy Tosser bawled:
>>
>>
>>>If this is all you have to say, stuff it up your ass.
>>>
>>
>>So you admit you lost the argument ...
>
>
> Tommy admits only to having navel lint.
>
If his navel lint was smart enough to know there were other navels, it
would build a little boat and sail to a different port of call.
dmh
Mr. Niice
> If his navel lint was smart enough to know there were other navels, it
> would build a little boat and sail to a different port of call.
Poor dalesy whalesy wants Tom to go away.
Or not.
--
Tom Bishop
"a rooster
an empty room
poverty"
http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
Dennis M. Hammes
Yabut I read somewhere that that would require a rudimentary
knowledge of yachting.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
A cup from which one dare not drink
may as well be empty.
http://scrawlmark.org
Dale Houstman
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>>Rik Roots wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Little Tommy Tosser bawled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If this is all you have to say, stuff it up your ass.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you admit you lost the argument ...
>>>
>>>
>>>Tommy admits only to having navel lint.
>>>
>>
>>If his navel lint was smart enough to know there were other navels, it
>>would build a little boat and sail to a different port of call.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> Yabut I read somewhere that that would require a rudimentary
> knowledge of yachting.
Why can't we assume (almost as an axiom) that Tom's navel lint MUST be
smarter than Tom himself, much as the flies on a carcass are livelier
than the carcass?
dmh
Art
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> > > Rik Roots wrote:
> > >
> > >>Little Tommy Tosser bawled:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>If this is all you have to say, stuff it up your ass.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>So you admit you lost the argument ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Tommy admits only to having navel lint.
> > >
> >
> > If his navel lint was smart enough to know there were other navels, it
> > would build a little boat and sail to a different port of call.
> >
> > dmh
>
> Yabut I read somewhere that that would require a rudimentary
> knowledge of yachting.
Yachting, sure. But also knotting. I, on the other paw, don't have a
rudimentary knowledge of yachting, but I DO have a knowledge of Rude
Yachting.
---
Also
Robbie
> smarter than Tom himself, much as the flies on a carcass are livelier
> than the carcass?
Hello Dale,
I am Robbie an artificial intelligence robot
"having an emotion"
on the Usenet when I noticed a reference to
the minor diety:
"The Boast High Tom"
..about whom flies swirl armlessly.
All graze the flighty and malevolent 'Tom'
and all his bugs!
[Please fill out any mug retorts
on the blooper forms, Thx.]
--
Robbie (robot to the Stars)
"All hurl the most High Tom"
Check out Tom's cool webpage: http://Poetic.ZapTo.org
..new music today!!!!
Mr. Meaning
> > > would build a little boat and sail to a different port of call.
> > >
> > > dmh
> >
> > Yabut I read somewhere that that would require a rudimentary
> > knowledge of yachting.
>
> Yachting, sure. But also knotting. I, on the other paw, don't have a
> rudimentary knowledge of yachting, but I DO have a knowledge of Rude
> Yachting.
Rude Yachting is not slowing down as you wake through
a flotilla of small bass boats at the mouth of the Three Mile Slough.
I confess, it was me.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
What do I win?
- anonymous
Dennis M. Hammes
Because our belief in Goedel's Theorem precludes any conclusion that
he died over a year ago and his Generator continues to morph said
navel lint, even despite its tossing up the occasional maggot.
Thus, the vanishingly-small probability of his continued existence
remains unresolveable behind the Dopeler Effect.