As requested, my romance poetry
Thomas Doyle
I might add that this one didn't work. Opinions?
Passionate eyes
A crystaline lake,
Surounds a mystic shore.
Blazing saphires,
With a glowing obsidean core.
A shinning moon,
And stars that glisten,
Never could they reach,
Such angelic assentions.
A sea after a storm,
Its waters shimmering bright,
From a break in the clouds,
Flows a heavenly light.
Soft flowing streams,
Of elegent tranquility.
A lake dancing with starlight,
Of total serenity.
Such devine beauty
Makes my heart come alive,
As I gaze upon
Your passionate eyes.
C. 1994 Thomas M. Doyle
J. Corral
Well ya know arc is not a professional arena by any means--its just
a place to share romance. You must be a perfectionist :)
I think what's important is that someone evoked emotion in you
and this emotion lead to action. This is important. Many times we drift
through a day and people just do not move us to *act*. Sad but true.
From one woman with *passionate eyes* ;) I can tell ya---love is only a
word that shields a whole torrent of emotion.
Rage on Thomas... The dikes been held back long enough :)
--J
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
when they come from the one you love?
___
{~._.~}
_( Y )
(:_~*~_:) **He's got arms and he's not afraid to use them!!**
(_)-(_)
007 Bear
comp...@iname.com
good imagery. Need spellcheck and this is how I wrote it
Your Passonate Eyes (notice I changed the title)
Blazing sapphires
surround obsidian cores
a crystalline lake
with mystic shores
Moon and stars
shimmering bright
an angel transcending
elegant light
Soft as streams
majestic as the sea
your passionate eyes
aliven me
Charlene M. Flora
comp...@iname.com
PS
my version cannot be used by you.
Charlene
Thomas Doyle wrote:
> I might add that this one didn't work. Opinions?
>
> Passionate eyes
>
<snipped>
comp...@iname.com
Another PS, Thomas, my rewrite is not an insult. It is a comparison how
two people think differently.
Charlene
Thomas Doyle wrote:
> I might add that this one didn't work. Opinions?
>
> Passionate eyes
>
Thomas Doyle
Personally I think rewriting someones verse is a slap in the face and
borderline on copywrite infringement. It shows an inability to find your
own muse, and have to borrow from someone else.
Poetry is like any other art. You can't just blurt out words and call
it poetry. It takes crafting. Subtle inflections of language, choosing
the right words for the right tone, imagery, and implications. This poem
was so tailored to describe the amazing blue eyes of the object of my
desire, not just sound as pretty words on a page.
I am only insulted that you would insinuate that I would use ANY verse
of another poet. Just rewording the images of another poet is not only
base but plageristic. It demeans the sanctity of the work, the author,
as well as your standing as a poet.
Not to start a flame war, but I'm beggining to think your mass number
of poems comes from the fact that you'll scrawl any pretty words on
paper and call it a poem. I have 250 and each one of them is a carefully
crafted peice of artwork. They cross many styles, forms, and genere, but
they are all like my children.
Finally, this poem really isn't mine. I wrote it yes, but I gave it to
Christy for Christmas one year. The eyes are hers as is the verse
describing it. To her it is dedicated and will remain so. In a way, by
changing the verse you are almost altering a fond memory.
Don't try to repaint the Mona Lisa. Find your own masterpiece.
I'm not deeply offended, just a bit disappointed.
Thomas Doyle
Brenda Ehmka
Thomas Doyle wrote:
> I might add that this one didn't work. Opinions?
>
> Passionate eyes
>
> A crystaline lake,
> Surounds a mystic shore.
> Blazing saphires,
> With a glowing obsidean core.
>
> A shinning moon,
> And stars that glisten,
> Never could they reach,
> Such angelic assentions.
>
> A sea after a storm,
> Its waters shimmering bright,
> From a break in the clouds,
> Flows a heavenly light.
>
> Soft flowing streams,
> Of elegent tranquility.
> A lake dancing with starlight,
> Of total serenity.
>
> Such devine beauty
> Makes my heart come alive,
> As I gaze upon
> Your passionate eyes.
>
> C. 1994 Thomas M. Doyle
Very nice, Thomas. It is solid. I sometimes do free-verse poems for a
change, but I still enjoy the metered variety.
--
Brenda Lee
RFA Lady DreamCatcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
** Come check out our updated web page. **
http://www.frontiernet.net/~ehmka/
"He who knows he has enough is rich indeed."
Lao Tzu Te Ching
grd
comp...@iname.com wrote:
>
> good imagery. Need spellcheck and this is how I wrote it
>
> Your Passonate Eyes (notice I changed the title)
>
> Blazing sapphires
> surround obsidian cores
> a crystalline lake
> with mystic shores
>
> Moon and stars
> shimmering bright
> an angel transcending
> elegant light
>
> Soft as streams
> majestic as the sea
> your passionate eyes
> aliven me
>
> Charlene M. Flora
>
>
> > I might add that this one didn't work. Opinions?
> >
> > Passionate eyes
> >
> > A crystaline lake,
> > Surounds a mystic shore.
> > Blazing saphires,
> > With a glowing obsidean core.
> >
> > A shinning moon,
> > And stars that glisten,
> > Never could they reach,
> > Such angelic assentions.
> >
> > A sea after a storm,
> > Its waters shimmering bright,
> > From a break in the clouds,
> > Flows a heavenly light.
> >
> > Soft flowing streams,
> > Of elegent tranquility.
> > A lake dancing with starlight,
> > Of total serenity.
> >
> > Such devine beauty
> > Makes my heart come alive,
> > As I gaze upon
> > Your passionate eyes.
> >
> > C. 1994 Thomas M. Doyle
Charlene and Thomas,
Charlene, TD has criticised your lyricism in the past, but this is
perfect, and the images are your perfected romanticism. Thomas, your
recent constructive criticism I'll take more seriously now after
reading your version ("didn't work", an image is always followed by an
obvious refrain). TD, I've sometimes thought you were just a benign
shit head, but perhaps sometimes your comments are simply too brief.
--
--jerry
J. Corral
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, grd wrote:
> comp...@iname.com wrote:
<<Snipped>>
> > Thomas Doyle wrote:
> > >
Good enough for a reprint :)
Oh-oh is this one of those kiss and make up moments???
Quick get the polaroid!!!!!
Jerry---do not know you but I like people who are genuine--you appear to
be. Never hold a grudge so long it impairs your ability to discern in the
future. Welcome to my world--Just one brightly lit corner in the ether.
---Jeannette
> --
> --jerry
comp...@iname.com
Thomas,
I have no desire to take your work as my own. I am very capable of creating
through my own efforts and I do not need a muse. Can't you see what you have
written??? Speaking that each poem is a child, a precious part of you????? This
is for anyone who writes poetry. I did not do anything purposeful to insult,
harm you in any way. I did not claim copyright, I did not claim ownership of
your poem. I simply stated it was a rewrite. What I find amazing is that you
have not flamed Brenda, Jim, Peter, Rob, Peaches, Louise, and many others who
post poems in this NG.
Remember the poem, "Cannot Be?" and you replied with questioning polygamy??
Thomas, that poem had two messages: 1) I did not want a relationship with a man
who wanted me to be there for him 24 hours a day 7 days a week and give up my
creativity, my sharing of myself with others, etc. 2) it was a gift to someone I
knew who went through the same kind of relationship with a woman who wanted his
attention too much and he already was so involved just being a good hushand,
father and citizen.
You do not know me. You do not know my heart and probably will not ever know my
heart. Anyone I know who is creative in anyway, I wish for them great success
and that includes you, although I consider your personality obnoxious.
Guess What? From this post with your ending, "go create your own masterpiece,"
I wrote about creating masterpieces and I was inspired to write a poem, "Create A
Masterpiece With Me." This is a love message to someone, a gift. I thank you
for sparking the inspiration. You wanted to know how I create, well this is one
way....a simple phrase......the words were there of what I wanted to share with
someone I care about. It took me less than 4 minutes to write it out. Thank you
from my heart.
I gave you a good opinion of your poem......"good imagery" "need spellcheck"
"be concise, to the point (rewrite)" and you could not find it in your heart to
thank me.
I may not ever be a famous published poet. What is important, am I getting
across to others, am I helping someone (be courageous to write or release their
emotions), am I helping myself release my own fears and dare myself to share it
with the world. You see, Thomas, I am allowing people into my soul and reveal
what I have seen in the souls of others.
Lastly, Thomas....read everyone's poems without critiquing them. Hear what their
voices are saying. Jim Ledford wrote a precious poem about his daddy. I knew
the depth of his voice missing his father as I felt it through his words. You
can skillfuly craft a poem but if it lacks your heart, the words are meaningless,
and I am not saying this is your case.
Have peace, Thomas. Have joy, Thomas. Celebrate as this newsgroup has many
wonderful poets posting and we are just two of them. How fortunate we are. At
least I will speak for myself, how fortunate I am.
Charlene
Thomas Doyle
"My version" is the original. I don't rewrite other writers stuff. It's
a sacred line you just do not cross. It is a point of honor among real
writers. She crossed it. I'll criticize and express my opinions but
there are certain lines I know are sacred and must never be crossed. She
just broke one of them.
Thomas Doyle
comp...@iname.com
Thomas,
Of course your version is the original and will always be this. You know,
Mozart and Beethoven were great composers. Both of them took other
composers' works and improvised around them. I have taken Mozart's Sonata
in C Major and play it every now and then in the key of C minor. The tone
and mood changes. It taught me to hear something differently. Would I
ever take claim of his work as my own because I played it in the key of C
Minor. Of course not.
I have learned a far greater lesson about all of this. I am walking away
from this and from you, Thomas. Have peace. That's all I can hope for you
to have.
Charlene
Dan Dage
Howdy Thomas!
It's *so* nice to see a thread without Re: in front of it! I don't
normally get into the poetry stuff much, but this one was pretty good.
I usually try to pick a favorite section, and snip the rest, but I
liked it all, so I'll snip the whole thing! (Make sense?)
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:24:20 -0700, Thomas Doyle <td2...@swt.edu>
wrote:
>I might add that this one didn't work. Opinions?
Didn't work in what way? Capturing the woman of your dreams? Well,
there's just no pleasing some people, but at least she inspired you.
I've written poetry to various women from my past, and never regretted
what I wrote, even after we all moved on. Of course, the question for
the poet remains:
Is it ethical to use the same poem again for a different woman? Just
because it didn't work the first time, doesn't mean it can't work
later on!
Regards,
Dan
To reply:
x = technologist
y = com
Dan Dage
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:13:14 -0600, comp...@iname.com wrote:
>Another PS, Thomas, my rewrite is not an insult. It is a comparison how
>two people think differently.
That may be, but it might also be copyright infringement! Especially
since you claim to have copyrighted your own version, which he wrote
and posted first!
Be fair, be fun, and be nice...
Dan Dage
Charlene, you shouldn't have...
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:32:06 -0600, comp...@iname.com wrote:
>good imagery. Need spellcheck and this is how I wrote it
>
>Your Passonate Eyes (notice I changed the title)
You really shouldn't have.
Would this be the Walmart "Made in China" copy of Thomas' poem?
Personally, when it comes to cereal and sodas, Sam's Choice is good
enough for me. Then again, sometime's it's not.
My vote (between these two) goes for Thomas' noncondensed version.
Regards,
Dan
J. Corral
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Dan Dage wrote:
>
> Howdy Thomas!
<<snipped Dan complimenting Thomas :) >>>
<<Moved right on to funny part>>
> I've written poetry to various women from my past, and never regretted
> what I wrote, even after we all moved on. Of course, the question for
> the poet remains:
>
> Is it ethical to use the same poem again for a different woman? Just
> because it didn't work the first time, doesn't mean it can't work
> later on!
As puter would say----"hey I nearly blew out my morning coffee"
Firstly, I think is funny to picture you as a cassanova Dan...
Actually I'd love to see it, getting all nervous and such to impress a
women :)
Secondly, recycling poems is probably fine --but that means of course you
shouldn't be dating the Barbie twins...Its a choice Danny but someone's
got to draw the line.
Well...on second thought they might not be too bright and just think its
some sort of twin dejavue thing **smile**
---Jeannette
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> To reply:
>
> x = technologist
> y = com
>
>
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
J. Corral
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Dan Dage wrote:
Hey!!!! That's my line...
**Jeannette picks up notepad---Page one:
Yep here it is...Be fair, be fun, and be nice...
oops you forgot sexy ;)
Okay no infringment then ** LOL**
Playball...**
---Jeannette
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 18-Apr-98 Re: As requested, my
romanc.. by Thomas Do...@swt.edu
> "My version" is the original. I don't rewrite other writers stuff. It's
> a sacred line you just do not cross. It is a point of honor among real
> writers. She crossed it. I'll criticize and express my opinions but
> there are certain lines I know are sacred and must never be crossed. She
> just broke one of them.
The woman broke nothing. Clearly tommy has no idea what he's talking
about. Literary history reveals writers "rewrit[ing] other writers
stuff" *all* the time. E.g. Shakespeare appropriated hamlet, king lear,
romeo & juliet etc., etc. from popular stories in circulation at the
time, revising them, updating them, in many cases completely
reinterpreting them. Clearly shakespeare had no time for this imaginary
"point of honor". Would tommy doyle like to argue that shakespeare was
not a "real writer"? Dante, Virgil, Ovid, Chaucer,--i could go on and
on--all "crossed that sacred line" that tommy believes exists but no one
else in literary history ever recognized--and thank god they didn't--and
appropriated, revised, and rewrote the stories and poems of others, in
some cases lifting entire excerpts, whole and intact, incorporating them
into their own texts. Literary linguists even have a term for this,
after Bakhtin, i.e. the appropriation of another's text without explicit
citation or inquit: FID, or Free Indirect Discourse. One must imagine
that tommy doyle has never seen a page of talmud or a manuscript with
marginal glosses. Literature is a collaborative enterprise, little
tommy. Get used to it.
And besides, the woman *improved* your poem immensely, something i never
thought anyone could do to one of your poems. You could learn from her.
You *should* be grateful. i know *i* am.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 18-Apr-98 Re: As requested, my
> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:13:14 -0600, comp...@iname.com wrote:
>
> >Another PS, Thomas, my rewrite is not an insult. It is a comparison how
> >two people think differently.
>
> That may be, but it might also be copyright infringement!
Certainly not. Our copyright law does not protect ideas, only the
individual, concrete *execution* of an idea. Please note how hollywood
and our beloved publishing industry grind out basically the same stories
over and over and over with no "copyright infringement" issues.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
J. Corral
<<WARNING MAN WITH FLAME THROWER FOR NO APPARENT REASON>>
I guess my questions are --
who are you?
why do you care to fan flames?
what makes you judge and jury?
Who paid you? :)
Since art is a matter of personal taste I stand with the others who
say Thomas' was fine just the way it was.
Now--shooooo shoooo shoooo go away--git git
**Where's that cornbroom?**
--Jeannette
<<Long name for such a small man>>
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 18-Apr-98 Re: As requested, my
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 17-Apr-98 Re: As requested, my
romanc.. by Thomas Do...@swt.edu
> Don't try to repaint the Mona Lisa. Find your own masterpiece.
> I'm not deeply offended, just a bit disappointed.
Oh dear lord god. Tommy reveals he knows absolutely nothing of the
history of the visual arts as well!--the mona lisa *was* a model for an
entire generation of journeymen artists in the studios of renaissance
italy, hence museums on the continent are filled with variations upon
her theme; some are clumsy, others whimsical, still others challenge the
depth and subtlety of the object they seek to represent, the mona lisa
itself. Do you *enjoy* parading your ignorance, tommy?--are you
attempting to *challenge* those of us who actually *value* literature,
the arts etc. with your absurd and indefensible claims? And i suppose
tommy has never seen or heard of the (in)famous surrealist mona lisa,
the mona lisa with the moustache, a "re-painting" of the mona lisa that
hangs very near the orignal.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
grd
J. Corral wrote:
>
> <<WARNING MAN WITH FLAME THROWER FOR NO APPARENT REASON>>
>
> I guess my questions are --
> who are you?
> why do you care to fan flames?
> what makes you judge and jury?
> Who paid you? :)
>
> Since art is a matter of personal taste I stand with the others who
> say Thomas' was fine just the way it was.
>
> Now--shooooo shoooo shoooo go away--git git
>
> **Where's that cornbroom?**
>
> --Jeannette
Jeannette,
It seems to me Gilbert's words are justified because TD is often so
roughly and insensitively critical of other's words or poetry. The
poem that was motivated by TD's was far superior to his, and as he
said, his "didn't work." He invited comment, and his poem was facile,
one image is always followed by an obvious refrain, which is not an
uncommon criticism that he uses. Except that he plays too
discourteously at times, I would have otherwise liked the sentiments
expressed in his poem.
jerry
Thomas Doyle
Dan,
I think it is wrong to reuse a poem for two women. The poems are
usually written about one woman, to rehash them is to reduce the
overflowings of the heart and soul to a cheap pick-up line. This one was
given to Christy and shall forever remain to Christy for all of time
that it should survive.
My stance
Thomas Doyle
Thomas Doyle
Gilbert,
Considering that no one knows who the Mona Lisa WAS, it is quite hard
to make claims about her life that she was a model, now isn't it? Do you
enjoy parading yourself as a sanctimonious moron with no real grasp of
fact? While renaissance art is not my special area of artistic
knowledge, I do know a bit. This "copying" your discussing of the Mona
Lisa is called "painting women's portraits." They have very similar
rules and but each portrait is unique.
As for copywrite laws, again you reveal your ignorance. I've had to
defend my copywrite's before, and there is precedent dealing with just
rearanging words. I forget the name of the statute, but vague ideas can
be copied, actual phrases taken without permission or consent except for
the purpose of satire for political statement, is infringement.
If Charlene were to copywrite her version, mine already having a
copywright from 4 years ago, I could sue her for infringement. Mind you,
these rules change after I've been dead for 50 years, but that won't be
for some time.
Again you troll in here trying to appear like you have a clue, and
prove to any with real knowledge that you are nothing more than a
bitter, pathetic little man who is trying to deal with his own
inconsequentialness. In short, your trying to justify to yourself your
continued sucking down of good oxygen. (Now THAT is a flame...)
I back up my claims with facts, references, and proof. You just blast
them out from somewhere only your (quite pathetically small acutally)
deluded little mind. Grow up. Move on.
I shall not respond to any other post you make in that I refuse to
waste any more of my time granted to me by God on this planet dealing
with a mixture of dung, puss, and vomitous mass such as yourself.
Thomas Doyle
Thomas Doyle
Jerr.
When I said it didn't work, I meant that it was an attempt to win the
heart of a girl who another guy was after as well. It didn't work
because he got the girl. This happens to be one of my favorite poems. It
was written when I was 16. It is a bit simple, but the images aren't
stock. 'Sides, all charlene did was rearange my phrases and steal my
title. Basically, at this moment I consider her to be the Michael Bolton
of poetry.
Thomas Doyle
J. Corral
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
> Excerpts from mail: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by "J.
> Corral"@u.washington
>
> > I guess my questions are --
>
> > who are you?
>
> A poetry lover.
>
> > why do you care to fan flames?
>
> i flame no one. i'm merely attempting to provide another pov.
>
> > what makes you judge and jury?
>
> i am neither, nor do i claim to be same. But, unlike tommy, i know
> something about literary history.
you know ---just because you may have a degree or something in lit doesn't
make you an expert--and it doesn't give you the right to throw flames.
>
> > Who paid you? :)
>
>
> > Since art is a matter of personal taste I stand with the others who
> > say Thomas' was fine just the way it was.
>
> Really? i blame our public our schools.
well since I went to private schools.... :)
>
> > Now--shooooo shoooo shoooo go away--git git
>
> If tommy goes, i go. Now stay out of my private email queue.
See little *man* you are just trying to oust another point of view out of
some sort of spite.
now--skidaddle
--Jeannette
J. Corral
Dear freak of nature...
Peddle your garbage somehwhere else--Thomas has tried to participate as a
member of arc--You, on the other hand, are dull and lifeless
Go get a clue and please let the door slam you on your butt on your way
out.
--Jeannette
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
J. Corral
> Jeannette,
>
> It seems to me Gilbert's words are justified because TD is often so
> roughly and insensitively critical of other's words or poetry. The
> poem that was motivated by TD's was far superior to his, and as he
> said, his "didn't work." He invited comment, and his poem was facile,
> one image is always followed by an obvious refrain, which is not an
> uncommon criticism that he uses. Except that he plays too
> discourteously at times, I would have otherwise liked the sentiments
> expressed in his poem.
Actually I would have to disagree--not that mr. long-name doesn't have a
right to a view but it seems his only point was to be rude.
That sort of behavior is what causes these little arc explosions.
One can crtique without being arrogant and rude. Was Mr Long-name around
or involved in the prior comotion about poetry? Nope--he was just in here
trolling for the day to ignite a war and then leaving. Can't respect
*men* like that.
--Jeannette
BTW I said PLAY WITH ME!!! Okay I'm gonna search through here for your
playful posts and I am truly hoping I find one ;)
>
> jerry
Deacon Blues
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 12:24:42 -0400, Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
<gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 18-Apr-98 Re: As requested, my
>romanc.. by Thomas Do...@swt.edu
>
>> "My version" is the original. I don't rewrite other writers stuff. It's
>> a sacred line you just do not cross. It is a point of honor among real
>> writers. She crossed it. I'll criticize and express my opinions but
>> there are certain lines I know are sacred and must never be crossed. She
>> just broke one of them.
>
>The woman broke nothing. Clearly tommy has no idea what he's talking
>about. Literary history reveals writers "rewrit[ing] other writers
>stuff" *all* the time. E.g. Shakespeare appropriated hamlet, king lear,
This isn't just a moral issue. It is a *legal* one. The sacred line you dare
not cross is Title 17, USC, which prohibits copyright infringement (although
allowing certain fair usage, of which this is not a case.)
Shakespeare predated the existance of intellectual property rights. It was only
in the 1700s that inventors and other creative people first started being able
to patents and copyrights on their works.
The best-best-seller of the North American continent was "Common Sense" by
Thomas Paine. Every printer was free to pick up a copy of it, set it in type,
and manufacture many more copies, because there was no protection of Paine's
property rights. (In England, there was protection of printed works because
there was a monopoly on the printing process.)
Copyright protection is still evolving. In mid-century, an author had to
deliberately register his material in order to gain copyright protection, and
mark it with a copyright notice. If it was infringed upon, though, and reprinted
*without* a copyright notice, then the author was stripped of his rights! Kinda
as if I stole your car, removed *your* license plates, and sold it to someone
else, and the courts decide that the car now belongs to whomever I sold it to,
because *you* didn't stop me in time.
Anyone someone writes is now copyrighted at the point when it is fixed in a
permanent medium. (Telling a story doesn't create a copyright; recording it on
paper or on a magnetic medium does.)
And "derivative works" are protected by the copyright. If you write a new story
based on the character of Jonathon Livingston Seagull, you're vioolating Richard
Bach's copyright.
-------------------------------------------------
A romance mailing list for people who are
generously built: BBWs - Big Beautiful Women,
BHMs - Big Handsome Men, and FAs - Fat Admirers
-------------------------------------------------
Just eMail Subs...@generous.net to join!
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 19-Apr-98 Re: As requested, my
romanc.. by Thomas Do...@swt.edu
> Considering that no one knows who the Mona Lisa WAS, it is quite hard
> to make claims about her life that she was a model, now isn't it? Do you
The *painting*, little one, the *painting* served as a model, the
painting and the numerous copies of it in circulation all throughout the
italian penninsula, so, yes, i can make such claims. Journeymen and
apprentice artists trained by copying the works of their own "masters"
or other "masters" just like in any medieval or renaissance guild, until
such time as they produced thier own "masterpiece" and become masters in
their own right, get it?--interesting how that works. There are copies
of the mona lisa all over europe. This is why there are copies of just
about *every* major work all over europe. (Which is a problem for
connoisseurs and art historians: sometimes the copies are
indistinguishable from the originals, or sometimes a painting turns up
and no one can decide if it was produced by a master or his or her
student etc.) *Copying* is a tradition in aesthetic production, but,
sadly, you would know nothing about that.
> enjoy parading yourself as a sanctimonious moron with no real grasp of
> fact? While renaissance art is not my special area of artistic
> knowledge, I do know a bit. This "copying" your discussing of the Mona
> Lisa is called "painting women's portraits." They have very similar
> rules and but each portrait is unique.
No, wrong, please read some art history before you make such claims.
> As for copywrite laws, again you reveal your ignorance. I've had to
But you can't even spell the term, little one. It's *copyRIGHT*.
> defend my copywrite's before, and there is precedent dealing with just
Have you? Interesting. Give me state and a case number. If you
adjudicated in an american court i can look it up online. LEXIS is nice
that way.
> rearanging words. I forget the name of the statute, but vague ideas can
> be copied, actual phrases taken without permission or consent except for
> the purpose of satire for political statement, is infringement.
i disagree. Can you cite precedent? This was precisely the issue when
that woman claimed Speilberg stole her version of Amistad. She lost. The
court determined that her "execution" of the idea was different than
"speilberg's" execution, though the court conceded that many of the
ideas that appear in the film were *hers*.
> If Charlene were to copywrite her version, mine already having a
> copywright from 4 years ago, I could sue her for infringement. Mind you,
> these rules change after I've been dead for 50 years, but that won't be
> for some time.
Mind you, you'd have real trouble finding a lawyer who would do anything
other than laugh at you.
> Again you troll in here trying to appear like you have a clue, and
Troll? No. i'm merely making a case.
> prove to any with real knowledge that you are nothing more than a
> bitter, pathetic little man who is trying to deal with his own
> inconsequentialness. In short, your trying to justify to yourself your
> continued sucking down of good oxygen. (Now THAT is a flame...)
Is it?--really? Are you flaming? Then please leave. Your flames are not
welcome here.
> I back up my claims with facts, references, and proof. You just blast
> them out from somewhere only your (quite pathetically small acutally)
> deluded little mind. Grow up. Move on.
Facts? What facts? What reference? Which? Where? Please cite same?
> I shall not respond to any other post you make in that I refuse to
> waste any more of my time granted to me by God on this planet dealing
> with a mixture of dung, puss, and vomitous mass such as yourself.
What? More flames? More gratuitous insults? Clearly, tommy doyle, you do
not belong in this group. Get out. Get. But before you do, i want that
case number.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's
sacred li.. by "J. Corral"@u.washington
> > If tommy goes, i go. Now stay out of my private email queue.
>
> See little *man* you are just trying to oust another point of view out of
> some sort of spite.
> now--skidaddle
Oh, posting my private email?--big faux pas, that. Thank you. i believe
i'll stay now. You and tommy deserve my special attentions.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 19-Apr-98 Re: As requested, my romanc.. by "J.
Corral"@u.washington
> Dear freak of nature...
> Peddle your garbage somehwhere else--Thomas has tried to participate as a
> member of arc--You, on the other hand, are dull and lifeless
>
> Go get a clue and please let the door slam you on your butt on your way
> out.
Dear incontinent little rube: Please cease your flaming in this group. i
like it here. i shall stay. i want to help tommy doyle become a better
person.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's
sacred li.. by "J. Corral"@u.washington
> or involved in the prior comotion about poetry? Nope--he was just in here
> trolling for the day to ignite a war and then leaving. Can't respect
> *men* like that.
Oh, i'm not going anywhere, little one.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's
> was written when I was 16. It is a bit simple, but the images aren't
> stock. 'Sides, all charlene did was rearange my phrases and steal my
> title. Basically, at this moment I consider her to be the Michael Bolton
> of poetry.
If you do not cease flaming charlene i'm going hold your head in the
"chocovat" until you swell up like a giant tick and burst. Now, stop
flaming or leave this group. i will spare you my assessment of your
*own* poetry out of respect for alt.romance.chat, a group you constantly
pollute with your flames and provocations.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Thomas Doyle
glibert wrote
>
> Oh, posting my private email?--big faux pas, that. Thank you. i believe
> i'll stay now. You and tommy deserve my special attentions.
>
> http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Translation: He has no life and way to much time on his hands. Sad
specimen really. Come one, come all, see the freak show! Gilby, God's
cruelest mistake. See the man with no life and no clue! Just five bits
to get in. Come gawk with us all at this rare spectical of nature's
bizarre sense of humor! Just five bits, five bits.
Thomas Doyle
Thomas Doyle
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
> If you do not cease flaming charlene i'm going hold your head in the
> "chocovat" until you swell up like a giant tick and burst. Now, stop
> flaming or leave this group. i will spare you my assessment of your
> *own* poetry out of respect for alt.romance.chat, a group you constantly
> pollute with your flames and provocations.
>
> http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Does anyone else find this kinda like Michael Jackson calling Richard
Simmons an androgenous freak?
Thomas Doyle
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by Thomas
Do...@swt.edu
> glibert wrote
Tommy, please, take your flames to alt.flame. Leave this group in peace.
Your deliberate provocations are not welcome here.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
> Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
Please tommy, leave this group. Your flames and provocations are not
welcome in alt.romance.chat.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred
li.. by Deacon Blues@removethis.
> Anyone someone writes is now copyrighted at the point when it is fixed in a
> permanent medium. (Telling a story doesn't create a copyright;
recording it on
> paper or on a magnetic medium does.)
You mean "anything", right? of course you do. i know, i know. You were
rushed when you wrote this, eyes goggled out, teeth clenched, toes
clenched, jaw muscles flexing, the veins on your neck pulsing like a
python wolfing down live prey, beads of sweat condensing upon your
furrowed brow as you hammered frantically at your keyboard with your
stubby little fingers, desperate to defend the notion of intellectual
property against the barbarians at the gate, those who would steal your
precious words in their precious combinations and rob you of your chance
to enjoy the acclaim and adulation of the masses, literary celebrity
that you are, or literary celebrity that you will one day become.
It fascinates me how novice writers so obsess over copyright issues. The
*worst* writers imaginable will simply quake with fear that someone out
there may steal their precious ideas. Read some literary history,
lawyer-boy. It will calm you, believe me.
> And "derivative works" are protected by the copyright. If you write a
new story
> based on the character of Jonathon Livingston Seagull, you're
vioolating Richard
>
> Bach's copyright.
Yes. Yes. Terribly interesting, all of it. <excuse me, i yawned.> But
none of your examples touch upon the issue at hand, someone revising
someone else's poem,--publicly, in a public forum--without any money
changing hands anywhere at any time. Your analysis completely omits any
discussion of the concrete particulars of this particular instance of
little tommy doyle going completely berserk.
Oh, by the way, copyright-boy, are you paying that awful seventies
group--god, what was their name?--for the use of their song title,
"deacon blues"? Ugh. Jesus Christ they were bad.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
comp...@iname.com
Thomas,
Will you please accept the fact I do not claim your poem, I do not claim
copyright or ownership of your poem? Will you please accept the fact your
statement, "this did not work.. opinions" was asking opinions? I showed you
another version. I told you I did not intend to insult you. I apologize for
upsetting you. Maybe if you had been clearer on your post this would not have
happened at all.
You know, the reason I changed the title was to go with the verse in your
poem. Man, did I f*** up with you. You do not accept reasoning, explanation,
nothing.
Charlene
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's
sacred li.. by comp...@iname.com
> Will you please accept the fact I do not claim your poem, I do not claim
> copyright or ownership of your poem? Will you please accept the fact your
> statement, "this did not work.. opinions" was asking opinions? I showed you
> another version. I told you I did not intend to insult you. I apologize for
> upsetting you. Maybe if you had been clearer on your post this would
not have
> happened at all.
>
> You know, the reason I changed the title was to go with the verse in your
> poem. Man, did I f*** up with you. You do not accept reasoning,
explanation,
> nothing.
Apologize? Apologize for what, Charlene? We in alt.romance.chat owe
*you* an apology, an apology for tommy doyle,--oh, not an apology on
*behalf* of tommy doyle, but an apology *because* of tommy doyle--an
apology for tolerating for too long the provocations and abuses of tommy
doyle, for allowing tommy doyle to bully, insult, defame, and attack our
contributers again and again. And you're right: the boy is completely
unresponsive to the healing balm of human reason. When confronted with
truth or fact tommy doyle responds hysterically, bitterly abusing
everyone who would dare oppose his absurd half-truths and deliberate
misrepresentations, or make light of his wretched abuse of the English
language. If one attempts to mollify him with an apology, he whoops and
crows and prances about obscenely, lording it over the one who would sue
for peace, as he did in your case Charlene, when you attempted in vain
to bring this situation to a close. Clearly tommy doyle has no respect
for you, this group, its goals, its norms or its values, or any of *us*
for that matter. Clearly tommy doyle does not belong here, in
alt.romance.chat.
Anyway, on behalf of alt.romance.chat i apologize to you charlene--i
apologize for the inexcusable behavior of tommy doyle, vicious troll,
and merciless abuser of the English language.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Thomas Doyle
Charlene,
Critique and criticism I have no problem with. Rewriting my work, that
goes WAY beyond critique or opinions, it goes into a whole other world
of moral, ethical, and legal violations.
These are the marks of profesionalism a good writer has that you
continue to not display.
Thomas Doyle
faith_marieb
<deleted the name of the poster>
| Dear freak of nature...
hmm...name calling
| Peddle your garbage somehwhere else--
personal insult
-You, on the other hand, are dull and lifeless
Two for two on personal insults
| Go get a clue and please let the door slam you on your butt on your way
| out.
And this is definitely asking for a flamewar.
alt. flame is down the block
grd
Thomas Doyle wrote:
>
> Jerr.
> When I said it didn't work, I meant that it was an attempt to win the
> heart of a girl who another guy was after as well. It didn't work
> because he got the girl. This happens to be one of my favorite poems. It
> stock. 'Sides, all charlene did was rearange my phrases and steal my
> title. Basically, at this moment I consider her to be the Michael Bolton
> of poetry.
Actually, Thomas, your poem was quite good for a 16yo, especially the
broad range of stock romantic images you used. I had a long drive to
and back from my parent's for Sunday dinner today, and while driving
through the raw immature elements of the Missouri Valley, I wondered
for a moment why you were so sensitive to someone playing with your
poem. I've seen it here before, and I am certainly guilty of adding
paragraphs to someone else's stuff to test my understanding of the
symbols and images the poet used, and to extend additional ideas for
the poet's use. I simply viewed it as fun ARC interaction. I was
pretty snippy and a strong defender of the sanctity of my words when I
was your age, but over time it became less important, and now I
believe that others' perspectives are sometimes quite valuable, for
perhaps adding strength to my logic, or by providing another idea for
my use in the synthesis of yet one more new original thought.
I am not familiar with Michael Bolton's stuff, Thomas, so I'll have to
yield to your opinion of what happened to your poem.
jerry
grd
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
>
> Excerpts from mail: 19-Apr-98 Re: As requested, my romanc.. by "J.
> Corral"@u.washington
>
> > Dear freak of nature...
>
> > Peddle your garbage somehwhere else--Thomas has tried to participate as a
> >
> > Go get a clue and please let the door slam you on your butt on your way
> > out.
>
> like it here. i shall stay. i want to help tommy doyle become a better
> person.
>
> http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
I do admire long name's fortitude, wit, perception, and sense of
humanitarian spirit.
--
--jerry
grd
Yea, Gilbert, you're right. Once he gets started he can not control
it.
--
--jerry
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 17-Apr-98 As requested, my
romance po.. by Thomas Do...@swt.edu
> I might add that this one didn't work. Opinions?
What? My opinion, you ask? Well, sir, my opinion is my own, but i'll
give it if i must. So, let me see. A quick perusal. This one didn't work
you say? Sir, you are too generous. i'll say it didn't work. It never
saw the light of day. It was stillborn. It entered this world stone cold
dead. It never had a chance. But rather than merely hurl insults, as is
the custom of our own tommy doyle, our resident troll and ruthless
abuser of our contributers in alt.romance.chat, i shall attempt to
demonstrate *why*. So, friends, RACers, lovers of literature, brace
yourselves AS WE ENTER THE UPSIDE DOWN WORLD OF TRULY WRETCHED POETRY!
Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin.
>
> Passionate eyes
An innocuous enough title, certainly: an object (eyes) and its
descriptor (passionate), a noun and its adjective. This adjectival
relation between simple terms appears to exhaust tommy doyle's limited
powers of poetic invention. Throughout the poem tommy doyle will offer
his reader no figure or device more sophisticated than what one finds in
the title itself, i.e. a noun and an adjective.
> A crystaline lake,
Yes. A cliche. Lakes always tend to be crystal. But note the figure: a
term and its descriptor.
> Surounds a mystic shore.
"Surrounds", tommy doyle means?--yes, i assume. Not merely a "shore" but
a "mystic" shore: again, a term and its descriptor. The problem? Tommy's
limited range demands that he make his *adjectives* do all his work for
him. In other words, tommy does not *show* you, he tells you, he coaches
you, he prods you. Instead of creating an atmosphere of mystery,
mysticism, or of the mystic, he merely insists explicitly
HEY!--READER!--THIS IS MYSTIC!--RIGHT?--A *MYSTIC* SHORE!--SEE?
Adjectives merely describe. More sophisticated poetic figures demand
concretion, concretion in the form of *nouns* and *verbs*, for nouns and
verbs do not merely describe, they *create* possible worlds, worlds that
*involve* the reader rather than merely *reporting* to the reader.
> Blazing saphires,
And again. A noun and its descriptor. Wow. i never saw *that* coming.
> With a glowing obsidean core.
Do these saphires in the plural enjoy a collective core?--the figure
just sort of hangs in space. Is the lake like blazing saphires? And what
about this "glowing obsidean core"? Obsidean, or volcanic glass, is
black. Can something "glow" black?--perhaps like one of those circa
1970s black light posters? But again, as confusing as the figure seems
to be, it is but nouns and adjectives. Once again the "poet" piles
adjective upon adjective.
Let us catalog the nouns so far, shall we?--free of adjectives, they
are: a lake, surrounding a shore, which is somehow brought into a
relation of identity or comparison with saphires, saphires that glow
black from their cores. When one removes all the adjectives the poem
reads like a laundry list, only with very little laundry. Do you see
what i mean? Tommy makes his adjectives do *all* his work for him!
> A shinning moon,
Er, um, a shining moon? Again, friends: a noun, and a descriptor.
> And stars that glisten,
Ah, look!--a moment of variation!--a subject/compliment
relation!--hardly more sophisticated than a noun adjective relation,
especially considering that a compliment stands in an adjectival
relation to its subject. Ugh.
> Never could they reach,
> Such angelic assentions.
Ascensions, right? This is odd. A disjunctive clause intrudes. Where did
it come from? It just seems to hang in space. We are left to suppose
that moons and stars fall short of something, though we know not yet
what. Oh, well, i suppose the title gave away the show. Eyes. Eyes could
never reach ... Why was there no disjunct in the first stanza? The first
stanza reads like a catalog of nouns and their many superlative
descriptors, but now this stanza suggests a logical relation, a relation
of comparison. This throws the first stanza into dispute. In what
relation does this mystic shore stand to those "passionate eyes"?
> A sea after a storm,
An object and a modifier.
> Its waters shimmering bright,
Ah!--look, a verb and an adverb!--a nice break from that storm of
adjectives. But tommy can't even let his verbs stand on their own. He
must weigh *them* down with descriptors as well, further coaching his
reader.
> From a break in the clouds,
A preposital phrase modifying the above clause. Again, an adjectival relation.
> Flows a heavenly light.
Oh, wait, that prepositional phrase modifies *this* clause, not that
one. It hardly matters. Note the adjective/noun relation: a "heavenly
light".
> Soft flowing streams,
"Flowing", in this case a verbal, i.e. a verb that stands in an
adjectival relation to a noun. More adjectives.
> Of elegent tranquility.
Elegant tranquility? Oh, fascinating!--tommy goes for broke!--now he
piles adjectives upon adjectives!
> A lake dancing with starlight,
Oh, look, personification?--wow!--tommy actually uses a poetic figure,
however unsophisticated!
> Of total serenity.
More adjectives upon adjectives.
> Such devine beauty
Er, um, divine, you mean? Of course. You were drunk when you scribbled
this out, right? Again: an ajective and a noun.
> Makes my heart come alive,
Ah!--another personification! Tommy's little heart "come[s] alive"!
> As I gaze upon
Oh, bless you!--a line without an adjective!
> Your passionate eyes.
And we come back to the title, the paradigmatic instance of the
noun/adjective relation, the relation that begins it all. And, as i
state above, tommy never gets beyond this relation either in form or
sophistication. This all assumes the odd character of a string of
superlative comparisons, loosely conjoined with no higher level tropes
or figures, and all of it heavily freighted with adjectives, adjectives
that tommy makes do all the work. Sad, really. No wonder tommy feels it
doesn't work. At least his intuitions are essentially correct, if
nothing else.
> C. 1994 Thomas M. Doyle
Copyright? Oh, your poem is safe from theft, little tommy. Honest it is.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by "J.
Corral"@u.washington
>
> Let this be a lesson to you buddy--I am mighty tired of people being two
> faced--say what you mean--stand by it--or get out the way!!!
A lesson? Posting private email? Okay. if you say so.
> Weak and fragile *men* tumble quicker and when they do...its a pleasure to
> sweep them away right under the carpet. No faux pas intended its called
> honesty.
Thank you. If you can behave this way in this group then so can i.
Everyone? The incontinent one licenses me to behave as i do. Any issues
with me, take them up with her.
> And if you are staying--WELCOME to arc--as a participant I am sure you
> will find that people have feelings too and therefore flaming them is no
> way to start a *relationship*
Interesting logic. You attack me and then advise against flaming.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable in alt.flame? This group just
isn't right for you.
> That said----I hope your correspondence gets a trifle more interesting
> can't wait to read different pov.
Stay tuned, little one. i intend to work my way through the entire tommy
doyle usenet oeuvre. We're all going to have an outrageously good time.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by "J.
Corral"@u.washington
> gilly are you one of those alias posting multi personality jobs?
> If so--its been done.
No. Search dejanews. Peruse my webpage. Use the finger command to peruse
my user information. Telephone cmu and confirm my registration. Whatever
you wish. i am quite real.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
J. Corral
Gilly:
Let this be a lesson to you buddy--I am mighty tired of people being two
faced--say what you mean--stand by it--or get out the way!!!
Weak and fragile *men* tumble quicker and when they do...its a pleasure to
sweep them away right under the carpet. No faux pas intended its called
honesty.
And if you are staying--WELCOME to arc--as a participant I am sure you
will find that people have feelings too and therefore flaming them is no
way to start a *relationship*
That said----I hope your correspondence gets a trifle more interesting
can't wait to read different pov.
---Jeannette
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's
> sacred li.. by "J. Corral"@u.washington
>
> > > If tommy goes, i go. Now stay out of my private email queue.
> >
> > See little *man* you are just trying to oust another point of view out of
> > some sort of spite.
> > now--skidaddle
>
> Oh, posting my private email?--big faux pas, that. Thank you. i believe
> i'll stay now. You and tommy deserve my special attentions.
>
>
> http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
>
>
>
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
J. Corral
Thanks for the laughs---- :)
Gilly you are more then welcome to stay as I said before differing pov's
are interesting.
If you seek to teach Thomas something the best way to begin is with some
sort of educated view point and not personal criticism.
See it didn't make you anymore authoritative or knowledgable--it just
proved you can roll around in the muck like the rest of us :)
And Gilly---let that be a lesson to you--Mr Private School
LOL
---Jeannette
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
> Excerpts from mail: 19-Apr-98 Re: As requested, my romanc.. by "J.
> Corral"@u.washington
>
> > Dear freak of nature...
>
> > Peddle your garbage somehwhere else--Thomas has tried to participate as a
> > member of arc--You, on the other hand, are dull and lifeless
> >
> > Go get a clue and please let the door slam you on your butt on your way
> > out.
>
> Dear incontinent little rube: Please cease your flaming in this group. i
> like it here. i shall stay. i want to help tommy doyle become a better
> person.
>
>
J. Corral
Faith,
This is a warning to you too because you constantly post in private
mail what you never have the nerve to say in ARC. Thereby straddling
fences-- calling names in private, stirring up problems etc.
Don't mail me anything that you don't want posted in arc--jigs up and I'm
not playing by your rules anymore
As for insults etc your opinion matters not considering you've been
exposed just recently.
And have a good day :)
--Jeannette
BTW Trolls are generally considered freaks of nature--what's your
definition?
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, faith_marieb wrote:
> <deleted the name of the poster>
>
> | Dear freak of nature...
>
> hmm...name calling
>
>
> | Peddle your garbage somehwhere else--
>
> personal insult
>
>
> -You, on the other hand, are dull and lifeless
>
> Two for two on personal insults
>
>
> | Go get a clue and please let the door slam you on your butt on your way
> | out.
>
> And this is definitely asking for a flamewar.
>
>
> alt. flame is down the block
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's
> Critique and criticism I have no problem with. Rewriting my
work, that
Oh!--What a relief!--then you'll have no problem with the "line-by-line"
i performed on your "poem", "passionate eyes". RACers?--Everyone? Tommy
has *no* problem with my critique of his poem, okay? Thank you. Please
note: i rewrote not one word of it.
So, little tommy doyle, desist your flaming immediately and apologize
profusely to charlene and the rest of the group.
> goes WAY beyond critique or opinions, it goes into a whole other world
> of moral, ethical, and legal violations.
No, clearly this is not the case: the woman violated nothing--she merely
tried to rescue a dying poem, a herioc act in anyone's estimation. Your
fit of rage and pain and blame are out of all proportion to any known
stimulus. i personally suspect your emotional problems are the result of
your laxative abuse.
> These are the marks of profesionalism a good writer has that you
> continue to not display.
Do you realize how awkward and absurd that sentence sounds? Are you a
non-native speaker of English? Also: your anaphoric "these are the marks
a good writer has" has no clear antecedent. The last noun phrase--where
a reader would expect to find the antecedent--is "a whole other world of
moral, ethical, and legal violations". Well, certainly those voilations
are not "marks of professionalism", are they? As for your "argument" i
already refuted it: i demonstrated both upon legal and historical
grounds that charlene did no wrong. So stop going on about it. You only
continue to humiliate yourself.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by "J.
Corral"@u.washington
> See my charm is already working
> **looking into the crystal pendant----your eyes are getting heavy
> you are becoming sleepy---repeat after me
> I will be nice--I will not troll---I will not be mean and spiteful**
You refer to little tommy doyle, of course, he that ruthlessly abused
charlene until she had to leave the group. A real gentleman, that tommy.
What a boy. A real boy's boy. i suppose he feels more like a man now
that he's abused a woman into silence. But he's still a boy. And i think
he'll find me a little more difficult to silence. i take particular
delight in helping those who abuse women discover for themselves the
error of their ways. As for spite that's your department. You do it so
well.
>
> I feel my powers working already
>
> Gilly? Can you say it again? Just once more...
> I love the impassioned tone in your voice
Imagine me whispering seductively: you're a very small ... incontinent
... rube ...
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
J. Corral
BTW-- I love the way you call me *little one*
That's really quite endearing ;)
See my charm is already working
**looking into the crystal pendant----your eyes are getting heavy
you are becoming sleepy---repeat after me
I will be nice--I will not troll---I will not be mean and spiteful**
I feel my powers working already
Gilly? Can you say it again? Just once more...
I love the impassioned tone in your voice
little one...little one...little one
**sigh** I didn't think they made men like you anymore
**wink**
--Jeannette
<<who enthusiastically proves she's a nut job all the time>>
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
> Excerpts from mail: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by "J.
> Corral"@u.washington
>
> > gilly are you one of those alias posting multi personality jobs?
> > If so--its been done.
>
> No. Search dejanews. Peruse my webpage. Use the finger command to peruse
> my user information. Telephone cmu and confirm my registration. Whatever
> you wish. i am quite real.
>
>
> http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
>
>
>
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
J. Corral
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
> You refer to little tommy doyle, of course, he that ruthlessly abused
> charlene until she had to leave the group. A real gentleman, that tommy.
> What a boy. A real boy's boy. i suppose he feels more like a man now
> that he's abused a woman into silence. But he's still a boy. And i think
> he'll find me a little more difficult to silence. i take particular
> delight in helping those who abuse women discover for themselves the
> error of their ways. As for spite that's your department. You do it so
> well.
Well if you want to help abused women I'm sure there are all kinds of
shelters wanting volunteers--you do not further the cause by inflicting
mental torture on others. Sort of defeats the purpose. :)
> > I feel my powers working already
> >
> > Gilly? Can you say it again? Just once more...
> > I love the impassioned tone in your voice
>
> Imagine me whispering seductively: you're a very small ... incontinent
> ... rube ...
ooh tingles--I like it
**Jeannette finds new chant MYLANTA---MYLANTA---MYLANTA**
Thanks ever so precious
**kiss kiss**
---J
<<Call me---1-800-die-troll>>
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's
sacred li.. by g...@ne.uswest.net
> > goes WAY beyond critique or opinions, it goes into a whole other world
> > of moral, ethical, and legal violations.
> > These are the marks of profesionalism a good writer has that you
> > continue to not display.
> >
> > Thomas Doyle
>
>
> Yeah, Gilbert, you're right. Once he gets started he can not control
> it.
Oh, yeah, certainly, but think of the possibilities this opens up for us
as contributers here!--we will shine the hard light of human reason upon
a poor, benighted soul, one tommy doyle, vicious troll, merciless
attacker of alt.romance.chat contributers, and ruthless abuser of the
English language! And we'll have an outrageously good time doing it!
Now, where are my goggles and blowtorch? WE HAVE WORK TO DO! And where's
tommy? tommy?! Come out and play, tommy! We have MUCH to discuss, you
and i!
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
comp...@iname.com
Hmmmm...after calming down from a 202 glucose level, insulin and dinner, I went
into deep contemplation about the anger and hostility within Thomas as a result of
his poem not winning over the object of his desire, the girl with the passionate
blue eyes who chose another male. Has Thomas made me the recipient of his loss?
Pick on a female who writes poetry because the girl Thomas once loved did not want
him, which his poem was a reflection of himself. I can understand that kind of
pain. Yet, I do not deserve to be Thomas' object of anguish.
charlene
grd wrote:
> Thomas Doyle wrote:
> >
> > Charlene,
> > Critique and criticism I have no problem with. Rewriting my work, that
> > goes WAY beyond critique or opinions, it goes into a whole other world
> > of moral, ethical, and legal violations.
> > These are the marks of profesionalism a good writer has that you
> > continue to not display.
> >
> > Thomas Doyle
>
> Yea, Gilbert, you're right. Once he gets started he can not control
> it.
> --
> --jerry
Thomas Doyle
Charlene,
Don't quit your day job to become a shrink. I just don't like people
perverting my work. That's all. I'm not ravingly mad at you. I just
think you did something that was wrong. You don't see how what you did
could be construed as wrong. That troubles me.
Have you tried to understand the root of my anger, about you tampering
with my work? Ponder for a moment and then talk to me.
I will critique work, but the change must come from the artist to truly
remain art. I will leave this without further expansion, because when
you understand this, you'll understand my anger.
Thomas Doyle
P.s. My anger for you ran out shortly afterwards. My anger for what you
did still lingers. All it really did was make me lose any respect I had
for you as a writer.
faith_marieb
Thomas Doyle <td2...@swt.edu> wrote in article <353A5B...@swt.edu>...
<snipped most to make a point>
Thomas wrote about someone else:
Do you
| enjoy parading yourself as a sanctimonious moron with no real grasp of
| fact?
Name-calling
| Again you troll in here trying to appear like you have a clue, and
| prove to any with real knowledge that you are nothing more than a
| bitter, pathetic little man who is trying to deal with his own
| inconsequentialness. In short, your trying to justify to yourself your
| continued sucking down of good oxygen. (Now THAT is a flame...)
Actually Thomas, your words are a flame.
| I shall not respond to any other post you make in that I refuse to
| waste any more of my time granted to me by God on this planet dealing
| with a mixture of dung, puss, and vomitous mass such as yourself.
| Thomas Doyle
Since there are more than one of you who wants to engage in
this sort of behavior...alt.flame was created just for you.
If you need to fight do it privately please.
Faith
Brenda Ehmka
Dan Dage wrote:
> Howdy Thomas!
>
> It's *so* nice to see a thread without Re: in front of it! I don't
> normally get into the poetry stuff much, but this one was pretty good.
>
> I usually try to pick a favorite section, and snip the rest, but I
> liked it all, so I'll snip the whole thing! (Make sense?)
>
> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:24:20 -0700, Thomas Doyle <td2...@swt.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >I might add that this one didn't work. Opinions?
>
> Didn't work in what way? Capturing the woman of your dreams? Well,
> there's just no pleasing some people, but at least she inspired you.
>
> I've written poetry to various women from my past, and never regretted
>
> what I wrote, even after we all moved on. Of course, the question for
>
> the poet remains:
>
> Is it ethical to use the same poem again for a different woman? Just
> because it didn't work the first time, doesn't mean it can't work
> later on!
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> To reply:
>
> x = technologist
> y = com
Dan...
You made some pretty interesting points here. Being a woman and all I
can tell you this... I have read poems that Kevin wrote to others and I
have heard songs that he has wrote in their honor. I respect and love
them all as an expression of his soul. However, I am one to believe
that I warrant *original* material. I wouldn't want to live in the
shadow of another woman's creative insight. Those particular stirrings
evoke certain memories and they belong<IMHO> to their rightful
owners.....
<g> I like creating my own memories and expression, thank you very
much!!!!!<g> I loved the first song that came about as a result of
*us*....
I never once wrote a poem to my ex.. Guess he didn't have that effect on
me. Kevin, now he is different... Hundreds of letters.. many 8 or 9
pages in length.
questions that pose thought..... I like it Dan..
--
Brenda Lee
RFA Lady DreamCatcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
** Come check out our updated web page. **
http://www.frontiernet.net/~ehmka/
"He who knows he has enough is rich indeed."
Lao Tzu Te Ching
faith_marieb
J. Corral <jean...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.96a.98041...@dante10.u.washington.edu>...
> Faith,
Yes.....
>
> This is a warning to you too because you constantly post in private
> mail what you never have the nerve to say in ARC.
hmm...are you suggesting that I should *not* follow the FAQ?
I believe the rules discourage posting anything which would
be considered flaming. It's not a matter of nerve, it's called
courtesy.
Have you read the FAQ? Maybe Lisa will post a copy for you.
Jeannette, since you've made the hit on so many others in this
group, I guess that it's now my turn. I won't fight with you. So
take your blows and go on to the next victim.
Thereby straddling
> fences-- calling names in private, stirring up problems etc.
>
> Don't mail me anything that you don't want posted in arc--jigs up and I'm
> not playing by your rules anymore
> As for insults etc your opinion matters not considering you've been
> exposed just recently.
Telling someone *in private* that I do not wish to have a mailbox
filled with their whining and complaining is an insult? Notice I said
that I had the courtesy to say it "in private". Said person sent it out
to about twenty folks. I was honest AND I did not invoke a deliberate
act of hurting said person's feelings on a public forum.
> And have a good day :)
I am thank you. Now would you please take the fighting to
the alt.flame arena?
Faith
Pete Turk
In article <ApCdcsu00...@andrew.cmu.edu>
gv...@andrew.cmu.edu "Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes" writes:
> So, friends, ARCers, lovers of literature, brace
> yourselves AS WE ENTER THE UPSIDE DOWN WORLD OF TRULY WRETCHED POETRY!
Sir!...Sir!..
<a timid hand rises from the end of the class-room>
Now that you've comforted Mr Doyle, could I ask you to
critique some truly wretched poetry of mine? It's only
saving grace, I fear, is that I plagiarised it from
Walter Scott, who lifted the idea from Catullus (who
in turn lifted it from Kallimachos..) <how's that for
scholarship, folks!.. :>.
Can I put a couple of novel ideas forward as well? :-
-- ARC tends to regard poetry as an emotionally
heightened way of expressing truths that matter to
us all. The *way* the poem "works" (or doesn't)
comes a long way behind. Therefore the concerns
of some other ng's in regard to poetry may not
be relevant here. ARC concentrates on the truths.
-- If a writer in ARC feels his/her words should
not be touched, then we should respect his/her
wishes just as we in ARC respect the feelings
that brought forth those words in the first place.
So, here is the wretch... from my TeX/PostScript phase:
POST SCRIPT
-----------
Pete Turk, 1991
"In Marion S., I've every trust."...
Come trace these characters in dust;
Let's etch them on a rippling stream,
Let's stamp them on a slim moonbeam...
Then every evanescent letter
Turns out bolder, firmer, better,
Crisper, keen -- more clearly seen
Than anything those letters mean!
(apologies to Walter Scott, Catullus and Kallimachos)
--
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk>
Official Moonshadow of the RFA
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 20-Apr-98 Re: TRULY WRETCHED
POETRY by Pete Tu...@ragtag.demon.c
> -- ARC tends to regard poetry as an emotionally
> heightened way of expressing truths that matter to
> us all. The *way* the poem "works" (or doesn't)
> comes a long way behind. Therefore the concerns
> of some other ng's in regard to poetry may not
> be relevant here. ARC concentrates on the truths.
An odd distinction, wouldn't you say? "Truth" and execution? If the
execution of a poem, story etc. were really irrelevant to the "truth" it
"expresses," then why should we bother with poetic "expression" at all,
save for the didactic value of the exercise or the pleasing rhythm of
the lines (but then you reduce the enterprise poetry to mere aesthetics,
something i refuse to do). If execution is truly irrelevant here,--an
odd notion, but let's go with it for argument's sake--then why do you
not express yourself more explicitly, by, say, typing out "truths" in
all-caps (e.g. LOVE, TRUTH etc, etc.). The answer is simple: because
your sentiments are misguided. Execution *does* matter here, as it does
anywhere: you cannot seperate language from meaning; language *is*
meaning. The *execution* says it all. Another example.
Say i take up a blunt instrument and take a swing at you. You complain,
and rightly so. i rejoin: "But SIR!--it is but a love token!--a poetical
expression expressed in an ACT!--to use your words, SIR, it is the way
my statement to the world WORKS,--i.e. SIR, the actual blow to your
actual HEAD--is perfectly IRRELEVANT to the TRUTH it contains, SIR, that
is to say, my AFFECTION for YOU. SO, SIR, let's have no more of your
misguided COMPLAINTS!" See how that works, pete turk? An extreme
example, surely, but "truth" and execution are divorced only at the
price of absurdity, or in this particular case at the price of an
injury.
> -- If a writer in ARC feels his/her words should
> not be touched, then we should respect his/her
> wishes just as we in ARC respect the feelings
> that brought forth those words in the first place.
Ah, well, again, interesting sentiments, but, again, misguided. tommy
doyle invited comments. i provided same. So did charlene. So moralize
elsewhere. We did nothing amiss.
> So, here is the wretch... from my TeX/PostScript phase:
>
> POST SCRIPT
> -----------
> Pete Turk, 1991
>
> "In Marion S., I've every trust."...
[poem excised for brevity's sake]
An elegant poem, surely. Thank you for sharing it.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 19-Apr-98 Re: TRULY WRETCHED POETRY by Thomas
Do...@swt.edu
> I am resigned to leave the fool to his folly on this one.
Interesting. Here you are, crossing sacred lines, without citation or
attribution. Who did you plagiarize?--proverbs, or willy blake who
plagiarized proverbs? The smart money's on proverbs, sacred-line-boy: i
don't imagine you read much blake, or any other poet.
> All I'll say is don't ever try reading Robert Burns, Lord Byron, or
> Shelley. They both loved adjectives.
Did they? Did they abuse them relentlessly? Were adjectives the sum of
thier repertory of poetic device? No. Everyone uses adjectives, little
one. That wasn't my point. My point was simply that you made them do all
your work for you, what little work you did.
> Secondly, when describing a view, one tends to relly on more
> descriptive word structures rather than action oriented ones. If I were
Rely, little one, rely. Did you leave that spelling error in there to
remind of you "how far you've come"?
> attempting to allude to action, I would have used more verbs. But I was
> relating a view, so I thought mere descriptors worked fine.
Oh, yes you did. You thought they worked so well that you used nothing
but descriptors. Or perhaps you know no other technique?--read a
virgilian eclogue or a wordsworthian description of a place, little one,
and catalog the verbs. *They* create worlds of depth and substance,
worlds alive with motion, and they do so through catalogs of *concrete
detail* as opposed to mere adjectives. Read and enjoy.
> Lemme get this straight, you hate my stuff, yet you love the
> pre-packaged stuff that Charlene cranks out? I at least stick to some
> sort of rhythm and flow.
i don't "hate" anyone's stuff. Rather, i love language. You, however,
abuse it. And, yes, i find charlene's poetry far superior to yours, both
in depth and in range. As for rhythm and flow, i detected none in your
poem. i assumed it to be free verse. You paid *no* attention to where
the natural stresses fell on the syllables. It was a real tongue twister
in places.
> But alas, this is actually all quite inconsequential. Better
> authorities than you have liked it. Heck, some have even published it.
Really? What authority? And where were you published? With our beloved
interlibrary loan program, i have access to every lit pub in print.
> Not bad considering I was fifteen, love crazed, and had only been
> writing poetry about four months. I still like it. It is always one of
> my favorites, and it does speak to people with a flowing rhythm. In
> short while it didn't work to win Christy's heart, it does work quite
> well as a poem.
Ah, well, now you make excuses, and rightly so. i would make excuses
too. Fifteen were you? i wish i had known that. i'm willing to forgive a
great deal of linguistic atrocity from the keyboard of a fifteen year
old. Oh well. What's done is done. Who spells their name "Christy"?
> Not to mention, my editing professor would have a field day with your
> abuse of linguistic terms. I'd correct them all but fankly, I have much
> better things to spend my time on.
Really? i abuse terms? Give me an example. Go on. Just one. By the way,
what's an "editing professor"? A professor who edits? A professor who
teaches editing? What sort of editing? Copy editing? Content editing?
What sort of training does an "editing professor" need?
> You again prove your a pathetic little man with little vision or
> understanding. You may know a few facts, but the spark of wisdom escapes
> you. You are the conditioned base man trying to pose as the man of
> excellence, and those who truly work and aspire to that condition will
> spot you out faster than your little mind can imagine.
Are you flaming again? Please, your flames are inappropriate in
alt.romance.chat. Have you no respect for this group or its membership?
> As I said, in the overall scheme of things you are utterly without
> vision, and thus utterly inconsequential. So I wash my hands of you.
> Enjoy your pathetic little existence. The king of the fools is but the
> greatest fool after all.
Oh, but i'm not through with you, tommy. We're going to have such *fun*
you and i.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
J. Corral
Here's a scenerio Faith
in arc *I don't flame*
in private mail *well-if you weren't so...but then I understand because
she is so...and he said which offeneded me but...Well I'm sure you
understand!*
Go fight your own battles. I have my own
--Jeannette
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
Pete Turk
In article <8pCnnYK00...@andrew.cmu.edu>
gv...@andrew.cmu.edu "Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes" writes:
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 20-Apr-98 Re: TRULY WRETCHED
> POETRY by Pete Tu...@ragtag.demon.c
>
> > -- ARC tends to regard poetry as an emotionally
> > heightened way of expressing truths that matter to
> > us all. The *way* the poem "works" (or doesn't)
> > comes a long way behind. Therefore the concerns
> > of some other ng's in regard to poetry may not
> > be relevant here. ARC concentrates on the truths.
>
> An odd distinction, wouldn't you say? "Truth" and execution?
<snipped>
> See how that works, pete turk? An extreme
> example, surely, but "truth" and execution are divorced only at the
> price of absurdity, or in this particular case at the price of an
> injury.
Yes. A welter of things to take up and argue. But
I'll argue by e-mail, I think (I'll copy my replies
to anyone who emails me for them). Notice I did say
"tends to regard" and later "may be relevant".
I HAD hoped you'd be answering these question in
public though:
-- Does ARC *tend* to concentrate on the truths
as opposed to the "way the poem works"?
You then say "I agree, etc" or I don't agree, etc.
(by "truth[s]" I mean eg "how best can a couple
be happy/contented under this particular set
of circumstances" ie the stuff of advising).
-- If the answer is Yes, is it right or
appropriate for us in ARC to?
>
> > -- If a writer in ARC feels his/her words should
> > not be touched, then we should respect his/her
> > wishes just as we in ARC respect the feelings
> > that brought forth those words in the first place.
>
> Ah, well, again, interesting sentiments, but, again, misguided. tommy
> doyle invited comments. i provided same. So did charlene. So moralize
> elsewhere. We did nothing amiss.
I agree Tom and Charlene invited comments, but this is
about *touching* others' words, not about inviting comments
on the original. So I'm still interested in hearing any
answer you'd care to give.
> > So, here is the wretch... from my TeX/PostScript phase:
> >
> > POST SCRIPT
> > -----------
> > Pete Turk, 1991
> >
> > "In Marion S., I've every trust."...
>
> [poem excised for brevity's sake]
Thank you for the critique.
Peaches
grd <g...@ne.uswest.net> wrote:
[[About adding to another's poems..]]
>
> ((MAJOR SNIP)) I am certainly guilty of adding
> paragraphs to someone else's stuff to test my understanding of the
> symbols and images the poet used, and to extend additional ideas for
Give Jerry a cigar! :^) It seems that you have grasped the concept. :^)
Yes, people do add stanzas to other peoples' poems. I really miss the
"co-created" poetry that Jim and Charlene used to write. <sigh>
Unfortunately, the muse of poetry never whispers in my ear, but I would
love to see a round-robin type of poem where everyone adds something to
it. (hint, hint)
--
Peaches http://www.wwa.com/~fsgchi
reply to: fsgchi at wwa dot com
What lies before us, and what lies behind us, are tiny matters
compared to what lies within us... --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Peaches
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's
>
> ((MAJOR SNIP))
>
> Anyway, on behalf of alt.romance.chat i apologize to you charlene-
(SNIP)
Who says chivalry is dead? :^)
Peaches
Charlene wrote:
> Hmmmm...after calming down from a 202 glucose level, insulin and
dinner,
Are you feeling better today? You must have felt terrible. *hug*
> I went
> into deep contemplation about the anger and hostility within Thomas
as a result of
> his poem not winning over the object of his desire, the girl with the
passionate
> blue eyes who chose another male.
> (SNIP) I can understand that kind of
> pain. Yet, I do not deserve to be Thomas' object of anguish.
You're right Charlene. Even when you look at it from his point of view,
as you tried to do, there is no justification for Thomas continuing to
insult you.
I'm truly sorry that none of us can stop this. :^(
Would you like to take refuge in the coffeehouse? You're always welcome
there. :^)
Peaches
Jerry wrote:
> >
> I do admire long name's fortitude, wit, perception, and sense of
> humanitarian spirit.
Jerry, how wonderful that you can spot the good in others? *hug*
L. Davis
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, J. Corral wrote:
> Faith,
>
> This is a warning to you too because you constantly post in private
> mail what you never have the nerve to say in ARC.
Perhaps it's not that she lacks nerve, but that she possesses some class.
ARC is supposed to be as flame free as possible. So, one option, when
commenting on how *one* person feels about *one* persons post, is to take
it to e-mail so that all of ARC does not have to be subjected to the
personal flamage between *two* people.
> Thereby straddling fences-- calling names in private, stirring up
> problems etc.
Exactly how does taking something out of ARC stir up problems? Other than
personal feuds which I think you are both capable of hashing out yourself.
> Don't mail me anything that you don't want posted in arc--
BTW, posting private e-mail is universally accepted as rude and
inconsiderate unless it's done with the permission of the author.
> jigs up and I'm not playing by your rules anymore
Leaving e-mail in e-mail is a generally accepted rule of netiquette, and
taking flames to e-mail or alt.flame is an ARC "rule". Neither of these
were created by Faith.
*Hugs for Faith and the rest of ARC*
Lisa Davis, Official Listener & Prez of the RFA, and Dave's li'l sis.
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~davisl no spam: http://www.cauce.org
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.
J. Corral
Thanks for the input Lisa--I'll stick it in my circular file --Just as
soon as I print it out
---Jeannette
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 19-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's
> Charlene,
Little tommy doyle, you who loses complete bladder control at the least
provocation, if you do not cease flaming charlene you and i will engage
in a close, detailed reading of the FAQ together, a document you clearly
depise, or at least ignore. Brace yourself, little one, your judgment
draweth nigh.
> Don't quit your day job to become a shrink. I just don't like people
Oh, permit me a moment to chuckle politely, timmy, er, tommy, er,
whatever. No. Wait. That would require something funny. The above hardly
qualifies. tommy doyle and the concept of humor remain complete
strangers. Quit your day job?--how drearily cliched, almost as cliched
as "whispering winds" that become "mistresses" in dreary little verse
fragments sprung from dreary little minds, the verse fragments of timmy
doyle, er, um, no, i mean tommy doyle. Damn!--you're so blasted
non-descript, little tommy!
> perverting my work. That's all. I'm not ravingly mad at you. I just
"Perverting", tommy doyle?--indulging in a bit of over-the-top
hyperbole?--or, more likely, a bit of wishful thinking? "Perverting"?
Oh, you should be so lucky, you sweaty adolescent. What female of our
proud species would ever seek to caper and cavort "perversely" or
otherwise with the likes of, well, with the likes of tommy doyle?--i
mean, please, you strain credulity, among other things, but your
obsessions are you own affair. i never pry.
If you're not "ravingly" mad, tommy,--and, by the way, "rave" is not the
"mot just" for which you searched--then how do you account for your
absurd behavior, e.g. the ranting, the shrieking, the ruthless abuse of
charlene and the rest of our peaceful group? Do explain, little one. Are
these but further manifestations of those wretched masculinity issues
that haunt you to this day? Are you fearful of your, er, um, tiny
dimensions, so to speak? Did the other boys laugh at you in the locker
room? Yes. i know. Kids can be so cruel.
> think you did something that was wrong. You don't see how what you did
> could be construed as wrong. That troubles me.
She "construes" nothing "as wrong" because she did nothing wrong.
> Have you tried to understand the root of my anger, about you
tampering
> with my work? Ponder for a moment and then talk to me.
Ponder for a moment, little tommy doyle? Agreed. Done. i'm back, having
pondered the "root" tommy doyle's "anger". My conclusions? i will share
them, but you must *promise* to maintain bladder control, you excitable
little dribbler! My conclusions are these: tommy doyle will grasp at
even the least of pretexts to justify his fits of rage and pain and
self-abuse.
> I will critique work, but the change must come from the artist
to truly
> remain art. I will leave this without further expansion, because when
i refuted this, point for point. tommy doyle demonstrates himself
unresponsive to the healing balm of human reason. Sad.
> you understand this, you'll understand my anger.
i understand that you should consider taking your act on the road. May i
recommend alt.flame? Please cease your flaming in this group.
> Thomas Doyle
Correction: little tommy doyle.
> P.s. My anger for you ran out shortly afterwards. My anger for what you
> did still lingers. All it really did was make me lose any respect I had
> for you as a writer.
And, er, um, imagine how much respect *we* have for *you* "as a writer",
adjective boy, you savage abuser of the English language.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Robert Maughan
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
>Oh, but i'm not through with you, tommy. We're going to have such *fun*
>you and i.
Goddamn it, Gilbert. You here? I swing by on my rounds and what do I
find? You, mixing it with Thomas Doyle, Usenet's own William McGonagall;
not so much the world's worst poet more the world wide web's worst pest.
Why do you do this, Gil? Some chivalrous instinct nestling still in your
fluttering bosom? All the hours spent with me and the other guttersnipes
count for naught. A lady's honour at stake, and all I've ever tried to
teach you - up in smoke. I despair.
Well, let's have it. I refuse to trawl through the thread. A paragraph
and no more - and if you're going to make me read one of Doyle's ghastly
offerings, you'll answer for it elsewhere.
Good evening Ladies. Gentlemen. I'm just passing, take no notice.
RJM.
J. Corral
Gilly;
So far you have only accomplished one thing and that is to prove that
pompous *sses thrive on the internet. Given the choice of Thomas,
defending his work or you, who is ancient and creaking while clingly
tightly to your copy of Oedipus, I'll take youth.
--Jeannette
<<who hates the smell of mothballs and formaldehyde>>
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 20-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by "J.
Corral"@u.washington
> So far you have only accomplished one thing and that is to prove that
> pompous *sses thrive on the internet. Given the choice of Thomas,
Do they, my loquacious little bedwetter, she with the sticky keyboard
and the centipede demeanor?--i hadn't noticed, small one, for, you see,
i've been distracted with this tommy doyle character in
alt.romance.chat. A revolting sort of boy, surely, an abuser of other
users, but one not completely void of virtue. It is said that he loves
his mother. And while the boy does excel in pomposity i am as yet
unqualified to comment upon his posterior. His character is all that
interests me, small one. i shall leave his anatomy to you. Enjoy
yourselves immensely. You'll need something sharp to lance those boils.
> defending his work or you, who is ancient and creaking while clingly
Defending his work? Really? How odd. Has he done that yet? i must have
missed it, you leaky bearer of the strangest news, tommy doyle's only
defender. So far all *i've* detected from our little tommy doyle are
whines, whimpers, shrieks of protest, a frantic scurrying along the
baseboards like a many-legged nocturnal insect suddenly caught in the
light, more of his hideous abuse of our beloved mother tongue--er, you
know, that sort of thing. Forgive me. Metaphors. That aside, do you
suppose the excitable little mewler might actually attempt to defend his
work? Oh, do encourage him, will you? And can you help him with his
nervous bladder?
> tightly to your copy of Oedipus, I'll take youth.
Ah. Sophocles. He shrouded his chorus in black when euripides left this
world, doubtless in some machine of the gods. A touching tribute,
surely, one master of the stage to another. Among attics i prefer
Aschylus. He was there, at marathon when the hills darkened with persian
purple and bristled with spearheads gathered from Ethiopia to Scythia,
poet warrior, father of drama, said by aristotle to be the first to add
a second actor to the bacchic stage. So, subliterate one, artless,
graceless, joyless, visionless little squeaker, take your "youth", our
little tommy doyle, but for god's sake bathe him once in a while, dress
him properly, and toilet train the boy. He's been using alt.romance.chat
as his personal litterbox for too long. Dignity, please. Explore the
notion.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 20-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by "J.
Corral"@u.washington
> Let me know when you get something original
Original you say, little one? You mean like "lakes of crystal" or
"whispering winds" or some odd thing personified as a "mistress"? No,
wait, those cliches were bled white of meaning--done to death, one might
say--in another century altogether. What rube, what uneducated buffoon
would attempt to pass off... such ... overused figures ... as, er, um
... "original" ... Oh bloody hell. Forbear. i digress.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
J. Corral
Let me know when you get something original
--Jeannette
<<Gee now even the trolls are boring>>
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
> Excerpts from mail: 20-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by "J.
> Corral"@u.washington
>
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 20-Apr-98 Re: TRULY WRETCHED
POETRY by Pete Tu...@ragtag.demon.c
> In article <8pCnnYK00...@andrew.cmu.edu>
> gv...@andrew.cmu.edu "Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes" writes:
>
> > Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 20-Apr-98 Re: TRULY WRETCHED
> > POETRY by Pete Tu...@ragtag.demon.c
> >
> > > -- ARC tends to regard poetry as an emotionally
> > > heightened way of expressing truths that matter to
> > > us all. The *way* the poem "works" (or doesn't)
> > > comes a long way behind. Therefore the concerns
> > > of some other ng's in regard to poetry may not
> > > be relevant here. ARC concentrates on the truths.
> >
> > An odd distinction, wouldn't you say? "Truth" and execution?
> <snipped>
> > See how that works, pete turk? An extreme
> > example, surely, but "truth" and execution are divorced only at the
> > price of absurdity, or in this particular case at the price of an
> > injury.
>
> Yes. A welter of things to take up and argue. But
> I'll argue by e-mail, I think (I'll copy my replies
> to anyone who emails me for them). Notice I did say
> "tends to regard" and later "may be relevant".
And why are these qualifications relevant?--are you backing away from
your claims? A wise move, surely, but to do so and then hide behind the
veil of private email strikes me as odd.
> I HAD hoped you'd be answering these question in
> public though:
>
> -- Does ARC *tend* to concentrate on the truths
> as opposed to the "way the poem works"?
Again, i don't see a distinction between "truth" and execution (or the
"way a poem [or any communicative act] works") and you have yet to
demonstrate one. How can you separate the two?
> You then say "I agree, etc" or I don't agree, etc.
See above. i don't recognize a distinction. You may read that as "i do
not agree, i do not even agree with the premise of your question".
> (by "truth[s]" I mean eg "how best can a couple
> be happy/contented under this particular set
> of circumstances" ie the stuff of advising).
How can you "advise" without using language to do so? How can you
separate "truth" from its execution?
> -- If the answer is Yes, is it right or
> appropriate for us in ARC to?
i have no authority here to answer either way. i do contend however that
we did nothing wrong or inappropriate.
> >
> > > -- If a writer in ARC feels his/her words should
> > > not be touched, then we should respect his/her
> > > wishes just as we in ARC respect the feelings
> > > that brought forth those words in the first place.
> >
> > Ah, well, again, interesting sentiments, but, again, misguided. tommy
> > doyle invited comments. i provided same. So did charlene. So moralize
> > elsewhere. We did nothing amiss.
>
> I agree Tom and Charlene invited comments, but this is
> about *touching* others' words, not about inviting comments
> on the original. So I'm still interested in hearing any
> answer you'd care to give.
i do not agree with the premise of your question. No one "touched"
anyone. An excitable boy posted a "poem" and asked for comments. We gave
them. Sometimes the *best* way to demonstrate the strength or the
weakness of a line is to offer alternative renderings. Revising is all
about comparisons. Again, you attempt to create a distinction without a
difference--"touching" in the vague, metaphorical sense in which you
seem to be using it, or commenting, where's the distinction?
> > > So, here is the wretch... from my TeX/PostScript phase:
> > >
> > > POST SCRIPT
> > > -----------
> > > Pete Turk, 1991
> > >
> > > "In Marion S., I've every trust."...
> >
> > [poem excised for brevity's sake]
>
> Thank you for the critique.
i offered no critique. i liked your poem, that's all. Very G.M. Hopkins
like. Nicely done.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
comp...@iname.com
Peaches, thanks. I did go to the Coffeehouse and had a cup and posted a
poem. Getting better on the pneumonia thing. The blood level now won't
go down again. Soooo, its more insulin...nothing new, gotta do it.
Doing better and thanks.
Charlene
Peaches wrote:
> Charlene wrote:
> > Hmmmm...after calming down from a 202 glucose level, insulin and
> dinner,
>
> Are you feeling better today? You must have felt terrible. *hug*
>
> > I went
> > into deep contemplation about the anger and hostility within Thomas
> as a result of
> > his poem not winning over the object of his desire, the girl with the
> passionate
> > blue eyes who chose another male.
> > (SNIP) I can understand that kind of
> > pain. Yet, I do not deserve to be Thomas' object of anguish.
>
> You're right Charlene. Even when you look at it from his point of view,
> as you tried to do, there is no justification for Thomas continuing to
> insult you.
>
> I'm truly sorry that none of us can stop this. :^(
>
> Would you like to take refuge in the coffeehouse? You're always welcome
> there. :^)
> --
> Peaches http://www.wwa.com/~fsgchi
> reply to: fsgchi at wwa dot com
> What lies before us, and what lies behind us, are tiny matters
> compared to what lies within us... --Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
.
J. Corral
<<answer to originality question>>
No I mean referring to people as incontinent and bedwetters, little ones
etc. Its all the same-- just you being a pompous *ss to puff yourself up.
There is the definite lack of originality. I look forward to something
useful in your posts--anyone with such a self-congratulatory attitude
should have at least something to back it up.
Let me ask you a question?
If someone has an emotion, an experience that is near and dear to them and
writes about it--is that not more endearing than someone who only used
words without meaning?
What Thomas wrote was an expression of an experience --it was a part of
him akin to a jo private journal. He shared this expression in arc
because it gave him a bit of humanity and romantic kinship with people
herein. For someone to take that memory and use his words in a way to
express some other sentiment shows that it is VERY MUCH possible for poets
to write down anything and pass it off as art. But it also justifies
Thomas' sense of violation.
However what makes a work of art time honored and valuable is the
circumstance in which it was created. If an artist poses for a painting
and the work is good then people applaud his work. However if the same
artist steals away to meet his lover in private to paint her portrait it
is MORE likely to become a masterpiece. Not because it has a better
quality for the artist is the same--but because it carries the heart of
the artist.
Remember Van Gogh was not praised as a genius until after his death when
people finally knew of his tortured existence. Then and only then could
the true beauty of the work be valued.
To simply toss words around is something ANYONE can do--but to put
yourself into your work and expose parts of your life through words is a
far greater gift. One that should not be tampered with.
Now try your best to see things from another perspective, drop your
preconceptions and appreciate the work for what it was...a gift oflove.
One that the poet, that being Thomas, was allowing us to share.
--Jeannette
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
> Excerpts from mail: 20-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by "J.
> Corral"@u.washington
>
> > Let me know when you get something original
>
> Original you say, little one? You mean like "lakes of crystal" or
> "whispering winds" or some odd thing personified as a "mistress"? No,
> wait, those cliches were bled white of meaning--done to death, one might
> say--in another century altogether. What rube, what uneducated buffoon
> would attempt to pass off... such ... overused figures ... as, er, um
> ... "original" ... Oh bloody hell. Forbear. i digress.
>
>
J. Corral
faith you have to re-read to understand what I said first. No harm done.
I really do not care how you are--I'm just saying my mailbox won't be
party to it
Rip me up in arc all ya want--but just don't stir waters about all the
other arc people to me. Its called being an agitator--you don't have the
nerve to commit the crime so you relish in assisting covertly.
Just bug off and do your own dirty work. Like I said --I know I am not
the only one you have tried this approach on, so to others they'll know
by which I speak. As in---mmmm that has a familiar ring. I prefer to
express myself freely in public. If I can't live with my conscience in
public expression why would I gnaw about it in private?
That's all--I simply choose to tell you to stop pandering your trash to
me. If I want to tell someone how I feel or give *friendly* advice I will
do it in this open forum. Being a behind the scenes fishwife is not my
style. I don't say anything about anyone in private that I wouldn't say
in public. That's all dear. You obviously missed the point of the
message but then that isn't exactly surprising.
--Jeannette
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, faith_marieb wrote:
>
>
> J. Corral <jean...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
> <Pine.A41.3.96a.98042...@dante21.u.washington.edu>...
> > Here's a scenerio Faith
> > in arc *I don't flame*
>
> Someone's using your email address then.
>
>
> > in private mail *well-if you weren't so...but then I understand because
> > she is so...and he said which offeneded me but...Well I'm sure you
> > understand!*
>
> This is where the true meaning of friendship comes in Jeannette.
> The party whom I felt offended by *knows* exactly how I felt (please
> ask the person for yourself). Two attributes of
> friendship...trust and honesty...are what makes a friend for life.
>
>
> > Go fight your own battles. I have my own
> > --Jeannette
>
> I'm sorry that you have so many battles Jeannette.
>
> Faith
A.Boodoo
Thomas Doyle wrote:
> When I said it didn't work, I meant that it was an attempt to win the
> heart of a girl who another guy was after as well. It didn't work
> because he got the girl. This happens to be one of my favorite poems. It
> was written when I was 16. It is a bit simple, but the images aren't
> stock. 'Sides, all charlene did was rearange my phrases and steal my
> title. Basically, at this moment I consider her to be the Michael Bolton of poetry.
Well here's one I wrote which is a reworking of a classic, I think this
one probably works better than Charlene's reworking of yours as I've
changed the context. But I reckon every poet who reckoned he/she was
vaguely something has tried to rework a classic.
Night Mail 98
(originally "Night Mail" by W.H.Auden, 1936)
I
This is the night mail crossing the border
Badly delayed with the loos out of order
Coaches for the rich, calf trucks for the poor
Beaten up tables and fiddly end doors
Pulling up Beattock, a steady climb
The signal's against her, we'll be some time
Past cotton grass and moorland border
Aircon's packed up, it's getting colder
Snorting noisily she passes
Motionless as silent grasses
Birds turn their heads as they approach us
Flying faster than our locomotive
Sheep dogs cannot turn her course
As we sit trapped among the gorse
In the farm she passes noone wakes
As finally she comes off the brakes
II
Dawn freshens, her climb is done
Down towards Glasgow she descends
Towards the semis pouring down suburban hills
Towards the fields of concrete peaks, the tower blocks
Set on the dark plain like gigantic chessmen
All Scotland waits for her
In dark glens, beside pale green lochs
Men long for trains
A.Boodoo, 24-Mar-98 & W.H.Auden, 1936
faith_marieb
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 20-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by "J.
Corral"@u.washington
> <<answer to originality question>>
>
> No I mean referring to people as incontinent and bedwetters, little ones
> etc. Its all the same-- just you being a pompous *ss to puff yourself up.
> There is the definite lack of originality. I look forward to something
> useful in your posts--anyone with such a self-congratulatory attitude
> should have at least something to back it up.
i am here to defend charlene. i realize that you need a tutor, but
please look elsewhere. Frankly, you don't interest me.
> Let me ask you a question?
>
> If someone has an emotion, an experience that is near and dear to them and
> writes about it--is that not more endearing than someone who only used
> words without meaning?
Yes, but tommy doyle abuses words until they *lose* all meaning.
> What Thomas wrote was an expression of an experience --it was a part of
i disagree. It was pastiche of stock images. A collage.
> him akin to a jo private journal. He shared this expression in arc
> because it gave him a bit of humanity and romantic kinship with people
> herein. For someone to take that memory and use his words in a way to
> express some other sentiment shows that it is VERY MUCH possible for poets
> to write down anything and pass it off as art. But it also justifies
> Thomas' sense of violation.
i disagree with tommy doyle's alleged sense of voilation. Charlene
improved his poem. He should be grateful.
> However what makes a work of art time honored and valuable is the
> circumstance in which it was created. If an artist poses for a painting
> and the work is good then people applaud his work. However if the same
> artist steals away to meet his lover in private to paint her portrait it
> is MORE likely to become a masterpiece. Not because it has a better
> quality for the artist is the same--but because it carries the heart of
> the artist.
Can you cite instances?--aesthetics, and therefore art history, are
passions of mine, and i can think of no example to back up the claim
that such a painting would be "more" likely to become a masterpiece.
Interesting stories surround different paintings; e.g. many suspect the
mona lisa to be a self portrait of the artist in drag, for it is well
known that leonardo was a homosexual; but does *that* odd fact make the
painting a masterpiece? No. Ultimately it is what finds its way onto the
canvass that makes a painting a painting: not history or biography, but
pigments.
> Remember Van Gogh was not praised as a genius until after his death when
> people finally knew of his tortured existence. Then and only then could
> the true beauty of the work be valued.
Er, um, wrong. Tortured, misunderstood artists die in complete obscurity
every day, and never become known. Did you think van gogh the only one?
van gogh's history certainly enriches our understanding of his oeuvre,
but ultimately what makes a van gogh a van gogh are the images he left
us, material images. If he had drawn cartoon stick figures we wouldn't
value them the same way.
> To simply toss words around is something ANYONE can do--but to put
> yourself into your work and expose parts of your life through words is a
> far greater gift. One that should not be tampered with.
But tommy doyle has yet to demonstrate that he can do that. In the
meantime, let us help him accomplish his goal with our feedback, shall
we?
> Now try your best to see things from another perspective, drop your
> preconceptions and appreciate the work for what it was...a gift oflove.
> One that the poet, that being Thomas, was allowing us to share.
All that confronts me on usenet is an atrocity of a poem, tommy doyle's
poem, a poem that desperately needs help, however putatively "noble" its
origins. How much better if we could help little tommy doyle attain at
least a functional level of literacy!--then both his poetry and *us*,
his audience, will gain immensely! So, stop attempting to defend the
indefensible let us work together to produce a newer, better, more
literate, more respectful to his friends tommy doyle! Shall we? Indeed
we shall!
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.romance.chat: 20-Apr-98 Re: TRULY WRETCHED
> >Oh, but i'm not through with you, tommy. We're going to have such *fun*
> >you and i.
>
> Goddamn it, Gilbert. You here? I swing by on my rounds and what do I
> find? You, mixing it with Thomas Doyle, Usenet's own William McGonagall;
> not so much the world's worst poet more the world wide web's worst pest.
Oh, i disagree robert, he's the world's worst poet. Clearly. Demonstrably.
> Why do you do this, Gil? Some chivalrous instinct nestling still in your
> fluttering bosom? All the hours spent with me and the other guttersnipes
> count for naught. A lady's honour at stake, and all I've ever tried to
> teach you - up in smoke. I despair.
Forgive me, robert, i have erred and strayed from my way like a lost sheep.
> Well, let's have it. I refuse to trawl through the thread. A paragraph
> and no more - and if you're going to make me read one of Doyle's ghastly
> offerings, you'll answer for it elsewhere.
No, please, spare yourself that. Anyway, an accounting of events: tommy
doyle thrashed dead the sacred muse he so despises with an atrocity
entitled "passionate eyes," or something equally predictable; some
gentle contributer here--a poet herself, and one who clearly surpasses
tommy in matters poetical, a more capable peer, as it were, in this case
far more capable--offered the boy a word or two of guidence and a
suggested revision. A noble gesture, don't you think? In response, our
little tommy doyle immediately lost bladder control in a most vile, most
public, most terribly adolescent way,--he fussed, he fumed, he flamed,
he scurried this way, he scurried that way, shrieking all the while,
flailing his many little limbs out of all proportion to any known
stimulus--causing the poor woman who dared to save a dying poem no end
of pain. She apologized profusely, robert, another noble gesture, but
little tommy doyle continued to harass her, and continues even now, as
is his way, hostile troll and merciless abuser of the English language
that he is. Hence, my intervention, robert. i merely wished to
demonstrate to tommy and his little diminutive bedwetting camp-follower
boot-lick--a fellow subliterate, another highly UN-reflective
thinker--that one cannot harass other contributers with impunity.
There, that's the sum of it. Whole and entire. You won't need tommy's
side of the story because he has no side.
> Good evening Ladies. Gentlemen. I'm just passing, take no notice.
A poem, robert. Your fans here will want a poem. Preferably something
erotic. Anything on hand?
> RJM.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Thomas Doyle
Alright, I gotta jump in here.
Revisionistic history Gilley? Really. A MINORITY suspects Leonardo was
gay. Many homosexual PC thugs try to rewrite history to gain some
credibility by saying all these great men were gay. Some tried saying
Aristotle was gay because he said he loved his teacher. The word in
greek was Filios, brotherly love. But some idiot read it an ran with it.
If they would have stopped to read the Ethics, they would know that he
calls such actions base and against nature.
Leonardo probably had a deep fatherly relationship with his apprentice.
Not the perverse one you suggest. Why have we twisted love to the point
that any expression of it must be erotic (eros in the greek). We rule
out brotherly (filio) and unconditional love (agape) in favor of sexual
backed love (eros).
You are probably one of those folks that believes the crap that
Jefferson slept with his slaves, when he actually paid them wages.
People who also know little of him also don't know he launched the very
first anti-slavery legislation on this continent during his time in the
Virginia Legislature.
I'm sorry, but you gie a bit of info to a fool and it is truly a
dangerous thing. It is not widely known. It is suspected by a few
scholars desperate to publish a history paper, and a minority grappling
for credibility so desperately it will besmirch the reputation and
character of one of the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance.
History happens to be a passion of mine. As are historic writings.
Thomas Doyle
Thomas Doyle
Jeannette,
I for one am glad you fight the battles you do. You passionately jump
upon any cause you see as unjust and you grab on, refusing to let go
until you win. My hats off to you dear lady.
I'm also just glad with all that fire your on my side. I'm proud to
call you my friend.
Thomas Doyle
faith_...@yahoo.com
In article
<Pine.A41.3.96a.98042...@dante18.u.washington.edu>, "J.
Corral" <jean...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
<snipped all>
Giving Jeannette the last word out of respect to the group.
This does not belong in ARC
Faith
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 21-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by Thomas
Do...@swt.edu
> Alright, I gotta jump in here.
Oh, please do, little tommy doyle. i knew all that stuff about ignoring
me was but more tommy doyle affectation. Nothing you say has any real
meaning, little one, your claims, your poetry, your promises. Nothing.
> Revisionistic history Gilley? Really. A MINORITY suspects
Leonardo was
Revisionist? Not in the least.
> gay. Many homosexual PC thugs try to rewrite history to gain some
> credibility by saying all these great men were gay. Some tried saying
Really? i had no idea. How do we stop these thugs?
> Aristotle was gay because he said he loved his teacher. The word in
And alcibiades said he was socrates' lover in the symposium, the bloody
liar!--and the word *he* used was "eros"!--my GOD!--lies upon lies!
> greek was Filios, brotherly love. But some idiot read it an ran with it.
Some idiot read it and ran with it?--why, you mean like the idiot who
read my comments about da vinci, took them out of context and ran with
them? Oh, that would be you, little tommy doyle.
> If they would have stopped to read the Ethics, they would know that he
> calls such actions base and against nature.
i have no idea what you're going on about, little tommy doyle. Here is
what i wrote: Excerpts from me, gvw iv: 21-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's
sacred li.. by => O. Ne...@andrew.cmu
> Can you cite instances?--aesthetics, and therefore art history, are
> passions of mine, and i can think of no example to back up the claim
> that such a painting would be "more" likely to become a masterpiece.
> Interesting stories surround different paintings; e.g. many suspect the
> mona lisa to be a self portrait of the artist in drag, for it is well
> known that leonardo was a homosexual; but does *that* odd fact make the
> painting a masterpiece? No. Ultimately it is what finds its way onto the
> canvass that makes a painting a painting: not history or biography, but
> pigments.
All i wrote, little one, is that "many" claim as much, and many do; for
hundreds of years they have, e.g. walter pater does as much in his
masterpiece of aesthetics entitled "The Renaissance". My *point*, little
one, was merely that the stories we tell in regard to the paintings we
hang in our museums have little to do with why they are there. My point,
little one, is precisely the OPPOSITE of what you seem to think it was:
his homosexuality or NON-homosexuality is IRRELEVANT. My god, little
one, but you're reading skills are almost nearly as bad as your
composition skills.
> Leonardo probably had a deep fatherly relationship with his
apprentice.
Yes? Proof?
> Not the perverse one you suggest. Why have we twisted love to the point
Really? You have proof?
> that any expression of it must be erotic (eros in the greek). We rule
We're talking about Italians.
> out brotherly (filio) and unconditional love (agape) in favor of sexual
> backed love (eros).
They have different terms for love in Italy.
> You are probably one of those folks that believes the crap that
> Jefferson slept with his slaves, when he actually paid them wages.
i know nothing about that.
> People who also know little of him also don't know he launched the very
> first anti-slavery legislation on this continent during his time in the
> Virginia Legislature.
Yes, so?--what are you going on about?
> I'm sorry, but you gie a bit of info to a fool and it is truly a
> dangerous thing. It is not widely known. It is suspected by a few
As in your case, little tommy doyle.
> scholars desperate to publish a history paper, and a minority grappling
Art history, in this case. But of course you have historical evidence
otherwise. Please share it.
> for credibility so desperately it will besmirch the reputation and
> character of one of the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance.
Besmirch whose reputation? Does it *matter* who the man slept with? Does
his oeuvre become any less important to us?
> History happens to be a passion of mine. As are historic writings.
Then you should actually read some sometime.
> Thomas Doyle
Correction: little tommy doyle, merciless abuser of the English language.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
J. Corral
Once again--Im done with you.
The only thing you taught Thomas is that PhD's and private schools don't
automatically make one classy or authorative.
Bye Gilly, I think the school bells ringing. I'm sure there's a podium
just waiting to help you *rise above the maddening crowd*
---Jeannette
> Can you cite instances?--aesthetics, and therefore art history, are
> passions of mine, and i can think of no example to back up the claim
> that such a painting would be "more" likely to become a masterpiece.
> Interesting stories surround different paintings; e.g. many suspect the
> mona lisa to be a self portrait of the artist in drag, for it is well
> known that leonardo was a homosexual; but does *that* odd fact make the
> painting a masterpiece? No. Ultimately it is what finds its way onto the
> canvass that makes a painting a painting: not history or biography, but
> pigments.
>
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
J. Corral
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Thomas Doyle wrote:
> Jeannette,
Hi Thomas
> I for one am glad you fight the battles you do. You passionately jump
> upon any cause you see as unjust and you grab on, refusing to let go
> until you win.
Well its the phonies that get my dander up. If there had been a lesson
to learn I surely would have wanted to learn it. One thing you never
do is set yourself up as an expert with a hidden agenda. Cause when you
blow its usually quite *chunky* ;)
> My hats off to you dear lady.
Thanks hon...Hopefully he joins the ranks of those that post to
themselves. ARC should be free but freedom of expression is limited
by people who hide behind prejudice, no matter what type. I generally
start and argument with---Its been my experience...Preferring
self-disclosure. I know I will make mistakes as I have in the past
but when I recognized them I apology. That is truly what *class*
is all about and you don't need to have a dime in your pocket either.
> I'm also just glad with all that fire your on my side. I'm proud to
> call you my friend.
I told James about it last night--after bursting out laughing he said, "I
love you". He appreciates the fire too. :)
Now...I know we could find something to play in here if we really put our
minds to it.
-----Jeannette
>
> Thomas Doyle
J. Corral
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 faith_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> <snipped all>
> Giving Jeannette the last word out of respect to the group.
> This does not belong in ARC
Hi Faith!!
How are ya? Thanks for giving me the last word but I know you shall
speak again. I'm planning on it--Isn't spring refreshing??
Just finished dusting out a few old cobwebs and now everything sparkles.
Would it help if I lobbed some chocolate?
**Jeannette opens her little bag of delights and lofts a big gooey
chocolate carmel treat**
SPLATT!!
**Faith totally covered sputters searching for something sweet and
equally gooey**
--Jeannnette
<<Back to reality???? NEVER I TELL YOU NEVER>>
>
> Faith
>
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
>
You ever wonder why hugs are so good
Thomas Doyle
I said I was done with the poetry discussion. I had to take on this one.
I hate revisionistic historians. You stated that it was a well known
fact that Leonardo was gay. It is not. Your assertions are false and
unproven.
And for a guy who claims to know literature well, I'm shocked that you
don't know of Aristotle's Politics and Ethics.
If you'd read them you'd know what I was talking about.
Oh, my use of greek phrases was for ease of reference. I don't know
Itallian I'm afraid. I do however know a schmuck when I see one. Your a
little man desperate to prove your a big fish with a mighty degree.
While you may know English syntax, your responses make me truly
question your knowledge of art history.
I want your views on the last poem I posted to see if you have ANY
respect for an artists work. After that point, I am done with you
completely. I just want to know if you are truly as heartless as you
seem.
Thomas Doyle
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 21-Apr-98 Re: tommy doyle's sacred li.. by Thomas
Do...@swt.edu
> I said I was done with the poetry discussion. I had to take on this one.
Oh, i see. i thoroughly humiliated you with respect to poetry, so you
want to try your hand with this. Okay.
> I hate revisionistic historians. You stated that it was a well known
Do you? You hate so many things. So full of hate you are, little one.
How do you live with yourself?
> fact that Leonardo was gay. It is not. Your assertions are false and
i never used the term "fact". My assertions are not false; they are
merely disputed.
> unproven.
Disputed, perhaps, but for hundreds of years others have thought
likewise. E.g. pater. Read some history.
> And for a guy who claims to know literature well, I'm shocked
that you
> don't know of Aristotle's Politics and Ethics.
Oh, don't get your depends undergarments all in a bunch, little one.
You'll soil your orthopedic chair, the one you use to help correct that
terrible posture of yours. (But i think that hump of yours gives you a
certain dignity.) Are you referring to the Nichomachian Ethics?--i've
read it, as well as his Politics, his Posterior Analytics, his Rhetoric,
Metaphysics and his Topics. What's your point? You can't *be* a
rhetorician and not read aristotle.
> If you'd read them you'd know what I was talking about.
i have read them. You went on and on about some line you plucked out of
context that someone else misread, or so you claimed. i had never heard
of the controversy, that's all.
> Oh, my use of greek phrases was for ease of reference. I don't know
> Itallian I'm afraid. I do however know a schmuck when I see one. Your a
> little man desperate to prove your a big fish with a mighty degree.
*Two* mighty degrees, little one, and a third on the way. And you were
using greek words, not phrases, and i still have yet to discern what
aristotle had to do with anything you were trying to say. And you're
abusing metaphors again, little one: try not to mix them so ruthlessly.
It makes you sound moronic.
> While you may know English syntax, your responses make me truly
So you admit that i know syntax?--fascinating. So you reverse yourself
on your earlier claim that your "editing professor" would have "field
day" with my use of terms? Odd how the things you say just seem to morph
from one form into another, at whim.
> question your knowledge of art history.
Really? You go on and on about some obscure controversy having to do
with aristotle, and use *that* as grounds that i know little about art
history? Does the term "convoluted" mean anything to you, little one?
Oh, i know, too many syllables. Sorry.
> I want your views on the last poem I posted to see if you have ANY
i already gave them, in my dialogue with the incontinent one, jeanette
or something. It was but one stock image piled upon another.
> respect for an artists work. After that point, I am done with you
What artist?--you? Sir, you are too generous. i think of you more as a
brick-layer, using the stock images as material for your own crumbling
ediface.
> completely. I just want to know if you are truly as heartless as you
> seem.
Heartless? Oh my. Truly, sir, you cut me to the quick. Please take your
flaming to another group.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Robert Maughan
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
>
Let me see ... just take a moment to adjust wig and gown -
In essence, Mr Doyle perpetrates typical poem, asks for comment. Gets
same and more. Doesn't like it. Provides his qualifications for supreme
poetry being, i.e. publication throughout the globe, a bulging portfolio
of ongoing work, and his oeuvre within this group. All copywrite [sic].
He has had to defend his 'copywrite' did I read? Curious that the word
'copyright' was never mentioned in this litigation. Still, Mr Doyle is
terrifyingly stupid, as I may have said before, so his making ludicrous
claims is not so unlikely. He claims an affinity with history, unbounded
by period or place, it seems. Modern, Ancient, Prehistoric, Neanderthal,
you name it, he's studied it. I feel like ripping out my diploma from
it's frame and swallowing it. What a fool I was.
The upshot then is that Mr Doyle, objecting to the very interaction he
sought, presumably because it demonstrably improved his product, makes
the claim that his poem is inviolate, simply because he says so, after
the event. You, sword in hand, descended on this poor dimwit and smote
him hip and thigh. I see. You force me to look at this effort. You are
aware of the consequences? I'll be back soon.
I notice that Mr Doyle asked for 'Opinions'. This may be the crux of
his passion ... if that isn't too painful. He believes, wrongly, that
a screenful of text attached to his name is his property. Certainly it
is his text, and so it remains. Mr Doyle possibly labours under the
delusion that the letter "C" standing for the copyright mark © gives
him control over the fate of his text. He is wrong. He seems to think
that his poem is changed. It isn't, it remains, I just went and looked
at it. And don't think I'll forget it, Gilbert. One person's opinion
of his poem was that certain changes would improve it. Those changes
were offered - a sceenful of text. That text is not Mr Doyle's, it is
the text of the person offering the improvement. None of this effects
Mr Doyle's original post, the one which begins -
A crystaline lake,
Surounds a mystic shore.
Blazing saphires,
With a glowing obsidean core.
Frankly, Gil, I think you are cruelly using Mr Doyle to further your
electric liaisons amongst this charming group of people. Not in itself
reprehensible, but slightly gauche. You will carry off your doctorate
soon and I do hope you will purchase instructional literature in social
intercourse before you go out into the real world. Patently, I have
failed to influence you. And sort out your spelling, goddamn it.
A poem, you say? An erotic poem? Was it something I said? Good lord!
I do hope you haven't been talking to ... ? Dear me. Curiously enough,
I've been re-reading D.H.Lawrence lately, for reasons I need not here
disclose, and I still love Connie. Don't you? I read Lady Chatterley's
Lover just the other night. I wrote a poem years ago that illustrates
the argument here; the poem was their story, Constance and Mellors, in
miniature, and I owe it to Lawrence.
RJM.
The Lady by RJMaughan.
THE LADY
She wanted him.
Walking, she saw him strong,
His body made by earth
And when he moved,
She imagined his flesh
Under the rough clothes.
She knew she would touch him,
Blood hot, she wanted him.
One day they met and spoke;
It was enough, he accepted
And he waited for her.
They became lovers;
She compliant, unafraid
Of the essence of him,
The man she had chosen.
She would lie exposed
As he gently loved her,
With his hands, his mouth,
Opening her, licking her,
And always she welcomed him,
The strong man like a child in her
And he would look up to her,
Move his body over her, kissing,
Waiting, and in the last moment
Whisper, 'Ah, th'art good cunt.'
As she cried for him, her lover.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from mail: 21-Apr-98 Re: TRULY WRETCHED POETRY by "Peaches"@wwa.com
> I have a favor to ask of you both. In ARC we generally don't critique each
> other's writing or poetry. Submissions are treated with the kindness of an
> adult education class where people are encouraged for "trying" things. Most
> of the membership will never be paid for their work, but they want to have
> an audience for their writing. I know that people have been taunting
> Gilbert to critique things, but I would like for him to ask to do so via
> e-mail or another newsgroup.
A reasonable request, surely, and you make your case well. What can i do
but comply?
> Whatever you choose to do, thank you for the entertaining look at the true
> nature of Jeannette and Thomas.
The pleasure has been all *mine*, believe me.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Peaches
comp...@iname.com wrote:
> Peaches, thanks. I did go to the Coffeehouse and had a cup and
posted a
> poem. Getting better on the pneumonia thing. The blood level now
won't
> go down again. Soooo, its more insulin...nothing new, gotta do it.
I didn't know that you had pneumonia. I had it when I was a teenager.
I'm surprised you can do anything but lay in bed. I know how sick it
makes you feel.
> Doing better and thanks.
I'm glad to hear it. *HUG*
Robert Maughan
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
>The pleasure has been all *mine*, believe me.
Wotcher Peaches. X
Believe him. Pleasure Principles R Us.
RJM.