ground zero
=z=
i seem to remember
a sunroof sky
full of kanji and silk
wisteria dancing across the wind
my daughter laughing in that so saturated face
as friend and i sit down to our morning game
i swore i would take advantage of his saki rejuvenation
i seem to remember
the taste of my wife's lips
so sweet a touch of harmony
quickly replaced by the happy wet kiss of my child
giggling so to almost annoy
this fierce competition
my new pocket watch stating
with such fine western precision
you have time to champion
it's only
8:13
i seem to remember
wind chimes singing to laughter
and graceful chatter
rising so near to cacophony
in anticipation of movement
a whirl and rash
of mans humanity
i seem to remember
a distant sound of wings
floating across an eastern sky
and eyes squinting to see
to my child suddenly
turning white
the brightest white
the hottest white
the darkest white
i shall never see
i can't seem to remember
where i left my soul
i think it's where my shadow
left a halo
burned into the ground
=z=
George Dance
This may be the best poem you've published here. It's the one I'd like
to use to represent you on The Betty Blog next April. You may have
already published it elsewhere, though -- I wouldn't mind, but the
other venue might. So please let me know, here or on email.
=z=
>
> - Show quoted text -
no, george...it has not been published...
you are quite welcome to do with it as you wish my friend...
thank you,
…in extremes…
shaun
<smile>
8 )
nerissa
Yes your poem is a keeper. Thanks a lot for posting it.
my big sister
-------------------------
you cared for me when
mother had to repair our house
gave food, chewing gums, music
taught how to dance, made me
smile sometimes when you kept
going to bed in pajamas while I
preferred sleeping undressed
how I wish I could promise
we'll find the one
who raped you, smashed more
than your face - your wounds
are mine, my big sister, my lady
america
nerissa (September 2001)
George Dance
In that case, I'm not going to wait for April; I trust you'll have
something else I'll want to publish then. Instead I'm publishing your
poem tomorrow, which (since it's after midnight) is today. It's on
now, in fact.
http://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2010/09/ground-zero-shaun-hull.html
=z=
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
thanks george, 'ground zero' is actually one of my favorites also...i
have thought about posting it online to a hiroshima/nagasaki type site
but never really found the one that i was looking for...the 'betty
blog' is fine for me and will do it justice as far as i am
concerned...thank you again for putting "ground zero" out there...i
hope you are doing well...!…put that cigarette down mister!…thank you
as well nerissa…your poem 'my big sister' made me sad…it is so true in
many ways…thanks for posting it…seems like that must have been a bit
difficult to bear sharing…
=z=
=z=
> On Sep 13, 5:10 am, "=z=" <shull...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >seems like that must have been a bit difficult to bear sharing…
>
>
> Might I suggest "... bare, share..." as in difficult to reveal, as
> opposed to "... bear sharing..." which suggest either weight, or
> something ... grizzly.
>
> -hi-
yeah, i know -hi-...as soon as i hit the send switch i realized i
wrong termed that...no grizzlies here bro...at least, i don't think
so...my bad, and all apologies....
heh... 8 (
def...@default.net
On 12-Sep-2010, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > published
> > > published
> publish publishing
You shouldn't use words you clearly do not understand, moron troll.
Will Dockery
This is a good one, deserving the wider audience.
How's everyone? I'll be back soon, perhaps later today.
--
Music & poetry of Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
not ggamble
>
> moron troll.
Don't give yourself airs. You're an imbecile, not a moron.
Will Dockery
Wow, powerful work, Nerissa.
nerissa
Thanks much, Will.
nerissa
dapperdobbs
mat1t3
the same damn poem with the same
damn people telling you it's great.
do you people ever get tired of eating your
own barf? ...just asking.
=z=
>
> - Show quoted text -
nope!...
and fuck you matt
i thought you were a friend
but obviously
you're just being a dickhead
missing the point of any reposting
of a damn good work...
did i forget to say fuck you?
well just in case...
fuck you...
get it?
now go get yourself a Dr. Pepper
and flame away on uranus
shaun
(sorry to get so torqued
but your post just pissed me off)
mat1t3
well, shit...you gave jeanne a boat load of
shit for posting her damn poem every memorial
day. now, you expect to get treated
wonderfully because yours is supposed to be
"the shit" on 911 day? i'm just tired of all the double standards.
nobody knows what it's like to live through war
or a holocaust unless they've been their.
why your poem is supposed to be better than
hers beats the hell out of me. you're both
writing from an interpretive standpoint.
"it's pretty; it's beautiful." yeah, right! death and destruction
are so pretty. if you want to write about horrible
events, why don't you write about the fall of the republic?
that's an on-going "911." we're all hanging off those
ledges at this time. the dark times coming might
just make the holocaust look like a fire drill.
why don't you write about that, mr. beautiful??
i'm not meaning to drag this out. i'm just pointing
out what seems to be a double standard. now,
take the floor with the upper cut comeback.
i'll bow out of this for harmony's sake.
George Dance
It is not true that it's "the same damn people". it's a fact that two
of the (four) people who told shaun his poem is "great" -- nerissa and
dapperdobbs -- are new contributors who weren't posting to aapc last
year.
That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to get
access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least, that's
my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
[not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
not "great") poetry to read.
It's also a fact that some of the people who told shaun his poem was
"great" last year -- that other "matt," for instance -- did not do so
this time; but that's just a point in logic, showing that your claim
that it was "the same damn people" was false two ways.
> do you people ever get tired of eating your
> own barf? ...just asking.
Fuck off, troll ...just a suggestion.
mat1t3
here's a suggestion for you:
try to remember who to defend. you're the one
that told me you think shaun is wasted all the
time and that you don't like talking to him. in
the same conversation, i defended shaun's
"brilliance."
you just happen to be another shining example of
two sidedness. try remembering your own lies,
troll. it makes conversations with those who know
the truth about you a little less painful.
...just a suggestion.
: )
George Dance
You're doing it again: I never said any such thing about shaun. .
Now you're not just getting it wrong: you're clearly either lying or
bullshitting.
> in
> the same conversation, i defended shaun's
> "brilliance."
>
> you just happen to be another shining example of
> two sidedness. try remembering your own lies,
> troll.
Reality check: Of the two of us, the only one who's been proven to
write things that are not true (as above) is you.
Therefore the only one of us who has been shown to be even a possible
liar is you.
I certainly have no qualms about concluding that you are a liar, and
treating you accordingly.
> it makes conversations with those who know
> the truth about you a little less painful.
As if you'd ever write the truth about anything (even if you did know
it).
Karla
You weren't exactly truthful, George (I wrote & posted twice as many new
poems as old in that time period), when you wrote this:
"While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-a-
half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to
avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the
RAP and AAPC archives."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/be7b2621b4671696?hl=en
Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Groups'
archive?
Repent!
Karla
mat1t3
> On Sep 19, 2:18 pm, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
snip
there's a lot i could say right now, but i'm going to hold my tongue.
suffice it to say, i can't wait for you to move along. until then,
i'll
be a relatively sparse poster: me and the countless others who
simply couldn't stand the smell of your psychic halitosis. i guess
you're the biggest shit person of them all, george. congratulations
on at least accomplishing that!
: )
mat1t3
>
> Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Groups'
> archive?
>
> Repent!
>
> Karla
for once, i fully endorse this post!
: )
=z=
wrote:
> On Sep 19, 6:45 pm, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > there's a lot i could say right now, but i'm going to hold my tongue.
>
>
> I meam, dat wood weawy be thumpin, wight?
>
> Wy wood wou do dat?
>
> Wy did I dutht do dat?
>
> Ow.
>
> Dat huit.
so i re-posted a poem...bad me...apparently to some...to address
jeanne's post, the only reason i had an attitude about it was the way
she talked about the 'heroes' that came back as opposed to the ones
that didn't...ask any veteran who the 'heroes' were...it wasn't a re-
posting issue...your comment mat was unnecessary and just asking for
me to call you on it...so you're jealous eh?...why don't you post
something along the same line and let's just see what you come up
with?...nice to see you come out of the woodwork karla...and for what
it's worth, i happen to like george... the fockers i don't care for
are not here anymore...thank you very much...
i should speak in exorcism tongue now but others have already taken
that to the next level, so screw it...
-pnuti-
(posted not under the influence)
=z=
Will Dockery
So now George gets the blame for driving away all the obsessed
sniffers & thieving psychos?
Great job, man!
--
"Shadowville Speedway" CD on Artemis Records:
http://www.artemisrecords.net/dockeryconley.html
Will Dockery
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), George Dance wrote:
> >On Sep 19, 2:18 pm, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
Who amongst us, especially you of all people, could claim to have
always been truthful, Karla?
In this case George obviously nailed it, though.
George Dance
>
Show me your evidence (titles and posting dates for Feb./09-Aug./10).
If you can show that I was wrong, I'll admit it.* Until then, I'll
stand by what I said: most of the poems you posted in that period were
from the 20th century. (The count I took before I wrote that paragraph
was: 7 from C20 vs. 4 from 2009-10; but I am not showing you mine
until you show me yours.)
> Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Groups'
> archive?
Of course. Did I say it wasn't? Where's the alleged inconsistency?
>
> Repent!
>
> Karla
* (and repent)
George Dance
Well, of course: you get caught telling untruths, a friend jumps in to
(a) take up the fight for you, and (b) change the subject completely
away from your dishonesty -- exactly as if it were a partner you'd
managed to tag in a pro wrestling match. Who wouldn't "endorse" help
like that?
Karla
<george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Sep 19, 6:26 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), George Dance
>> <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>> You weren't exactly truthful, George (I wrote & posted twice as many new
>> poems as old in that time period), when you wrote this:
>>
>> "While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-a-
>> half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
>> recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to
>> avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the
>> RAP and AAPC archives."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/be7b2621b...
>>
>
>Show me your evidence (titles and posting dates for Feb./09-Aug./10).
>If you can show that I was wrong, I'll admit it.* Until then, I'll
>stand by what I said: most of the poems you posted in that period were
>from the 20th century. (The count I took before I wrote that paragraph
>was: 7 from C20 vs. 4 from 2009-10; but I am not showing you mine
>until you show me yours.)
You insult me and misrepresent my posting of poems, and you'll just admit
you're wrong? How about an apology?
New poems written & posted between Feb./09-Aug./10:
03/02/09 (Men Prefer) Cast Iron Skillets
03/23/09 Glosa (Recuerdo)
03/24/09 Glosa (The Far Field)
06/13/09 On Mariana in the Glass
10/03/09 In the Clouds
11/22/09 Sonnet
01/09/10 Grail
01/30/10 Haiku
01/31/10 Haiku
01/31/10 Raisin Ether
02/14/10 Haiku
02/15/10 Blue Quintet
02/26/10 Obpoem (Moon Moan)
03/14/10 Haiku
04/12/10 Old LP
Reposts during Feb./09-Aug./10:
05/10/09 Lily of Lightfields
05/31/09 Lot's Wife
06/08/09 Trick of Light
07/23/09 Midwest Girl
09/29/09 Twins
01/17/10 Flamenco Nights
03/20/10 New Values
As you can readily see, most of it was not "revised or simply recycled."
>> Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Groups'
>> archive?
>
>Of course. Did I say it wasn't? Where's the alleged inconsistency?
You thought it appropriate and necessary for him to repost because there
were new newsgroup participants, but gave a negative spin to my resposts.
Obviously, if people like Sean's poetry they could google him, right?
mat1t3
Karla and I aren't "friends." It's the same as it was months ago,
George.
The only difference now is that I'm seeing you for what you are:
a man that refuses to admit to his own double standards. That simply
comes across as arrogant to me.
If by default that makes me anybody's "friend," then by all means:
enjoy your delusional state of mind.
One more thing: the main difference between my apparent double
standard
behavior and yours is that I admit to mine on the spot. I laugh at
myself
when I'm caught in my own apparent lies and make a mockery of my
obvious misbehavior. I don't go around blaming others for
my mistakes.
Arrogance is not my choice of dispositions at any time. Show me
where I've miscalculated something, and I'll be glad to either give
you an explanation or admit to my mistake. That's also a difference
between your so called "friend" and myself. She rarely admits when
she's wrong. That would take real "balls." Few here in this forum
have
demonstrated that ability. I believe I have.
Will Dockery
>
> so i re-posted a poem...
And a damned fine one at that!
bad me...apparently to some...to address
> jeanne's post, the only reason i had an attitude about it was the way
> she talked about the 'heroes' that came back as opposed to the ones
> that didn't...ask any veteran who the 'heroes' were...it wasn't a re-
> posting issue...your comment mat was unnecessary and just asking for
> me to call you on it...so you're jealous eh?...why don't you post
> something along the same line and let's just see what you come up
> with?...nice to see you come out of the woodwork karla...and for what
> it's worth, i happen to like george... the fockers i don't care for
> are not here anymore...thank you very much...
>
> i should speak in exorcism tongue now but others have already taken
> that to the next level, so screw it...
>
> -pnuti-
>
> (posted not under the influence)
>
> =z=
"What he said."
--
Poetry & music of Will Dockery (no charge!)
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
George Dance
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 18:55:39 -0700 (PDT), George Dance
> <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >On Sep 19, 6:26 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), George Dance
> >> <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >> You weren't exactly truthful, George (I wrote & posted twice as many new
> >> poems as old in that time period), when you wrote this:
>
> >> "While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-a-
> >> half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
> >> recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to
> >> avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the
> >> RAP and AAPC archives."
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/be7b2621b...
>
> >Show me your evidence (titles and posting dates for Feb./09-Aug./10).
> >If you can show that I was wrong, I'll admit it.* Until then, I'll
> >stand by what I said: most of the poems you posted in that period were
> >from the 20th century. (The count I took before I wrote that paragraph
> >was: 7 from C20 vs. 4 from 2009-10; but I am not showing you mine
> >until you show me yours.)
>
> You insult me and misrepresent my posting of poems
I'm sorry to hear that you felt insulted; but I don't see anything
insulting in the comment you quoted, and it certainly wasn't meant to
be insulting. Or to be misrepresentative FTM -- I already told you
that I did a count before I wrote that. I found 7 old poems from you
(I Am a Video, Lily of Light Fields, Lot's Wife, Trick of Light,
Midwest Girl, Twins, and New Values) vs. 4 new (Cast Iron Skillets,
Sonnet, Raisin Ether, and Blue Quintet).
> and you'll just admit
> you're wrong?
Unlike the person you're backing up here, matt, who didn't (and still
hasn't). Did that really go over your head?
> How about an apology?
>
As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is to get the correct
information out, not to play those sorts of games; but, hey, if you
want an apology, and I think you deserve one, you'll get one.
> New poems written & posted between Feb./09-Aug./10:
>
> 03/02/09 (Men Prefer) Cast Iron Skillets
> 03/23/09 Glosa (Recuerdo)
> 03/24/09 Glosa (The Far Field)
> 06/13/09 On Mariana in the Glassi
> 10/03/09 In the Clouds
> 11/22/09 Sonnet
> 01/09/10 Grail
> 01/30/10 Haiku
> 01/31/10 Haiku
> 01/31/10 Raisin Ether
> 02/14/10 Haiku
> 02/15/10 Blue Quintet
> 02/26/10 Obpoem (Moon Moan)
> 03/14/10 Haiku
> 04/12/10 Old LP
>
> Reposts during Feb./09-Aug./10:
>
> 05/10/09 Lily of Lightfields
> 05/31/09 Lot's Wife
> 06/08/09 Trick of Light
> 07/23/09 Midwest Girl
> 09/29/09 Twins
> 01/17/10 Flamenco Nights
> 03/20/10 New Values
>
> As you can readily see, most of it was not "revised or simply recycled."
Not exactly 'readily': I probably wasted hours looking through aapc
for all the poems on your top list. I still haven't found 3 of them
here: Glosa (Recuerdo), Glosa (The Far Field), and Old LP -- maybe
you posted those to another group or under a different account? And
while I did find your three "haiku," you know I don't consider that
sort off tossing-of to be poetry (regardless of source); I'd say
you're just using them to pad your total. I normally wouldn't count
something like Obpoem (Moon Moan) for the same reason, but what the
hell? You added a poem to the bottom list as well, which was also an
Obpoem I hadn't seen, so that's a wash.
That gives you 8 new poems (the 4 I'd found earlier, plus On Mariana
in the Glass, In the Clouds, Grail, and Obpoem(Moon Moan)) vs. 8 from
the previous century (the 7 I'd found earlier, plus Flamenco Nights).
Assuming that there aren't any more of the latter, that is enough to
make it false that "most" of your poetry was revised or simply
recycled from that time; so I'll admit that 'most' was the wrong word
to use, and (since you asked) apologize for using it.
> >> Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Groups'
> >> archive?
>
> >Of course. Did I say it wasn't? Where's the alleged inconsistency?
>
> You thought it appropriate and necessary for him to repost because there
> were new newsgroup participants, but gave a negative spin to my resposts.
Speaking of 'spin' -- I didn't say either of those things (and I do
hope you're not claiming to be able to read my thoughts). What I did
do was defend his reposting of that poem against someone (matt, the
guy you're backing up here, remember?) who was flaming him or
reposting him -- calling him a vomit eater and the like -- for doing
it, pointing out that the new participants liked it themselves.
I didn't defend you against the flaming you got for your "resposts",
but that was because you didn't get any. I certainly didn't notice
anyone calling you a vomit eater or the like. I certainly didn't flame
you. I remember saying that one of those posts, 'Lily,' was a repost,
and that you'd changed three words; I remember you didn't like that,
but I don't see it as being any more "negative" than the comment you
quoted earlier. If you're calling either of those "negative", I'd say
that was purely your spin.
> Obviously, if people like Sean's
[Please stop doing that. As you know, his name is Shaun.]
> poetry they could google him, right?
>
Certainly; and if Shaun did stop posting here, and months later
someone complained that they missed reading his poetry, I'd probably
tell that person to search for it -- just as I told the person who
said he missed reading your poetry. That's not what's been happening
in this thread, though, as you know.
Will Dockery
> On Sep 19, 6:46 pm, mat1t3 wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 3:26 pm, Karla wrote:
>>> On Sep 19, 9:31 am, George Dance wrote:
>>> > On Sep 18, 10:14 pm, mat1t3 wrote:
>>>> > On Sep 12, 11:54 pm, "=z=" wrote:
>> >>>> On Sep 12, 5:17 pm, George Dance wrote:
<snip for brevity>
>>> > > the same damn poem with the same
>>> > > damn people telling you it's great.
>
>>> > It is not true that it's "the same damn people". it's a fact that two
>>> > of the (four) people who told shaun his poem is "great" -- nerissa and
>>> > dapperdobbs -- are new contributors who weren't posting to aapc last
>>> > year.
>
>>> > That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to get
>>> > access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least, that's
>>> > my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
>>> > there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
>>> > [not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
>>> > all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
>>> > people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
>>> > here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
>>> > not "great") poetry to read.
>
>>> > It's also a fact that some of the people who told shaun his poem was
>>> > "great" last year -- that other "matt," for instance -- did not do so
>>> > this time; but that's just a point in logic, showing that your claim
>>> > that it was "the same damn people" was false two ways.
<snip for focus>
>>> do you people ever get tired of eating your
>>> own barf? ...just asking.
<Karla's dishonest defense of above statement snipped>
> > for once, i fully endorse this post!
>
> Well, of course: you get caught telling untruths, a friend jumps in to
> (a) take up the fight for you, and (b) change the subject completely
> away from your dishonesty -- exactly as if it were a partner you'd
> managed to tag in a pro wrestling match. Who wouldn't "endorse" help
> like that?
A Matt & Karla tag team is one amazing development, but the fact that
it would manifest with her defense of such a revoltingly anti-poetry
insult as:
"...do you people ever get tired of eating your own barf? ...just
asking."
is just... sad.
Will Dockery
wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:26 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to hear that you felt insulted;
>
> more succinct though. I'd probably have only said I'm sorry you felt
> insulted, and left it there. Waited to see what she said to that.
>
> > but
>
> Sorry, that's where I completely lost interest. I tried to keep up
> with what you were saying, all the he said she said subtle points, but
> just couldn't. I read through it twice even, looking for something
> worth something, something I could comment on, add to. Again, sorry,
> nothing strikes me. I am drawn from your commentary, and find myself
> considering the fact that I'm over tired, and need a nap. I don't
> think that's the response you want to elicit from your readership.
Similarly here, added to the fact that Google seems to have lost my
post, which was made around the same time as yours, here, -hi-.
Too weary to try to recreate the cleverness and all that of the lost
one, plus, I have a birthday visit to make soon, but my basic thought
was how sad it was that Karla would return for no other reason than to
defend Matt, someone making such revolting insults as:
"...do you people ever get tired of eating your own barf? ...just
asking."
That's just... sad.
--
Music & poetry of Will Dockery (no charge!):
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Karla
George Dance says...
>
>On Sep 20, 12:54=A0am, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 18:55:39 -0700 (PDT), George Dance
>> <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), George Dance
>> >> <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>ew
>> >> poems as old in that time period), when you wrote this:
>>
>> >> "While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-a-
>> >> half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
>> >> recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to
>> >> avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the
>> >> RAP and AAPC archives."
>>
>.
>>
>> >Show me your evidence (titles and posting dates for Feb./09-Aug./10).
>> >If you can show that I was wrong, I'll admit it.* Until then, I'll
>> >stand by what I said: most of the poems you posted in that period were
>> >from the 20th century. (The count I took before I wrote that paragraph
>> >was: 7 from C20 vs. 4 from 2009-10; but I am not showing you mine
>> >until you show me yours.)
>>
>> You insult me and misrepresent my posting of poems
>
>I'm sorry to hear that you felt insulted; but I don't see anything
>insulting in the comment you quoted, and it certainly wasn't meant to
>be insulting. Or to be misrepresentative FTM -- I already told you
>that I did a count before I wrote that. I found 7 old poems from you
>(I Am a Video, Lily of Light Fields, Lot's Wife, Trick of Light,
>Midwest Girl, Twins, and New Values) vs. 4 new (Cast Iron Skillets,
>Sonnet, Raisin Ether, and Blue Quintet).
>
>> and you'll just admit
>> you're wrong?
>
>Unlike the person you're backing up here, matt, who didn't (and still
>hasn't). Did that really go over your head?
>
>> How about an apology?
>>
>
>As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is to get the correct
>information out, not to play those sorts of games; but, hey, if you
>want an apology, and I think you deserve one, you'll get one.
>
>> New poems written & posted between Feb./09-Aug./10:
>>
>> 03/23/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Glosa (Recuerdo)
>> 03/24/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Glosa (The Far Field)
>> 06/13/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0On Mariana in the Glassi
>> 10/03/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0In the Clouds
>> 11/22/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sonnet
>> 01/09/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Grail
>> 01/30/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Haiku
>> 01/31/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Haiku
>> 01/31/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Raisin Ether
>> 02/14/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Haiku
>> 02/15/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Blue Quintet
>> 02/26/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Obpoem (Moon Moan)
>> 03/14/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Haiku
>> 04/12/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Old LP
>>
>> Reposts during Feb./09-Aug./10:
>>
>> 05/10/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lily of Lightfields
>> 05/31/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lot's Wife
>> 06/08/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Trick of Light
>> 07/23/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Midwest Girl
>> 09/29/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Twins
>> 01/17/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Flamenco Nights
>> 03/20/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0New Values
>>
>> As you can readily see, most of it was not "revised or simply recycled."
>
>Not exactly 'readily': I probably wasted hours looking through aapc
>for all the poems on your top list. I still haven't found 3 of them
>here: Glosa (Recuerdo), Glosa (The Far Field), and Old LP -- maybe
>you posted those to another group or under a different account? And
>while I did find your three "haiku," you know I don't consider that
>sort off tossing-of to be poetry (regardless of source); I'd say
>you're just using them to pad your total. I normally wouldn't count
>something like Obpoem (Moon Moan) for the same reason, but what the
>hell? You added a poem to the bottom list as well, which was also an
>Obpoem I hadn't seen, so that's a wash.
>
>That gives you 8 new poems (the 4 I'd found earlier, plus On Mariana
>in the Glass, In the Clouds, Grail, and Obpoem(Moon Moan)) vs. 8 from
>the previous century (the 7 I'd found earlier, plus Flamenco Nights).
>Assuming that there aren't any more of the latter, that is enough to
>make it false that "most" of your poetry was revised or simply
>recycled from that time; so I'll admit that 'most' was the wrong word
>to use, and (since you asked) apologize for using it.
When I posted my list of new poems (from "the RAP and AAPC archives" as you
wrote above), it crossed my mind that you might attempt to devalue haiku, but
then I thought of your inquiries here about your own short three-line poems
which, if I recall correctly, you were thinking of including in your book, and I
concluded that you wouldn't strike the haiku (there are four haiku, by the way).
Matt wrote that I never admit I'm wrong, so let me say that I was wrong (and
shocked) about you in regard to the haiku. Two of the haiku took me quite a
long time to get right. A good deal of contemplation in silence was needed. Each
word balanced in my mind against the sounds and weight of other words. Articles
were struck and reinserted. Quite a bit of tinkering all in all. My end results
pleased me very much, so much so that I submitted them.
It's a curious process you've employed to weigh and strike certain of the "new
poems". Did you do the same for the second list? How do you know how much
effort I put into either list? Because a poem is three lines, it's "tossed
off"? There are two poems in the second list that were written very hastily.
Should we strike those two? I wouldn't. One of them was snatched up almost
immediately after I'd posted it by editors of a poetry magazine. Yet, I wrote
it in under an hour and it remains very popular to this day.
All the poems in the lists are saved to my home system and considered by me to
be poems. You or others may argue some were bad poems, which you have every
right to do. But your initial post about my posting history did not include that
value judgment. You wrote "While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here . . ."
You didn't write good poetry, bad poetry, sloppy poetry, tossed off poetry, etc.
The only distinction you made about what I posted is old and new. Oh, and please
be advised that I didn't include prose responses I made where people posted that
the writing read like poems. My intent in those responses wasn't to write a
poem. I've only included writing that was intentionally crafted as poems by me.
I think you're digging yourself into a hole by disqualifying some of the poems,
George.
>> >> Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Groups'
>> >> archive?
>>
>> >Of course. Did I say it wasn't? Where's the alleged inconsistency?
>>
>> You thought it appropriate and necessary for him to repost because there
>> were new newsgroup participants, but gave a negative spin to my resposts.
>
>Speaking of 'spin' -- I didn't say either of those things (and I do
>hope you're not claiming to be able to read my thoughts). What I did
>do was defend his reposting of that poem against someone (matt, the
>guy you're backing up here, remember?) who was flaming him or
>reposting him -- calling him a vomit eater and the like -- for doing
>it, pointing out that the new participants liked it themselves.
My first opinion: "You thought it appropriate and necessary for him to repost
because there were new participants"
Your post: "It is not true that it's "the same damn people". it's a fact that
two of the (four) people who told shaun his poem is "great" -- nerissa and
dapperdobbs -- are new contributors who weren't posting to aapc last
year.
That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to get
access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least, that's
my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
[not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
not "great") poetry to read."
Conclusion: You argue that it's appropriate and necessary to post good poetry so
new people will want to read here.
My opinion: "but [you] gave a negative spin to my reposts."
Your post: ""While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past
year-and-a-half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to avoid
missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the RAP and AAPC
archives."
Conclusion: most of my posts were reposts and who needs that?
>I didn't defend you against the flaming you got for your "resposts",
>but that was because you didn't get any. I certainly didn't notice
>anyone calling you a vomit eater or the like. I certainly didn't flame
>you. I remember saying that one of those posts, 'Lily,' was a repost,
>and that you'd changed three words; I remember you didn't like that,
>but I don't see it as being any more "negative" than the comment you
>quoted earlier. If you're calling either of those "negative", I'd say
>that was purely your spin.
>
>> Obviously, if people like Sean's
>
>[Please stop doing that. As you know, his name is Shaun.]
That was sloppy of me. I remembered it as Sean. Sorry Shaun.
>> poetry they could google him, right?
>>
>
>Certainly; and if Shaun did stop posting here, and months later
>someone complained that they missed reading his poetry, I'd probably
>tell that person to search for it -- just as I told the person who
>said he missed reading your poetry. That's not what's been happening
>in this thread, though, as you know.
You didn't simply say he could google my poetry if he missed it. You incorrectly
argued that most of it was old, as if that made it undesirable to post. That's
the argument about Shaun's, right? Why else bring up reposted poems at all with
respect to my posted poems? You didn't need to. It's what made me note your
different standard for Shaun.
Karla
Karla
Will Dockery says...
>
>On Sep 19, 10:01=A0pm, George Dance wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 6:46=A0pm, mat1t3 wrote:
>>> On Sep 19, 3:26=A0pm, Karla wrote:
>>>> On Sep 19, 9:31=A0am, George Dance wrote:
>>>> > On Sep 18, 10:14=A0pm, mat1t3 wrote:
>>>>> > On Sep 12, 11:54=A0pm, "=3Dz=3D" wrote:
>>> >>>> On Sep 12, 5:17=A0pm, George Dance wrote:
>>>>> >>> On Sep 12, 6:02=A0am, "=3Dz=3D" wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >> ground zero
>>
>> > > >> >> i seem to remember
>> > > >> >> a sunroof sky
>> > > >> >> full of kanji and silk
>> > > >> >> wisteria dancing across the wind
>> > > >> >> my daughter laughing in that so saturated face
>> > > >> >> as friend and i sit down to our morning game
>> > > >> >> i swore i would take advantage of his saki rejuvenation
>>
>> > > >> >> i seem to remember
>> > > >> >> the taste of my wife's lips
>> > > >> >> so sweet a touch of harmony
>> > > >> >> quickly replaced by the happy wet kiss of my child
>> > > >> >> giggling so to almost annoy
>> > > >> >> this fierce competition
>>
>> > > >> >> my new pocket watch stating
>> > > >> >> with such fine western precision
>> > > >> >> you have time to champion
>> > > >> >> it's only
>> > > >> >> 8:13
>>
>> > > >> >> i seem to remember
>> > > >> >> wind chimes singing to laughter
>> > > >> >> and graceful chatter
>> > > >> >> rising so near to cacophony
>>
>> > > >> >> a whirl and rash
>> > > >> >> of mans humanity
>>
>> > > >> >> i seem to remember
>> > > >> >> a distant sound of wings
>> > > >> >> floating across an eastern sky
>> > > >> >> and eyes squinting to see
>>
>> > > >> >> to my child suddenly
>> > > >> >> turning white
>>
>> > > >> >> the brightest white
>> > > >> >> the hottest white
>> > > >> >> the darkest white
>>
>> > > >> >> i shall never see
>>
>> > > >> >> i can't seem to remember
>> > > >> >> where i left my soul
>>
>> > > >> >> i think it's where my shadow
>> > > >> >> left a halo
>> > > >> >> burned into the ground
>>
>>
>> > > >>> This may be the best poem you've published here. It's the one I'd=
> like
>> > > >>> to use to represent you on The Betty Blog next April. You may hav=
>e
>
><snip for brevity>
>
>>>> > > the same damn poem with the same
>>>> > > damn people telling you it's great.
>>
>>>> > It is not true that it's "the same damn people". it's a fact that two
>d
>>>> > dapperdobbs -- are new contributors who weren't posting to aapc last
>>>> > year.
>>
>>>> > That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to get
>s
>>>> > my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
>>>> > there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
>>>> > [not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
>>>> > all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
>>>> > people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
>>>> > here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
>>>> > not "great") poetry to read.
>>
>>>> > It's also a fact that some of the people who told shaun his poem was
>>>> > "great" last year -- that other "matt," for instance -- did not do so
>>>> > this time; but that's just a point in logic, showing that your claim
>>>> > that it was "the same damn people" was false two ways.
>
><snip for focus>
>
>>>> do you people ever get tired of eating your
>
><Karla's dishonest defense of above statement snipped>
>
>> > for once, i fully endorse this post!
>>
>> Well, of course: you get caught telling untruths, a friend jumps in to
>> (a) take up the fight for you, and (b) change the subject completely
>> managed to tag in a pro wrestling match. Who wouldn't "endorse" help
>> like that?
>
>A Matt & Karla tag team is one amazing development, but the fact that
>it would manifest with her defense of such a revoltingly anti-poetry
>insult as:
>
>"...do you people ever get tired of eating your own barf? ...just
>asking."
>
>is just... sad.
You are confused, Will. I was responding only to George's statement. Here is his
statement and my direct response where I mention George's name:
George: "As if you'd ever write the truth about anything (even if you did know
it)."
Karla: "You weren't exactly truthful, George (I wrote & posted twice as many new
poems as old in that time period), when you wrote this:
"While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-a-
half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to
avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the
RAP and AAPC archives."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/be7b2621b4671696?hl=en
Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Groups'
archive?
Repent!
Karla"
Will, in case you don't know the difference, I was refuting George, not
defending Matt. Look it up.
Karla
Will Dockery
>
> You didn't simply say he could google my poetry if he missed it. You incorrectly
> argued that most of it was old, as if that made it undesirable to post.
That's Matt's stance, which began this entire discussion, not
George's.
Karla
Will Dockery says...
>
>Karla wrote:
>>
>>You didn't simply say he could google my poetry if he missed it. You incorrectly
>> argued that most of it was old, as if that made it undesirable to post.
>
>That's Matt's stance, which began this entire discussion, not
>George's.
Yes, it was George's stance about my poetry, but not about Shaun's. That's why I
called George on it.
Karla
Will Dockery
<snip>
> I was refuting George, not defending Matt.
George used your habit of reposting old poetry as an example for Matt,
and you whisked in to confuse the focus, it seems.
The point Matt was making was:
Reposting old poetry = "...do you people ever get tired of eating your
own barf?"
So, George's point was that Matt could ask you the same thing, since
half the poetry you posted last year was over a decade old. Not that
there's anything wrong with that, in my opinion.
--
Music & poetry of Will Dockery (no charge!):
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Karla
Will Dockery says...
>
>Karla says:
>>Will Dockery wrote:
>>>> On Sep 18, 10:14=3DA0pm, mat1t3 wrote:
>>>> > On Sep 12, 11:54=3DA0pm, "=3D3Dz=3D3D" wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 12, 5:17=3DA0pm, George Dance wrote:
>> >>>>> On Sep 12, 6:02=3DA0am, "=3D3Dz=3D3D" wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> >> ground zero
>>
>> >> > > >> >> i seem to remember
>> >> > > >> >> a sunroof sky
>> >> > > >> >> full of kanji and silk
>> >> > > >> >> wisteria dancing across the wind
>> >> > > >> >> my daughter laughing in that so saturated face
>> >> > > >> >> as friend and i sit down to our morning game
>> >> > > >> >> i swore i would take advantage of his saki rejuvenation
>>
>> >> > > >> >> i seem to remember
>> >> > > >> >> the taste of my wife's lips
>> >> > > >> >> so sweet a touch of harmony
>> >> > > >> >> quickly replaced by the happy wet kiss of my child
>> >> > > >> >> giggling so to almost annoy
>> >> > > >> >> this fierce competition
>>
>> >> > > >> >> my new pocket watch stating
>> >> > > >> >> with such fine western precision
>> >> > > >> >> you have time to champion
>> >> > > >> >> it's only
>> >> > > >> >> 8:13
>>
>> >> > > >> >> i seem to remember
>> >> > > >> >> wind chimes singing to laughter
>> >> > > >> >> and graceful chatter
>> >> > > >> >> rising so near to cacophony
>>
>> >> > > >> >> a whirl and rash
>> >> > > >> >> of mans humanity
>>
>> >> > > >> >> i seem to remember
>> >> > > >> >> a distant sound of wings
>> >> > > >> >> floating across an eastern sky
>> >> > > >> >> and eyes squinting to see
>>
>> >> > > >> >> to my child suddenly
>> >> > > >> >> turning white
>>
>> >> > > >> >> the brightest white
>> >> > > >> >> the hottest white
>> >> > > >> >> the darkest white
>>
>> >> > > >> >> i shall never see
>>
>> >> > > >> >> i can't seem to remember
>> >> > > >> >> where i left my soul
>>
>> >> > > >> >> i think it's where my shadow
>> >> > > >> >> left a halo
>> >> > > >> >> burned into the ground
>>
>>
>> >> > > >>> This may be the best poem you've published here. It's the one =
>I'd=3D
>> > like
>> >> > > >>> to use to represent you on The Betty Blog next April. You may =
>hav=3D
>> >e
>>
>> ><snip for brevity>
>>
>> >>>> > > the same damn poem with the same
>> >>>> > > damn people telling you it's great.
>>
>two
>> >>>> > of the (four) people who told shaun his poem is "great" -- nerissa=
> an=3D
>> >d
>> >>>> > dapperdobbs -- are new contributors who weren't posting to aapc la=
>st
>> >>>> > year.
>>
>> >>>> > That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to =
>get
>> >>>> > access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least, th=
>at'=3D
>> >s
>> >>>> > my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
>y
>> >>>> > [not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and piss=
>es
>> >>>> > all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want mor=
>e
>> >>>> > people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us postin=
>g
>> >>>> > here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (i=
>f
>> >>>> > not "great") poetry to read.
>>
>as
>> >>>> > "great" last year -- that other "matt," for instance -- did not do=
> so
>> >>>> > this time; but that's just a point in logic, showing that your cla=
>im
>> >>>> > that it was "the same damn people" was false two ways.
>>
>> ><snip for focus>
>>
>> >>>> do you people ever get tired of eating your
>>
>> ><Karla's dishonest defense of above statement snipped>
>>
>> >> > for once, i fully endorse this post!
>>
>> >> Well, of course: you get caught telling untruths, a friend jumps in to
>> >> (a) take up the fight for you, and (b) change the subject completely
>d
>> >> managed to tag in a pro wrestling match. Who wouldn't "endorse" help
>> >> like that?
>>
>> >A Matt & Karla tag team is one amazing development, but the fact that
>> >it would manifest with her defense of such a revoltingly anti-poetry
>> >insult as:
>>
>> >asking."
>>
>> >is just... sad.
>
><snip>
>
>> I was refuting George, not defending Matt.
>
>George used your habit of reposting old poetry as an example for Matt,
>and you whisked in to confuse the focus, it seems.
>
>The point Matt was making was:
>
>own barf?"
>
>So, George's point was that Matt could ask you the same thing, since
>half the poetry you posted last year was over a decade old. Not that
>there's anything wrong with that, in my opinion.
Whoa, you are really confused. You are the one who wrote "I miss Karla Rogers,
wish she'd come back..." back on August 5. George responded to you, not Matt.
Matt had nothing to do with that exchange. He also has nothing to do with my
refuting George in his statements to you on August 5 and his statements about
Shaun reposting a poem just lately.
Karla
Will Dockery
> In article <451f61ab-f83f-4cee-8d17-348f905d3...@a19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> Will Dockery wrote:
> >Karla says:
>
> >>You didn't simply say he could google my poetry if he missed it. You incorrectly
> >> argued that most of it was old, as if that made it undesirable to post.
>
> >That's Matt's stance, which began this entire discussion, not
> >George's.
>
> Yes, it was George's stance about my poetry
I didn't notice anything negative about the way George pointed the
fact that you mainly repost old poetry here... I know I've enjoyed
several of the repsots you've made, as well as made in depth comments
on them.
If you hadn't reposted them, I doubt I'd ever seen them, though... so
I think Matt's stance is wrong. Glad you stood up and stated that you
don't agree with him either, btw.
Will Dockery
>
> >> >>>> > > the same damn poem with the same
> >> >>>> > > damn people telling you it's great.
>
> >> >>>> > It is not true that it's "the same damn people". it's a fact that =two
> >> >>>> > of the (four) people who told shaun his poem is "great" -- nerissa=
> >> >>>> > year.
>
> >> >>>> > That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to =get
> >> >>>> > access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least, th=
> >> >>>> > there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetr=
>
> >> >>>> > It's also a fact that some of the people who told shaun his poem w=
I think you know better than that, Karla... but I think you did show
up here to stir up some confusion and attack George at the same time,
am I right?
You are the one who wrote "I miss Karla Rogers,
> wish she'd come back..." back on August 5.
Well, are you going to post a poem, then, Karla?
Old or new poetry is okay with me, even a short three liner or one
you've borrowed from someone else... all this whining at George from
you is already boring, though.
Will Dockery
>"=z=" <shull...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ground zero
>
> > i seem to remember
> > a sunroof sky
> > full of kanji and silk
> > wisteria dancing across the wind
> > my daughter laughing in that so saturated face
> > as friend and i sit down to our morning game
> > i swore i would take advantage of his saki rejuvenation
>
> > i seem to remember
> > the taste of my wife's lips
> > so sweet a touch of harmony
> > quickly replaced by the happy wet kiss of my child
> > giggling so to almost annoy
> > this fierce competition
>
> > my new pocket watch stating
> > with such fine western precision
> > you have time to champion
> > it's only
> > 8:13
>
> > i seem to remember
> > wind chimes singing to laughter
> > and graceful chatter
> > rising so near to cacophony
>
> > a whirl and rash
> > of mans humanity
>
> > i seem to remember
> > a distant sound of wings
> > floating across an eastern sky
> > and eyes squinting to see
>
> > to my child suddenly
> > turning white
>
> > the brightest white
> > the hottest white
> > the darkest white
>
> > i shall never see
>
> > i can't seem to remember
> > where i left my soul
>
> > i think it's where my shadow
> > left a halo
> > burned into the ground
>
>
> That IS moving!
Absolutely... and thanks for helping me try to get this thread back on
topic, Dapper.
Will Dockery
wrote:
> On Sep 20, 3:04 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 1:58 pm, Hieronymous DCCVII wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 1:26 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm sorry to hear that you felt insulted;
>
> > > Gosh, I am so with you up to that point. I think I'd have been a bit
> > > more succinct though. I'd probably have only said I'm sorry you felt
> > > insulted, and left it there. Waited to see what she said to that.
>
> > > > but
>
> > > Sorry, that's where I completely lost interest. I tried to keep up
> > > with what you were saying, all the he said she said subtle points, but
> > > just couldn't. I read through it twice even, looking for something
> > > worth something, something I could comment on, add to. Again, sorry,
> > > nothing strikes me. I am drawn from your commentary, and find myself
> > > considering the fact that I'm over tired, and need a nap. I don't
> > > think that's the response you want to elicit from your readership.
>
> > Similarly here,
>
Yeah, but it just seems like Google's on one of those "delayed" post
days, rather than completely losing the posts, as they're eventually
turning up several minutes after I post them.
--
Red Lipped Stranger by Will Dockery | MySpace Music
Listen to Red Lipped Stranger by Will Dockery song on the Shadowville
All-Stars album free on MySpace Music!
http://www.myspace.com/music/will-dockery-1735549/songs/red-lipped-stranger-57783449
Will Dockery
Nice list, Karla... looking over it, it would possibly be nice to link
here to each poem, and call this the "Karla Rogers Anthology", which
would also link in with the comments & critique each poem has
recieved. Since you're so fond of reposting your old poetry, this
might be a simpler way of doing that, or an alternative way.
--
Ladonia Looks So Cold (Dockery & Conley) by Will Dockery | MySpace
Music
Listen to Ladonia Looks So Cold (Dockery & Conley) by Will Dockery
song on the New Song Demos album free on MySpace Music!
http://www.myspace.com/music/will-dockery-1735549/songs/ladonia-looks-so-cold-dockery-conley-57031289
Will Dockery
wrote:
>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> Absolutely... and thanks for helping me try to get this thread back on
> > topic, Dapper
Bravo...
Will Dockery
wrote:
>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > > Absolutely... and thanks for helping me try to get this thread back on
> > > > topic, Dapper
>
> > Bravo...
And so on...
George Dance
wrote:
> On Sep 20, 4:13 pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you know better than that, Karla... but I think you did show
> > up here to stir up some confusion and attack George at the same time,
> > am I right?
>
1) To trash the thread, and try to bury =z'='s poem.
2) To waste her targets' time and energy, should they try to seriously
answer her.
3) If lucky, to drive away some of the newer posters, commentors, and
readers..
4) To help out someone else with the same agenda, in exchange for his
similar backing up of her (in either the past of the future).
None of those motives are mutually exclusive, of course.
George Dance
Well, she's arguing that the comment from me that she initially quoted
--
"While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-
a-
half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to
avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search
the
RAP and AAPC archives."
-- was the same type of insult directed at her. That's what she means
by my alleged 'inconsistency' - her claim is that i'd call "matt" out
for flaming shaun for reposting, while I was supposedly doing the same
thing to her.
George Dance
> I was responding only to George's statement. Here is his
> statement and my direct response where I mention George's name:
>
> George: "As if you'd ever write the truth about anything (even if you did know
> it)."
>
> Karla: "You weren't exactly truthful, George (I wrote & posted twice as many new
> poems as old in that time period), when you wrote this:
>
> "While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-a-
> half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
> recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to
> avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the
> RAP and AAPC archives."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/be7b2621b...
>
> Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Groups'
> archive?
>
> Repent!
>
> Karla"
>
> Will, in case you don't know the difference, I was refuting George, not
> defending Matt. Look it up.
That's ridiculous. You can't *refute* my claim (that "matt" can't be
trusted to state the truth) without *defending* "matt" (from the same
charge). Look it up yourself.
George Dance
> On Sep 19, 7:01 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 6:46 pm, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 19, 3:26 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), George Dance
>
> > > > <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > >> On Sep 19, 9:31 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > On Sep 18, 10:14 pm, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > On Sep 13, 2:10 am, "=z=" <shull...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > > On Sep 12, 11:50 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > > > On Sep 12, 11:54 pm, "=z=" <shull...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > > > > On Sep 12, 5:17 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > other venue might. So please let me know, here or on email.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > >> > > > > > no, george...it has not been published...
> > > > >> > > > > > you are quite welcome to do with it as you wish my friend...
>
> > > > >> > > > > In that case, I'm not going to wait for April; I trust you'll have
> > > > >> > > > > something else I'll want to publish then. Instead I'm publishing your
> > > > >> > > > > poem tomorrow, which (since it's after midnight) is today. It's on
> > > > >> > > > > now, in fact.
>
> > > > >> > > > >http://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2010/09/ground-zero-shaun-hull.html
>
> > > > >> > > > > > thank you,
> > > > >> > > > > > …in extremes…
>
> > > > >> > > > > > shaun
>
> > > > >> > > > > > <smile>
>
> > > > >> > > > > > 8 )- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > >> > > > thanks george, 'ground zero' is actually one of my favorites also...i
> > > > >> > > > have thought about posting it online to a hiroshima/nagasaki type site
> > > > >> > > > but never really found the one that i was looking for...the 'betty
> > > > >> > > > blog' is fine for me and will do it justice as far as i am
> > > > >> > > > concerned...thank you again for putting "ground zero" out there...i
> > > > >> > > > hope you are doing well...!…put that cigarette down mister!…thank you
> > > > >> > > > as well nerissa…your poem 'my big sister' made me sad…it is so true in
> > > > >> > > > many ways…thanks for posting it…seems like that must have been a bit
> > > > >> > > > difficult to bear sharing…
>
> > > > >> > > > =z=
>
> > > > >> > > the same damn poem with the same
> > > > >> > > damn people telling you it's great.
>
> > > > >> > It is not true that it's "the same damn people". it's a fact that two
> > > > >> > of the (four) people who told shaun his poem is "great" -- nerissa and
> > > > >> > dapperdobbs -- are new contributors who weren't posting to aapc last
> > > > >> > year.
>
> > > > >> > That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to get
> > > > >> > access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least, that's
> > > > >> > my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
> > > > >> > there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
> > > > >> > [not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
> > > > >> > all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
> > > > >> > people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
> > > > >> > here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
> > > > >> > not "great") poetry to read.
>
> > > > >> > It's also a fact that some of the people who told shaun his poem was
> > > > >> > "great" last year -- that other "matt," for instance -- did not do so
> > > > >> > this time; but that's just a point in logic, showing that your claim
> > > > >> > that it was "the same damn people" was false two ways.
>
> > > > >> > > own barf? ...just asking.
>
>
> > > > >> here's a suggestion for you:
>
> > > > >> try to remember who to defend. you're the one
> > > > >> that told me you think shaun is wasted all the
> > > > >> time and that you don't like talking to him.
>
> > > > >You're doing it again: I never said any such thing about shaun. .
>
> > > > >Now you're not just getting it wrong: you're clearly either lying or
> > > > >bullshitting.
>
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> the same conversation, i defended shaun's
> > > > >> "brilliance."
>
> > > > >> you just happen to be another shining example of
> > > > >> two sidedness. try remembering your own lies,
> > > > >> troll.
>
> > > > >Reality check: Of the two of us, the only one who's been proven to
> > > > >write things that are not true (as above) is you.
> > > > >Therefore the only one of us who has been shown to be even a possible
> > > > >liar is you.
>
> > > > >I certainly have no qualms about concluding that you are a liar, and
> > > > >treating you accordingly.
>
> > > > >> it makes conversations with those who know
> > > > >> the truth about you a little less painful.
>
> > > > >As if you'd ever write the truth about anything (even if you did know
> > > > >it).
>
> > > > poems as old in that time period), when you wrote this:
>
> > > > "While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-a-
> > > > half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
> > > > recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to
> > > > avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the
> > > > RAP and AAPC archives."
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/be7b2621b...
>
> > > > Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Groups'
> > > > archive?
>
> > > > Repent!
>
> > > > Karla
>
>
> > Well, of course: you get caught telling untruths, a friend jumps in to
> > (a) take up the fight for you, and (b) change the subject completely
> > away from your dishonesty -- exactly as if it were a partner you'd
> > managed to tag in a pro wrestling match. Who wouldn't "endorse" help
> > like that?
>
> George.
> The only difference now is that I'm seeing you for what you are:
> a man that refuses to admit to his own double standards. That simply
> comes across as arrogant to me.
>
> If by default that makes me anybody's "friend," then by all means:
> enjoy your delusional state of mind.
>
> One more thing: the main difference between my apparent double
> standard
> behavior and yours is that I admit to mine on the spot. I laugh at
> myself
> when I'm caught in my own apparent lies and make a mockery of my
> obvious misbehavior. I don't go around blaming others for
> my mistakes.
>
> Arrogance is not my choice of dispositions at any time. Show me
> where I've miscalculated something, and I'll be glad to either give
> you an explanation or admit to my mistake. That's also a difference
> between your so called "friend" and myself. She rarely admits when
> she's wrong. That would take real "balls." Few here in this forum
> have demonstrated that ability. I believe I have.
You don't like 'friend,' eh? Well, let's use Cythera's term, and call
you "allies."
You were already allies month ago -- remember your backing both of
those up at the time of their last "Plagiarism Alert" about me, don't
you? -- so in that respect nothing has changed.
As for your bullshit about admitting your mistakes: I just showed you
where you made one - about who responded to =z='s poem - and so did he
- about why he criticized a poem by jeanne khan -- and I've yet to
hear you admit to either one. You've responded only with a bunch of
further incorrect statements, mixed with insults, about both of us. .
Don't tell us what you're like, little bullshitter. Show us.
Karla
George Dance says...
>
>On Sep 20, 4:43=A0pm, Hieronymous DCCVII <hieronymous...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 4:13=A0pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think you know better than that, Karla... but I think you did show
>> > up here to stir up some confusion and attack George at the same time,
>> > am I right?
>>
>> Why would somebody do that?
>
>2) To waste her targets' time and energy, should they try to seriously
>answer her.
>3) If lucky, to drive away some of the newer posters, commentors, and
>readers..
>4) To help out someone else with the same agenda, in exchange for his
>similar backing up of her (in either the past of the future).
>
>None of those motives are mutually exclusive, of course.
And none of them are my motives. Simply put, it offended and hurt me when I
first read the post in August that you would make such an effort to diminish my
poem postings in such a way. What was your motive? Dockery said he missed me -
were you jealous? You could have simply said "look in google archives for her
writing", but no, you put a negative spin on it suggesting that I mostly posted
recycled poems. You, who posts It's Spring Again every 6 months! <exaggeration>
George Dance
> In article <2028e3aa-6230-4c32-81ea-98f2edbd2...@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> George Dance says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 20, 4:43=A0pm, Hieronymous DCCVII <hieronymous...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sep 20, 4:13=A0pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I think you know better than that, Karla... but I think you did show
> >> > up here to stir up some confusion and attack George at the same time,
> >> > am I right?
>
> >> Why would somebody do that?
>
> >1) To trash the thread, and try to bury =3Dz'=3D's poem.
> >2) To waste her targets' time and energy, should they try to seriously
> >answer her.
> >3) If lucky, to drive away some of the newer posters, commentors, and
> >readers..
> >4) To help out someone else with the same agenda, in exchange for his
> >similar backing up of her (in either the past of the future).
>
> >None of those motives are mutually exclusive, of course.
>
> And none of them are my motives.
I don't recall asking you.
> Simply put, it offended and hurt me when I
> first read the post in August
> that you would make such an effort to diminish my
> poem postings in such a way.
Yeah, right; that's why, instead of saying anything at the time, you
waited until there was an opportunity to trash shaun's poem, fight
with me, and back up "matt," all at once.
> What was your motive? Dockery said he missed me -
> were you jealous?
So you've said. "You're just jealous because no one licks your
asshole" was how you put it, right?
> You could have simply said "look in google archives for her
> writing",
There's a lot of things I could have said: Anything from, "Oh, I miss
her just as much, in every day and every way," to "Don't bother; none
of what she wrote was worth reading anyway." So what?
> but no, you put a negative spin
As I've told you already; any suggestion of negativity is your own
spin.
> on it suggesting that I mostly posted
> recycled poems. You, who posts It's Spring Again every 6 months! <exaggeration>
Ah, yes ... I do remember you complaining to someone else about me
posting the same poems over and over again (or WTTE; I haven't located
that post) during the same time period we're discussing. At least that
explains where this negativity you're sensing in my comments is coming
from: you're projecting it.
mat1t3
> On Sep 20, 1:24 am, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> You don't like 'friend,' eh? Well, let's use Cythera's term, and call
> you "allies."
> You were already allies month ago -- remember your backing both of
> those up at the time of their last "Plagiarism Alert" about me, don't
> you? -- so in that respect nothing has changed.
oh, i see...so, the minute i see someone's point of view concerning
a particular issue, that makes us either friends or allies?
this falls in line with your labeling habits...the shitpeople
bullshit.
you've got 'us vs. them' wound up tight in your thick skull, old man.
>
> As for your bullshit about admitting your mistakes: I just showed you
> where you made one - about who responded to =z='s poem - and so did he
> - about why he criticized a poem by jeanne khan -- and I've yet to
> hear you admit to either one. You've responded only with a bunch of
> further incorrect statements, mixed with insults, about both of us. .
you forgot to check that i commented before the newbies comments
meaning that there were the same "damn" posters giving the same old
reply to the same old poem.
you and shaun dealt out the derogatory language at the get go.
shaun likes the colorful language anyway...he's "wasted," remember?
and, you, of course, tell me to "fuck off" as "just a suggestion."
i didn't even refer to you specifically as the "same damn poster."
i could've just as easily been talking about dockery, although your
name was in the thread. that's when you ask questions instead
of leading out with the insults. it only gets you in trouble later
on.
: )
George Dance
wrote:
> On Sep 20, 7:19 pm, Karla <karl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <2028e3aa-6230-4c32-81ea-98f2edbd2...@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> > George Dance says...
>
> > >On Sep 20, 4:43=A0pm, Hieronymous DCCVII <hieronymous...@gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> On Sep 20, 4:13=A0pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > I think you know better than that, Karla... but I think you did show
> > >> > up here to stir up some confusion and attack George at the same time,
> > >> > am I right?
>
> > >> Why would somebody do that?
>
> > >1) To trash the thread, and try to bury =3Dz'=3D's poem.
> > >2) To waste her targets' time and energy, should they try to seriously
> > >answer her.
> > >3) If lucky, to drive away some of the newer posters, commentors, and
> > >readers..
> > >4) To help out someone else with the same agenda, in exchange for his
> > >similar backing up of her (in either the past of the future).
>
> > >None of those motives are mutually exclusive, of course.
>
> > first read the post in August that you would make such an effort to diminish my
> > were you jealous? You could have simply said "look in google archives for her
> > writing", but no, you put a negative spin on it suggesting that I mostly posted
> > recycled poems. You, who posts It's Spring Again every 6 months! <exaggeration>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> you have absolutely every right to be offended and hurt. I could be
> absolutely wrong because I'm not George and I don't know George's
> mind, but I don't think he meant to diminish your poem postings the
> way you say he did. I don't think he thought about it that way at
> all. I think George is a guy, a rhetorically clumsy guy, who saw a
> girl he wanted to talk to, but put his foot in his mouth in the
> process. Anyway, so much for what I think.
Thanks for sharing it. That's an interesting perspective, and one I
can identify with: I've had that 'clumsy guy' feeling many a time in
the past.
mat1t3
snip for specific issue:
>
> That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to get
> access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least, that's
> my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
> there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
> [not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
> all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
> people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
> here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
> not "great") poetry to read."
this is exactly what i mean about "lack of balls."
you always seem to find a problem with MY "shit and piss"
critiques, but NEVER with gary or houstman. you're the
shining epitome of a double standard, karla. i knew
it would be just a matter of time before i found a reason to
call you on your bullshit again. the truth is: there's very
little difference between you and george. your poetry
is better. that's about it. otherwise: same bullshit,
different day.
snip for relevance
George Dance
> On Sep 20, 4:07 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:> On Sep 20, 1:24 am, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > You don't like 'friend,' eh? Well, let's use Cythera's term, and call
> > you "allies."
> > You were already allies month ago -- remember your backing both of
> > those up at the time of their last "Plagiarism Alert" about me, don't
> > you? -- so in that respect nothing has changed.
>
> oh, i see...so, the minute i see someone's point of view concerning
> a particular issue, that makes us either friends or allies?
Maybe not right then; but certainly by the time you're doing back-up
flaming for each other.
> this falls in line with your labeling habits...the shitpeople
> bullshit.
> you've got 'us vs. them' wound up tight in your thick skull, old man.
Oh, right; according to you, there aren't and never have been any
alliances or factions on aapc; just individuals who "see each other's
point of view." I guess that's why the exact same people who've been
calling me a thief for the past year were all calling you the same
thing for the first half of that (and why they all stopped when you
started calling me a fhief, too); they were just so able to see each
others' points of view.
> > As for your bullshit about admitting your mistakes: I just showed you
> > where you made one - about who responded to =z='s poem - and so did he
> > - about why he criticized a poem by jeanne khan -- and I've yet to
> > hear you admit to either one. You've responded only with a bunch of
> > further incorrect statements, mixed with insults, about both of us. .
>
> you forgot to check that i commented before the newbies comments
> meaning that there were the same "damn" posters giving the same old
> reply to the same old poem.
>
You're right; I never checked on whether you commented before or after
nerissa or dobbs (neither of whom I'd call 'newbies'). So I did, and
it turns out that you commented after they did: nerissa on the 13,
dobb on the 16, you on the 18.
> you and shaun dealt out the derogatory language at the get go.
> shaun likes the colorful language anyway...he's "wasted," remember?
I remember you claiming I said that about him, if that's what you
mean.
> and, you, of course, tell me to "fuck off" as "just a suggestion."
When you start calling the poetry posted here 'barf'' and the people
who post it barf eaters (the way you were doing) of course I'll tell
you to fuck off. That's what i tell anyone who trashes poetry being
posted here.
> i didn't even refer to you specifically as the "same damn poster."
> i could've just as easily been talking about dockery, although your
> name was in the thread. that's when you ask questions instead
> of leading out with the insults. it only gets you in trouble later
> on.
I didn't tell you to fuck off because I thought you were insulting
*me;* I told you to fuck off because you were insulting the author of
the poem, just for posting his poem. Get it?
mat1t3
wrote:
> On Sep 20, 8:21 pm, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 12:05 pm, Karla <karl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > snip for specific issue:
>
by typing the word "snipping" i'm showing respect
for the rest of the thread. that, in itself, demonstrates
a commons courtesy. i mean, duh!
: )
Will Dockery
Hey, hey, hey!
Didn't you read my post in the other thread? This is one fight I want
to stay out of for a change!
"...Will Dockery pages are for art, music & poetry only... no
politics, religion or other agendas, please, so, once again:
Everyone... my pages are for making my music, art, poetry, et cetera
available. Please don't post personal information & insults about
other folks here, as I have stated in the past with other
circumst...ances, I do not allow my pages to be used as a
"battleground" for fueding friends. If posts like this are made, I'll
have to delete them, as I've had to do in the past in other, similar,
situations. Thanks, y'all..."
Will Dockery
Ah... glad I popped in for a moment, Matt... headed to the country
fair & a birthday greeting, but good & interesting to see that you
prove that you call it as you see it, no favoritism... be back later.
--
Poetry & Music of Will Dockery (no charge!):
$http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
mat1t3
> On Sep 20, 8:07 pm, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
snip
>
> I didn't tell you to fuck off because I thought you were insulting
> *me;* I told you to fuck off because you were insulting the author of
> the poem, just for posting his poem. Get it?
oh, so now you've become the great =z= defender.
congratulations. although, it's altogether possible
that he's given you a contact high. your left hand
has long forgot what the right is doing.
anyway, i wasn't insulting anybody. i was asking a simple
question. as a reply to shauns rant after said question, the whole of
the question
was exposed which had much to do with his yearly rant
over jeannes poem on memorial day. somehow, his
911 day post has become the new standard. in the meantime,
jeanne doesn't even post her memorial day poem anymore.
do you always need directions during conversations?
i think you just like busting balls. who has time for your
bullshit? -is the next question.
if i stopped reading you, would it even matter?
all these questions keep popping up, george.
you make me wonder.
: )
mat1t3
wrote:
> On Sep 20, 9:11 pm, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > a commons courtesy. i mean, duh!
>
> > : )
>
> writing with respect to Karla. To tell a woman she lacks balls is
> like, duh.
oh,
ha ha ha ha ha!
(sigh)
Will Dockery
That I have... will you be posting a poem?
> were you jealous?
You seem confused, Karla... why would anyone be "jealous" over
something I say?
Karla
wrote:
Is this a joke? I didn't write what you left up there. I think George did.
mat1t3
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:21:04 -0700 (PDT), mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net>
here's the original message:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/82319711ff127a18?hl=en&
it is kind of hard to tell you two apart...i must admit.
Will Dockery
Confusing, I agree...
George Dance
> On Sep 20, 5:45 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 8:07 pm, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > I didn't tell you to fuck off because I thought you were insulting
> > *me;* I told you to fuck off because you were insulting the author of
> > the poem, just for posting his poem. Get it?
>
> oh, so now you've become the great =z= defender.
No, I'm what I've always been; the person who defends those who post
poetry from those who like to shit and piss all over it. It's you
who've changed roles, bud.
> congratulations. although, it's altogether possible
> that he's given you a contact high. your left hand
> has long forgot what the right is doing.
>
> anyway, i wasn't insulting anybody. i was asking a simple
> question.
"do you people ever get tired of eating your
>>> own barf?"
You people are too much. On the one hand, Karla is whining about a
terrible insult (that no one but her can see) in a month-old comment
of mine; and on the other hand, you're trying to pass off your calling
shaun a barf-eater as "asking a simple question". And then the both of
you have the fucking nerve to complain about "double standards" and
inconsistency."
> as a reply to shauns rant after said question, the whole of
> the question
> was exposed which had much to do with his yearly rant
> over jeannes poem on memorial day.
> somehow, his
> 911 day post has become the new standard. in the meantime,
> jeanne doesn't even post her memorial day poem anymore.
>
She posted it here as recently as last Remembrance Day:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/browse_thread/thread/336e1bd1c49ea50e/02dfe0033adf7f47?hl=en#02dfe0033adf7f47
I don't notice any "rant" from shaun either. An I have no reason --
your word isn't -- to believe you there ever was such a "yearly
rant".
> do you always need directions during conversations?
>
Is that what you people call your spin lately: "directions"?
> i think you just like busting balls. who has time for your
> bullshit? -is the next question.
And the answer is: those who keep coming back for more, like you
people.
>
> if i stopped reading you, would it even matter?
>
I doubt it; you'd just keep replying anyway, right?
> all these questions keep popping up, george.
>
It's a bit like Whack-a-Mole, isn't it? 8D
George Dance
>
> snip for specific issue:
>
>
> > That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to get
> > access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least, that's
> > my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
> > there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
> > [not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
> > all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
> > people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
> > here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
> > not "great") poetry to read."
>
Karla didn't write that; I did. Why the hell would Kala be "flaming"
you, anyway? She's your backup in this thread, remember?
> this is exactly what i mean about "lack of balls."
> you always seem to find a problem with MY "shit and piss"
> critiques, but NEVER with gary or houstman.
Gee, do you think that Karla might possibly be some kind of ally with
"gary" and "houstman". Naw, there can't be any such alliance on aapc:
after all, you people have all said so.
George Dance
> Karla says:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Sep 19, 9:31=A0am, George Dance wrote:
> >>> On Sep 18, 10:14=A0pm, mat1t3 wrote:
> >>> > On Sep 12, 11:54=A0pm, "=3Dz=3D" wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 12, 5:17=A0pm, George Dance wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sep 12, 6:02=A0am, "=3Dz=3D" wrote:
>
> > >> > > >> >> ground zero
>
> > >> > > >> >> i seem to remember
> > >> > > >> >> a sunroof sky
> > >> > > >> >> full of kanji and silk
> > >> > > >> >> wisteria dancing across the wind
> > >> > > >> >> my daughter laughing in that so saturated face
> > >> > > >> >> as friend and i sit down to our morning game
> > >> > > >> >> i swore i would take advantage of his saki rejuvenation
>
> > >> > > >> >> i seem to remember
> > >> > > >> >> the taste of my wife's lips
> > >> > > >> >> so sweet a touch of harmony
> > >> > > >> >> quickly replaced by the happy wet kiss of my child
> > >> > > >> >> giggling so to almost annoy
> > >> > > >> >> this fierce competition
>
> > >> > > >> >> my new pocket watch stating
> > >> > > >> >> with such fine western precision
> > >> > > >> >> you have time to champion
> > >> > > >> >> it's only
> > >> > > >> >> 8:13
>
> > >> > > >> >> i seem to remember
> > >> > > >> >> wind chimes singing to laughter
> > >> > > >> >> and graceful chatter
> > >> > > >> >> rising so near to cacophony
>
> > >> > > >> >> a whirl and rash
> > >> > > >> >> of mans humanity
>
> > >> > > >> >> i seem to remember
> > >> > > >> >> a distant sound of wings
> > >> > > >> >> floating across an eastern sky
> > >> > > >> >> and eyes squinting to see
>
> > >> > > >> >> to my child suddenly
> > >> > > >> >> turning white
>
> > >> > > >> >> the brightest white
> > >> > > >> >> the hottest white
> > >> > > >> >> the darkest white
>
> > >> > > >> >> i shall never see
>
> > >> > > >> >> i can't seem to remember
> > >> > > >> >> where i left my soul
>
> > >> > > >> >> i think it's where my shadow
> > >> > > >> >> left a halo
> > >> > > >> >> burned into the ground
>
>
> > >> > > >>> This may be the best poem you've published here. It's the one I'd=
> > > like
> > >> > > >>> to use to represent you on The Betty Blog next April. You may hav=
> > >e
>
> > ><snip for brevity>
>
> > >>>> > > the same damn poem with the same
> > >>>> > > damn people telling you it's great.
>
> > >>>> > It is not true that it's "the same damn people". it's a fact that two
> > >d
> > >>>> > dapperdobbs -- are new contributors who weren't posting to aapc last
> > >>>> > year.
>
> > >s
> > >>>> > my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
> > >>>> > there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
> > >>>> > [not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
> > >>>> > all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
> > >>>> > people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
> > >>>> > here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
> > >>>> > not "great") poetry to read.
>
> > >>>> > "great" last year -- that other "matt," for instance -- did not do so
> > >>>> > this time; but that's just a point in logic, showing that your claim
> > >>>> > that it was "the same damn people" was false two ways.
>
>
> > >>>> do you people ever get tired of eating your
>
> > ><Karla's dishonest defense of above statement snipped>
>
> > >> > for once, i fully endorse this post!
>
> > >> Well, of course: you get caught telling untruths, a friend jumps in to
> > >> (a) take up the fight for you, and (b) change the subject completely
> > >> managed to tag in a pro wrestling match. Who wouldn't "endorse" help
> > >> like that?
>
> > >it would manifest with her defense of such a revoltingly anti-poetry
> > >insult as:
>
> > >"...do you people ever get tired of eating your own barf? ...just
> > >asking."
>
> > >is just... sad.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I was refuting George, not defending Matt.
>
> and you whisked in to confuse the focus, it seems.
>
> The point Matt was making was:
>
> Reposting old poetry = "...do you people ever get tired of eating your
> own barf?"
>
> So, George's point was that Matt could ask you the same thing, since
> half the poetry you posted last year was over a decade old. Not that
> there's anything wrong with that, in my opinion.
>
> --
> Music & poetry of Will Dockery (no charge!):http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
I could've used Karla, or several other people, as examples, Will; but
in fact I didn't. I didn't mention Karla at all: she jumped in here
to change the subject and start a fight purely on her own initiative.
Karla
George Dance says...
>
>On Sep 20, 7:19=A0pm, Karla <karl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <2028e3aa-6230-4c32-81ea-98f2edbd2...@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> George Dance says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Sep 20, 4:13=3DA0pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > I think you know better than that, Karla... but I think you did show
>,
>> >> > am I right?
>>
>> >> Why would somebody do that?
>>
>> >2) To waste her targets' time and energy, should they try to seriously
>> >answer her.
>> >3) If lucky, to drive away some of the newer posters, commentors, and
>> >readers..
>> >4) To help out someone else with the same agenda, in exchange for his
>> >similar backing up of her (in either the past of the future).
>>
>> >None of those motives are mutually exclusive, of course.
>>
>> And none of them are my motives.
>
>I don't recall asking you.
So, in George's world, it is perfectly acceptable to ascribe nasty motives to a
person, and discourage that very person's speaking truth regarding said motives.
Reminds me of the Bush Administration.
>>=A0Simply put, it offended and hurt me when I
>> first read the post in August
>> that you would make such an effort to diminish my
>> poem postings in such a way.
>
>
>Yeah, right; that's why, instead of saying anything at the time, you
>waited until there was an opportunity to trash shaun's poem, fight
>with me, and back up "matt," all at once.
I actually went through the exercise of listing out my poems at the time, and
then decided to let it pass. When I saw your post about Shaun, it irritated the
hell out of me, so I brought it up. What did you think? That Matt and I were
conspiring behind the scenes? That your paranoia about people out to get you on
the poetry newsgroups had come true? I feel sorry for you and others who think
like you here. You will never let the truth into your hearts that there is no
alliance against you. Many of the people you like to lump together don't even
like each other. That a person enjoys the poem of someone they don't like is
beyond you. And the fact coupled with the fact that they may not enjoy your
poems sends you.
>> What was your motive? Dockery said he missed me -
>> were you jealous?
>
>So you've said. "You're just jealous because no one licks your
>asshole" was how you put it, right?
Are you asking me this time? I may speak?
>> You could have simply said "look in google archives for her
>> writing",
>
>There's a lot of things I could have said: Anything from, "Oh, I miss
>her just as much, in every day and every way," to "Don't bother; none
>of what she wrote was worth reading anyway." So what?
You don't see any difference in the statements "Will, you can look in the Google
archives for poems that Karla has written since she isn't posting here lately"
and "While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-a-half,
not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to
avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the
RAP and AAPC archives."
What did you mean by "not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or
simply recycled from her 20th century ouevre"?
>> but no, you put a negative spin
>
>As I've told you already; any suggestion of negativity is your own
>spin.
>
>> on it suggesting that I mostly posted
>> recycled poems. You, who posts It's Spring Again every 6 months! <exagger=
>ation>
>
>Ah, yes ... I do remember you complaining to someone else about me
>posting the same poems over and over again (or WTTE; I haven't located
>that post) during the same time period we're discussing. At least that
>explains where this negativity you're sensing in my comments is coming
>from: you're projecting it.
Hope you find it. I'd be interested in seeing this post where I complained about
you posting the same poems over and over again.
Karla
George Dance
> In article <6420404b-b32b-4ad8-b396-95fb89717...@c21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> George Dance says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 20, 12:54=A0am, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 18:55:39 -0700 (PDT), George Dance
> >> <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 19, 6:26=A0pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), George Dance
> >> >> <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >> >> You weren't exactly truthful, George (I wrote & posted twice as many n=
> >ew
> >> >> poems as old in that time period), when you wrote this:
>
> >> >> "While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-a-
> >> >> recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to
> >> >> avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the
> >> >> RAP and AAPC archives."
>
> >.
>
> >> >Show me your evidence (titles and posting dates for Feb./09-Aug./10).
> >> >If you can show that I was wrong, I'll admit it.* Until then, I'll
> >> >stand by what I said: most of the poems you posted in that period were
> >> >from the 20th century. (The count I took before I wrote that paragraph
> >> >was: 7 from C20 vs. 4 from 2009-10; but I am not showing you mine
> >> >until you show me yours.)
>
> >> You insult me and misrepresent my posting of poems
>
> >I'm sorry to hear that you felt insulted; but I don't see anything
> >insulting in the comment you quoted, and it certainly wasn't meant to
> >be insulting. Or to be misrepresentative FTM -- I already told you
> >that I did a count before I wrote that. I found 7 old poems from you
> >(I Am a Video, Lily of Light Fields, Lot's Wife, Trick of Light,
> >Midwest Girl, Twins, and New Values) vs. 4 new (Cast Iron Skillets,
> >Sonnet, Raisin Ether, and Blue Quintet).
>
> >> and you'll just admit
> >> you're wrong?
>
> >Unlike the person you're backing up here, matt, who didn't (and still
> >hasn't). Did that really go over your head?
>
> >> How about an apology?
>
> >As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is to get the correct
> >information out, not to play those sorts of games; but, hey, if you
> >want an apology, and I think you deserve one, you'll get one.
>
> >> New poems written & posted between Feb./09-Aug./10:
>
> >> 03/02/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(Men Prefer) Cast Iron Skillets
> >> 03/23/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Glosa (Recuerdo)
> >> 03/24/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Glosa (The Far Field)
> >> 06/13/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0On Mariana in the Glassi
> >> 10/03/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0In the Clouds
> >> 11/22/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sonnet
> >> 01/09/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Grail
> >> 01/30/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Haiku
> >> 01/31/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Haiku
> >> 01/31/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Raisin Ether
> >> 02/14/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Haiku
> >> 02/15/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Blue Quintet
> >> 02/26/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Obpoem (Moon Moan)
> >> 03/14/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Haiku
> >> 04/12/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Old LP
>
> >> Reposts during Feb./09-Aug./10:
>
> >> 05/10/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lily of Lightfields
> >> 05/31/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lot's Wife
> >> 06/08/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Trick of Light
> >> 07/23/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Midwest Girl
> >> 09/29/09 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Twins
> >> 01/17/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Flamenco Nights
> >> 03/20/10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0New Values
>
> >> As you can readily see, most of it was not "revised or simply recycled."
>
> >Not exactly 'readily': I probably wasted hours looking through aapc
> >for all the poems on your top list. I still haven't found 3 of them
> >here: Glosa (Recuerdo), Glosa (The Far Field), and Old LP -- maybe
> >you posted those to another group or under a different account? And
> >while I did find your three "haiku," you know I don't consider that
> >sort off tossing-of to be poetry (regardless of source); I'd say
> >you're just using them to pad your total. I normally wouldn't count
> >something like Obpoem (Moon Moan) for the same reason, but what the
> >hell? You added a poem to the bottom list as well, which was also an
> >Obpoem I hadn't seen, so that's a wash.
>
> >That gives you 8 new poems (the 4 I'd found earlier, plus On Mariana
> >in the Glass, In the Clouds, Grail, and Obpoem(Moon Moan)) vs. 8 from
> >the previous century (the 7 I'd found earlier, plus Flamenco Nights).
> >Assuming that there aren't any more of the latter, that is enough to
> >make it false that "most" of your poetry was revised or simply
> >recycled from that time; so I'll admit that 'most' was the wrong word
> >to use, and (since you asked) apologize for using it.
>
> When I posted my list of new poems (from "the RAP and AAPC archives" as you
> wrote above)
I intend to reply to the rest later; but in the meantime I am not
going to let this misquote of your stand.
Here's what I wrote (and you should know by know; you've posted it
often enough):
From: George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments
Subject: Re: It's Been Over A Year : )
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 10:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7a412154-
f1e1-4712-84d...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
That message (as anyone can read) was posted to aapc only (not
rec.arts.poems, or alt.usenet.kooks, or any other group I didn't
subscribe to).
""While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-
a-
half, not that much of it was new."
As anyone can read, I was talking about what poems you posted
"here" (ie, the group(s) where this message appeared): IOW, aapc only
(not rec.arts.poems, or alt.usenet.kooks, or any other group I didn't
subscribe to).
"Most of it was revised or simply
recycled from her 20th century ouevre."
As anyone can read, this sentence is doesn't even mention your "new
poems".
"And no one needs Karla here to
avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search
the
RAP and AAPC archives."
As anyone can read, "that" refers to your "20th century ouevre"; the
claim that that can be found in "the RAP and AAPC archives" being a
simple statement of fact.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/be7b2621b4671696?hl=en&dmode=source
Hint: the next time you want to misquote, hide the text that you're
misquoting.
HTH
snip for relevance
, it crossed my mind that you might attempt to devalue haiku, but
> then I thought of your inquiries here about your own short three-line poems
> which, if I recall correctly, you were thinking of including in your book, and I
> concluded that you wouldn't strike the haiku (there are four haiku, by the way).
> Matt wrote that I never admit I'm wrong, so let me say that I was wrong (and
> shocked) about you in regard to the haiku. Two of the haiku took me quite a
> long time to get right. A good deal of contemplation in silence was needed. Each
> word balanced in my mind against the sounds and weight of other words. Articles
> were struck and reinserted. Quite a bit of tinkering all in all. My end results
> pleased me very much, so much so that I submitted them.
>
> It's a curious process you've employed to weigh and strike certain of the "new
> poems". Did you do the same for the second list? How do you know how much
> effort I put into either list? Because a poem is three lines, it's "tossed
> off"? There are two poems in the second list that were written very hastily.
> Should we strike those two? I wouldn't. One of them was snatched up almost
> immediately after I'd posted it by editors of a poetry magazine. Yet, I wrote
> it in under an hour and it remains very popular to this day.
>
> All the poems in the lists are saved to my home system and considered by me to
> be poems. You or others may argue some were bad poems, which you have every
> right to do. But your initial post about my posting history did not include that
> value judgment. You wrote "While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here . . ."
> You didn't write good poetry, bad poetry, sloppy poetry, tossed off poetry, etc.
> The only distinction you made about what I posted is old and new. Oh, and please
> be advised that I didn't include prose responses I made where people posted that
> the writing read like poems. My intent in those responses wasn't to write a
> poem. I've only included writing that was intentionally crafted as poems by me.
> I think you're digging yourself into a hole by disqualifying some of the poems,
> George.
>
> >> >> Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Groups'
> >> >> archive?
>
> >> >Of course. Did I say it wasn't? Where's the alleged inconsistency?
>
> >> You thought it appropriate and necessary for him to repost because there
> >> were new newsgroup participants, but gave a negative spin to my resposts.
>
> >Speaking of 'spin' -- I didn't say either of those things (and I do
> >hope you're not claiming to be able to read my thoughts). What I did
> >do was defend his reposting of that poem against someone (matt, the
> >guy you're backing up here, remember?) who was flaming him or
> >reposting him -- calling him a vomit eater and the like -- for doing
> >it, pointing out that the new participants liked it themselves.
>
> My first opinion: "You thought it appropriate and necessary for him to repost
> because there were new participants"
>
> Your post: "It is not true that it's "the same damn people". it's a fact that
> two of the (four) people who told shaun his poem is "great" -- nerissa and
> dapperdobbs -- are new contributors who weren't posting to aapc last
> year.
>
> That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to get
> access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least, that's
> my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
> there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
> [not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
> all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
> people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
> here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
> not "great") poetry to read."
>
> Conclusion: You argue that it's appropriate and necessary to post good poetry so
> new people will want to read here.
>
> My opinion: "but [you] gave a negative spin to my reposts."
>
> Your post: ""While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past
> year-and-a-half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
> recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to avoid
> missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the RAP and AAPC
> archives."
>
> Conclusion: most of my posts were reposts and who needs that?
>
> >I didn't defend you against the flaming you got for your "resposts",
> >but that was because you didn't get any. I certainly didn't notice
> >anyone calling you a vomit eater or the like. I certainly didn't flame
> >you. I remember saying that one of those posts, 'Lily,' was a repost,
> >and that you'd changed three words; I remember you didn't like that,
> >but I don't see it as being any more "negative" than the comment you
> >quoted earlier. If you're calling either of those "negative", I'd say
> >that was purely your spin.
>
> >> Obviously, if people like Sean's
>
> >[Please stop doing that. As you know, his name is Shaun.]
>
> That was sloppy of me. I remembered it as Sean. Sorry Shaun.
>
> >> poetry they could google him, right?
>
> >Certainly; and if Shaun did stop posting here, and months later
> >someone complained that they missed reading his poetry, I'd probably
> >tell that person to search for it -- just as I told the person who
> >said he missed reading your poetry. That's not what's been happening
> >in this thread, though, as you know.
>
> You didn't simply say he could google my poetry if he missed it. ...
>
> read more »
Barbara's Cat
> I'm what I've always been
If nothing else, you certainly validate the maxim
"Some people never grow up."
--
Cm~
"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just
a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own
pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they
do is meaningless and inconsequential."
- William Thomas
George Dance
What the hell do you mean, you "think George did"?
You were quoting and misrepresenting that statement of mine just
yesterday.
<quote>
Your post: "It is not true that it's "the same damn people". it's a
fact that
two of the (four) people who told shaun his poem is "great" -- nerissa
and
dapperdobbs -- are new contributors who weren't posting to aapc last
year.
That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to get
access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least,
that's
my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
[not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
not "great") poetry to read."
Your spin on that: ">> You thought it appropriate and necessary for
[Shaun] to repost because there
>> were new newsgroup participants"
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/82319711ff127a18?hl=en
Stop playing games.
George Dance
Deliberate confusion, I'd say. It looks to me like "matt" just decided
to prove that he and Karla aren't allies in this thread, so there!
Unfortunately, he didn't clear that with Karla, so that might turn out
to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Will Dockery
>
> this is exactly what i mean about "lack of balls."
> you always seem to find a problem with MY "shit and piss"
> critiques, but NEVER with gary or houstman.
Don't type their names, that always brings them back... heh.
But you're right, Matt. I often asked Karla that same question, or
noted that about her "Shrug & look the other way" policy combined with
her pretending to be confused (as she was doing yesterday) as well as
her outright lying when it suits her purpose (which she explains is
"okay" when she's in a "flame war"), but she never seems to get around
to answering me, or stating why she has this obvious double standard.
Now Karla claims that the posters here don't "really like each other"
and only apparently pretend to be friends here on the newsgroups...
why that is perhaps we can guess, I suppose.
--
Poetry & Music of Will Dockery (no charge!):
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Karla
George Dance says...
>
>On Sep 20, 3:05=A0pm, Karla <karl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <6420404b-b32b-4ad8-b396-95fb89717...@c21g2000vba.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> George Dance says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 20, 12:54=3DA0am, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 18:55:39 -0700 (PDT), George Dance
>> >> <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), George Dance
>> >> >> <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>y n=3D
>> >ew
>> >> >> poems as old in that time period), when you wrote this:
>>
>-a-
>> >> >> half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or simply
>to
>> >> >> avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search =
>the
>> >> >> RAP and AAPC archives."
>>
>b..=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >Show me your evidence (titles and posting dates for Feb./09-Aug./10).
>> >> >If you can show that I was wrong, I'll admit it.* Until then, I'll
>e
>> >> >from the 20th century. (The count I took before I wrote that paragrap=
>h
>> >> >was: 7 from C20 vs. 4 from 2009-10; but I am not showing you mine
>> >> >until you show me yours.)
>>
>> >> You insult me and misrepresent my posting of poems
>>
>> >I'm sorry to hear that you felt insulted; but I don't see anything
>> >insulting in the comment you quoted, and it certainly wasn't meant to
>> >be insulting. Or to be misrepresentative FTM -- I already told you
>> >that I did a count before I wrote that. I found 7 old poems from you
>> >(I Am a Video, Lily of Light Fields, Lot's Wife, Trick of Light,
>> >Midwest Girl, Twins, and New Values) vs. 4 new (Cast Iron Skillets,
>> >Sonnet, Raisin Ether, and Blue Quintet).
>>
>> >> you're wrong?
>>
>> >Unlike the person you're backing up here, matt, who didn't (and still
>> >hasn't). Did that really go over your head?
>>
>> >> How about an apology?
>>
>> >As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is to get the correct
>> >information out, not to play those sorts of games; but, hey, if you
>> >want an apology, and I think you deserve one, you'll get one.
>>
>> >> New poems written & posted between Feb./09-Aug./10:
>>
>> >> 03/23/09 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Glosa (Recuerdo)
>> >> 03/24/09 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Glosa (The Far Field)
>> >> 06/13/09 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0On Mariana in the Glassi
>> >> 10/03/09 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0In the Clouds
>> >> 11/22/09 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Sonnet
>> >> 01/09/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Grail
>> >> 01/30/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Haiku
>> >> 01/31/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Haiku
>> >> 01/31/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Raisin Ether
>> >> 02/14/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Haiku
>> >> 02/15/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Blue Quintet
>> >> 02/26/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Obpoem (Moon Moan)
>> >> 03/14/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Haiku
>> >> 04/12/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Old LP
>>
>> >> Reposts during Feb./09-Aug./10:
>>
>> >> 05/10/09 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Lily of Lightfields
>> >> 05/31/09 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Lot's Wife
>> >> 06/08/09 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Trick of Light
>> >> 07/23/09 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Midwest Girl
>> >> 09/29/09 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Twins
>> >> 01/17/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Flamenco Nights
>> >> 03/20/10 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0New Values
>>
>> >> As you can readily see, most of it was not "revised or simply recycled=
>."
>>
>> >Not exactly 'readily': I probably wasted hours looking through aapc
>> >for all the poems on your top list. I still haven't found 3 of them
>> >you posted those to another group or under a different account? And
>> >while I did find your three "haiku," you know I don't consider that
>> >sort off tossing-of to be poetry (regardless of source); I'd say
>> >you're just using them to pad your total. I normally wouldn't count
>> >something like Obpoem (Moon Moan) for the same reason, but what the
>> >hell? You added a poem to the bottom list as well, which was also an
>> >Obpoem I hadn't seen, so that's a wash.
>>
>> >That gives you 8 new poems (the 4 I'd found earlier, plus On Mariana
>> >in the Glass, In the Clouds, Grail, and Obpoem(Moon Moan)) vs. 8 from
>> >the previous century (the 7 I'd found earlier, plus Flamenco Nights).
>> >Assuming that there aren't any more of the latter, that is enough to
>> >make it false that "most" of your poetry was revised or simply
>> >recycled from that time; so I'll admit that 'most' was the wrong word
>> >to use, and (since you asked) apologize for using it.
>>
>ou
>> wrote above)
>
>I intend to reply to the rest later; but in the meantime I am not
>going to let this misquote of your stand.
>
>Here's what I wrote (and you should know by know; you've posted it
>often enough):
>
>From: George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca>
>Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments
>Subject: Re: It's Been Over A Year : )
>Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 10:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <7a412154-
>f1e1-4712-84d...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
>
>That message (as anyone can read) was posted to aapc only (not
>rec.arts.poems, or alt.usenet.kooks, or any other group I didn't
>subscribe to).
>
>""While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-
>a-
>half, not that much of it was new."
>
>As anyone can read, I was talking about what poems you posted
>"here" (ie, the group(s) where this message appeared): IOW, aapc only
>(not rec.arts.poems, or alt.usenet.kooks, or any other group I didn't
>subscribe to).
Wow! I don't subscribe to any groups mentioned above. Should all of my poems be
disqualified? Do you mean you only subscribe via google groups to aapc? At any
rate, why mention rap if you don't subscribe to it?
>"Most of it was revised or simply
>recycled from her 20th century ouevre."
>
>As anyone can read, this sentence is doesn't even mention your "new
>poems".
>
>"And no one needs Karla here to
>avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search
>the
>RAP and AAPC archives."
Arguably, "here" could mean RAP and AAPC since you mention them in the same
paragraph. The sentence containing "here" refers to old poems--which you point
out in the sentence above--and which you then say one can find in AAPC and RAP
archives.
If you feel it necessary to strike poems from the list that appeared only on rap
in order to win this argument, go for it, George! You WIN!
>As anyone can read, "that" refers to your "20th century ouevre"; the
>claim that that can be found in "the RAP and AAPC archives" being a
>simple statement of fact.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/be7b2621b467169=
>6?hl=3Den&dmode=3Dsource
>
>Hint: the next time you want to misquote, hide the text that you're
>misquoting.
>
>HTH
>
>snip for relevance
>
>
>
>
>
>, it crossed my mind that you might attempt to devalue haiku, but
>> then I thought of your inquiries here about your own short three-line poe=
>ms
>> which, if I recall correctly, you were thinking of including in your book=
>, and I
>> concluded that you wouldn't strike the haiku (there are four haiku, by th=
>e way).
>> Matt wrote that I never admit I'm wrong, so let me say that I was wrong (=
>and
>> shocked) about you in regard to the haiku. =A0Two of the haiku took me qu=
>ite a
>> long time to get right. A good deal of contemplation in silence was neede=
>d. Each
>> word balanced in my mind against the sounds and weight of other words. Ar=
>ticles
>> were struck and reinserted. Quite a bit of tinkering all in all. My end r=
>esults
>> pleased me very much, so much so that I submitted them.
>>
>> It's a curious process you've employed to weigh and strike certain of the=
> "new
>> poems". =A0Did you do the same for the second list? =A0How do you know ho=
>w much
>> effort I put into either list? =A0Because a poem is three lines, it's "to=
>ssed
>> off"? There are two poems in the second list that were written very hasti=
>ly.
>> Should we strike those two? I wouldn't. =A0One of them was snatched up al=
>most
>> immediately after I'd posted it by editors of a poetry magazine. =A0Yet, =
>I wrote
>> it in under an hour and it remains very popular to this day.
>>
>> All the poems in the lists are saved to my home system and considered by =
>me to
>> be poems. You or others may argue some were bad poems, which you have eve=
>ry
>> right to do. But your initial post about my posting history did not inclu=
>de that
>> value judgment. =A0You wrote "While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry he=
>re . . ."
>> You didn't write good poetry, bad poetry, sloppy poetry, tossed off poetr=
>y, etc.
>> The only distinction you made about what I posted is old and new. Oh, and=
> please
>> be advised that I didn't include prose responses I made where people post=
>ed that
>> the writing read like poems. My intent in those responses wasn't to write=
> a
>> poem. I've only included writing that was intentionally crafted as poems =
>by me.
>> I think you're digging yourself into a hole by disqualifying some of the =
>poems,
>> George.
>>
>> >> >> Not consistent either. Isn't Sean's poem available via Google Group=
>s'
>> >> >> archive?
>>
>> >> >Of course. Did I say it wasn't? Where's the alleged inconsistency?
>>
>> >> You thought it appropriate and necessary for him to repost because the=
>re
>> >> were new newsgroup participants, but gave a negative spin to my respos=
>ts.
>>
>> >Speaking of 'spin' -- I didn't say either of those things (and I do
>> >hope you're not claiming to be able to read my thoughts). What I did
>> >do was defend his reposting of that poem against someone (matt, the
>> >guy you're backing up here, remember?) who was flaming him or
>> >reposting him -- calling him a vomit eater and the like -- for doing
>> >it, pointing out that the new participants liked it themselves.
>>
>> My first opinion: "You thought it appropriate and necessary for him to re=
>post
>> because there were new participants"
>>
>> Your post: "It is not true that it's "the same damn people". it's a fact =
>that
>> two of the (four) people who told shaun his poem is "great" -- nerissa an=
>d
>> dapperdobbs -- are new contributors who weren't posting to aapc last
>> year.
>>
>> That's the primary reason for anyones being on a poetry group: to get
>> access to some good poetry we woudn't otherwise see. (At least, that's
>> my primary reason for being here, and I'm not the only one -- eg,
>> there used to be a "matt" here who encouraged the posting of poetry
>> [not to be confused with the present "matt" one who shits and pisses
>> all over the thread ever time a poem gets posted]). If we want more
>> people to join aapc, so it isn't just the dozen or so of us posting
>> here, we'd better give the lurkers and casual readers some good (if
>> not "great") poetry to read."
>>
>> Conclusion: You argue that it's appropriate and necessary to post good po=
>etry so
>> new people will want to read here.
>>
>> My opinion: "but [you] gave a negative spin to my reposts."
>>
>> Your post: =A0""While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past
>> year-and-a-half, not that much of it was new. Most of it was revised or s=
>imply
>> recycled from her 20th century ouevre. And no one needs Karla here to avo=
>id
>> missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search the RAP and =
>AAPC
>> archives."
>>
>> Conclusion: most of my posts were reposts and who needs that?
>>
>> >I didn't defend you against the flaming you got for your "resposts",
>> >but that was because you didn't get any. I certainly didn't notice
>> >anyone calling you a vomit eater or the like. I certainly didn't flame
>> >you. I remember saying that one of those posts, 'Lily,' was a repost,
>> >and that you'd changed three words; I remember you didn't like that,
>> >but I don't see it as being any more "negative" than the comment you
>> >quoted earlier. If you're calling either of those "negative", I'd say
>> >that was purely your spin.
>>
>> >> Obviously, if people like Sean's
>>
>> >[Please stop doing that. As you know, his name is Shaun.]
>>
>> That was sloppy of me. I remembered it as Sean. Sorry Shaun.
>>
>> >> poetry they could google him, right?
>>
>> >Certainly; and if Shaun did stop posting here, and months later
>> >someone complained that they missed reading his poetry, I'd probably
>> >tell that person to search for it -- just as I told the person who
>> >said he missed reading your poetry. That's not what's been happening
>> >in this thread, though, as you know.
>>
>> You didn't simply say he could google my poetry if he missed it. ...
>>
>> read more =BB
>
George Dance
> In article <191f6aac-10e1-4a38-8bb4-e7e34ca9a...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Learn to read: I didn't mention you at all in that sentence.
It is a fact, though, that those three things are what you've
accomplished here.
> , and discourage that very person's speaking truth regarding said motives.
> Reminds me of the Bush Administration.
>
It should remind you of yourself. Have you already forgotten:
"You insult me and misrepresent my posting of poems"
"You [...] gave a negative spin to my resposts."
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/82319711ff127a18?hl=en
"You [...] argued that most of it was old, as if that made it
undesirable to post.
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/82319711ff127a18?hl=en
or even
> >> you would make such an effort to diminish my
> >> poem postings in such a way.
(from the backthread here)
> >>=A0Simply put, it offended and hurt me when I
> >> first read the post in August
> >> that you would make such an effort to diminish my
> >> poem postings in such a way.
>
> >Yeah, right; that's why, instead of saying anything at the time, you
> >waited until there was an opportunity to trash shaun's poem, fight
> >with me, and back up "matt," all at once.
>
> I actually went through the exercise of listing out my poems at the time, and
> then decided to let it pass. When I saw your post about Shaun, it irritated the
> hell out of me, so I brought it up. What did you think?
As you should know by now, I think that no one should believe anything
(including the above sentences) on your word alone. You've been caught
lying too many times for that.
In this case, for example I'll judge your motives by what you actually
accomplished, not by what you said wanted to accomplish.
> That Matt and I were
> conspiring behind the scenes?
I think "matt" backed you people up during the last "PJ's Plagiarism
Alert" about me, remember? I think you were returning the favour.
> That your paranoia about people out to get you on
> the poetry newsgroups had come true?
Gee; just like my "paranoia" about the same people being out to get
Will, or Tom, or Lysaght, or Farstar, or Manwolf, or Mark, or Vera, or
(last year's) matt, or even Barbara's Cat at one time -- or anyone
else who's tried to post poetry here, stretching back at least ten
years to Sharon McElroy -- never "came true," righ?
> I feel sorry for you and others who think
> like you here. You will never let the truth into your hearts that there is no
> alliance
I have noticed that it's only those in that allegedly non-existent
alliance who say so. 8D
> against you. Many of the people you like to lump together don't even
> like each other.
I noticed for example, that PJ Ross never liked Hammy Hammes -- after
all, he said so as soon as he found out Hammy was dead.
> That a person enjoys the poem of someone they don't like is
> beyond you.
That you people like *only* the poetry of those who do back-up flaming
for you has not escaped my attention, though. Even Gwyneth liked
"matt's" poetry after he started calling me a thief, remember? (Maybe
you did, too -- don't demand a quote).
> And the fact coupled with the fact that they may not enjoy your
> poems sends you.
>
So, in Karla's world, it is perfectly acceptable to ascribe irrational
motives to a person, and discourage that very person's speaking truth
regarding said motives.
Reminds me of the Obama Administration.
snip for ironic effect
George Dance
> In article <22c276e4-ee12-4310-b2e7-eee113a73...@c16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> George Dance says...
> >On Sep 20, 3:05=A0pm, Karla <karl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> When I posted my list of new poems (from "the RAP and AAPC archives" as y=
> >ou
> >> wrote above)
>
> >I intend to reply to the rest later; but in the meantime I am not
> >going to let this misquote of yours stand.
>
> >Here's what I wrote (and you should know by know; you've posted it
> >often enough):
>
> >From: George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca>
> >Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments
> >Subject: Re: It's Been Over A Year : )
> >Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 10:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
> >Message-ID: <7a412154-
> >f1e1-4712-84d1-486fc1b9a...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
>
> >That message (as anyone can read) was posted to aapc only (not
> >rec.arts.poems, or alt.usenet.kooks, or any other group I didn't
> >subscribe to).
>
> >""While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-
> >a-
> >half, not that much of it was new."
>
> >As anyone can read, I was talking about what poems you posted
> >"here" (ie, the group(s) where this message appeared): IOW, aapc only
> >(not rec.arts.poems, or alt.usenet.kooks, or any other group I didn't
> >subscribe to).
>
> Wow! I don't subscribe to any groups mentioned above.
You don't subscribe to RAP either? That's news to me.
Or aapc, either? Then how did you come to read this comment of mine in
the first place?
> Should all of my poems be
> disqualified?
IMO, the ones you didn't post "here" shouldn't be called poems you
posted here.
> Do you mean you only subscribe via google groups to aapc?
I mean what I said: I didn't subscribe to RAP (by any means) for any
of the time in question. I'm pretty sure you knew that.
> At any
> rate, why mention rap if you don't subscribe to it?
If you mean that sentence, it does not mention RAP (read it again if
you don't believe me). If you mean why did I mention now, that was
because of your misquote (that I'd been writing about your
<quote>
new poems ((from "the RAP and AAPC archives" as you wrote above) </
q>.
> >"Most of it was revised or simply
> >recycled from her 20th century ouevre."
>
> >As anyone can read, this sentence is doesn't even mention your "new
> >poems".
>
> >"And no one needs Karla here to
> >avoid missing that; all one needs is Google, to go back and search
> >the
> >RAP and AAPC archives."
>
> Arguably, "here" could mean RAP and AAPC since you mention them in the same
> paragraph. The sentence containing "here" refers to old poems
No, it fucking well does not.
"While Karla posted quite a bit of poetry here in the past year-and-a-
half, not that much of it was new."
--which you point
> out in the sentence above--
There was no 'sentence above'.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/be7b2621b6?hl=3Den&dmode=3Dsource
> and which you then say one can find in AAPC and RAP
> archives.
>
> If you feel it necessary to strike poems from the list that appeared only on rap
> in order to win this argument, go for it, George! You WIN!
>
It's all about WINning for you people, isn't it?
> >As anyone can read, "that" refers to your "20th century ouevre"; the
> >claim that that can be found in "the RAP and AAPC archives" being a
> >simple statement of fact.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/be7b2621b...