At the Sign of the Owl and Angel / c&c / PJR
Peter J Ross
--------------------------------
An owl: how Christmassy!
You babbled home from pubs: blurrish you saw
moths in a midnight boardgame; every vein,
every conspiring speck of dust your own
found angel for your knee.
Today you're ten years older, and the maw
is wider oped. Depressing that the lane
has had its streetlamps pistoled out; that bone,
feather-triumphant, rules where once was hope
might last a pub-walk long;
depressing there's so many predeceased
have tried to lave themselves with the same soap
you haired and sang this song:
by owls and myths you'll never be released.
--
PJR :-)
<http://pjr.gotdns.org/verse/16-poems>
Paul Hansford
First reaction -- this is a personal piece with significance to you that is,
I suspect intentionally, not fully communicated to the reader (well, it
isn't to this reader, anyway). Despite not understanding the "meaning," I
quite like it, with a couple of reservations.
Should there be some punctuation between "every conspiring speck of dust
your own / found angel for your knee"? As it stands, "found" belongs to
"vein" and "speck of dust," which doesn't seem to make sense -- isn't "you"
the subject of "babbled ... saw ... found"?
As I seem to have said a couple of times recently in other threads, I'm not
too keen on archaisms, so "oped" doesn't get my vote. "Maw" and "lave,"
although unusual, seem to fit better (for me). Shouldn't "pistoled" have a
double L (unless this is the American-English spelling)? "The same soap /
you haired" is a mystery to me -- no, on re-reading, this is 'the soap you
got hairs on.'
I don't see what is the subject of "sang this song." If it's "so many,"
shouldn't it be "sung" (so many have tried ... and sung)? Otherwise it
would seem to be "you" (you haired and sang this song), but that's
unclear -- could it be 'as you sang this song'? It seems to me you've
elided just a few too many words here and left the whole piece a bit too
difficult.
Happy Christmas.
P
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnfn0hg...@pjr.gotdns.org...
George Dance
I enjoyed this. Parts were hard to follow, and the train of thought
seemed to bounce off the tracks a few times, but I assumed (given the
pub references) that was because the speaker was drunk; so I thought
that captured the voice well.
Like Paul et al, I found much of it obscure. What I did get from it,
though, was the idea of a man working at the same job for at least ten
years, visiting the same pubs on the weekend, getting drunk and
wandering the same streets - always going but always in the same
place, like a rat on a treadmill - while all around him things slowly
detiorate. It reminded me, and made me feel for a minute or two, the
quiet desperation that Voltaire (IIRC) said was the state of most men.
That was enough to make the poem interesting and enjoyable enough to
read in the future, at which time I might find more in it.
Will Dockery
>
> I enjoyed this. Parts were hard to follow, and the train of thought
> seemed to bounce off the tracks a few times, but I assumed (given the
> pub references) that was because the speaker was drunk; so I thought
> that captured the voice well.
>
> Like Paul et al, I found much of it obscure. What I did get from it,
> though, was the idea of a man working at the same job for at least ten
> years, visiting the same pubs on the weekend, getting drunk and
> wandering the same streets - always going but always in the same
> place, like a rat on a treadmill - while all around him things slowly
> detiorate. It reminded me, and made me feel for a minute or two, the
> quiet desperation that Voltaire (IIRC) said was the state of most men.
> That was enough to make the poem interesting and enjoyable enough to
> read in the future, at which time I might find more in it.
Exactly, While this poem is enjoyable (since I tend to enjoy nebulous
poetry with heavily /coded/ personal references) and has some striking
lines/images, such as the title and bits like "Depressing that the
lane has had its streetlamps pistoled out", it seems everyone agrees
that when put to the often quoted one-liner critique of "try to have
your writing make sense" it fails utterly.
In fact, many would call the poem "sloppy dreck" or somesuch.
--
The Ride (Combat Zone) by Will Dockery:
http://www.archive.org/details/TheRidecombatZoneByWillDockery
"God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
George Dance
> On Dec 26, 11:04 am, George Dance wrote:
>
>
>
> > I enjoyed this. Parts were hard to follow, and the train of thought
> > seemed to bounce off the tracks a few times, but I assumed (given the
> > pub references) that was because the speaker was drunk; so I thought
> > that captured the voice well.
>
> > Like Paul et al, I found much of it obscure. What I did get from it,
> > though, was the idea of a man working at the same job for at least ten
> > years, visiting the same pubs on the weekend, getting drunk and
> > wandering the same streets - always going but always in the same
> > place, like a rat on a treadmill - while all around him things slowly
> > detiorate. It reminded me, and made me feel for a minute or two, the
> > quiet desperation that Voltaire (IIRC) said was the state of most men.
> > That was enough to make the poem interesting and enjoyable enough to
> > read in the future, at which time I might find more in it.
>
> Exactly, While this poem is enjoyable (since I tend to enjoy nebulous
> poetry with heavily /coded/ personal references) and has some striking
> lines/images, such as the title and bits like "Depressing that the
> lane has had its streetlamps pistoled out", it seems everyone agrees
> that when put to the often quoted one-liner critique of "try to have
> your writing make sense" it fails utterly.
>
Personally, I find that the e Gamble-Hammes mantra, "Try to have your
writing make sense," fails utterly as competent criticism. Poetry
that concentrates on verbal 'sense' to the exclusion of eveything
else, like that of Charles Bukowski, often leaves me cold; while I'm
often attracted to poetry with a surreal, dream-like, or 'senseless'
quality. To his credit, Peter also has little use for the doctrine:
<quote>
> But I'm really not too bothered about meaning. My poetic heroes are
> Mallarmé and Empson, both of whom are almost completely
> incomprehensible to me.
> I'm no expert on the works of either of them; it's the general idea
> that you can write what seems good without having to wonder whether
> or not it makes sense that I like.
</q>
-- PJR, 7/7/07 rap
> In fact, many would call the poem "sloppy dreck" or somesuch.
>
You mean, had it be written by someone else? The same thought occurred
to me when I read Peter's last effort, "John." Some critics do appear
to have a bias wrt to author, do they not?
Will Dockery
> On Dec 26, 12:09 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 11:04 am, George Dance wrote:
>
>
> > > Parts were hard to follow, and the train of thought
> > > seemed to bounce off the tracks a few times
>
>
> > poetry with heavily /coded/ personal references) and has some striking
> > lines/images, such as the title and bits like "Depressing that the
> > lane has had its streetlamps pistoled out", it seems everyone agrees
> > that when put to the often quoted one-liner critique of "try to have
> > your writing make sense" it fails utterly.
>
> writing make sense," fails utterly as competent criticism.
"What the fuck is wrong with them?"
Hammes' recent poem about the tree he'd trained, although pretty
senseless at times, was a good read... though his use of the form,
forcing the words out into the ridgid structure made it come off stiff
and stilted, and forced him to add the senseless filler.
Poetry
> that concentrates on verbal 'sense' to the exclusion of eveything
> else, like that of Charles Bukowski, often leaves me cold; while I'm
> often attracted to poetry with a surreal, dream-like, or 'senseless'
> quality. To his credit, Peter also has little use for the doctrine:
>
> <quote>> But I'm really not too bothered about meaning. My poetic heroes are
> > Mallarmé and Empson, both of whom are almost completely
> > incomprehensible to me.
> > I'm no expert on the works of either of them; it's the general idea
> > that you can write what seems good without having to wonder whether
> > or not it makes sense that I like.
>
> </q>
> -- PJR, 7/7/07 rap
>
> > In fact, many would call the poem "sloppy dreck" or somesuch.
>
> You mean, had it be written by someone else? The same thought occurred
> to me when I read Peter's last effort, "John."
It was funny watching people twisting themselves into prtezels trying
to find a way to praise that piece of trite rubbish, wasn't it?
Some critics do appear
> to have a bias wrt to author, do they not?> --
Even funnier when the poem is so terrible and/or boring that they have
no choice but to try to ignore it and "make it go away", until someone
forces their hand by acurately critiquing the dreary mush for what it
is.
OB
I'm mildly surprised to see you walking into false disjunctives so
readily.
"Try to have your writing make sense" does not mean, and cannot by any
semantic sleight-of-hand be made to mean, "concentrate on verbal
'sense' to the exclusion of everything else". It means simply that, in
addition to whatever else you may consider important in a poem, you
should try to ensure that the writing (here, the poem) should be
susceptible to at least one coherent interpretation. If it supports
more than one coherent and complementary interpretation, as many of
PJR's do, well, so much the better (for some of us). If even your
first, tentative, interpretation requires some thought and head-
scratching, well, I guess the poem will appeal to the same sort of
people who'd rather do the Guardian crossword than The Daily Mail's,
even though the former will take half an hour where the latter takes
five minutes: a good poem/crossword, for such people, is worth the
extra time.
Crossword solvers (to extend the analogy) might privately curse the
compiler for the obscurity of this or that clue: but a useful sense of
shame prevents them going public on their frustration, since they'll
only look silly when it is announced that H.W. Barnes, of Hull, has
walked off yet again with the prize dictionary and pen after solving
it in ten minutes flat. However, they will be only too happy to vent
their spite on a novice compiler who thinks that a lammergeier is a
South American mammal -- just as critics here will often berate the
kind of manifest incompetence that prevents a poem from having /any/
satisfactory solution that does not do violence to our understanding
of the language it is allegedly written in.
I see nothing wrong with that.
:
> <quote>> But I'm really not too bothered about meaning. My poetic heroes are
> > Mallarmé and Empson, both of whom are almost completely
> > incomprehensible to me.
> > I'm no expert on the works of either of them; it's the general idea
> > that you can write what seems good without having to wonder whether
> > or not it makes sense that I like.
>
> </q>
> -- PJR, 7/7/07 rap
>
> > In fact, many would call the poem "sloppy dreck" or somesuch.
My Dad's bigger than your Dad --> My hired chorus is bigger than your
hired chorus.
(When Dockery grows a spine, let me know.)
> You mean, had it be written by someone else? The same thought occurred
> to me when I read Peter's last effort, "John." Some critics do appear
> to have a bias wrt to author, do they not?
I have a bias wrt author. I have found some authors worth reading, and
others not. Disgusting, isn't it?
>
>
>
> > --
> > The Ride (Combat Zone) by Will Dockery:http://www.archive.org/details/TheRidecombatZoneByWillDockery
>
> > "God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dennis M. Hammes
Try to have your cocksucking make sense.
It'd be a place to start on the rest of your socalled "language."
Indeed, it's pretty much the only place you have available.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
ggamble
"George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:0ff99853-8d64-409d...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 26, 11:04 am, George Dance wrote:
>Personally, I find that the e Gamble-Hammes mantra, "Try to have your
writing make sense," fails utterly as competent criticism.
1) That's my mantra: make attribution your friend. There are other mantra.
(what's the plural of mantra?) (I'll give george a few moments to Google it
so he can either correct me, or tell me I got it right.) Here's another
mantra: (not mine)
"You're not as good as you think you are."
2) You wouldn't recognize competent criticism if it came into the room on a
flaming platter with a flashing neon sign above it which read: COMPETENT
CRITICISM.
3) Personally, I find that you have trouble having your writing make sense,
so it naturally follows that you, personally find that the mantra (intended
for novice writers) fails as competent criticism. Which, of course, is
meaningless because you've demonstrated repeatedly that you can't recognize
competent criticism.
The wheels of the bus go round and round.
ggamble
"George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:0ff99853-8d64-409d...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
**You're a little bit slow on the uptake there, georgie.
You're supposed to trot out your pathetic, indefensible agenda straight
away, don't you know that?
Get with the program.
Oh, and in case you havn't thought of it yet: The old *post an obscure,
inferior poem by a famous writer in the hopes of fooling those who ridicule
you* ploy has been done been done been done been done.
Who says I'm not helpful?
Leisha
> your own / found angel for your knee"? As it stands, "found" belongs to
> "vein" and "speck of dust," which doesn't seem to make sense -- isn't "you"
> the subject of "babbled ... saw ... found"?
I had a feeling that the subject would kneel on every conspiring speck
of dust, which held him up and was once, as everything, something holy
& worthy of praise, because the world was beautiful.
>
> > found angel for your knee.
> > Today you're ten years older, and the maw
> > is wider oped. Depressing that the lane
> > has had its streetlamps pistoled out; that bone,
>
> > feather-triumphant, rules where once was hope
> > might last a pub-walk long;
I don't understand why bone rules over hope. How is a bone feather-
triumphant? Are there bones in the angel's wings? Is the myth itself
or religion the old bone, somehow? Something dead, really; something
skeletal? So the subject was once hopeful, the angel was alive, not
just a skeleton like the town is becoming, but now the speaker's
"maw / is wider oped." He's drinking more because he hasn't enough
hope to get him home. He can't get home because the owls and myths
will never release him. If he had the religion rather than the myth,
he could go home to heaven eventually.
I like it overall; the variation on the sonnet form, with its perfect
rhyme and meter, work so well that they fade into the background & let
the words, creating images, rise above it. This is a credit to your
subtle hand, PJ.
But I am still grossed out by the hairy soap. Also, I have to say I
don't really feel the speaker's angst. I think it's because everything
changes so quickly, I'm tired of laments about it, or about aging.
Everything changes; change with it or die. Or change with it, then
die. In the meantime, why complain? Who cares about the lampposts,
anyway? Aren't there pictures of them? In 50 years, whatever's there
now will seem quaint & be missed.
Leisha
Will Dockery
> George Dance wrote:
> >>On Dec 26, 11:04 am, George Dance wrote:
>
> >>>Parts were hard to follow, and the train of thought
> >>>seemed to bounce off the tracks a few times
>
> >>>though, was the idea of a man working at the same job for at least ten
> >>>years, visiting the same pubs on the weekend, getting drunk and
> >>>wandering the same streets - always going but always in the same
> >>>place, like a rat on a treadmill - while all around him things slowly
> >>>detiorate. It reminded me, and made me feel for a minute or two, the
> >>>quiet desperation that Voltaire (IIRC) said was the state of most men.
> >>>That was enough to make the poem interesting and enjoyable enough to
> >>>read in the future, at which time I might find more in it.
>
> >>Exactly, While this poem is enjoyable (since I tend to enjoy nebulous
> >>poetry with heavily /coded/ personal references) and has some striking
> >>lines/images, such as the title and bits like "Depressing that the
> >>lane has had its streetlamps pistoled out", it seems everyone agrees
> >>that when put to the often quoted one-liner critique of "try to have
> >>your writing make sense" it fails utterly.
>
> > Personally, I find that the e Gamble-Hammes mantra, "Try to have your
> > writing make sense," fails utterly as competent criticism. Poetry
> > that concentrates on verbal 'sense' to the exclusion of eveything
> > else, like that of Charles Bukowski, often leaves me cold; while I'm
> > often attracted to poetry with a surreal, dream-like, or 'senseless'
> > quality. To his credit, Peter also has little use for the doctrine:
>
You want it bad, don't you?
--
"God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
"Hasty Pudding" by Dockery-Conley:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Best of Hammy Hog
>
> Try to have your cocksucking make sense.
George Dance
> "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
Yes, Gary. And my mother sucks Will Dockery's cock, too. I've heard
all of this.
Can't you write anything new?
ggamble
> On Dec 27, 10:54 am, "ggamble" <ggam...@you.net> wrote:
>> "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> And my mother sucks Will Dockery's cock, too.
You certainly are a strange little man.
Who are you going to accuse of writing the above sentence?
> I've heard
> all of this.
Like fuck you have.
Will Dockery
> "George Dance" wrote:
>
> > And my mother sucks Will Dockery's cock, too.
>
Dennis Hammes, who wishes he was somebody's mother?
--
"God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
"Hasty Pudding" by Dockery-Conley:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
George Dance
Sorry; that wasn't meant to be disjunctives, but two separate counter-
examples; one to the idea that sense is sufficient for quality, the
second to the idea that it's necessary.
> "Try to have your writing make sense" does not mean, and cannot by any
> semantic sleight-of-hand be made to mean, "concentrate on verbal
> 'sense' to the exclusion of everything else".
I wasn't claiming that.
> It means simply that, in
> addition to whatever else you may consider important in a poem, you
> should try to ensure that the writing (here, the poem) should be
> susceptible to at least one coherent interpretation.
That's one possible meaning; it can also mean (1) be logical; (2) use
correct grammar and punctuation; (3) don't say things "everyone" knows
are wrong, The one I'd take it to mean, in ordinary written language
(including most non-fiction prose, is (4) Be precise; have a clear
meaning; avoid ambiguity; say exactly what you mean to say.
That's the first reason I'd say "Try to have your writing make sense"
fails as literary criticism (which I'd argue is the above type of
speech), because it doesn't make sense: whatever it means isn't clear;
it isn't sensible to say it when you (ie, one) could say exactly what
you mean instead.
> If it supports
> more than one coherent and complementary interpretation, as many of
> PJR's do, well, so much the better (for some of us).
Yes, I agree; that's true of poetry. That's the second reason I'd
argue that "Try to have your writing make sense" fails as poetry
criticism: poetry is not the same type of speech as ordinary written
language (a distinction that calling poetry 'writing' blanks out
completely).
Unlike written prose, poetry should not avoid ambiguity; the more
ambiguous a poem is, the more levels of meaning on which it can be
read, "so much the better." Unlike, say, a textbook or a manual, the
literary quality of a poem does not depend on its words and sentences
each having a clear meaning.
> If even your
> first, tentative, interpretation requires some thought and head-
> scratching, well, I guess the poem will appeal to the same sort of
> people who'd rather do the Guardian crossword than The Daily Mail's,
> even though the former will take half an hour where the latter takes
> five minutes: a good poem/crossword, for such people, is worth the
> extra time.
>
Again I'll agree. That's a third reason I'd argue that "Try to have
your writing make sense" fails as poetry criticism. "Make your meaning
clear" can also mean "Don't be opaque", and that looks like the way
the mantra is used most often here, to criticize opaque poems. But the
quality of a poem, unlike the quality of a textbook or a manual, does
not depend on its meaning being easily understood.
> Crossword solvers (to extend the analogy) might privately curse the
> compiler for the obscurity of this or that clue: but a useful sense of
> shame prevents them going public on their frustration, since they'll
> only look silly when it is announced that H.W. Barnes, of Hull, has
> walked off yet again with the prize dictionary and pen after solving
> it in ten minutes flat. However, they will be only too happy to vent
> their spite on a novice compiler who thinks that a lammergeier is a
> South American mammal -- just as critics here will often berate the
> kind of manifest incompetence that prevents a poem from having /any/
> satisfactory solution that does not do violence to our understanding
> of the language it is allegedly written in.
>
> I see nothing wrong with that.
>
But you would, though, if you were reading a cook book, or assembling
something using a manual; in that case, the writing that would make
sense would be one whose one meaning you could get the fastest. There
are differences between poetry and prose writing, of which the author
of the mantra "Try to have your writing make sense" does not seem to
be even aware.
>
> > <quote>> But I'm really not too bothered about meaning. My poetic heroes are
> > > Mallarmé and Empson, both of whom are almost completely
> > > incomprehensible to me.
> > > I'm no expert on the works of either of them; it's the general idea
> > > that you can write what seems good without having to wonder whether
> > > or not it makes sense that I like.
>
> > </q>
> > -- PJR, 7/7/07 rap
>
> > > In fact, many would call the poem "sloppy dreck" or somesuch.
>
> My Dad's bigger than your Dad --> My hired chorus is bigger than your
> hired chorus.
>
> (When Dockery grows a spine, let me know.)
>
> > You mean, had it be written by someone else? The same thought occurred
> > to me when I read Peter's last effort, "John." Some critics do appear
> > to have a bias wrt to author, do they not?
>
> I have a bias wrt author. I have found some authors worth reading, and
> others not. Disgusting, isn't it?
>
>
>
> > > --
> > > The Ride (Combat Zone) by Will Dockery:http://www.archive.org/details/TheRidecombatZoneByWillDockery
>
> > > "God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars-Hide quoted text -
George Dance
> "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:0ff99853-8d64-409d...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 26, 11:04 am, George Dance wrote:
>
> You mean, had it be written by someone else? The same thought occurred
> to me when I read Peter's last effort, "John." Some critics do appear
> to have a bias wrt to author, do they not?
>
> **You're a little bit slow on the uptake there, georgie.
> You're supposed to trot out your pathetic, indefensible agenda straight
> away, don't you know that?
>
GFY, troll. My 'agenda' in commenting on Peter's poem was to comment
on Peter's poem.
> Get with the program.
>
> Oh, and in case you havn't thought of it yet: The old *post an obscure,
> inferior poem by a famous writer in the hopes of fooling those who ridicule
> you* ploy has been done been done been done been done.
>
Yes, I've read about that in Dennis's post (though I notice a
contradiction already; he said it was anonymous. In any case, you're
calling me a plagiarist, and in return I'll ask you to either shit or
get off the pot about it: either come up with something, or retract
and apologize.
That would be helpful.
> Who says I'm not helpful?
Let''s see.
Will Dockery
>
> When Dockery grows a spine, let me know.
"Try to have your insults make sense."
IOW: An anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker of "OB" calls /me/
spineless? Now /that's/ funny!
Will Dockery
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:25:20 -0800, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 11:35 pm, OB wrote:
>
> >> When Dockery grows a spine, let me know.
>
> > "Try to have your insults make sense."
>
> > IOW: An anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker of "OB" calls /me/
> > spineless? Now /that's/ funny!
>
Yeah, "Meat Plow", it is funny... and speaking of /spineless/ and
funny, when will you be posting a link to that music of yours you
bragged was so much "better" than mine over two years ago?
Right, you later admitted you were lying and that you'd never even had
the spine to try to write one... now /that's/ funny!
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> the
> literary quality of a poem does not depend on its words and sentences
> each having a clear meaning.
>
j
f
Xavier Onassis
>
> my mother sucks Will Dockery's cock.
>
OB
> On Dec 26, 11:35 pm, OB wrote:
>
>
>
> > When Dockery grows a spine, let me know.
>
> "Try to have your insults make sense."
>
> IOW: An anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker of "OB" calls /me/
> spineless? Now /that's/ funny!
Many would agree that the anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker
of "Will Dockery" exhibits courage directly proportional to the number
of letters (including punctuation) in his assumed name, and that only
if OB were to change his handle to, say, John Archibald Cakesniffe, or
even better, "John Archibald Cakesniffe", could he aspire to the
thrill of danger and daring which, many would agree, "Will Dockery"
exhibits every time he posts yet another post with "Will Dockery" in
the subject line and "many would agree" in the body. Or so many would
agree, anyway.
Will Dockery
> On Dec 27, 11:25 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 11:35 pm, OB wrote:
>
> > > When Dockery grows a spine, let me know.
>
> > "Try to have your insults make sense."
>
> > IOW: An anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker of "OB" calls /me/
> > spineless? Now /that's/ funny!
>
> Many would agree that the anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker
Is too spineless to use his/her real name on Usenet?
"We know."
OB
> On Dec 28, 7:43 am, OB wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 11:25 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Dec 26, 11:35 pm, OB wrote:
>
> > > > When Dockery grows a spine, let me know.
>
> > > "Try to have your insults make sense."
>
> > > IOW: An anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker of "OB" calls /me/
> > > spineless? Now /that's/ funny!
>
> > Many would agree that the anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker
>
> Is too spineless to use his/her real name on Usenet?
On the contrary, Will, anyone who knows how to use Google can get to
my real name in three clicks. As with GodBuilt's poems a while back,
getting there requires merely a modicum of common sense.
Sucks to be idiot-filtered out of everything? "We know."
OB
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
I have never seen this recommendation made to any author of what you
call an "opaque" poem, if by "opaque" you mean that the poem requires
attention, concentration, repeated readings, and perhaps a degree of
erudition to be adequately appreciated and understood. (In the case of
some of PJR's, I suspect I don't have the necessary erudition to catch
all his references: this is /my/ fault, not his.) I /have/ seen it
made about poems which are clearly intended to convey a meaning, but
fail to some extent, either because the syntax is sloppy or because
the words chosen are simply the wrong words. From personal experience
I know that it is possible to write a poem which one believes to be
diaphanously clear, only to find that even educated readers cannot
make sense of it (perhaps, as in my last posted effort, because it
leans too heavily on private connotations). In a case like this, just
saying "well, /I/ know what it means" and/or posting a line-by-line
exegesis isn't good enough. You have to keep rewriting and rewriting
until the poem actually communicates something to the (educated)
reader. The poem is an act of communication, and can be judged on
those terms, no matter how the poet may claim to prioritize sound over
sense: the sound has to communicate /something/, else it's just "a
tale told by an idiot...".
As I said before, "making sense" is not the Holy Grail of poetry (and
I think Gamble knows this), but it is a prerequisite. As such, I don't
see how one can object to the use of this mantra, as you call it, in
cases where a poem clearly does not make sense.
Will Dockery
>On Dec 27, 11:25 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 11:35 pm, OB wrote:
>
> > > > > When Dockery grows a spine, let me know.
>
> > > > "Try to have your insults make sense."
>
> > > > IOW: An anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker of "OB" calls /me/
> > > > spineless? Now /that's/ funny!
>
> > > Many would agree that the anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker
>
> > Is too spineless to use his/her real name on Usenet?
>
> On the contrary, Will, anyone who knows how to use Google can get to
> my real name in three clicks.
No, I'm not interested enough to go stalking for you on the web... if
you're too shy to use your real name on Usenet, that's your choice,
"OB".
Will Dockery
>
> Spineless cowards post to Usenet all the time <slap>
And here you are, the perfect example, "Meat Plow".
Heh.
--
"God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
"Hasty Pudding" by Dockery-Conley:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Paul Hansford
it's about time PJR chipped in with a comment or two? He did ask for c&c,
and not all the posts are abuse (tho' most in the second thread are,
regrettably).
P
"Paul Hansford" <paulha...@eggconnect.net> wrote in message
news:13n0va0...@corp.supernews.com...
> Peter,
>
> First reaction -- this is a personal piece with significance to you that
> is, I suspect intentionally, not fully communicated to the reader (well,
> it isn't to this reader, anyway). Despite not understanding the
> "meaning," I quite like it, with a couple of reservations.
>
> Should there be some punctuation between "every conspiring speck of dust
> your own / found angel for your knee"? As it stands, "found" belongs to
> "vein" and "speck of dust," which doesn't seem to make sense -- isn't
> "you" the subject of "babbled ... saw ... found"?
>
> As I seem to have said a couple of times recently in other threads, I'm
> not too keen on archaisms, so "oped" doesn't get my vote. "Maw" and
> "lave," although unusual, seem to fit better (for me). Shouldn't
> "pistoled" have a double L (unless this is the American-English spelling)?
> "The same soap / you haired" is a mystery to me -- no, on re-reading, this
> is 'the soap you got hairs on.'
>
> I don't see what is the subject of "sang this song." If it's "so many,"
> shouldn't it be "sung" (so many have tried ... and sung)? Otherwise it
> would seem to be "you" (you haired and sang this song), but that's
> unclear -- could it be 'as you sang this song'? It seems to me you've
> elided just a few too many words here and left the whole piece a bit too
> difficult.
>
> Happy Christmas.
>
> P
>
> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnfn0hg...@pjr.gotdns.org...
>> At the Sign of the Owl and Angel
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> An owl: how Christmassy!
>> You babbled home from pubs: blurrish you saw
>> moths in a midnight boardgame; every vein,
>> every conspiring speck of dust your own
>>
>> found angel for your knee.
>> Today you're ten years older, and the maw
>> is wider oped. Depressing that the lane
>> has had its streetlamps pistoled out; that bone,
>>
>> feather-triumphant, rules where once was hope
>> might last a pub-walk long;
>> depressing there's so many predeceased
>>
>> have tried to lave themselves with the same soap
>> you haired and sang this song:
>> by owls and myths you'll never be released.
>>
>>
>> --
>> PJR :-)
>> <http://pjr.gotdns.org/verse/16-poems>
>
>
George Dance
wrote:
> Does anybody else think that after five days and two fairly lengthy threads
> it's about time PJR chipped in with a comment or two? He did ask for c&c,
> and not all the posts are abuse (tho' most in the second thread are,
> regrettably).
>
> P
>
Yes. Perhaps Peter feels it's wiser to let others fight his battles
for him, but a simple "Thanks for reading and commenting" to those
that commented constructively wouldn't kill him.
> "Paul Hansford" <paulhansf...@eggconnect.net> wrote in message
ggamble
> Does anybody else think that after five days and two fairly lengthy
> threads it's about time PJR chipped in with a comment or two? He did ask
> for c&c, and not all the posts are abuse (tho' most in the second thread
> are, regrettably).
>
> P
Paul,
Since you've apparently appointed yourself moderator, perhaps you could
delete all the posts which offend your sensibilities and send Peter a stern
warning that he must respond to all constructive criticism within five days.
Alternatively, does anyone else think that perhaps Peter has a life away
from the internet that might be occupying him?
ggamble
> On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, "Paul Hansford" <paulhansf...@eggconnect.net>
> wrote:
>> Does anybody else think that after five days and two fairly lengthy
>> threads
>> it's about time PJR chipped in with a comment or two? He did ask for
>> c&c,
>> and not all the posts are abuse (tho' most in the second thread are,
>> regrettably).
>>
>> P
>>
>
>
> Yes. Perhaps Peter feels it's wiser to let others fight his battles
> for him, but a simple "Thanks for reading and commenting" to those
> that commented constructively wouldn't kill him.
So, it's now an indisputable fact in your little world that Peter is
*letting others fight his battles for him*, right george?
Are you sure you don't want to wait for the others on your list to back you
up first?
j
f
Will Dockery
>
> Peter is *letting others fight his battles for him*
"What the fuck is wrong with you?"
ggamble
You really do have problems with reading comprehension if you think I
accused you of plagiarism, you fucken moron.
I don't even think you believe that I accused you of plagiarism, you just
can't help yourself from inventing shit just to be combative.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Attempt to read what I wrote, and don't invent what you wish I had written.
You really are turning into a disingenuous little slimeball here; are you
like this in real life?
It's a rhetorical question.
Jesus
Fuck
Peter J Ross
<nevil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have never seen this recommendation made to any author of what you
> call an "opaque" poem, if by "opaque" you mean that the poem requires
> attention, concentration, repeated readings, and perhaps a degree of
> erudition to be adequately appreciated and understood. (In the case of
> some of PJR's, I suspect I don't have the necessary erudition to catch
> all his references: this is /my/ fault, not his.)
No, when I use Hebrew and Latin in the same composition it's my fault,
not yours. I'm much too far up myself when I do that.
You missed a reminiscence of Larkin in what I wrote here, I think, but
who cares? You missed no other details, and you understood what the
point of it was, which above all else was, as usual, to "have one's
writing make sense" in a way that wasn't boring, ordinary or easy.
And, of course, to play with words in a way that other people who like
playing with words might enjoy is always fun.
Anyway, I'll post a revision of the poem soon. You've spent more time
on it than I did.
Peter J Ross
<nevil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is apparently-definitely proved by the archives.
Peter J Ross
<nevil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On the contrary, Will, anyone who knows how to use Google can get to
> my real name in three clicks. As with GodBuilt's poems a while back,
> getting there requires merely a modicum of common sense.
Doesn't work for me.
Are you Peter Stewart Richards redivivus?
Peter J Ross
Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> GFY, troll. My 'agenda' in commenting on Peter's poem was to comment
> on Peter's poem.
Because I was its author.
If I were a hopelessly incompetent n00bie, you'd have gushed over
"John" in the hope of gaining an ally against Gary and his mighty
email legions.
Fuck the fuck off, please.
George Dance
Oh; then who were you accusing of "The old *post an obscure,
inferior poem by a famous writer in the hope of fooling [someone]
ploy"?
> I don't even think you believe that I accused you of plagiarism
It sure as hell looked like you meant me.
> , you just
> can't help yourself from inventing shit just to be combative.
>
I didn`t accuse myself of "The old *post an obscure,
inferior poem by a famous writer in the hope of fooling [someone]
ploy", asshole. As the backthread shows, that was you.
> What the fuck is wrong with you?
>
> Attempt to read what I wrote, and don't invent what you wish I had written.
>
You told someone that his ``post an obscure, inferior poem by a famous
writer in the hope of fooling [someone] ploy has been done`` before.
Whom did you mean, if not me?
Peter J Ross
ggamble <gga...@you.net> wrote:
> Alternatively, does anyone else think that perhaps Peter has a life away
> from the internet that might be occupying him?
I was too busy having lunch with Hooters Waitresses and Hot Lawyers to
reply to my Personal Critiquers.
I had great sex with Vegetaria (my personal hot Franco-Maldivian babe)
last night, but I never kiss and tell..
Peter J Ross
Hansford <paulha...@eggconnect.net> wrote:
> Does anybody else think that after five days and two fairly lengthy threads
> it's about time PJR chipped in with a comment or two? He did ask for c&c,
> and not all the posts are abuse (tho' most in the second thread are,
> regrettably).
I habitually read RAP before AAPC, and I replied to the comments I
received in RAP before I saw yours in AAPC, around the time I was
thinking about going to sleep. Your comments, Paul, were among the
most helpful I received. Thanks.
Peter J Ross
George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
<...>
Thanks for commenting.
George Dance
> In rec.arts.poems on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:22:17 -0800 (PST), George
>
> > GFY, troll. My 'agenda' in commenting on Peter's poem was to comment
> > on Peter's poem.
>
> Because I was its author.
Don't be silly. I didn't call "At the Sign of the Owl and Angel"
interesting and enjoyable because of its author. I don't give two
shits for the author.
>
> If I were a hopelessly incompetent n00bie, you'd have gushed over
> "John"
If a newbie had written "John", I'd have tried to give him some advice
on using rhyme and meter.
> in the hope of gaining an ally against Gary and his mighty
> email legions.
>
The idea of judging a poem on its own merits has never occurred to
you?
> Fuck the fuck off, please.
>
<SIGH> That's probably the closest I'll get to a "Thank you for
reading and commenting" from you, so I'll have to be satisfied with
it.
Peter J Ross
Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 4:40 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> In rec.arts.poems on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:22:17 -0800 (PST), George
>>
>> Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> > GFY, troll. My 'agenda' in commenting on Peter's poem was to comment
>> > on Peter's poem.
>>
>> Because I was its author.
>
> Don't be silly. I didn't call "At the Sign of the Owl and Angel"
> interesting and enjoyable because of its author.
I have no idea what you called it, since I rarely read your posts
unless they appear in a context in which it's likely that I can laugh
at you.
Why don't you just fuck off?
George Dance
> In rec.arts.poems on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:37:40 -0800 (PST), George
>
> > On Dec 28, 4:40 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> In rec.arts.poems on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:22:17 -0800 (PST), George
>
> >> Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> > GFY, troll. My 'agenda' in commenting on Peter's poem was to comment
> >> > on Peter's poem.
>
> >> Because I was its author.
>
> > Don't be silly. I didn't call "At the Sign of the Owl and Angel"
> > interesting and enjoyable because of its author.
>
> I have no idea what you called it, since I rarely read your posts
Well, at least you learned one thing from your correspondence with
Vera.
>
> Why don't you just fuck off?
Gee, Pete, maybe you'll have to write and tell me how you don't read
my posts more often. Who knows: Maybe some day I'll actually care.
Will Dockery
> > > On Dec 27, 11:02 am, "ggamble" wrote:
>
> > >> Oh, and in case you havn't thought of it yet: The old *post an obscure,
> > >> inferior poem by a famous writer in the hopes of fooling those who
> > >> ridicule
> > >> you* ploy has been done been done been done been done.
>
> inferior poem by a famous writer in the hope of fooling [someone]
> ploy"?
>
> inferior poem by a famous writer in the hope of fooling [someone]
> ploy", asshole. As the backthread shows, that was you.
>
> writer in the hope of fooling [someone] ploy has been done`` before.
> Whom did you mean, if not me?
Gamble could have meant Peter J Ross, who did exactly that last Summer
when he passed off the poem by Heinrich Heine as his own, on the
subject line and in the poem itself, never stating that "his" poem was
only a translation:
From: Peter J Ross
Subject: Lorelei / PJR
Lorelei
I know not what is the meaning
of this sudden lethargy:
some fairy tale told in the evening
has sundered reason and me.
The heavens are cooling at nightfall;
the Thames is strong and slow;
the distance of hills is beautiful;
the sun is a round rainbow.
The fairest of all is to see here,
singing and smiling and fair:
her dress is of woven weather;
she combs her long gold hair.
With a golden comb she combs it,
and sings with measured breath
of practical beauty in Somerset,
and ways that the war is death.
My Muse she told me to hearken
to the ballads this lady sung.
What though the sailors be broken?
What though their bark be sunk?
Tomorrow the ship and her captain
repaired, and some crew along...
and this did Lorelei obtain
with her hair, her comb and her song.
[apologies to Heinrich Heine]
--
PJR :-)
"apologies to" doesn't mean "written by Heinrich Heine, translated by
PJR", as everyone knows... making PJR at least a plagiarist by
omission.
ggamble
> You told someone that his ``post an obscure, inferior poem by a famous
> writer in the hope of fooling [someone] ploy has been done`` before.
> Whom did you mean, if not me?
Ok, clueless newbie: in the realm of internet poetry workshops, many
infantile practices occur when clueless newbies (such as yourself) are
subjected to honest critical commentary. One such practice is to post an
obscure minor poem by a known published writer in the hopes that the
reviewers don't recognize the piece in the further hopes that the reviewers
give the minor piece less than complimentary commentary. The offended
teenager then pulls the curtains back and screams "A hah! I caught you, you
don't know every single poem written by (insert name here) ergo, your astute
commentary on my crap teen angst diary entry is hereby invalidated and I am
a great artist and you have a stick up your ass because you said that my
subject didn't agree with my verb in number and I really write from my heart
what the fuck do you know anyway, I've been published by the International
Library of Poetry and I have a plaque on my wall."
Since I realized that you are a clueless newbie, (though I doubt you're a
teenager, you'd be surprised how many middle aged people write like
teenagers) I thought you might try that little ploy since you seem to fit
the profile of someone who would.
But, all this is lost on you because you're so paranoid about groups and
lists and backchannel conspiracy correspondence that you create accusations
and innuendo that don't really exist to the point where I think your head
might explode.
Of course, if your head did explode (metaphorically, fuck I don't want to be
accused of threatening you or something) maybe you wouldn't be here posting
such nonsense.
Now, get busy and go translate vera's posts into some form of English that's
recognizable to reasonable people.
Yes, I wrote this after extensive consultation with the millions of minions
who I correspond with by email on a semi-hourly basis, you
fucken
moron.
You can arrange the text in the shape of a snowflake, it will make it a
really good poem!
Jesus
Fuck
OB
> In rec.arts.poems on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:50:00 -0800 (PST), OB
>
> > On the contrary, Will, anyone who knows how to use Google can get to
> > my real name in three clicks. As with GodBuilt's poems a while back,
> > getting there requires merely a modicum of common sense.
>
> Doesn't work for me.
>
> Are you Peter Stewart Richards redivivus?
>
> --
> PJR :-)
> <http://pjr.gotdns.org/verse/16-poems>
I assumed the name Will wanted was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
ought to go and check one of these days.
About the only interesting thing about my (sur)name is that I share it
with my sister, a Real Poet whose stuff you may well have read. Not
putting her to shame is, it occurs to me, another reason for sticking
to the handle.
You're right, I didn't spot the Larkin reference. It certainly isn't
to anything in /The Less Deceived/, and I'm still drawing a blank.
You'll probably have got the one I put in "Lullaby" (today's post) as
it's none too subtle. Not that I'm inviting comments on that poem, or
anything so forward. I'm far too shy to dream of doing anything like
that.
OB
ggamble
"OB" <nevil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64bdaa56-ab20-4796...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 10:33 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In rec.arts.poems on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:50:00 -0800 (PST), OB
>
> <nevilemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On the contrary, Will, anyone who knows how to use Google can get to
> > my real name in three clicks. As with GodBuilt's poems a while back,
> > getting there requires merely a modicum of common sense.
>
> Doesn't work for me.
>
> Are you Peter Stewart Richards redivivus?
>
> --
> PJR :-)
> <http://pjr.gotdns.org/verse/16-poems>
I assumed the name Will wanted was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
ought to go and check one of these days.
About the only interesting thing about my (sur)name is that I share it
with my sister, a Real Poet whose stuff you may well have read. Not
putting her to shame is, it occurs to me, another reason for sticking
to the handle.
You'll have to be careful dealing with the dockery character. He went Real
Life on Rob Evans a while ago when he posed as a *pal* of Rob's in an
attempt to solicit information about the other contestants at a poetry
competition that Rob had recently won. Unlike some, I won't invent a motive,
but it's always prudent to expect the worst intentions when dealing with an
obviously unbalanced individual.
Of course, a killfile works just fine for me.
Will Dockery
> In rec.arts.poems on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:43:23 -0800 (PST), OB
>
>
> This is apparently-definitely proved by the archives.
Thanks, PJR.
Will Dockery
> On Dec 28, 4:40 pm, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >George Dance wrote:
>
> > GFY, troll. My 'agenda' in commenting on Peter's poem was to comment
> > > on Peter's poem.
>
> > Because I was its author.
"Try to have your whining make sense."
> Don't be silly. I didn't call "At the Sign of the Owl and Angel"
> interesting and enjoyable because of its author. I don't give two
> shits for the author.
I don't think /anyone/ has written that they didn't "enjoy" "Owl and
Angel", but almost everyone agrees that you need to "Try and have your
writing make sense."
Dale Houstman's poems almost never "make sense", but unlike yours,
they're almost always enjoyable reads.
I see you're planning a re-write... maybe you'll be able to fix these
flaws in the poem.
> > If I were a hopelessly incompetent n00bie, you'd have gushed over
> > "John"
Stop whining and get over it, PJR... the "John" poem was sentimental
garbage.
Will Dockery
>George Dance wrote:
>
>> > GFY, troll. My 'agenda' in commenting on Peter's poem was to comment
> >> > on Peter's poem.
>
> >> Because I was its author.
"Try to have your whining make sense."
> > Don't be silly. I didn't call "At the Sign of the Owl and Angel"
> > interesting and enjoyable because of its author.
>
> I have no idea what you called it, since I rarely read your posts <whine snip>
"Try to have your claims of not reading make sense."
Peter J Ross
Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 4:30 pm, Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In rec.arts.poems on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:43:23 -0800 (PST), OB
>>
>> >"Will Dockery" exhibits a liking for moronic post-editing.
I fixed your poast, Dreckery.
Will Dockery
>
> I assumed the name Will wanted
I don't really "want" it. I just pointed out the irony of some
anonymous poster hiding behind the name "OB" pulling the label
"spineless" out of his/her ass in reference to "Will Dockery"... a
real, unafraid, person.
IOW: "Try to have your insults make sense."
> was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
> months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
> ought to go and check one of these days.
Why the mystery? Why not post the link and be done with it?
If you're scared, say so.
OB
> On Dec 28, 8:31 pm, OB wrote:
>
>
>
> > I assumed the name Will wanted
>
> I don't really "want" it. I just pointed out the irony of some
> anonymous poster hiding behind the name "OB" pulling the label
> "spineless" out of his/her ass in reference to "Will Dockery"... a
> real, unafraid, person.
>
> IOW: "Try to have your insults make sense."
>
> > was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
> > months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
> > ought to go and check one of these days.
>
> Why the mystery? Why not post the link and be done with it?
>
> If you're scared, say so.
Of /course/ I'm terrified of anyone finding the link to my poetry
blog, Will: that's why I posted it here back in July. I figured that
posting it on a public newsgroup was the best way of making sure no
one would ever discover it.
I am /not/, however, terrified of "Will Dockery" finding it, since he
has already, in the GodBuilt debacle, proved himself incapable of
conducting a simple gurglegroups search. (For anyone else: group=rap,
search string="OB blog", third post down. Like I said, three clicks).
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery wrote:
> >OB wrote:
>
> > > I assumed the name Will wanted
>
> > I don't really "want" it. I just pointed out the irony of some
> > anonymous poster hiding behind the name "OB" pulling the label
> > "spineless" out of his/her ass in reference to "Will Dockery"... a
> > real, unafraid, person.
>
> > IOW: "Try to have your insults make sense."
>
> > > was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
> > > months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
> > > ought to go and check one of these days.
>
> > Why the mystery? Why not post the link and be done with it?
>
> > If you're scared, say so.
>
> Of /course/ I'm terrified of anyone finding the link to my poetry
Well, maybe you'll eventually grow a spine and post the link... or
not.
I'd be interested in having a look after all this suspenseful buildup,
and perhaps others will as well.
--
The Ride (Combat Zone) by Will Dockery:
http://www.archive.org/details/TheRidecombatZoneByWillDockery
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Dec 28, 4:40 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In rec.arts.poems on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:22:17 -0800 (PST), George
>>
>>Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>GFY, troll. My 'agenda' in commenting on Peter's poem was to comment
>>>on Peter's poem.
>>
>>Because I was its author.
>
>
>
> Don't be silly. I didn't call "At the Sign of the Owl and Angel"
> interesting and enjoyable because of its author. I don't give two
> shits for the author.
>
>
>
>>If I were a hopelessly incompetent n00bie, you'd have gushed over
>>"John"
>
>
>
> If a newbie had written "John", I'd have tried to give him some advice
> on using rhyme and meter.
>
Why? You've had no success "analysing" "sprung rhythm" in the past.
Does calling it "sporadic spontameter" suddenly make you an Expert?
Had a newbie written "Owl and Angel," you'd /still/ have been wrong
to give him "advice" on "rhyme and meter," since the newbie, too,
would have kicked several slats out of the sonnet to see if it would
still float, and in what direction against the prevailing wind.
>
>>in the hope of gaining an ally against Gary and his mighty
>>email legions.
>>
>
> The idea of judging a poem on its own merits has never occurred to
> you?
>
Fuck no. It's all about recruiting minions.
(When It isn't all about tits, which is seldom even in a bad year.)
>
>>Fuck the fuck off, please.
>>
>
> <SIGH> That's probably the closest I'll get to a "Thank you for
> reading and commenting" from you, so I'll have to be satisfied with
> it.
>
Didn't they teach you a damned thing at Finishing School?
(That's where you're taught to say "Thank you for reading and
commenting" instead of "Fuck the fuck off.")
Sometimes the best reply to an inane critique of one's efforts is
to hit the "N" key, since to reply to the criticism will only
generate a weeks-long thread in which the inane critic attempts to
explain and justify the New Rules under which he has devised his
inane cri...
Oh.
Right.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
<tr Georgespeak>
*passive-aggressive*, *pout*
</tr Georgespeak>
__________
All translations provided courtesy the Alcatroll 6000 (beta).
Rafael Corazon
<paulha...@eggconnect.net> writes
>Does anybody else think that after five days and two fairly lengthy threads
>it's about time PJR chipped in with a comment or two? He did ask for c&c,
>and not all the posts are abuse (tho' most in the second thread are,
>regrettably).
When you exchange Christmas presents, it's customary to write thank you
letters in early January.
Plus, he might have a life.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Rob
<0ee47add-d93b-44b7...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Will
Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> writes
>On Dec 28, 7:43 am, OB wrote:
>>On Dec 27, 11:25 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> On Dec 26, 11:35 pm, OB wrote:
>>
>> > > > > When Dockery grows a spine, let me know.
>>
>>
>> > > > spineless? Now /that's/ funny!
>>
>>
>> > Is too spineless to use his/her real name on Usenet?
>>
>> On the contrary, Will, anyone who knows how to use Google can get to
>> my real name in three clicks.
>
>you're too shy to use your real name on Usenet, that's your choice,
>"OB".
>
Really? Poor OB. He's not your Duckrish "usenet friend".
Why such focused stalking?
Oh yes, because you're a liar and a hypocrite.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
When I see a swine
I reach for 45-calibre pearls.
Will Dockery
>On Dec 28, 11:25 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>> On Dec 26, 11:35 pm, OB wrote:
>
> >> > > Many would agree that the anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker
>
> >> > Is too spineless to use his/her real name on Usenet?
>
> >> On the contrary, Will, anyone who knows how to use Google can get to
> >> my real name in three clicks.
>
> >No, I'm not interested enough to go stalking for you on the web... if
> >you're too shy to use your real name on Usenet, that's your choice,
> >"OB".
>
> Really?
Looks like it, Mushmouth.
Will Dockery
>
> Why such focused stalking?
The answer to that is simple, Mushmouth:
Your focused sniffing behind me is the result of my nailing your
"poetry performance" for what it was, a dreary ("Try to make your
writing interesting") piece of chopped-up-prose (which many would call
"not a poem") spewed with a whistle-lisp through a mouth stuffed with
gunk, sounding like a stroke victim.
Get over it and stop whining, Mushmouth.
Will Dockery
>
> Willy thinks that posting using a real name somehow turns him into a
> Usenet Super Hero
Actually more the other way around, since its guys like you with the /
secret identities/, "Meat Plow".
--
"God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
"Hasty Pudding" by Dockery-Conley:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Rob
<f001dd06-affc-4199...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> writes
>On Dec 29, 4:27 am, Rob "Mushmouth" Evans wrote:
>>On Dec 28, 11:25 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >>> On Dec 26, 11:35 pm, OB wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Many would agree that the anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker
>>
>> >> > Is too spineless to use his/her real name on Usenet?
>>
>> >> On the contrary, Will, anyone who knows how to use Google can get to
>> >> my real name in three clicks.
>>
>> >No, I'm not interested enough to go stalking for you on the web... if
>> >you're too shy to use your real name on Usenet, that's your choice,
>> >"OB".
>>
>> Really?
>
>Looks like it, Mushmouth.
>
you're stupid enough to think it makes the truth disappear.
Unfortunately for you,
"Really? Poor OB. He's not your Duckrish "usenet friend".
Why such focused stalking? Oh yes, because you're a liar and a
hypocrite."
still demonstrates that you are ALWAYS a liar and often interested
enough to go stalking.
Still following "insulin-junkies" around?
Rob
<9309239d-1704-4c2d...@s27g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> writes
>Rob "Mushmouth" Evans wrote:
>>
>> Why such focused stalking?
>
>The answer to that is simple, Mushmouth:
>
>Your focused sniffing behind me is the result of my nailing your
>"poetry performance" for what it was, a dreary ("Try to make your
>writing interesting") piece of chopped-up-prose (which many would call
>"not a poem") spewed with a whistle-lisp through a mouth stuffed with
>gunk, sounding like a stroke victim.
>
You never "nailed", i.e. parroted out phrases taught to you by real
writers on RAP, or read or listened to anything other than your own
bilge until I agreed with the widely held notion that you scrawl
unspeakable shit and pretend it's poetry. You've assiduously followed
me ever since.
Thank you for being such a "usenet friend" (Duckrish for slimy toad, I
assume).
Will Dockery
>On Dec 28, 11:25 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 11:35 pm, OB wrote:
>
> >>> Many would agree that the anonymous poster hiding behind the moniker
>
> >>> Is too spineless to use his/her real name on Usenet?
>
> >> >> On the contrary, Will, anyone who knows how to use Google can get to
> >> >> my real name in three clicks.
Doesn't look like it... but in the future, why not:
"Try to have your insults make sense.", OB.
> >> >No, I'm not interested enough to go stalking for you on the web... if
> >> >you're too shy to use your real name on Usenet, that's your choice,
> >> >"OB".
>
> >> Really?
>
> >Looks like it, Mushmouth.
>
> When caught in your usual lie <slap>
Says whistle-lisping Rob "Mushmouth" Evans, who copy-and-pastes lies
on a regular basis... you're projecting again, Mushmouth.
--
"God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
"Hasty Pudding" by Dockery-Conley:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery writes
>>Rob "Mushmouth" Evans wrote:
>
> >> Why such focused stalking?
>
> >The answer to that is simple, Mushmouth:
>
> >Your focused sniffing behind me is the result of my nailing your
> >"poetry performance" for what it was, a dreary ("Try to make your
> >writing interesting") piece of chopped-up-prose (which many would call
> >"not a poem") spewed with a whistle-lisp through a mouth stuffed with
> >gunk, sounding like a stroke victim.
>
> Thank you for borrowing the word "focused".
No, Mushmouth, I answered your question as to the motive for you
stalking behind me for the past year. I reviewed your slop mouthed
excuse for a poem and you just can't get over the fact that I nailed
it for the garbage that it is.
> You never "nailed"
Yeah, I did... I wouldn't expect you to admit that your recording
nails you as a whistle-lisping mushmouth reading a piece of chopped-
up-prose you pretend is a "poem"... in fact your continual whining is
to be expected.
> You've assiduously followed me ever since.
You've once again shown this to be a lie, since, as usual, once again
you've come /to me/, you mushmouthed old crone.
Feel free to keep coming back, I'll be amused to smack your vulture
head around for the entirity of 2008 if you crave it that much.
> Thank you
You're welcome, Mushmouth... now do come back drooling after me again
today... you know you can't stop yourself.
--
"God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
"Hasty Pudding" by Dockery-Conley:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
OB
<gurglesnip>
>> > > > was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
> > > > months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
> > > > ought to go and check one of these days.
>
> > > Why the mystery? Why not post the link and be done with it?
>
> > > If you're scared, say so.
>
>
> Well, maybe you'll eventually grow a spine and post the link
No, let's have some fun with this instead.
Since I have failed to repost the link /just for you/, and since you
are incapable of following clear directions (snipped) and going to
look for it as anyone else would have done if they had been
sufficiently interested, it therefore follows that the link doesn't
exist, and neither does the poetry blog, since many would agree that
anything that isn't carefully positioned right under Dockery's nose,
on a mat, with the cap removed, obviously cannot have any real
existence. It is therefore your duty as a good Netizen to denounce
this what many would call fraud, and to repeat in post after post over
the next year or so that OB is what many would call a liar and a
hypocrite, since his claims to have posted poems on a blog were (as
many would agree) fearlessly "nailed" by the intrepid Dockery as a
pack of what many would call lies.
> ... or
> not.
>
> I'd be interested in having a look
"I'm not interested enough", a few posts ago. As many would say, "try
to have your ducking and weaving make sense".
> after all this suspenseful buildup,
> and perhaps others will as well.
Others already have, back in July.
Rik
> ... OB is what many would call a liar and a
> hypocrite, since his claims to have posted poems on a blog were (as
> many would agree) fearlessly "nailed" by the intrepid Dockery as a
> pack of what many would call lies.
>
Hey! A new member of the WDL&H club! We've got a logo and badges and
even a club song which we wail at the end of each meeting.
I'm sure you'll fit in wonderfully. Do you bake, by any chance? We like
to have a tea break halfway through the meetings, but our current
victoria sponge provisioner is, well, a bit tight on the jam'n'cream
front (if you know what I mean).
Anyway welcome, welcome! Pull up a chair and tell us how you were outed
by the ever-watchful WD as a complete L&H, yes?
Rik, knee deep.
Hon. Member Secretary, WDL&H Club
Will Dockery
> On Dec 29, 5:42 am, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >> > > > was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
> > > > > months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
> > > > > ought to go and check one of these days.
>
> > > > Why the mystery? Why not post the link and be done with it?
>
> > > > If you're scared, say so.
>
>
> No
You won't be growing a spine, posting the link, or both?
No surprise there... "OB".
> Since I have failed to repost the link
I assume you don't want to, for whatever reason... your choice.
--
Poetry broadcast from Shadowville (video):
http://tinyurl.com/2qxe9q
"God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
"Hasty Pudding" by Dockery-Conley:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Dec 29, 5:42 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <gurglesnip>
>
>>
>>I'd be interested in having a look
>
>
> "I'm not interested enough", a few posts ago. As many would say, "try
> to have your ducking and weaving make sense".
>
That's our Madhomo All-lie, though.
He floats like a butterball and stinks like a Brie.
Beau Blue
"You mean there are lines?" ** beau...@cruziocafe.com
<><> Blue's Cruzio Cafe - Poetry for the 21st Century! <><>
Sound - Video - Animations <> http://www.cruziocafe.com
Beau Blue Presents <> http://members.cruzio.com/~jjwebb
Will Dockery
> OB wrote:
>
> > ... OB is what many would call a liar and a
> > hypocrite, since his claims to have posted poems on a blog were
No, I didn't write that OB hasn't written any poems, I've seen those
here in the past and recently, or that there isn't a blog of his
somewhere out there.
If he/she grows a spine and decides to post a link to this blog, this
is obviously the thread to do it in... but, again, it isn't really
important to me either way.
Real... post the link, or not, OB... your choice.
> >"nailed" by the intrepid Dockery as a
> > pack of what many would call lies.
OB's claim was that his full name is available on this blog, after I
"nailed" her/him as just another anonymous hecker, might be a lie...
but not important enough for me to bother looking for. My critique to
OB, whoever he/she is, remains:
"Try to have your insults make sense."
The irony of someone hiding behind and posting under an anonymous name
calling someone else (who has nothing to hide and posts under his real
name, me) "spineless" (which is in fact a minor libel) is what I
"nailed".
Hold it, that /does/ make OB a liar and hypocrite, after all!
Heh...
> Hey! A new member <snip>
Rik, I called you a hypocrite (and still do) because of your claims to
"hate plagiarists and thieves", which turned out to be a selective
hatred, remember?
If you've forgotten I can remind you of your hypocrisy.
For example, you whine about imagined thefts (such as the book Susan
proposed that never even existed) while approving of the thefts,
copyright infringements and plagiarisms of Michael Cook and Peter J
Ross (all proven and archived several times already, but worth
repeating for all the newcomers here)... which does make you pretty
much a liar and hypocrite or at least shows you don't really "hate"
plagiarists and thieves as much as you claim.
Oh yeah, I remember now how you adjusted your statement later, that
you only really "hate" " plagiarists, thieves and copyright abusers
when they do this to /you/... and that since niether Cook or Ross ever
did it to you, you find thier antics charming and amusing.
Since you brought it up.
--
"God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
"Hasty Pudding" by Dockery-Conley:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
> > I assumed the name Will wanted
>
> I don't really "want" it. I just pointed out the irony of some
> anonymous poster hiding behind the name "OB" pulling the label
> "spineless" out of his/her ass in reference to "Will Dockery"... a
> real, unafraid, person.
>
> IOW: "Try to have your insults make sense."
Will Dockery
>
> >> > my real name was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
And the initials are "0.B.", I suppose?
Right... "three clicks in Google" and I'd know... heh...
> >> > months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
> >> > ought to go and check one of these days.
You don't even know what's on your own blog?
> > > > Why the mystery? Why not post the link and be done with it?
>
> > > > If you're scared, say so.
>
> > > Of /course/ I'm terrified of anyone finding the link to my poetry
Spineless, maybe?
> > Well, maybe you'll eventually grow a spine and post the link
> > I'd be interested in having a look
>
> "I'm not interested enough", a few posts ago.
Correction, I wrote:
"I'm not interested enough to go /looking/" for this blog where you
write that you "plaster" your "real name", and "...maybe you'll
eventually grow a spine and post the link... I'd be interested in
having a look."
"Try to have your putting words in my mouth make sense."
/If/ you decide to go get the link and post it, which for whatever
reasons you're obviously unwilling or unable to do.
"Try to have your excuses for not posting your link make sense."
--
"God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
"Hasty Pudding" by Dockery-Conley:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
> > I assumed the name Will wanted
>
> I don't really "want" it. I just pointed out the irony of some
> anonymous poster hiding behind the name "OB" pulling the label
> "spineless" out of his/her ass in reference to "Will Dockery"... a
> real, unafraid, person.
>
> IOW: "Try to have your insults make sense."
>
OB
> On Dec 29, 1:14 pm, OB wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 5:42 am, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > >> > my real name was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
>
> And the initials are "0.B.", I suppose?
>
> Right... "three clicks in Google" and I'd know... heh...
Exactly. So why bother to ask the question?
> > >> > months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
> > >> > ought to go and check one of these days.
>
> You don't even know what's on your own blog?
I abandoned it, just as I abandoned posting on this group, last
August, when I was contacted by the school where I had previously
worked and asked to come back to replace a new teacher who was about
to do a runner. From that moment I realised I'd have no time to write
poetry, blog, post, lurk or anything of the sort. Now, of course, it's
the Xmas holidays, so I do have time for these things. But, believe it
or not, my first priority was not to remind myself of how much
personal information I had put up on a blog which I hadn't updated for
five months.
> > > > > Why the mystery? Why not post the link and be done with it?
>
> > > > > If you're scared, say so.
>
> > > > Of /course/ I'm terrified of anyone finding the link to my poetry <dockerysnip>
>
> Spineless, maybe?
Unably to reply to anything without defensively snipping the words you
reply to, maybe?
>
> > > Well, maybe you'll eventually grow a spine and post the link
> > > I'd be interested in having a look
>
> > "I'm not interested enough", a few posts ago.
> Correction, I wrote:
>
> "I'm not interested enough to go /looking/" for this blog where you
> write that you "plaster" your "real name", and "...maybe you'll
> eventually grow a spine and post the link... I'd be interested in
> having a look."
>
> "Try to have your putting words in my mouth make sense."
Thanks for demonstrating, above, that the words I quoted ("I'm not
interested enough") were your exact words, and consequently not in any
sense "put into your mouth".
>
> /If/ you decide to go get the link and post it, which for whatever
> reasons you're obviously unwilling or unable to do.
On the contrary, Will, I have posted it. Let me repeat that. I have
posted it. I have already posted it. The link has already been posted.
It was posted last July, and the post containing it is still there, in
the google archives, three clicks and seven keypresses away. Is this
sinking in at all? Now, since I have already posted it, what possible
reason could there be for posting it again? There is it, all nice and
sweet and posted, waiting for anyone who's interested to go click on
it.
>
> "Try to have your excuses for not posting your link make sense."
Try to have your accusations of not having posted links which are
already posted, and have been so for months, make sense.
Try also not to make yourself look more of a moron than you have
already done. Your demands that any links to any information be served
to you afresh in whatever thread happens to be carrying your latest
tantrums look silly enough -- but when you are actually told where you
can find the information, as you were here (though you snipped that
part), and when you are even given a search string you could use to
find it, to make an issue out of its not being dusted off specially
for you, and accusing people of being "spineless" because they don't
do your spadework for you and give you everything you want whenever
you ask for it, looks infantile in the extreme.
You want the link? Go look for it: I've already told you where, and
how. Don't want it ("not interested enough")? Then quit squalling
about it.
And please, Will, let's have less of the Speaking for the Silent
Majority, as in "I expect other will want to see it, too". You do not
speak for others. If others want to see it, they know where to go. As
far as I know, there's only one person on this group who's too lazy to
do a Google search to find something that interests him -- just as
there's only one person who cannot state an opinion on any important
matter without invoking the Agreement of the Many as support.
> --
> "God's Toybox" by Dockery-Beck:http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
>
> "Hasty Pudding" by Dockery-Conley:http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
>
>
>
> > > I assumed the name Will wanted
>
> > I don't really "want" it. I just pointed out the irony of some
> > anonymous poster hiding behind the name "OB" pulling the label
> > "spineless" out of his/her ass in reference to "Will Dockery"... a
> > real, unafraid, person.
>
> > IOW: "Try to have your insults make sense."
>
> > > was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
> > > months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
> > > ought to go and check one of these days.
>
> > Why the mystery? Why not post the link and be done with it?
>
> > If you're scared, say so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Will Dockery
> On Dec 30, 12:56 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 1:14 pm, OB wrote:
>
> > > >> > my real name was plastered on the poem-blog I put up
>
> > And the initials are "0.B.", I suppose?
>
> > Right... "three clicks in Google" and I'd know... heh...
>
> Exactly. So why bother to ask the question?
Why bother with all this mystery rather than just writing "here's the
link, now f.o.a.d."?
Right, that would involve "growing a spine", which you obviously
haven't begun to attempt yet.
> > > >> > months ago, the address of which I posted here. Now I'm not so sure --
> > > >> > ought to go and check one of these days.
>
> > You don't even know what's on your own blog?
>
> I abandoned it,
With just "three clicks" on Google you can find it again and post the
link here... seems that would take much less of your precious time
than desperately avoiding it... just sayin'.
just as I abandoned posting on this group, last
> August, when I was contacted by the school
<personal details written by an anonymous sockpuppet snipped>
You're Jack Austin, right?
You may remember him, maybe. He's the guy who claimed to be a
"psychologist" at some "major hospital"... meanwhile tossing around
big words like "plagerist" and "grammer".
He was a funny guy.
> > > > > > Why the mystery? Why not post the link and be done with it?
>
> > > > > > If you're scared, say so.
>
> > > > > Of /course/ I'm terrified of anyone finding the link to my poetry
>
> > Spineless, maybe?
>
> Unably to reply to anything without defensively snipping the words you
> reply to, maybe?
Just pointing out from all evidence who the "spineless" one here is,
an anonymous person hiding behind a sock he/she calls "0B".
Pretty amusing... someone's "Irony Meter" no doubt is in the repair
shop as we speak...
> > > > Well, maybe you'll eventually grow a spine and post the link
> > > > I'd be interested in having a look
>
> > > "I'm not interested enough", a few posts ago.
> > Correction, I wrote:
>
> > "I'm not interested enough to go /looking/" for this blog where you
> > write that you "plaster" your "real name", and "...maybe you'll
> > eventually grow a spine and post the link... I'd be interested in
> > having a look."
>
> > "Try to have your putting words in my mouth make sense."
>
> Thanks for demonstrating, above, that the words I quoted ("I'm not
> interested enough") were your exact words,
Yeah: "I'm not interested enough to go /looking/" for this blog where
you write that you "plaster" your "real name", and "...maybe you'll
eventually grow a spine and post the link... I'd be interested in
having a look."
Meaning if you post the link, fine, if not I can't be bothered to go
looking.
> and consequently not in any
> sense "put into your mouth".
I wrote that I'm not interested in digging through six months of
archives just to find a fantasy blog from an anonymous "poet". If the
link were posted here, in the appropriate thread, then I /would/ be
interested enough to click the link.
Slightly interested, anyhow, since you claim that your "real name" is
"plastered" all over it. I'd know a little bit about the person who
calls itself "0B"... an anonymous poster hiding in a sock whose only
purpose here seems to be to libel me.
I'm not that big on "fantasy blogs" as others here are, though.
> > /If/ you decide to go get the link and post it, which for whatever
> > reasons you're obviously unwilling or unable to do.
>
> On the contrary, Will, I have posted it. Let me repeat that.
Wouldn't it be easier to /repeat/ the link rather than continue to
repeat the same excuses for not posting it?
> I have already posted it. The link has already been posted.
> It was posted last July
Let me repeat, then:
I'm not interested in digging through 1000s of posts looking for the
blog fantasies of an anonymous poster.
Post the link here or let's more on to another argument, while you
look into growing yourself a spine.
> > "Try to have your excuses for not posting your link make sense."
>
> Try to have your accusations of not having posted links
You've posted the link somewhere today? On another thread?
> Try also not to make yourself look more
Try not not make yourself look like an anonymous "blogger" bragging
about all the /big things/ he/she has going on when you're actually
flipping burgers at McDonalds and using the computer at the public
library, "0B".
> You want the link?
As I've written a few times: No, not really.
If you posted the link, I'd probably have a look... your choice.
Go look for it: I've already told you where, and
> how. Don't want it ("not interested enough")? Then quit squalling
> about it.
>
> And please, Will, let's have less
Sure, let's have less of your silly sockpuppet fantasies about your
"teaching jobs" and whatnot as well, then, since we're making requests
tonight... heh.
of the Speaking for the Silent
> Majority, as in "I expect other will want to see it, too".
Who knows, maybe you're right, and others /won't/ be interested in
your attempts to write poetry... good reason not to take the chance
with posting it and having it ignored, am I right?
As I wrote before, if you're scared, say so.
OB
<variously snipped>
>
> Try not not make yourself look like an anonymous "blogger" bragging
> about all the /big things/ he/she has going on when you're actually
> flipping burgers at McDonalds and using the computer at the public
> library, "0B".
>
>
> Sure, let's have less of your silly sockpuppet fantasies about your
> "teaching jobs" and whatnot as well, then, since we're making requests
> tonight... heh.
Thanks for being so prompt with the latest comedy gag. This is getting
really funny: I knew it would sooner or later.
Let's see now: I am "really" a guy who flips burgers for a living and
wants to impress the public with a larger-than-life invented
biography. Ensconced in the public library (actually, there's no such
thing as a "public library" here in Ecuador, but let's allow for a
little poetic licence), I rack my brains for a suitable persona I can
impress people with. Various ideas suggest themselves: I could be a
secret agent working for MI5; I could be a famous novelist sunning
himself on the Riviera as he toys with plot ideas for the next best-
seller; I could be a brilliant business entrepreneur with a
transnational empire of fashion stores; I could be a former Oracle
programmer who flies planes, sails yachts and ties himself up in his
free time... no! wait! I've got it! I'm gonna be a High School
Teacher! Of course! The most glamorous, the most thrilling, the most
knock-'em-dead profession of all! Licensed to Bore as I stride
nonchalantly along the corridor, my service Holt Rinehart and Winston
Language Handbook snug and ready for action in my inside pocket, a
quizzical smile plays upon my lips as enter the door of Room 16, wipe
the iguana shit off my left shoulder with the latest memo from the
Rectora, and survey the sophisticated decor of my very own, luxury
Classroom, with its tasteful arrangement of sweet paper wrappers, torn
up notebook pages with bad drawings of anime characters scribbled on
them, chewing gum stuck to the underside of desks, antique ventilation
fans and grinning, sweaty kids variously copying homework or beating
each other up. With a purposeful step I reach my very own Desk,
carefully laid out with plagiarised compositions, mislaid coursebooks
in various states of dismemberment, dust, cockroaches, a broken
stapler, and a wad of International Baccalaureate Written Task forms
that were wrongly photocopied and useless even as waste paper. "Hi
kids," I bellow charmingly, without of course losing the Quizzical
Smile for a moment. Immediately, as if by magic, the strident hubbub
transforms itself into a strident hubbub. A seductive voice issues
from the back row. "Me-stare! Andrea said me a Bad Ward!"
Yep, this sure sounds like one hell of a way to impress people.
Thanks, Will: you've given me the biggest laugh of the day so far.
Seriously, Will, if you had ever been to school and knew what a
"teacher" actually was, you'd realise that it's the teachers who
invent fantasy Burger Bar Flipper personae, not the other way around.
(In fact, I strongly suspect Chuckles of being a High School Teacher.
He's ugly enough, at any rate. The "bike-messenger" thing is just pure
self-aggrandisement on his part. Don't say I didn't warn you.)
Will Dockery
>
> Let's see now: I am "really" a guy <snip>
You /claim/ to be a guy.
That's the point, your being an anonymous poster hiding behind a
phoney name makes it possible for you to claim to be anything you
want... and also gives you the "courage" to make libelous attacks on
"real people".
"Try to have your blog fantasies appear realistic."
OB
> On Dec 30, 8:05 pm, OB wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let's see now: I am "really" a guy <snip>
>
> You /claim/ to be a guy.
>
> That's the point, your being an anonymous poster hiding behind a
> phoney name makes it possible for you to claim to be anything you
> want... and also gives you the "courage" to make libelous attacks on
> "real people".
>
> "Try to have your blog fantasies appear realistic."
Will, it may not have occurred to you but "on the Internet, no one
knows you're a dog", and this is true irrespective of whether your
posting handle has two letters or eleven. You /claim/ to be called
Will Dockery, and to be an overweight pizza guy who gets drunk and
fools around in front of a mike in his spare time: but how do I know
if any of this is true? I cannot know this by any independent means,
and this being the case, I simply have to take it on trust, or not, as
I choose (in your case, the persona is so comical that it's kind of
fun to believe in it). The fact is, I have a posting handle, so do
you: and since posting handles on Usenet are an entelechy, neither of
us is any more "anonymous" than the other, nor do I "hide behind" the
posting handle OB any more than you "hide behind" the handle Will
Dockery. Neither name, in Usenet terms, is any more "real" than the
other, nor is there any reason why it should take any more courage to
post as Dockery than it does to post as OB, or as, say, Helmut
Aloysius Pumpernickel (a name I may well be talked into using in the
future).
As for "libelous attacks", please indicate where I am supposed to have
libelled you, since I am not aware of having done so. I called you
spineless, but then, your own posts call you that. If you feel, on
reflection, that you have libelled yourself, say, by posting endless
craven appeals to the imaginary opinions of "many people", well, by
all means feel free to set the record straight.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > > Let's see now: I am "really" a guy <snip>
>
> > You /claim/ to be a guy.
>
> > That's the point, your being an anonymous poster hiding behind a
> > phoney name makes it possible for you to claim to be anything you
> > want... and also gives you the "courage" to make libelous attacks on
> > "real people".
>
> > "Try to have your blog fantasies appear realistic."
>
Yeah, since that's the name on my birth certificate and driver's
license... I'm the real thing, nothing phony, nothing to hide.
That's the difference between someone unafraid to "be real" and
someone hiding behond an anonymous moniker, as you do.
Get back to me when you "grow a spine", whoever you are, pal.
Dennis M. Hammes
This attitude and attention to detail writes poems.
Harness it.
(Angst to express angst as angst only harnesses you.)
>
> Yep, this sure sounds like one hell of a way to impress people.
> Thanks, Will: you've given me the biggest laugh of the day so far.
No, you gave /me/ that.
"Heh."
>
> Seriously, Will, if you had ever been to school and knew what a
> "teacher" actually was, you'd realise that it's the teachers who
> invent fantasy Burger Bar Flipper personae, not the other way around.
They did.
"Cheeseburgah, cheeseburgah, cheeseburgah, cheeseburgah, Pepsi!"
-- SNL, Arby's
> (In fact, I strongly suspect Chuckles of being a High School Teacher.
> He's ugly enough, at any rate. The "bike-messenger" thing is just pure
> self-aggrandisement on his part. Don't say I didn't warn you.)
>
--
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Dec 31, 2:33 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 30, 8:05 pm, OB wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Let's see now: I am "really" a guy <snip>
>>
>>You /claim/ to be a guy.
>>
Yeah, and you claim you're not gay.
So what's next?
Special Performance Artist to the International Space Station?
Special Pizza Driver to the Airborne Infantry School, Ft. Benning?
Special Announcer to Karaoke Night at The Old Laundromat?
Three quacks and a stagger?
>>That's the point, your being an anonymous poster hiding behind a
>>phoney name makes it possible for you to claim to be anything you
>>want... and also gives you the "courage" to make libelous attacks on
>>"real people".
You mean about your homophobia?
Or your congenital illiteracy?
Ah.
Your quacking.
>>
>>"Try to have your blog fantasies appear realistic."
>
>
> Will, it may not have occurred to you but "on the Internet, no one
> knows you're a dog", and this is true irrespective of whether your
> posting handle has two letters or eleven. You /claim/ to be called
> Will Dockery, and to be an overweight pizza guy who gets drunk and
> fools around in front of a mike in his spare time: but how do I know
> if any of this is true? I cannot know this by any independent means,
But you can solve a Turing Problem, and "Will Dockery" can't.
(How patently unfair of you to hide behind his incompetence.)
> and this being the case, I simply have to take it on trust, or not, as
> I choose (in your case, the persona is so comical that it's kind of
> fun to believe in it). The fact is, I have a posting handle, so do
> you: and since posting handles on Usenet are an entelechy, neither of
> us is any more "anonymous" than the other, nor do I "hide behind" the
> posting handle OB any more than you "hide behind" the handle Will
> Dockery. Neither name, in Usenet terms, is any more "real" than the
> other, nor is there any reason why it should take any more courage to
> post as Dockery than it does to post as OB, or as, say, Helmut
> Aloysius Pumpernickel (a name I may well be talked into using in the
> future).
I'd really prefer you didn't use /my/ real name as your "handle," though.
How about something really fictitious, like "Gary Gamble," "Rob
Evans," "Rik Roots," "Peter J. Ross," "J.J. Webb," "Jeanne Kahn,"
"Renay St. James," or even "Dennis M. Hammes"?
(No, "William Dockery" has /proved/ that "Dennis M. Hammes" is
fictitious, as many people on these groups would agree that my r.l.
name is "Amanda Reid.")
>
> As for "libelous attacks", please indicate where I am supposed to have
> libelled you, since I am not aware of having done so. I called you
> spineless, but then, your own posts call you that. If you feel, on
> reflection, that you have libelled yourself, say, by posting endless
> craven appeals to the imaginary opinions of "many people", well, by
> all means feel free to set the record straight.
>
>
>
Will Dockery
> OB wrote:
> >>On Dec 30, 8:05 pm, OB wrote:
>
> >>>Let's see now: I am "really" a guy <snip>
>
> >>You /claim/ to be a guy.
>
> Yeah, and you claim you're not gay.
Sorry how that ruins your fantasies.
> So what's next?
> Special Performance Artist to the International Space Station?
Not a bad idea, if possible.
> Special Pizza Driver to the Airborne Infantry School, Ft. Benning?
I don't make it out to Benning much these days, Parnello's Pizza being
located on the far north side of town, it pretty much isn't worth the
trip down to Benning unless the order is a really big one.
> Special Announcer to Karaoke Night at The Old Laundromat?
No, but my January column http://www.playgroundsmag.com does profile
my friends at Starlight Karaoke, who run the best karaoke show in
Shadowville:
----
To The Magic Store by Will Dockery
"Chainsmoking at the Singalong Bar, Werged into the Subway Car, Heat
up some more rice wine, Somebody just jumped on the line..." -Mick
Jones (The Clash)
Karaoke as an art-form for the people... a place where anyone can be a
part of the show. The owners, Kevin and Shannon Rewis, and their
friend/partner Bill Monk went to alot of places with Karaoke as
singers before they ever ran their own show and were confident they
could do better. By doing extensive reasearch they set out to find out
what made a successful Karaoke Show, and if you've been to one of
their shows, it's pretty obvious they've done their homework on how to
not only make everything efficient but fun and honest. I recently had
a sit down with Kevin of Starlight Karaoke, the leading outfit of
Shadowville "singalong bars":
Crew of Starlight Karaoke:
http://picasaweb.google.com/will.dockery/WillDockeryFriends/photo#5143860353988366434
"...Karaoke was once looked down on by mainstream music critics...That
is until television shows like /American Idol/, and /Nashville Star/
hit the airwaves, making Karaoke an overnight nationwide sensation.
Founded in August of 2006, STARLIGHT KARAOKE (the full business name
being STARLIGHT KARAOKE, D.J. & P.A. SERVICES) set out from the very
beginning to be the area's #1 source for Karaoke entertainment. We
succeded in doing this by making sure they had the largest..most
current song selection, an absolute fair rotation, but above all else
through a steadfast dedication to customer service."
I've heard y'all make it a point to refuse any tips or gifts... why is
this?
"We don't feel it's ethical. If someone wants to tip us because they
think we did a good job then they can do so by coming back and singing
with us again"
You can catch them at SOHO BAR & GRILL on every Monday night from 9pm
until 3 (which happens to be the biggest Karaoke show in town), Every
Tuesday at THE END ZONE on 2nd Avenue from 7pm to close, Every
Wednesday at THE VAULT on Broadway from 9pm to 3, Fridays at THE END
ZONE from 7 until close, Saturday afternoons at THE END ZONE from 12pm
until 6 and Saturday evenings at ABERNATHY's inside AMF Peach Lanes
from 9pm to 2, and last but not least Sundays at ABERNATHY's from 4pm
until 9, which is a show set up as the only one in town with no 21 and
over age restriction.
"The Sunday show is mainly to give little children a place to go sing
but all ages are welcome." says Kevin.
Check 'em out at the "classically raunchy" (as the media tagged it
once) SoHo on the amazing Monday night scene.
A quick note (a full article may be in this issue, or next month) to
check out the poetry readings held every first Thursday at the Library
on Macon Road, 7pm, hosted by Ron Self... and with that, here's a poem
I'm tinkering with:
Stopwatch
My wayward muse,
I am still in the bewilderness.
Leave it to me,
A mute passing notes to a blind man.
Time has a demand - she's yelling
Through shutdown clocks frozen at noon.
The memories here are snow dust
Under the tiny glittering moon.
Time for Winterworld descending -
Ignite time with a Werewolf bullet so slow.
Flaky leaves spin by me -
Past the ceramic building down below.
In front of a wet breeze,
I think its time to leave your smile.
Even if I am wrong,
Please sit by me for a little while.
Time to draw another picture,
Manufacture memories forever gone.
Somewhere on some red October morning,
We'll meet on that field, alone.
-Will Dockery
----
Since you asked.
> >>That's the point, your being an anonymous poster hiding behind a
> >>phony name makes it possible for you to claim to be anything you
> >>want... and also gives you the "courage" to make libelous attacks on
> >>"real people".
>
> You mean about your homophobia?
I'm not aftraid of you. Dennis.
>No, "William Dockery" has /proved/ that "Dennis M. Hammes" is fictitious
It /has/ been proven that many events in your life are "fictitious",
such as the phony degree, your "war heroics", and your publication
history, Uncle Hammes. /I/ didn't prove these, though... others have,
repeatedly.
Now, if you were hiding anonymously behind a fake name, like 0B, then
you could perhaps get away with these delusions.
Peter J Ross
<nevil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're right, I didn't spot the Larkin reference.
Church Going.
If I alone think "Aha! This bit is stolen!" that's probably a good
thing.
--
PJR :-)
<http://pjr.gotdns.org/verse/16-poems>
OB
> OB wrote:
> > ... OB is what many would call a liar and a
> > hypocrite, since his claims to have posted poems on a blog were (as
> > many would agree) fearlessly "nailed" by the intrepid Dockery as a
> > pack of what many would call lies.
>
> Hey! A new member of the WDL&H club! We've got a logo and badges and
> even a club song which we wail at the end of each meeting.
But when do I get my Big Chief secret password?
> I'm sure you'll fit in wonderfully. Do you bake, by any chance?
Intransitively, yes (I'm a few minutes from the equator).
> We like
> to have a tea break halfway through the meetings, but our current
> victoria sponge provisioner is, well, a bit tight on the jam'n'cream
> front (if you know what I mean).
Is mate an acceptable substitute for tea?
> Anyway welcome, welcome! Pull up a chair and tell us how you were outed
> by the ever-watchful WD as a complete L&H, yes?
Well, it's like this, guv. I was caught posting non-existent links to
a non-existent blog containing a charming non-existent photograph of
my non-existent 6-week-old son, who many non-existent people say takes
after his non-existent father (who flips non-existent burgers for a
living in a non-existent country). Anyway, to cut a long story short,
the Ontologically Challenged support group was a bit full up, so I
came here instead.
> Rik, knee deep.
> Hon. Member Secretary, WDL&H Club
But do you really exist? And if you did, how would you know?
Dennis M. Hammes
If you hand me half a piece of chalk, I'll answer that.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> won't be growing a spine for whatever reason...
>
We know.
Barbara's Cat
<html><pre><tt>
--------------------------------
Dodgeweave Duck Strikes Again!
--------------------------------
Oh, no! Pepperonite! I'm fukd!
___ /
/_, \
(@@)===
C__/ /
UU\(___
/|/(\\__
|. ||\ \_
||D||| \
||D|||_____\
|| |||
Faster than a speeding meltdown.
More pathetic than a ludicrous rant.
Able to bleat tall babblings in a single post.
Look, a head up an ass!
It's a bird! ..!.,
It's a whine!
It's Dodgeweave Duck!
Yes, it's Dodgeweave Duck,
strained discharge from planet Yeranus
who came to birth with polyps
and hemorrhoids far beyond those
of most anal crybabies.
Dodgeweave Duck,
who can fill a group with pissy rivers,
quack shit with his duck lips,
and who, disguised as Carp Kook,
stumbling mumbling retorter
for a group in need of toilet paper,
fights a never-winning battle
for kooks,
jackasses,
and the Fucken Moron way.
</tt></pre></html>
> > after all this suspenseful buildup,
> > and perhaps others will as well.
>
> Others already have, back in July.
--
Cm~
"My ex-wife died. By the way, I made a video
starring me. Click the link below to see it."
- Will "Goober Duck" Dockery in mourning
Barbara's Cat
> The Best of George's Dancing wrote:
>
> > my mother sucks Will Dockery's cock.
The important question now is
"Does she spit or swallow?"
--
Cm~
"Hey! Why wait? Let's post before thinking!"
- Old Non-Trolling Saint Saying
Will Dockery
>
> I fixed your poast.
Well, you /tried/ to fix it, Pete... since you claim to not even read
my posts, we know that would be impossible, right?
So, I'll "fix" it myself... here's one of my original comments on the
poem:
"...While the poem "Sign of the 0wl & Angel" is enjoyable (since I
tend to enjoy nebulous
poetry with heavily /coded/ personal references) and has some
striking
lines/images, such as the title and bits like "Depressing that the
lane has had its streetlamps pistoled out", it seems everyone agrees
that when put to the often quoted one-liner critique of "try to have
your writing make sense" it fails utterly.
In fact, many would call the poem "sloppy dreck" or somesuch."
--
The Ride (Combat Zone) by Will Dockery:
http://www.archive.org/details/TheRidecombatZoneByWillDockery
Will Dockery
>
> > ... OB is what many would call a liar and a
> > > hypocrite,
Well, if the /sock fits/, "0B"...
As the lying stalker Barbie Cat wrote in another thread:
"Post your proof that I've [...] or remain the ludicrous quacking liar
that you are."
> since his claims to have posted poems on a blog were
Actually the claim was that you "plastered" your "real name" "all
over" this alleged blog, which you don't have the guts to post the
link to, "0B".
Another day goes by, and still no link... no surprise here.
> > > many would agree) fearlessly "nailed" by the intrepid Dockery as a
> > > pack of what many would call lies.
Dunno about a "pack", but you've been shown to produce "individual
servings" of them.
> Well, it's like this, guv. I was caught posting non-existent links to
> a non-existent blog
No, it ain't "like that", "0B"... so once again I'll cut the bullshit
and set the record straight.
No, you were "caught" posting an ironic (and hypocritical) comment
about my "spine"... and I pointed out the irony of an anonymous poster
hiding behind a phony name calling a person (me) who isn't afraid to
use my real name and thus back up what I say.
> Anyway, to cut a long story short
To cut a long story short, get back to me when you grow a spine, "OB".
> But do you really exist?
Last time I checked, yeah.
I'm "Will Dockery"... I have no idea who you are, and you no doubt
haven't decided who you want to pretend to be, yet.
On Jan 1, 12:31 pm, Barbara's "anonymous stalker" Cat wrote:
> George "Cat Hurt My Feelings" Dance quacked:
Actually, you're clearly the one "hurt" here, Barbie.
Maybe you can harness this angst and write a poem about it in 2008?
Since you haven't written one since 2004 I'm sure nobody here is
holding their breath for that... heh.
> > her [Vera's] stalker ... Barbara's Cat
>
> Post your proof that I've been stalking Vera or
Easily done with "three clicks" in Google, Barbie.
George is referring to the times you've followed behind Vera (which
was defined by Karla and selectively agreed upon by everyone here as
"stalking") with copy-n-paste replies where you called her such things
as "crazy old bitch" and whatnot:
Hope this helps, Barbie.
> remain the ludicrous quacking liar
Oh, the irony!
>that you are.
While you (like OB) remain a spineless anonymous poster hiding behind
a sock, "Barbara's Cat".
On Dec 28 2007, 10:04 pm, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> I fixed your poast
Well, you /tried/ to fix it, Pete... since you claim to not even read
my posts, we know that would be impossible, right?
So, I'll "fix" it myself... here's one of my original comments on the
poem:
"...While this poem is enjoyable (since I tend to enjoy nebulous
OB
> OB wrote:
>
> > > ... OB is what many would call a liar and a
> > > > hypocrite,
>
> Well, if the /sock fits/, "0B"...
>
> As the lying stalker Barbie Cat wrote in another thread:
>
> "Post your proof that I've [...] or remain the ludicrous quacking liar
> that you are."
??? This is relevant how exactly?
> > since his claims to have posted poems on a blog were
>
> Actually the claim was that you "plastered" your "real name" "all
> over" this alleged blog, which you don't have the guts to post the
> link to, "0B".
Actually, /I/ claimed to have plastered my real name all over this
alleged blog. /You/ claimed that I didn't have the guts to post a link
to it. Whereupon /I/ claimed that I had already posted a link to it,
back in July. Not only did I claim that, I also gave you precise
instructions (which you immediately snipped from your reply)
explaining how you could, if you wished, track down a post containing
the link in question using the Google archives. Since when, the ball
has been in your court. You have the following choices:
(1) You could claim that I was lying, and that I /never did/ post any
such link to my blog. If you do that, I will reply with an archive
link to the exact post in question, thus showing you up yet again as a
belligerent idiot;
(2) You could concede that I did, in fact, post a link to the blog, in
which case all your ranting about my "not having the guts to post a
link" will be shown to be the purest idiocy;
(3) You could dodge and weave, simultaneously claiming that you would
be interesting in having a look at the blog, and that you are not
interested enough to "go looking", whatever that means. You could also
repeatedly request I repost the link, or complain that I do not repost
it, thus showing yourself to be a spoiled idiot who believes everyone
else has some kind of obligation to make things easy for you and to
give you everything you ask for, whenever you ask for it. In an
attempt to dampen the effect of this, you could claim, on no evidence
whatsoever, that "others" or perhaps "many others" would also be
interested in my reposting the link.
So, which is it gonna be? Mesdames et messieurs, les jeux sont faits.
OB
> OB wrote:
>
> > But do you really exist? And if you did, how would you know?
>
> If you hand me half a piece of chalk, I'll answer that.
Hmm. The old Johnson-Berkeley gambit (approved variation). Trouble is,
Teacher Training methods have changed a bit since then. A pity, since
the bits of chalk I had thrown at /me/ taught me, I am convinced, a
great deal about life.
Dennis M. Hammes
My usual response to that challenge is to throw the book at it.
Literally.
"/Nemo me lachessit!/" -- Polyphemus