Re: All about arrivals / c&c / PJR

[Will Dockery]

On May 13, 5:40 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 5:35 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@patchword.com> wrote:
>
> > All about arrivals
> > ------------------
>
> > /The Waltons/, Darwin, /Pinafore/: we know all

<crap snip>

> > what can they teach us better about our next flight?
>
> > PJR, April/May 2012
>
> no comment.

For once we agree... heh.

--
Music & poetry from Will Dockery & Friends:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 14, 12:23 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 5:40 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 5:35 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@patchword.com> wrote:
>
> > > All about arrivals
> > > ------------------
>
> > > /The Waltons/, Darwin, /Pinafore/: we know all
>
> <crap snip>
>
> > > what can they teach us better about our next flight?
>
> > > PJR, April/May 2012
>
> > no comment.
>
> For once we agree... heh.

no comment.

[Will Dockery]

On May 14, 4:28 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 14, 12:23 am, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On May 13, 5:40 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 5:35 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@patchword.com> wrote:
>
> > > > All about arrivals
> > > > ------------------
>
> > > > /The Waltons/, Darwin, /Pinafore/: we know all
>
> > <crap snip>
>
> > > > what can they teach us better about our next flight?
>
> > > > PJR, April/May 2012
>
> > > no comment.
>
> > For once we agree... heh.
>
> no comment.

Good.

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 14, 5:38 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 4:28 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 12:23 am, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On May 13, 5:40 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 13, 5:35 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@patchword.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > All about arrivals
> > > > > ------------------
>
> > > > > /The Waltons/, Darwin, /Pinafore/: we know all
>
> > > <crap snip>
>
> > > > > what can they teach us better about our next flight?
>
> > > > > PJR, April/May 2012
>
> > > > no comment.
>
> > > For once we agree... heh.
>
> > no comment.
>
> Good.

no comment.

[George Dance]

On May 13, 5:35 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@patchword.com> wrote:
>
>

> I'll be no man's bride
>

Cameron won't legalize it?

[Gwyneth]

On 13/05/12 23:35, Peter J Ross wrote:

Hi Peter,

Sorry to have left it so long before commenting, and not
sure I have much to say that will be of any use, but it's
good to see a poem here that appeals enough to make
me want to comment.
If I've screwed up the formatting, it's because I drafted
this off line.

> All about arrivals
> ------------------
>
> /The Waltons/, Darwin, /Pinafore/: we know all

> about sisters, cousins and aunts, and yet

Although I recognise all three references, I only really
know /of/ them, and what I know of them doesn't seem
to be similar or connected enough to actually establish
a time/place/atmosphere etc. for me. (But see below.)

Coupled with the word "arrivals", and the upcoming
"generations", I am expecting this to have some
connection to births/family/inheritance that I don't
really find in the next two stanzas.

> we teem thick as the termite generations
> we poison with TV retunes and West-End shows:

Don't like the repetition of 'we' at the beginning of the
lines. You're using an inclusive pronoun, but don't feel
I'm onthe same wavelength, so it's unsatisfactory.

> but not social insects only, heirs too fly back.
>
I'm not sure why (or how) we poison termite generations
with TV retunes etc., although that doesn't bother me
too much.

The awkward grammar of that last line does bother me,
though. Would anyone ever actually say that?

> * * *
>
> The engine stutter suggests an old plane,

This line starts to suggest a whole settting of time and
place that is bolstered by the rest of the stanza.

> nothing fancy, seen before heard, forcing
> the family out to shadow our eyes with one hand,
> brush off hot flies with the other, leaving
> no obvious hand free to wave or welcome with.

This sounds good, but I have a suspicion that I would
shade my eyes and brush away the flies with the same hand.
I really can't imagine doing it otherwise, but I guess
that must just be me. (Note I also instinctively use
'shade' and 'brush away' - I know what you're saying,
but our language isn't quite in step.)
I'm not sure "hot flies" is 100% successful for me -
it adds a potentially comic element that is probably
a distraction.

This would make a stronger opening stanza: it has plenty
of mirroring in S3, and would leave your current S1 to
serve as a separator as well as allowing it to suggest
who might be in the plane.
>
> * * *
>
> I'll be no man's bride until a begoggled captain

Again, the "begoggled captain" (though I might prefer "pilot")
reinforces the idea of setting that "The engine stutter [...]"
has triggered.

(I wonder if some of the problem is that you started with
/The Waltons/ which has no associations for me. Having
just read up on IMDB, it seems it might trigger the right
associations for other people. This raises the question of
just how much we can rely on our readers sharing our
cultural references. Perhaps it's worse that I was making
inaccurate associations - I knew enough to think I didn't
need to check for details.)

> tells me it's all about the next, not this flight;
> the engine stutter, the obvious hand,
> our redface sibling or shadow-eyed moralist:

Your compounds and composites are always interesting, but
I'm not convinced about redface / shadow-eyed.
Why not red-faced / shadoweye ?

> what can they teach us better about our next flight?

This is slightly awkward, but perhaps not so much so as
to be distracting.
>

In general, I really like the voice.
One thing about your poems/narrators is how strong and
consistent the voices always are.

I think that's all been more comment than critique,
but for the moment I have nothing more to add.
Thanks for posting.

g.

>
> PJR, April/May 2012

[Gwyneth]

On 23/05/12 21:42, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 23 May 2012 20:39:05 +0200,

> Gwyneth<gwy...@patchword.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13/05/12 23:35, Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>

> Hello Gwyneth!

>
>> Sorry to have left it so long before commenting, and not
>> sure I have much to say that will be of any use, but it's
>> good to see a poem here that appeals enough to make
>> me want to comment.
>

> To some extent, this was an artificial draft, devised to be
> comment-worthy. However, after ten days, you're the first commentor
> who can read a newspaper story without being confused by all the
> complicated disyllables, so it may be time to give up on AAPC.
You've been saying that for years.
So far, neither of us has given up.

> (Is
> that a loud cheer I hear? The boys could cheer even louder if they
> didn't drool at the same time.)
That's the sort of unpleasant image I expect from you.

>
>> If I've screwed up the formatting, it's because I drafted
>> this off line.
>>
>>> All about arrivals
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> /The Waltons/, Darwin, /Pinafore/: we know all
>>> about sisters, cousins and aunts, and yet
>>
>> Although I recognise all three references, I only really
>> know /of/ them, and what I know of them doesn't seem
>> to be similar or connected enough to actually establish
>> a time/place/atmosphere etc. for me. (But see below.)
>

> There are big families in all three.
There's a fairly large family in Pride & Prejudice; certainly
lots of sisters, a number of cousins and a couple of aunts.
The pòint is that I didn't even have a time frame for the Waltons.
>
> I might cut it down to "his sisters and his cousins and his aunts"
> without citing sources.

>
>> Coupled with the word "arrivals", and the upcoming
>> "generations", I am expecting this to have some
>> connection to births/family/inheritance that I don't
>> really find in the next two stanzas.
>

> So the airport setting isn't detectable. OK. That's useful.

Despite the fact I travel quite a bit by plane, 'arrivals'
conjured more trains and maternity wards than anything else.
>
> Births, families and inheritances are meant to be part of it.

>
>>> we teem thick as the termite generations
>>> we poison with TV retunes and West-End shows:
>>
>> Don't like the repetition of 'we' at the beginning of the
>> lines. You're using an inclusive pronoun, but don't feel
>> I'm onthe same wavelength, so it's unsatisfactory.
>

> Agreed.

>
>>> but not social insects only, heirs too fly back.
>>>
>> I'm not sure why (or how) we poison termite generations
>> with TV retunes etc., although that doesn't bother me
>> too much.
>>
>> The awkward grammar of that last line does bother me,
>> though. Would anyone ever actually say that?
>

> I can speak it in a way that clarifies what I mean, but you're right
> that it doesn't work on the page.

Oh I can make sense of it, but it's unnatural.

>
>>> * * *
>>>
>>> The engine stutter suggests an old plane,
>>
>> This line starts to suggest a whole settting of time and
>> place that is bolstered by the rest of the stanza.
>

> Good.

>
>>> nothing fancy, seen before heard, forcing
>>> the family out to shadow our eyes with one hand,
>>> brush off hot flies with the other, leaving
>>> no obvious hand free to wave or welcome with.
>>
>> This sounds good, but I have a suspicion that I would
>> shade my eyes and brush away the flies with the same hand.
>> I really can't imagine doing it otherwise, but I guess
>> that must just be me.
>

> The only good idea in this "poem" is the three-hands joke, so if that
> doesn't work it's bonfire time.

I don't agree. And I think three hands has become too firmly
associated with Zaphod to be particularly useful.

>
>> (Note I also instinctively use
>> 'shade' and 'brush away' - I know what you're saying,
>> but our language isn't quite in step.)
>

> I prefer "shadow" to "shade" because an image is involved.
>
> I think you're right about "brush off".

>
>> I'm not sure "hot flies" is 100% successful for me -
>> it adds a potentially comic element that is probably
>> a distraction.
>

> I've been watching an old documentary about a friend of mine who lived
> in Kenya before I met him. There's a scene in which he's sitting on
> his porch, dormant and immobile except when his hand flicks up to
> chase away a fly. That's the kind of thing I wish I could convert
> into poetry.

>
>> This would make a stronger opening stanza: it has plenty
>> of mirroring in S3, and would leave your current S1 to
>> serve as a separator as well as allowing it to suggest
>> who might be in the plane.
>

> OK.

>
>>>
>>> * * *
>>>
>>> I'll be no man's bride until a begoggled captain
>>
>> Again, the "begoggled captain" (though I might prefer "pilot")
>

> All pilots are begoggled. It would be redundant.

They don't wear goggles these days, so it helps fix a time.
But certainly "begoggled captain" sounds better.

>
>> reinforces the idea of setting that "The engine stutter [...]"
>> has triggered.
>>
>> (I wonder if some of the problem is that you started with
>> /The Waltons/ which has no associations for me.
>

> You could watch an episode or two, but my idea was that everybody
> knows that /The Waltons/ is about a large family.

Never assume 'everybody knows'. I think I had it mixed up with
/The High Chaparral/, /Anne of Green Gables/ and the /Little
House on the Prairie/, the only one of which I know (knew?)
anything about is /The High Chaparral/.

>
>> Having
>> just read up on IMDB, it seems it might trigger the right
>> associations for other people. This raises the question of
>> just how much we can rely on our readers sharing our
>> cultural references.
>

> For purposes of comment and critique, you can be (and indeed have
> been) helpful just by Googling the references, but I wanted to try to
> include a reference that wouldn't need to be looked up.

The little I knew wasn't enough. But I expect it's an age
and location thing.

>
>> Perhaps it's worse that I was making
>> inaccurate associations - I knew enough to think I didn't
>> need to check for details.)
>

> Hector of Troy had numerous sisters, cousins and aunts, so perhaps he
> ought to be in the poem instead of these ephemera.

I wouldn't have associated him with a big family. But I would
have known that I might find it useful to read a little more
about him. I doubt, though, that his large family would have
been what I found if I'd look him up.

>
>>> tells me it's all about the next, not this flight;
>>> the engine stutter, the obvious hand,
>>> our redface sibling or shadow-eyed moralist:
>>
>> Your compounds and composites are always interesting, but
>> I'm not convinced about redface / shadow-eyed.
>> Why not red-faced / shadoweye ?
>

> Euphony. Too many consonants in "redfaced siblings", not enough
> consonants in "shadoweye moralists".

I like "shadoweye" as it sounds sufficiently like "shadowy"
to make me think such a person is not to be trusted.

>
>>> what can they teach us better about our next flight?
>> This is slightly awkward, but perhaps not so much so as
>> to be distracting.
>

> I expect my writing of English to range from adequate to impressive,
> so there's something wrong if it becomes awkwark.

Worry more if it becomes an aardvark. (yes, I'm having
trouble with my glasses again!)
Seriously, it doesn't sound like anything any normal
person might say, although the sentiment makes sense.

>
>> In general, I really like the voice.
>> One thing about your poems/narrators is how strong and
>> consistent the voices always are.
>

> Thank you.
>
> Tell me that they're also varied, and I'll be the happiest writer
> alive.
OK: The voices you use are varied. I wish I knew
how you did it.

> Variety is what I aim for. If you don't like this poem, the
> next one is likely to be about as different from it as is humanly
> possible.

I look forward to reading it.
Which is not to say I disliked this.

g.

>
>> I think that's all been more comment than critique,
>> but for the moment I have nothing more to add.
>> Thanks for posting.
>

> Thanks for commenting.


>

[Hieronymous 707]

A little bird told me to do a reading for you, G. A she bird of power
dice. Jan spillered the beans. See anew. Cute Moon there, Sweetheart.
You've lost. Wait, I didn't know you were into that scene? You
should've said something sooner. Noni says hi? Who's Noni?

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> it may be time to give up on AAPC.

That would make, like, the 11th or 12th time you've left a.a.p.c. in a
huff, wouldn't it?

[Fred Hall]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:42:50 -0700 (PDT), Hieronymous 707
<hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in
<5d19c909-f557-4df7...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>:

>On May 23, 3:42 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 23 May 2012 20:39:05 +0200,
>>

>> Gwyneth <gwyn...@patchword.com> wrote:
>> > On 13/05/12 23:35, Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Peter,
>>

>> Hello Gwyneth!

>>
>> > Sorry to have left it so long before commenting, and not
>> > sure I have much to say that will be of any use, but it's
>> > good to see a poem here that appeals enough to make
>> > me want to comment.
>>

>> To some extent, this was an artificial draft, devised to be
>> comment-worthy. However, after ten days, you're the first commentor
>> who can read a newspaper story without being confused by all the

>> complicated disyllables, so it may be time to give up on AAPC.
>
>
>LOL. Don't you just love how really, really white people talk to each
>other?

That's it? You have no C & C pertaining to PJR's poem? I am
disappointed.

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 24, 12:21 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:

> in a
> huff

No comment

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 24, 2:06 am, Fred Hall <fkh...@databasix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:42:50 -0700 (PDT), Hieronymous 707

> <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <5d19c909-f557-4df7-88b2-aaecfef8d...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 23, 3:42 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 23 May 2012 20:39:05 +0200,
>
> >> Gwyneth <gwyn...@patchword.com> wrote:
> >> > On 13/05/12 23:35, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> >> > Hi Peter,
>
> >> Hello Gwyneth!
>
> >> > Sorry to have left it so long before commenting, and not
> >> > sure I have much to say that will be of any use, but it's
> >> > good to see a poem here that appeals enough to make
> >> > me want to comment.
>
> >> To some extent, this was an artificial draft, devised to be
> >> comment-worthy. However, after ten days, you're the first commentor
> >> who can read a newspaper story without being confused by all the
> >> complicated disyllables, so it may be time to give up on AAPC.
>
> >LOL. Don't you just love how really, really white people talk to each
> >other?
>
> That's it?  You have no C & C pertaining to PJR's poem?  I am
> disappointed.

LOL. If you weren't so white you wouldn't be so disappointed. Thanks
for posting. I've missed you this week.

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 13, 5:40 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 13, 5:35 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@patchword.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > All about arrivals
> > ------------------
>
> > /The Waltons/, Darwin, /Pinafore/: we know all
> > about sisters, cousins and aunts, and yet

> > we teem thick as the termite generations
> > we poison with TV retunes and West-End shows:

> > but not social insects only, heirs too fly back.
>

> >    *   *   *
>
> > The engine stutter suggests an old plane,

> > nothing fancy, seen before heard, forcing
> > the family out to shadow our eyes with one hand,
> > brush off hot flies with the other, leaving
> > no obvious hand free to wave or welcome with.
>

> >    *   *   *
>
> > I'll be no man's bride until a begoggled captain

> > tells me it's all about the next, not this flight;
> > the engine stutter, the obvious hand,
> > our redface sibling or shadow-eyed moralist:

> > what can they teach us better about our next flight?
>

[Fred Hall]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 01:45:41 -0700 (PDT), Hieronymous 707
<hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in
<6c343c9d-4c20-49e6...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>:

No comment

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 24, 6:48 pm, Fred Hall <fkh...@databasix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 01:45:41 -0700 (PDT), Hieronymous 707

> <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <6c343c9d-4c20-49e6-a740-f74273dd1...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>:

> No comment- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah, me neither either.

[Will Dockery]

On May 24, 4:36 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > in a
> > huff
>
> No comment

Yeah, me neither either.

[Hieronymous 707]

Yeah, that's original.

[Will Dockery]

And boring... consider the source.

--
Music & poetry from Will Dockery:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[Ilya Shambat]

Hieronymous, you're back? Good to see you back. I liked your work.

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 26, 1:23 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 6:33 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 5:14 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 4:36 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > in a
> > > > > huff
>
> > > > No comment
>
> > > Yeah, me neither either.
>
> > Yeah, that's original.
>
> And boring... consider the source.

I guess that makes me the boring original source and you the
considerate plagiarist.

[Hieronymous 707]

Thanks. I write a blog.
www.hieronymous707.blogspot.com

[George Dance]

Back? When was he ever gone?

[Hieronymous 707]

I think he's talking about rap where I used to post regularly before
switching to aapc. Since this was crossposted, that's probably where
he read it.

[George Dance]

Oh? What are you claiming that he plagiarised?

[George Dance]

> www.hieronymous7O7.blogspot.com

Really? You write a blog?

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 26, 11:57 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Really? You write a blog?

LOL. At least I blast your blog posts out to my limited network. I
give you +1s, and Tweets, and FB posts. Some friend you turned out to
be. LOL.

[Hieronymous 707]

Nothing really. He stole my joke is all. I recently responded to "Fred
Hall" with the exact same comment. Will was just imitating me back to
myself, like when "Fred" started copying my "no comment" comments. I'm
flattered. It's all good. By the way, I need your frickin address
again if you don't mind. I tend to delete them after I use them out of
habit, and my memory for such things really sucks. Anyway, I need it
because I want to send you something for Maureen and Holly. Somebody
recently made a sizable donation to Hieronymous House, but one of the
stipulations was to give out Angel's pieces to whoever wants one and
gives a proper mailing address. You'd be doing me a big big favor, and
I promise they'll love the jewelry. Anyway, thanks in advance.

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 26, 12:34 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 25 May 2012 22:53:39 -0700 (PDT),

>
> Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hieronymous, you're back? Good to see you back. I liked your work.
>

> Does this mean you're going to show Hignoramous your dick, Flasherboi?

I've seen your Peter. Why not his? It's like turn your head and cough,
no big deal but essential.

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 26, 12:33 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 24 May 2012 01:06:43 -0500, Fred

>
> Hall <fkh...@databasix.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:42:50 -0700 (PDT), Hieronymous 707

> > <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > <5d19c909-f557-4df7-88b2-aaecfef8d...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>:

>
> >>LOL. Don't you just love how really, really white people talk to each
> >>other?
>
> > That's it?  You have no C & C pertaining to PJR's poem?  I am
> > disappointed.
>

> I'm not. I've read some of his previous attempts.

I'm flattered. I didn't think you paid me any mind whatever, much
less my pitiful attempts at C & C of your masterpieces. At least
you're not disappointed. That's the important thing.

[George Dance]

On May 24, 2:06 am, Fred Hall <fkh...@databasix.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:42:50 -0700 (PDT), Hieronymous 707

> <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <5d19c909-f557-4df7-88b2-aaecfef8d...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 23, 3:42 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 23 May 2012 20:39:05 +0200,
>
> >> Gwyneth <gwyn...@patchword.com> wrote:
> >> > On 13/05/12 23:35, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> >> > Hi Peter,
>
> >> Hello Gwyneth!
>
> >> > Sorry to have left it so long before commenting, and not
> >> > sure I have much to say that will be of any use, but it's
> >> > good to see a poem here that appeals enough to make
> >> > me want to comment.
>
> >> To some extent, this was an artificial draft, devised to be
> >> comment-worthy. However, after ten days, you're the first commentor
> >> who can read a newspaper story without being confused by all the
> >> complicated disyllables, so it may be time to give up on AAPC.
>
> >LOL. Don't you just love how really, really white people talk to each
> >other?
>
> That's it?  You have no C & C pertaining to PJR's poem?

Considering that PJ is no more receptive to criticism than, for
example, Gwyneth, it's probably for the best. C&C is useful only for
those who want to write better.

> I am
> disappointed.

[George Dance]

On May 26, 12:33 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 24 May 2012 01:06:43 -0500, Fred
>
> Hall <fkh...@databasix.com> wrote:

> > On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:42:50 -0700 (PDT), Hieronymous 707

> > <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > <5d19c909-f557-4df7-88b2-aaecfef8d...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>:

>
> >>LOL. Don't you just love how really, really white people talk to each
> >>other?
>
> > That's it?  You have no C & C pertaining to PJR's poem?  I am
> > disappointed.
>

> I'm not.

Of course you're not. As I explained to Freddy, C&C is useful only for
those who wish to improve their writing.

[George Dance]

On May 26, 12:00 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 11:57 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 1:53 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Hieronymous, you're back? Good to see you back. I liked your work.
>
> > Back? When was he ever gone?
>
> I think he's talking about

Who cares what you think? I asked him.

[George Dance]

On May 26, 12:35 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 11:59 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 1:47 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 1:23 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 25, 6:33 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 25, 5:14 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 24, 4:36 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > huff
>
> > > > > > > No comment
>

> > > > > > Yeah,me neither either.

>
> > > > > Yeah, that's original.
>
> > > > And boring... consider the source.
>
> > > I guess that makes me the boring original source and you the
> > > considerate plagiarist.
>
> > Oh? What are you claiming that he plagiarised?
>
> Nothing really. He stole my joke is all. I recently responded to "Fred
> Hall" with the exact same comment.

WTF? You're claiming that you coined the phrase "me neither either"?
That you've somehow trademarked it? That sounds like a Gary Gamble-
type delusion.

You know, I think you just like to call other people on the group
plagiarists, just as you like to call them liars, just as you like to
snip their poetry.

[Hieronymous 707]

That's a frickin great question for a writer, George! That's exactly
what I ask myself every time I post. LOL.

[Hieronymous 707]

> snip their poetry.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Please read carefully. I never claimed coinage. I am claiming context.
If you insist on thinking, please try to think clearly. You'll be
doing us both a favor.

[George Dance]

On May 27, 11:06 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 10:26 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 12:35 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 11:59 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 26, 1:47 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 26, 1:23 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 25, 6:33 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 25, 5:14 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 24, 4:36 am, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > > huff
>
> > > > > > > > > No comment
>
> > > > > > > > Yeah,me neither either.
>
> > > > > > > Yeah, that's original.
>
> > > > > > And boring... consider the source.
>
> > > > > I guess that makes me the boring original source and you the
> > > > > considerate plagiarist.
>
> > > > Oh? What are you claiming that he plagiarised?
>
> > > Nothing really. He stole my joke is all. I recently responded to "Fred
> > > Hall" with the exact same comment.
>
> > WTF? You're claiming that you coined the phrase "me neither either"?
> > That you've somehow trademarked it? That sounds like a Gary Gamble-
> > type delusion.
>

- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Please read carefully. I never claimed coinage. I am claiming context.

You claimed to be the "original source" and you claimed "plagiarism".
If you didn't coin the phrase, then you're not the original source, no
are you being plagiarized. In order to claim the last, you have to
claim the first two.

> If you insist on thinking, please try to think clearly. You'll be
> doing us both a favor.

What part of my thought was unclear: "I think you just like to call

other people on the group plagiarists, just as you like to call them

liars, just as you like to snip their poetry."?

[Will Dockery]

On May 26, 12:34 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 25 May 2012 22:53:39 -0700 (PDT),
>
> Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hieronymous, you're back? Good to see you back. I liked your work.
>

> Does this mean you're going to show Hignoramous your dick

PJR's homoerotic fantasy is noted,,, again.

--
Gone Too Far / Will Dockery Project:
http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_11596860

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 27, 2:22 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> What part of my thought was unclear: "I think you just like to call
> other people on the group plagiarists, just as you like to call them
> liars, just as you like to snip their poetry."?

What the heck are you arguing about, and why? Why do you present not
only as curmudgeonly, but as snidely disagreeable for the sake of
being disagreeable? No offense intended, seriously. That's just how
you come across, and I really thought we were kind of friends. There
appears to be no humor in you and no capacity for self-deprication
which affects how people perceive your commentary.

[Will Dockery]

Basically, George doesn't like being falsely accused of plagiarism,
which is what PJR & others tried to smear him with... did you miss all
that discussion a while back?

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 27, 3:09 pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 12:34 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 25 May 2012 22:53:39 -0700 (PDT),
>
> > Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hieronymous, you're back? Good to see you back. I liked your work.
>
> > Does this mean you're going to show Hignoramous your dick
>
> PJR's homoerotic fantasy is noted,,, again.

There are tits and dicks and pussies all around my pool right now,
naked and shameless as the day they were born. I can't tell you what
all they're thinking, but it's probably mostly food. BBQ. Nobody is
having sex. There are no hard cocks, or dripping wet pussies. Get over
your homoerotic fantasy self.

[Hieronymous 707]

Of course I know what went on, but nobody asked me to be the judge so
basically George's business with PJR is none of my business. I think
of and address them each through my experiences with them, not my
perceptions of how they deal with each other. What George doesn't like
is being an inferior writer to PJR. He's inferior because he doesn't
love writing as much as PJR does, and doesn't revel in each
opportunity. He struggles with words much like you do. Don't get me
wrong. I'm not putting him or you down at all. In many respects,
George is a much more talented thinker than PJR. He just doesn't enjoy
himself as a writer nearly as much. George would be much happier as a
publisher than a writer. Just as you are far more happy on stage than
online. PJR is a polemic, an instigator, and poker of fun. When George
tries to do the same thing it just comes off as nasty and snide. I
know George the person is not as nasty and snide as his words portray
him, so I know his struggle in terms of presenting himself clearly
just as I understand yours.

[Mike Duffy]

Hieronymous 707 <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in news:950ac83f-c3d0-
4c81-a56a-9...@x10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

> I know George the person is not as nasty and snide as his words portray
> him, so I know his struggle in terms of presenting himself clearly
> just as I understand yours.

You did say Will is a nice guy when you meet him, despite how he posts.

So I guess the same could be true about George.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[Will Dockery]

On May 27, 3:42 pm, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig>
wrote:
> Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in news:950ac83f-c3d0-
> 4c81-a56a-98866927d...@x10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

>
> > I know George the person is not as nasty and snide as his words portray
> > him, so I know his struggle in terms of presenting himself clearly
> > just as I understand yours.
>
> You did say Will is a nice guy when you meet him, despite how he posts.
>
> So I guess the same could be true about George.

And, interestingly, Corey also fits in that same position, since when
I met him in person last year he never showed the nasty, snide side
that he constantly displays here, for example:

Hieronymous 707 wrote:
>
> I know George the person is not as nasty and snide as his words portray him

Very similar to the problems you have here with your posts that come
off nasty and snide, such as the example I reposted earlier:

On May 26, 1:54 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 1:41 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On May 26, 1:27 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On May 26, 1:22 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Pluck off
>
> > I didn't realize that seeing poetry on this group upset you so much,
> > Hi. Here, since it bothered you that much, let me repost it:
>
> You're lying about what you did and didn't realize. You're a liar,
> right there, liar liar liar. You know it. I know it. Anybody who can
> read knows it. You're a liar, George.

HTH & HAND.

--
Gone Too Far / Will Dockery Project:
http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_11596860

> --http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 27, 3:42 pm, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig>
wrote:

> Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in news:950ac83f-c3d0-
> 4c81-a56a-98866927d...@x10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

>
> > I know George the person is not as nasty and snide as his words portray
> > him, so I know his struggle in terms of presenting himself clearly
> > just as I understand yours.
>
> You did say Will is a nice guy when you meet him, despite how he posts.
>
> So I guess the same could be true about George.

Yes, absolutely. I presume George to be a conscientious, hard working
family man. He's generally a fairly organized thinker but tends to
self doubt rather than self-depricating humor. The result produces an
internal stress that he has difficulty expressing without sounding
angry and unpleasant.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous 707 wrote:
>
> I know George the person is not as nasty and snide as his words portray him

Very similar to the problems you have here with your posts that come
off nasty and snide, such as the example I reposted earlier:

On May 26, 1:54 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 1:41 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On May 26, 1:27 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On May 26, 1:22 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Pluck off
>
> > I didn't realize that seeing poetry on this group upset you so much,
> > Hi. Here, since it bothered you that much, let me repost it:
>
> You're lying about what you did and didn't realize. You're a liar,
> right there, liar liar liar. You know it. I know it. Anybody who can
> read knows it. You're a liar, George.

HTH & HAND.

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 27, 3:49 pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 3:42 pm, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig>
> wrote:
>
> > Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in news:950ac83f-c3d0-
> > 4c81-a56a-98866927d...@x10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > I know George the person is not as nasty and snide as his words portray
> > > him, so I know his struggle in terms of presenting himself clearly
> > > just as I understand yours.
>
> > You did say Will is a nice guy when you meet him, despite how he posts.
>
> > So I guess the same could be true about George.
>
> And, interestingly, Corey also fits in that same position, since when
> I met him in person last year he never showed the nasty, snide side
> that he constantly displays here, for example:
>
> Hieronymous 707 wrote:
>
> > I know George the person is not as nasty and snide as his words portray him
>
> Very similar to the problems you have here with your posts that come
> off nasty and snide, such as the example I reposted earlier:

> On May 26, 1:41 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> On May 26, 1:27 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On May 26, 1:22 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Pluck off
>
> > > I didn't realize that seeing poetry on this group upset you so much,
> > > Hi. Here, since it bothered you that much, let me repost it:
>
> > You're lying about what you did and didn't realize. You're a liar,
> > right there, liar liar liar. You know it. I know it. Anybody who can
> > read knows it. You're a liar, George.
>
> HTH & HAND.
>
> --
> Gone Too Far / Will Dockery Project:http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_11596860
>
>
>

> > --http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm- Hide quoted text -

> On May 26, 1:54 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >

> - Show quoted text -

Are you having fun arguing about

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 27, 3:44 pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pluck off
HTH & HAND.
LOL.

[Will Dockery]

On May 27, 4:17 pm, Hieronymous 707 wrote:
>
> Pluck off
> HTH & HAND.
> LOL.

Okay, just remember you were unable to explain the following:

Hieronymous 707 wrote:
>
> That's not what I said at all. I called you a liar because you [George Dance] lied.

Can you explain where you think George was lying?

I ask you to explain because it isn't clear anywhere on this thread
that George ever lied. Either you can explain yourself or not... if
not, then you did falsely accuse George of lying.

Simple enough for you, Corey?

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> Nice guys don't plagiarise.

Nice guys don't falsely accuse others of plagiarism without proof.

But nobody ever accused you of being a "nice guy" did they, PJR?

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous 707" wrote:
>
> There are tits and dicks and pussies all around my pool right now,
> naked and shameless as the day they were born. I can't tell you what
> all they're thinking, but it's probably mostly food. BBQ. Nobody is
> having sex. There are no hard cocks, or dripping wet pussies.

Sounds like a heck of a party there, pal.

[Hieronymous 707]

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 27, 5:12 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Hieronymous 707" wrote:
>
> > There are tits and dicks and pussies all around my pool right now,
> > naked and shameless as the day they were born. I can't tell you what
> > all they're thinking, but it's probably mostly food. BBQ. Nobody is
> > having sex. There are no hard cocks, or dripping wet pussies.
>
> Sounds like a heck of a party there, pal.

Average weekend around here.

[Will Dockery]

George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess that makes me the boring original source and you the
> > considerate plagiarist.
>
> Oh? What are you claiming that he plagiarised?

Corey's parroting PJR now, apparently.

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 27, 6:40 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I guess that makes me the boring original source and you the
> > > considerate plagiarist.
>
> > Oh? What are you claiming that he plagiarised?
>
> Corey's parroting PJR now, apparently.

C'mon. I don't parrot. You know that. But you did, technically,
plagiarize. There is no particular connotation suggested other than
that which you apply. I'm not saying you did a 'bad' thing, but you
did repeat exactly what I'd written previously, on purpose. I was the
source of your comment. The concept of plagiarism has been bandied
about here like a soccer ball for years with all it's evilness applied
by the bucket load. If you don't think you did anything wrong, you
didn't do anything wrong until somebody can prove you did something
wrong in an open and fair hearing of the facts, which is not and
cannot be here, ever. Plagiarism is just a word. I've been called a
plagiarist too for crying out loud. I just tell people if you don't
like what I write, don't read what I write. If you want to call me
something, use the telephone. If you need me to write something for
you, let's discuss particulars.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous 707 wrote:
>
> C'mon. I don't parrot. You know that. But you did, technically,
> plagiarize. There is no particular connotation suggested other than
> that which you apply. I'm not saying you did a 'bad' thing, but you
> did repeat exactly what I'd written previously, on purpose. I was the
> source of your comment. The concept of plagiarism has been bandied
> about here like a soccer ball for years with all it's evilness applied
> by the bucket load. If you don't think you did anything wrong, you
> didn't do anything wrong until somebody can prove you did something
> wrong in an open and fair hearing of the facts, which is not and
> cannot be here, ever. Plagiarism is just a word. I've been called a
> plagiarist too for crying out loud. I just tell people if you don't
> like what I write, don't read what I write. If you want to call me
> something, use the telephone. If you need me to write something for
> you, let's discuss particulars.

Maybe you've been out in the sun too long?

[George Dance]

Oh, I'm sure he not only remembers it, but he's studied it and has
taken notes. Looking back over his behaviour over the past few months
(which I've spent the weekend doing) it's clear to me that in all all
of it -- from the poetry snipping to the character assassination --
~PJ~ and ggary are his role models. He's even managed to produce a
"Cheerleader" (Bob) to fill in for Slythera, Gwythera, and Karlythera
(and Rickety Rooster, of course).

Of course it's silly -- the SP were a clique that had entrenched
itself on trap for a decade, while Hi is just one guy -- but there
you have it. It reminds me of Marx's dictum about history repeating
itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

[George Dance]

On May 27, 6:40 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I guess that makes me the boring original source and you the
> > > considerate plagiarist.
>
> > Oh? What are you claiming that he plagiarised?
>
> Corey's parroting PJR now, apparently.
>

Hmm ... I just finished writing something along those lines, upthread,
before I saw this. My thought is that he's trying the same thing. But
that does sound snide and nasty, so let me add here that I think the
basic problem is institutional, not personal. Open groups like this
are power vacuums, and power abhors a vacuum; the only alternative
I've seen to open warfare (where different cliques try to drive
everyone else away and control the group) is the false 'peace' that
comes where one clique has driven everyone else away and controls the
group (that's still a state of war, of course -- constant war between
the clique and any non-clique people who show up -- but in the main
it's peaceful because in the main it's only the clique that posts).
Even moderated groups aren't immune -- in those cases the moderator
and his pals are the clique, and that's all she wrote.

The only workable alternative I've seen to clique-war or clique-rule
is the type of group where the moderator doesn't post and isn't
involved with anyone who does, but I've seen that on only one group
(humanities.philosophy.objectivism) and with only one moderator (Tim
Skirvin).

[George Dance]

On May 27, 5:00 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 27 May 2012 19:42:26 +0000 (UTC),
> Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig> wrote:
> > Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in news:950ac83f-c3d0-
> > 4c81-a56a-98866927d...@x10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

>
> >> I know George the person is not as nasty and snide as his words portray
> >> him, so I know his struggle in terms of presenting himself clearly
> >> just as I understand yours.
>
> > You did say Will is a nice guy when you meet him, despite how he posts.
>
> > So I guess the same could be true about George.
>

> Nice guys don't plagiarise. Dreckery and Dunce are vermin.
>

Thank you for showing Mike exactly what I've been talking about, ~PJ~.

[Will Dockery]

On May 27, 7:40 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On May 27, 3:19 pm, Will Dockery wrote:

>> On May 27, 3:12 pm, Hieronymous 707 wrote:
> > On May 27, 2:22 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > What part of my thought was unclear: "I think you just like to call
> > > > other people on the group plagiarists, just as you like to call them
> > > > liars, just as you like to snip their poetry."?
>
> > > What the heck are you arguing about, and why? Why do you present not
> > > only as curmudgeonly, but as snidely disagreeable for the sake of
> > > being disagreeable? No offense intended, seriously. That's just how
> > > you come across, and I really thought we were kind of friends. There
> > > appears to be no humor in you and no capacity for self-deprication
> > > which affects how people perceive your commentary.
>
> > Basically, George doesn't like being falsely accused of plagiarism,
> > which is what PJR & others tried to smear him with... did you miss all
> > that discussion a while back?
>
> Oh, I'm sure he not only remembers it, but he's studied it and has
> taken notes. Looking back over his behaviour over the past few months
> (which I've spent the weekend doing) it's clear to me that in all all
> of it -- from the poetry snipping to the character assassination --
> ~PJ~ and ggary are his role models.

Unfortunately, he comes across somewhere between the levels of Tom
Bishop & Barbara's Cat... heh.

He's even managed to produce a
> "Cheerleader" (Bob) to fill in for Slythera, Gwythera, and Karlythera
> (and Rickety Rooster, of course).
>
> Of course it's silly -- the SP were a clique that had entrenched
> itself on trap for a decade,  while Hi is just one guy -- but there
> you have it. It reminds me of Marx's dictum about history repeating
> itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

Pathetic, but he may have found his niche... hope he snaps out of it
soon.

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 27, 7:57 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On May 27, 6:40 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I guess that makes me the boring original source and you the
> > > > considerate plagiarist.
>
> > > Oh? What are you claiming that he plagiarised?
>
> > Corey's parroting PJR now, apparently.
>
> Hmm ... I just finished writing something along those lines, upthread,
> before I saw this. My thought is that he's trying the same thing. But
> that does sound snide and nasty, so let me add here that I think the
> basic problem is institutional, not personal.

George, I made a personal overture to you to which you responded
personally in email. I was as genuine with you then as I am now and
have been in every communication between us today. I'm a writer who
enjoys helping other writers write better. Either I can't identify
exactly what the problem is because I'm too obtuse to know my own
feelings, or the problem is somehow generic to you. In any event, the
problem between you and I is very personal and should be resolved if
you'd like to maintain any type of correspondent relationship.
Otherwise I'd just as soon we go our separate ways. We really needn't
read or respond to one another at all.

[Will Dockery]

On May 27, 9:24 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 7:57 pm, George Dance wrote:

Good, this shows promise that perhaps soon we can get back to working
together here...

[Will Dockery]

On May 27, 7:40 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Of course it's silly -- the SP were a clique that had entrenched
> itself on trap for a decade

Amazing to stand back and realize that all that is over, but it really
seems to be over, this time.

Or... is it?

Reminds me of a post made years ago by Michael Cook. Someone asked
him:

"Whatever happened to [here the SP clique]..?"

Cook replied:

"I did."

Here's to the new era of Usenet Poetry... all we need are some poets.

[Hieronymous 707]

Together, no. I'll be here in the group, but you and George do your
own thing, and good luck to you both. I won't criticize or comment or
correct or offend or even respond to either of you. Carry on. Be cool.
Have a good Memorial Day and whatever after that.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, then... that's your choice, then so be it.

[George Dance]

On May 27, 9:24 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:

What? You mean I don't get to snip your poems, or mangle your links,
or intervene in your conversations with others, or all the other neat
things you've been doing to me lately ? Well, OK, then; though I'd
look at it as a simple cooling off period rather than severing
relations. If you want to ignore me, then I'll most likely just ignore
you, too. I don't want to get or give any commitments along those
lines, though, for a couple of simple reasons: (1) For all we know,
there could be several opportunities for positive communication over
the next weeks or months, and I don't want to rule out the chance of
any of that happening a priori; (2) conversely, you could just want me
neutralized so you can turn your attention to another target (the same
as if you had actually driven me off the group), and I don't think I'd
want to sit on the sidelines if I saw that happening. Except for those
two caveats, though, I'd say your idea sounds fine with me, at least
for the short term.

[Will Dockery]

On May 28, 12:53 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On May 27, 9:24 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 27, 7:57 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Okay, I see what Corey means here... he doesn't want to actually leave
the group, he wants more of the "pretend killfile" his mentors like
ggamble often try.

Like you, I'll comment when the time is right, or I have a comment,
and I welcome c & c, as always.

Although the silly "no comment" crap he's been snipping content and
posting will certainly not be missed... heh.

[Mike Duffy]

Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:6298a0f5-e5e0-4e1c-
93dd-554...@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> Here's to the new era of Usenet Poetry
> ... all we need are some poets.

I thought you'd never ask.


Improper use of this medium,
Degenerates fast into tedium.
The name-calling game,
It puts us to shame,
When truly of poems in need I am.

Cory and Will exchange shots,
Consisting of single-line jots,
Please, someone describe,
To them how to jibe,
Before my whole cranium rots.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[Hieronymous 707]

http://hieronymous707.blogspot.com/2012/05/memrial-peace.html

[Adam Lynn]

On May 27, 7:40 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:


"Cheerleader" (Bob)

Word.
Go Team!

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 29, 7:13 am, Adam Lynn <rjburrow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 7:40 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>  "Cheerleader" (Bob)
>
> Word.
> Go Team!

Shh. Hold it down. Some of us are still hungover from yesterday.
http://hieronymous707.blogspot.com/2012/05/hangver.html

[Will Dockery]

One more reason I'm glad I gave up drinking five years ago.

--
Music & poetry of Will Dockery:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[Adam Lynn]

On May 30, 1:55 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:


>... I gave up drinking five years ago.


Get gnu dork...

[the real matt13]

On Sunday, May 13, 2012 2:40:25 PM UTC-7, Hieronymous 707 wrote:
> On May 13, 5:35 pm, Peter J Ross
> wrote:
> > All about arrivals
> > ------------------
> >
> > /The Waltons/, Darwin, /Pinafore/: we know all
> > about sisters, cousins and aunts, and yet
> > we teem thick as the termite generations
> > we poison with TV retunes and West-End shows:
> > but not social insects only, heirs too fly back.
> >
> >    *   *   *
> >
> > The engine stutter suggests an old plane,
> > nothing fancy, seen before heard, forcing
> > the family out to shadow our eyes with one hand,
> > brush off hot flies with the other, leaving
> > no obvious hand free to wave or welcome with.
> >
> >    *   *   *
> >
> > I'll be no man's bride until a begoggled captain
> > tells me it's all about the next, not this flight;
> > the engine stutter, the obvious hand,
> > our redface sibling or shadow-eyed moralist:
> > what can they teach us better about our next flight?
> >
> > PJR, April/May 2012
>
> no comment.

too late

[Hieronymous 707]

> too late- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL. Good to see you again! Howz trix?

[Hieronymous 707]

On May 30, 2:12 am, Adam Lynn <rjburrow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Get gnu dork...

LOL. I'm not a total teetotaler, but I am a regular "two can Sam" when
it comes to drinking beer ... or sodapop ... or even taking a crap. I
usually have to hit the can twice every morning with my butt. I am
regular.

[Will Dockery]

On May 30, 7:14 am, the real matt13 <qop...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hieronymous 707 wrote:
>
> > no comment.
>
> too late

Hello Matt!

How's the golf with Alice Cooper going?

--
Gone Too Far / Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_11596860

[General Zod]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 at 3:44:45 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

> Hieronymous 707 wrote:
> >
> > I know George the person is not as nasty and snide as his words portray him
>

> Very similar to the problems you have here with your posts that come
> off nasty and snide, such as the example I reposted earlier:
>
> On May 26, 1:54 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 26, 1:41 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> On May 26, 1:27 pm, Hieronymous 707 <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On May 26, 1:22 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > Pluck off
> >
> > > I didn't realize that seeing poetry on this group upset you so much,
> > > Hi. Here, since it bothered you that much, let me repost it:
> >
> > You're lying about what you did and didn't realize. You're a liar,
> > right there, liar liar liar. You know it. I know it. Anybody who can
> > read knows it. You're a liar, George.
>
> HTH & HAND.
>
> --
> Gone Too Far / Will Dockery Project:
> http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_11596860

Wow what a bunch of bitches Corey and his friends are....

[Michael Pendragon]

"Bitches" is a derogatory term for women, and you are calling Corey and his friends "women" as though being a woman is somehow inferior to being a man.

You're starting to smell like both a hypocrite and a misogynist, Did.

[Chafetz Chayim ha'Yehu'di]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 7:08:29 PM UTC-7, FakeJewMikey is now Syrupy Galahad...

> You're starting to smell like both a hypocrite and a misogynist, Did.

Shalom & Erev tov...such flagrant bullshit coming from an archived white supremacist and fraud.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STEPHAN PICKERING / חפץ ח"ם בן אברהם
Torah אלילה Yehu'di Apikores / Philologia Kabbalistica Speculativa Researcher
לחיות זמן רב ולשגשג...לעולם לא עוד
THE KABBALAH FRACTALS PROJECT
לעולם לא אשכח

IN PROGRESS: Shabtai Zisel ben Avraham v'Rachel Riva:
davening in the musematic dark

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Michael Pendragon <michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6467db2b-5ffa-45ef...@googlegroups.com:

Go easy on the loser, those DTs must really be hell for the guy.

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"So what does that make you? A stalker who stalks an asshole for 7
years now trying to convince others how bad he is?" - Ed the asshole

[Will Dockery]

That's amusing hypocrisy there, Pendragon, with all the misogynistic bike you've spewed here.

😀

[General Zod]

He's a lying scumbag of an idiot.....

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> smell like both a hypocrite and a misogynist

That's your upper lip you smell, Pendragon.

:)

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 10:25:21 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> That's amusing hypocrisy there, Pendragon, with all the misogynistic bike you've spewed here.
>

I don't own a bicycle, Turd.

[Will Dockery]

"Michael Pendragon" wrote in message
news:6467db2b-5ffa-45ef...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Turd

That's probably just your upper lip you smell again, Pendragon.

:)

[NancyGene]

We are surprised that Will didn't call you a Huffy Schwinn. That may be an insult that Pickles uses when he runs out of Weekly Reader references and his wheels are still turning.

[Chafetz Chayim ha'Yehu'di]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7,NaziQueene is no Don Rickles...

> On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 6:53:32 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:

> We are surprised that Will didn't call you a Huffy Schwinn. That may be an insult that Pickles uses when he runs out of Weekly Reader references and his wheels are still turning.

Shalom & Boker tov, Will...NaziQueene remains a poor plagiarising racist. Even his 3rd grade sandbox retorts are predictable.

[Will Dockery]

Typo alert:

"Bile" not "Bike".

Thanks to all the helpful spelling lamers for the heads up.

:)

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:097818d1-4492-49df...@googlegroups.com:

I just looked up the "Weekly Reader" and it was published until 2012. Maybe
Pickles is hanging around schools. I hope the police catch the freak before
he hurts a child.

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.

"I never said such an idiotic thing." - Ed demonstrates his
short-term memory loss.

[NancyGene]

We can assume that Pickles will claim that he has every issue from the past 72 years. They are stored in the basket of his bicycle and he consults them for vocabulary words.

[General Zod]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:00:15 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>
> We can assume

You are definitely an ass so consider yourself halfway there, troll....