A new FAQ, a new policy
Martijn Benders
Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a group,
let a alone compose a FAQ for it. The AAPC FAQ team has composed a new
FAQ which is much more transparent and lucid as the old one, which was a
complicated and rather useless document for the beginner who wants to
know his place.
The new FAQ is located at:
http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
It is the start of a new policy in AAPC, more strictness and more
clarity, less bollocks.
The Official AAPC FAQ TEAM
Paul Heslop
:O) Well, I like it, so you're screwed now.
--
Paul. (Tonight I think I'll walk alone...)
____________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Dale Houstman
"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3D309C34...@chello.nl...
I could quibble with this or that item, but I rather liked this.
dmh
Cosmicosis
I would rather be spoken evil of than be placed among your selected few that
pass your literacy meter.. At least I have had people cry and thank me for
the help my words have brought them....
So just stick to your "little" set of rules, btw I will begin to comment and
praise your poetry from now on; In the hope that you will stop posting for
3months....
Darren
Martijn Benders <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3D309C34...@chello.nl...
>
sophie
>
>Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a group,
we don' need no steenkin' leaders...
--
sophie
sophie
Martijn Benders
> >Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a group,
>
> we don' need no steenkin' leaders...
With that attitude of yours you're not likely to get listed for promotion
anytime soon, sophie.
M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
>
> I could quibble with this or that item, but I rather liked this.
As a serious participant you have the right to suggest any alterations
to the FAQ imaginable. Myself, I think a system of promotion is
stimulating and realistic. And I think quite everyone of name would
agree about the inhabitants of the black pit.
M.H.Benders
The Official AAPC FAQ:
Gwyneth Box
sophie wrote:
Sophie,
If you've fallen out with Jim,
is that Martijn's ring you're wearing?
Martijn, the new Leader of the FAQ.
g.
----------------------------------
http://www.patchword.com
sophie
there was me thinking that it was my current inability to write.
ah well. (and you do remind me of my school reports, btw)
--
sophie
sophie
>
>
>sophie wrote:
>
>> Martijn Benders <maan...@chello.nl> said
>> >
>> >Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a group,
>>
>> we don' need no steenkin' leaders...
>> --
>>
>> sophie
>
>Sophie,
>
>If you've fallen out with Jim,
>is that Martijn's ring you're wearing?
>
>Martijn, the new Leader of the FAQ.
just don't make me sing the unnecessarily high harmonies, ok?
(and my loyalty to Jim is undying, I say!)
--
sophie
Dale Houstman
"Cosmicosis" <cosmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d30a...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Thanks Martian,
>
> I would rather be spoken evil of than be placed among your selected few
that
> pass your literacy meter.. At least I have had people cry and thank me for
> the help my words have brought them....
>
> So just stick to your "little" set of rules, btw I will begin to comment
and
> praise your poetry from now on; In the hope that you will stop posting for
> 3months....
>
Why can't you catch that rapture trolley just a few years early?
dmh
Non Functional
Martijn Benders
>
> Martijn, the new Leader of the FAQ.
Thanks, Gwyneth, but the system works more aristocratically: once a person
has gained a 'serious' status it's quite hard to lose it, since this would
require unanimous vote from all serious participants with every perticipant
having a veto right. Also, all participants of the serious fraction have the
right to nominate one person a week for promotion, which takes place by a
majority of votes from the serious fraction. The 'quite nice' fraction has a
merely advsising role, and the 'useless' and 'black pit' fractions are merely
canonmeat in this Great Lesbian War of Poetry. So there's no 'leader' in this
system, it's rather an aristocratized democratic system with royal
undertones.
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman
"sophie" <sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ooTWm1S0...@blueyonder.co.uk...
from the way Benders has talked to me from time to time in the past, I
assumed he must be joking. But the reason I really like it is because it is
succinct and - at least - clear on certain distinctions. It won't do any
good - as far as clearing away the dust bunnies and fecal matter - but it
struck me as a good go.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Promotions usually bring more responsibilites for not so much extra money,
so it might be better all around.
dmh
>
Martijn Benders
>
> >With that attitude of yours you're not likely to get listed for promotion
> >anytime soon, sophie.
>
> there was me thinking that it was my current inability to write.
> ah well.
That plays a role too, but the commission looks at the 'overall' literacy
picture in
case of a possible promotion.
M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
>
> Promotions usually bring more responsibilites for not so much extra money,
> so it might be better all around.
That's ofcourse true. Participants of the 'serious' fraction are at least
expected to post a good poem every once in a while, to post some good comments
and philosophies each week, and to at least try get published every once in a
while in real life.
All participants of the 'Quite ok' fraction need to do is sit there and look
good.
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> >
> > I could quibble with this or that item, but I rather liked this.
>
> As a serious participant you have the right to suggest any alterations
> to the FAQ imaginable. Myself, I think a system of promotion is
> stimulating and realistic. And I think quite everyone of name would
> agree about the inhabitants of the black pit.
>
> M.H.Benders
>
time to time. Does it have plumbing?
But I rather like it the way it is. My "quibbles" are mainly in the area of
certain assignments, but - for the moment - I would rather wait and see. I
may - at some point - suggest a change or two, but I wouldn't want those to
be based on mere amiability. I would think there might be a category for
those who are not yet greatly proficient but who show "gusto" and
willingness: a sort of "prison trustee" section, or like a baby limbo. After
all, a part of the reason for the group must be to give a variety of
encouragements to the "little people."
Can I tell those in the lower sections to take out my trash and vacuum the
bedroom?
I am a benevolent tyrant!
dmh
Martijn Benders
>
> But I rather like it the way it is. My "quibbles" are mainly in the area of
> certain assignments, but - for the moment - I would rather wait and see. I
> may - at some point - suggest a change or two, but I wouldn't want those to
> be based on mere amiability.
The current system of ranking is the result of months of debate, research and
contemplation by the members of the Official AAPC FAQ Team who at this stage
wish to remain anonymous, but suffice it to say that any request for an
explanmation of a rank status will be granted. We are always happy to clarify
why we think things are the way they are.
M.H.Benders
Joy Yourcenar
<sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
***Gwyneth Box <gwy...@patchword.com> said
***>
***>
***>sophie wrote:
***>
***>> Martijn Benders <maan...@chello.nl> said
***>> >
***>> >Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a
group,
***>>
***>> we don' need no steenkin' leaders...
***>> --
***>>
***>> sophie
***>
***>Sophie,
***>
***>If you've fallen out with Jim,
***
***>is that Martijn's ring you're wearing?
***>
***>Martijn, the new Leader of the FAQ.
***
***just don't make me sing the unnecessarily high harmonies, ok?
***
***(and my loyalty to Jim is undying, I say!)
Mine too...unless Dutch smarties are orange flavoured. :P
Joy
Joy Yourcenar
Mythologies www.evolvingbeauty.com/myth
icon/graphy www.evolvingbeauty.com/icon
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt, British prime-minister (1759-1806)
Joy Yourcenar
<dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
***
***"sophie" <sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
***news:ooTWm1S0...@blueyonder.co.uk...
***> Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> said
***> >
***> >"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
***> >news:3D309C34...@chello.nl...
***> >>
***> >> Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead
a group,
***> >> let a alone compose a FAQ for it. The AAPC FAQ team has
composed a new
***> >> FAQ which is much more transparent and lucid as the old one,
which was
***a
***> >> complicated and rather useless document for the beginner who
wants to
***> >> know his place.
***> >>
***> >> The new FAQ is located at:
***> >>
***> >> http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
***> >>
***> >> It is the start of a new policy in AAPC, more strictness and
more
***> >> clarity, less bollocks.
***> >>
***> >> The Official AAPC FAQ TEAM
***> >
***> >I could quibble with this or that item, but I rather liked this.
***>
***> I wonder why! ;-)
***> --
***>
***Well - I thought (too late) my compliment might seem a bit
self-serving, but
***from the way Benders has talked to me from time to time in the
past, I
***assumed he must be joking. But the reason I really like it is
because it is
***succinct and - at least - clear on certain distinctions. It won't
do any
***good - as far as clearing away the dust bunnies and fecal matter -
but it
***struck me as a good go.
***
***dmh
***
and what's not to love about a category called "THE BLACK PIT OF
ETERNAL LITERACY DAMNATION"?
Joy
from the throne of spam...finger on the smite button
Paul Heslop
Joy Yourcenar
<dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
***
***"Cosmicosis" <cosmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
***news:3d30a...@news.iprimus.com.au...
***> Thanks Martian,
***>
***> I would rather be spoken evil of than be placed among your
selected few
***that
***> pass your literacy meter..
Spoken like a denizen of the pit...
*** At least I have had people cry
Truer words were never spoken. You are the onion of poetry.
and thank me for
***> the help my words have brought them....
Yeah, but can you cure baldness?
***>
***> So just stick to your "little" set of rules, btw I will begin to
comment
***and
***> praise your poetry from now on; In the hope that you will stop
posting for
***> 3months....
Your real name wouldn't be Tim, would it? You know much that is
hidden.
***>
***
***
***Why can't you catch that rapture trolley just a few years early?
***
***dmh
***
These are the questions that drive us mad.
Joy
Gwyneth Box
Martijn Benders wrote:
> Gwyneth Box wrote:
>
> >
> > Martijn, the new Leader of the FAQ.
>
> Thanks, Gwyneth, but the system works more aristocratically: once a person
> has gained a 'serious' status it's quite hard to lose it, since this would
> require unanimous vote from all serious participants with every perticipant
> having a veto right. Also, all participants of the serious fraction
just please don't tell me that eleven seventeenths is 'the serious fraction'.
> have the
> right to nominate one person a week for promotion, which takes place by a
> majority of votes from the serious fraction. The 'quite nice' fraction has a
> merely advsising role, and the 'useless' and 'black pit' fractions are merely
> canonmeat in this Great Lesbian War of Poetry. So there's no 'leader' in this
> system, it's rather an aristocratized democratic system with royal
> undertones.
You mean rule of the poets by an elite sprung from the poets?
Hmm. Well, maybe I should admit now that I'm actually quite
partial to broccoli, making me one of the partial fractions, I suppose.
But I promise not to post positive brassica poetry unless provoked.
g.
----------------------------------
http://www.patchword.com
>
> M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
>
> Depends how you like being told to fuck off.
Rather a master in hell than a servant in heaven, hm?
M.H.Benders
Art McNutt
maan...@chello.nl wrote on 7/13/02 5:44 PM:
> Gwyneth Box wrote:
>
>>
>> Martijn, the new Leader of the FAQ.
>
> Thanks, Gwyneth, but the system works more aristocratically: once a person
> has gained a 'serious' status it's quite hard to lose it, since this would
> require unanimous vote from all serious participants with every perticipant
> having a veto right.
Ahhh. The light dawns--poetry is /unilaterally democratic/. I should have
realized. Now I'm more proud to be useless than ever. Thank you.
---
Art
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>As a serious participant you have the right to suggest any alterations
>to the FAQ imaginable. Myself, I think a system of promotion is
>stimulating and realistic. And I think quite everyone of name would
>agree about the inhabitants of the black pit.
The real Michael Stephens posted some fine poems. I don't think you
were here at the time.
Josh
"Frankly, to tell you the truth: I don't believe in
'insanity' which requires a belief in 'sanity' which
I don't have either." -Martijn Benders
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a group,
>let a alone compose a FAQ for it. The AAPC FAQ team has composed a new
>FAQ which is much more transparent and lucid as the old one, which was a
>complicated and rather useless document for the beginner who wants to
>know his place.
>
>The new FAQ is located at:
>
>http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
>
>It is the start of a new policy in AAPC, more strictness and more
>clarity, less bollocks.
All because nobody came to your birthday party . . .
Joy Yourcenar
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
***Dale Houstman wrote:
***
***>
***> Promotions usually bring more responsibilites for not so much
extra money,
***> so it might be better all around.
***
***That's ofcourse true. Participants of the 'serious' fraction are at
least
***expected to post a good poem every once in a while, to post some
good comments
***and philosophies each week, and to at least try get published every
once in a
***while in real life.
But we don't have to tell people we published unless we want to,
right? I am still having anathema flashbacks from Faragher who
definitely deserves a cart pushed somewhere internal and intensely
painful.
seriously,
Joy
***
***All participants of the 'Quite ok' fraction need to do is sit there
and look
***good.
***
***M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
>
> The real Michael Stephens posted some fine poems. I don't think you
> were here at the time.
I was. I didn't think they were 'fine poems', and anyway we estimated
him at 'quite ok' for a maximum. If he stops whining and lying and behaves
like a real person for some time, and if he complies to the rules of this
forum
and posts some good poetry, we might consider calling in an exorcist to get
him out of the pit. Somehow we rather expect hell to freeze over, though.
M.H.Benders
Non Functional
doing it. Is there a demotion system as well?
Martijn Benders
>
> But we don't have to tell people we published unless we want to,
> right? I am still having anathema flashbacks from Faragher who
> definitely deserves a cart pushed somewhere internal and intensely
> painful.
The FAQ is again up to date!
M.H.Benders
http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
The only official AAPC FAQ page
Martijn Benders
> I am truly surprised you didn't put me there, LOL. But thanks for not
> doing it. Is there a demotion system as well?
The FAQ is updated as of now.
M.H.Benders
Non Functional
Martijn Benders
> Alright! Both of my personalities are useless LOL
We are never wrong.
M.H.Benders
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the Sig File of M.H.Benders, The Netherlands.
All parts of this Sig File are subject to international
copyright laws and permission of use is prohibited
for anyone but M.H.Benders and his direct relatives.
M.H.Benders has built a creative imperium on internet,
usenet, and sometimes in real life through such medias
as webdesign, poetry, video and flash art and polemics.
The following links are only distributed for personal,
non-commercial use:
The only really snug literary site on the web:
http://www.kannibaal.nl/
The art imperium of the cacaofabriek:
http://www.cacaofabriek.nl/
The only official FAQ for the newsgroup AAPC:
http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
People who speak in metaphors
should shampoo my crotch.
Jack Nicholson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Heslop
without a doubt, but you may kiss my behind.
jp
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:uj1bj4m...@corp.supernews.com...
Just another exercise in futility.
JP
jp
I assume you're talking about me, though I'm not Michael Stephens. I also
assume that you have some way to keep from posting here? (Although if
suddenly everyone is going to recognize you as legitimate, I'll be more
than happy to leave. Only lunatics would elect a lunatic.)
JP
jp
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
news:9tc1jukmng71op7p4...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 23:31:32 +0200, Martijn Benders
> <maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a group,
> >let a alone compose a FAQ for it. The AAPC FAQ team has composed a new
> >FAQ which is much more transparent and lucid as the old one, which was a
> >complicated and rather useless document for the beginner who wants to
> >know his place.
> >
> >The new FAQ is located at:
> >
> >http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
> >
> >It is the start of a new policy in AAPC, more strictness and more
> >clarity, less bollocks.
>
> All because nobody came to your birthday party . . .
>
> Josh
From the number of responses (I've only read a few) I see people are going
to take this seriously. Me, I'll sit back and wait. The majority never
learned how to behave themselves.
I may read this new FAQ later, if I have the time.
JP
Joshua P. Hill
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
>news:9tc1jukmng71op7p4...@4ax.com...
>> All because nobody came to your birthday party . . .
>>
>> Josh
>
>From the number of responses (I've only read a few) I see people are going
>to take this seriously. Me, I'll sit back and wait. The majority never
>learned how to behave themselves.
Nah, despite his show to the contrary, Martijn takes it seriously,
while to the rest of us, it's a joke, a merry little tadpole born of a
lilly-pad-bound croaker who fancies he has wings as good as any
bird's.
This, after all, is the fellow who decided that Shakespeare doesn't
belong in the English canon because a commission said so; and surely,
if there's a hell for poets, it has in it a stack of visas,
permissions, passports, underwear licenses, and carefully metered
enemas, all administered by a stale clerk whose haberdasher stiches
bells on his cap and whose tailor sews pants from two colors of cloth,
but who, in his self-satisifed simplicity, fancies himself judge and
approver of words he cannot understand.
Dale Houstman
"Non Functional" <Crank...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10937-3D...@storefull-2378.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> I am truly surprised you didn't put me there, LOL. But thanks for not
> doing it. Is there a demotion system as well?
>
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3D30B2D...@blueyonder.co.uk...
With elan and a soupcon of moral fecundity, Ambrose...
dmh
Dale Houstman
"jp" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ui3Y8.19590$A43.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
annex.
dmh
Non Functional
from the lesser two categories praises your poem not to post for three
months, does that mean that if we like it that it most likely is a BAD
poem???? In that case, I must tell you that I am a fan of Robert
Browning, Robert Frost, TS Elliot, Robert Graves, and William Alligham.
So I guess they are all TERRIBLE poets.
Martijn Benders
> I have a question for you Martjin. Since you say If one of the peole
> from the lesser two categories praises your poem not to post for three
> months, does that mean that if we like it that it most likely is a BAD
> poem????
Yes.
> In that case, I must tell you that I am a fan of Robert
> Browning, Robert Frost, TS Elliot, Robert Graves, and William Alligham.
> So I guess they are all TERRIBLE poets.
Nope. These would possibly earn the praise of the higher catagories as well
as the lower ones, in which case they'd be up for a 'serious' promotion.
When a poem, however, gets _only_ the praise of the two lower categories it
is almost certainly a really bad poem, and it is deemed wise to not post
anything for at least 3 months.
M.H.Benders
Paul Heslop
Methinks tou doth ask too much sirrah!
joel harris
> Paul. (Tonight I think I'll walk alone...)
your tag reminds me of a will oldham
(actually, palace-music) tune:
"i can smell the camp fire burning,
but i'll go out walking on my own..."
it's called 'riding,' on their lost blues CD;
nice tune.
.joel. [other people's songs]
Non Functional
Responding to:
Non Functional
Non Functional
I don't disagree on the horrible nature of my poetry, except, I am
flattered that I am not banished to the black pit of hell!!! I am
utterly stunned!!! I do appreciate it!! And may the FAQ live on whether
I remain useless, or fall even further from grace!!! : )
Responding to:
Joshua P. Hill
Oh, Martijn is the genius who claims that Shakespeare, Blake, and
Yeats are "mediocre poets."
If this critical megamind ever does praise one of your poems, consider
suicide.
joel harris
haven't heard from him in a bit, but he
seemed to be quite the regular and his
poetry, imho, is/was brilliant.
.joel.
---------------------------------------------
"There is no canibalistic or
cabalistic voodoo in this" --Tiniap
"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3D30D2AB...@chello.nl...
Paul Heslop
Temptation
Heaven, a gateway, a hope
Just like the feeling inside, it's no joke
And though it hurts me to treat you this way
Betrayed my words, I'd never heard, too hard to say
Up, down, turn around
Please don't let me hit the ground
Tonight I think I'll walk alone
I'll find my soul as I go home
--
Paul. (Tonight I think I'll walk alone...)
____________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Martijn Benders
>
> This, after all, is the fellow who decided that Shakespeare doesn't
> belong in the English canon because a commission said so;
Be careful of this guy. He lying almost all the time. He's reffering to the
fact here that the IPA formed an 'international canon' and nominated three
poets working in the english language to take part of it: Larkin, Strand and
Elliot. Somehow, in his twisted little mind, that finally eveloped into
'Shakespeare isn't part of the english canon'. Learn a lesson from this guy.
Don't end up as clueless as he is.
M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
>
> Oh, Martijn is the genius who claims that Shakespeare, Blake, and
> Yeats are "mediocre poets."
More lies. I never said that Shakespeare was a mediocre poet. Yeats was, and
Blake was most of the time.
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
You said Shakespeare didn't belong in the English canon -- not that
your characterization of Yeats and Blake isn't profoundly embarassing
on its own.
Joshua P. Hill
"If you are reffering to the referendum of I.P.A. about forming an
international canon, and the subsequent decision to include two
poets who work in English, namely Larkin and Strand - how does that
suddenly mean that 'the english canon was found non-existant'?
We are well aware you guys seem to like all those blokes you've put
in there, but there was limited room to place English poets in the
international canon so we naturally had to select, which means the
rest was deemed 'nice, but forgettable' by the committee with the
footnote that we'd really like to see some hollywood movie in the
future with a script written by some other poet than Shakespeare."
- Martijn
And I can't resist adding, having come across it in my search, this
little gem:
"Blake's poetry just doesn't cut down to the essence of things in most
cases."
- Martijn
Martijn Benders
>
> "If you are reffering to the referendum of I.P.A. about forming an
> international canon, and the subsequent decision to include two
> poets who work in English, namely Larkin and Strand - how does that
> suddenly mean that 'the english canon was found non-existant'?
> We are well aware you guys seem to like all those blokes you've put
> in there, but there was limited room to place English poets in the
> international canon so we naturally had to select, which means the
> rest was deemed 'nice, but forgettable' by the committee with the
> footnote that we'd really like to see some hollywood movie in the
> future with a script written by some other poet than Shakespeare."
So where does this say 'Shakespeare doesn't belong in the english canon', you lying piece of shit?
M.H.Benders
Rosa Rugosa
middle columns, or not appear at all. So here goes.
Martijn, you are an overbearing, pompous bore, and a sloppy
debater. I was surprised you received so much positive
feedback on your star poem, because I personally found it
boring. There are at least three obvious errors in your FAQ,
and your posts frequently contain typos.
Sincerely,
Rosa Rugosa
Martijn Benders
> Martijn, you are an overbearing, pompous bore, and a sloppy
> debater. I was surprised you received so much positive
> feedback on your star poem, because I personally found it
> boring. There are at least three obvious errors in your FAQ,
> and your posts frequently contain typos.
The faq is up to date again!
j r sherman
>
>Martijn Benders <maan...@chello.nl> said
>>
>>Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a group,
>
>--
>
>sophie
ms. sophie, aren't we MORE than just okay, though?
still, not a bad meter.
except for dale in the first category? please.
:D
most sincerely,
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
"A sad tale's best for winter: I have one
Of sprites and goblins."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Non Functional
Jonathan
> Gwyneth Box wrote:
>
> >
> > Martijn, the new Leader of the FAQ.
>
>Thanks, Gwyneth, but the system works more aristocratically: once
>a person has gained a 'serious' status it's quite hard to lose it, since
>this would require unanimous vote from all serious participants
>with every perticipant having a veto right. Also, all participants of the
>serious fraction have the right to nominate one person a week for
>promotion, which takes place by a majority of votes from the serious
>fraction. The 'quite nice' fraction has a merely advsising role, and
>the 'useless' and 'black pit' fractions are merely canonmeat in this
>Great Lesbian War of Poetry. So there's no 'leader' in this
>system, it's rather an aristocratized democratic system with
>royal undertones.
>
> M.H.Benders
To see that I'm the only one of all the members of this
ng that was given a 'title' brought a smile to my face.
Thank you!
But your faq is really quite pitiful. You should review a
real faq. The most imaginative and 'poetic' faq ever written
is below. A faq that changed the world and the internet in ways
none of you have the insight to understand.
This faq was the source of countless laws and legislation
aimed at shutting them up. All adult speech on the internet
was banned with the Communications Decency Act, an act
designed to get at this one ng and topic.
The Supreme Court decision that overturned the
CDA gave the internet First Amendment protection
for the first, and all, time. This ng generated all the
major debates over anonymity, encryption and
virtual porn. The great pedophile hunts that ng
created still course through society and even the Church
to this day. There were more task forces and new laws
devoted to crushing this ng then it had regulars.
This ng and it's faq played the role of the ultimate bad guy
They were the first freedom fighters of the digital age.
And it was all a play, a living poem created for the
purpose of generating First Amendment fights
about the internet. I joined that ng even though
I am not a pedophile because I believed in their
causes and swam in the issues and debates that
spanned the spectrum of legal, moral, constitutional
and emotional realms.
The people of that ng risked everything because they cared
about the internet and understood the significance
of spreading the First Amendment to the entire world
via the net. And no one will ever know who they
were.
You call yourself poets yet are clueless in the art of
generating imagery, emotions or how to effect
the world with ...words. It's not about how words
are arranged, it's about how they are lived.
Jonathan
"The contemplation of the horrid or sordid or disgusting, by an
artist, is the necessary and negative aspect of the impulse
toward the pursuit of beauty."
T.S. Eliot
Non Functional
it than what I read.) However, I don't think that their need to view
pre-teen/child "erotica" (as they called it, I call it kiddy porn)
doesn't make them complex, and us simple minded. It makes them
disgusting. It makes them wrong. No thanks, I will stick to a poetry
group that discussing poetry. Not one that discusses children in a
sexual way, and trades pictures none the less. (Like I said, I didn't
read the whole thing...maybe it was a joke that I missed or something.)
Paul Heslop
I ust admit that I have not read a single Shakespear poem... ever. All
those thee thou and thtuff! Ugh.
Rik Roots
>
> "sophie" <sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ooTWm1S0...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> said
>> >
>> >"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
>> >news:3D309C34...@chello.nl...
>> >>
>> >> Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a group,
>> >> let a alone compose a FAQ for it. The AAPC FAQ team has composed a new
>> >> FAQ which is much more transparent and lucid as the old one, which was
> a
>> >> complicated and rather useless document for the beginner who wants to
>> >> know his place.
>> >>
>> >> The new FAQ is located at:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
>> >>
>> >> It is the start of a new policy in AAPC, more strictness and more
>> >> clarity, less bollocks.
>> >>
>> >> The Official AAPC FAQ TEAM
>> >
>> >I could quibble with this or that item, but I rather liked this.
>>
>> I wonder why! ;-)
>> --
>>
> Well - I thought (too late) my compliment might seem a bit self-serving,
> but from the way Benders has talked to me from time to time in the past, I
> assumed he must be joking. But the reason I really like it is because it
> is succinct and - at least - clear on certain distinctions. It won't do
> any good - as far as clearing away the dust bunnies and fecal matter - but
> it struck me as a good go.
>
> dmh
Couldn't a simple "Idiot's Guide" be added to the real faq (right up front,
say, with a big "CLICK HERE for the IDIOT's GUIDE to AAPC"), you know, a
couple of screens of hints and tips which we can easily print off and wrap
round a brick to throw at those (many) posters who have difficulty with the
full faq, authority figures, rules & regs, nazi regimes and the like?
Just a thought ...
Rik, knee deep.
--
http://www.kalieda.org/poems/index.html
Pop in for a browse, when you have a moment to spare
Joshua P. Hill
International canon, English canon -- the rest (including Shakespeare)
"nice but forgettable" -- and this not your original post, which I
couldn't find -- quibble all you want, you're still a fool.
Joshua P. Hill
<rosa1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, I'd rather be Damned than be stuck in one of the
>middle columns, or not appear at all. So here goes.
>
>Martijn, you are an overbearing, pompous bore, and a sloppy
>debater.
And he knows it. This is an act of desperation, the equivalent of an
unpopular schoolboy saying "you can only be in my club if you're nice
to me," or its later-life equivalent, the prerogatives handed out to
members of the secret police by a murderous fellow with a moustache.
Oh, Martijn wants everybody to think it's just a joke, much as Tony
Soprano's mother tries to convince people that she has no idea what
they're talking about. But in fact, he has established a similar phony
FAQ for the Dutch literature group, and it didn't take him long to
attempt to use that phony FAQ in an attempt to convince us that a
Dutch participant who expressed distaste for him was of lesser rank,
and therefore of no account.
Of course, those who make it to the first group, which consists
essentially of the small minority uninterested enough or politic
enough not to have expressed out-and-out distaste for his insulting,
sophomoric posts, are cooing and saying "what a good idea -- all in
fun, of course -- not that I take it seriously, no, hem, of course
not." I'm reminded of the Pope who, when a crowd started shouting
"Thou art God," commented that their display was "a bit excessive, but
quite nice, really."
Meanwhile, wonderful posters like Mike Billard, who in an informal
poll a while back was acclaimed by all for having written the best
posts, or Julie Carter, who has probably done more than anybody else
to keep this group alive through its darkest times, are given, because
politically suspect, the rank of powerless retainers, while others
like Mikel Potts, a long-time participant who has regularly submitted
poetry, helpful comments, and contributed to considered discussion,
are placed in the doghouse for having made the mistake of telling
Martijn what they thought of him.
Some pigs are more equal than others, but who says we have to be pigs?
Martijn Benders
>
> Oh, Martijn wants everybody to think it's just a joke,
Liar. The FAQ most certainly is not a joke. The FAQ is realism and
an instrument to stimulate the participants in AAPC to be better than
they are now. It gives the people a goal.
>
> Of course, those who make it to the first group, which consists
> essentially of the small minority uninterested enough or politic
> enough not to have expressed out-and-out distaste for his insulting,
> sophomoric posts, are cooing and saying "what a good idea -- all in
> fun, of course
Ressentiment. The first group simply consists of the best poets available
here.
If it would have been a 'friends' thing I'd never put Dale in it who
frequently has called me an asshole.
>
> Meanwhile, wonderful posters like Mike Billard, who in an informal
> poll a while back was acclaimed by all for having written the best
> posts,
Billard isn't that good. He has the tendency to only discuss with newbies
because those are the only ones he's confident he can handle. Once I
started to discuss some serious matters with him he immediately killfiled
me. His poetry is nice overall, but leans too much towards a Hugo and this
gives the impression he still has to find his own voice.
He's also quite strapped to the whole 'America' thing, not in the least in
the small impressionism kind of way. Good for a 'quite ok' status, but not
prime material.
> or Julie Carter, who has probably done more than anybody else
> to keep this group alive through its darkest times, are given, because
> politically suspect, the rank of powerless retainers,
Carter isn't that good either - the 'serious' category is not about people
who 'did a lot for the newsgroup' anyway. Carter is a lousy polemist but a
quite good sonnet writer - problem is that that is about the only thing
she can do. We'd like to see her experiment more with the medium, prove
she isn't bound to a single trick that always makes her look well.
> while others
> like Mikel Potts, a long-time participant who has regularly submitted
> poetry, helpful comments,
Rather mediocre poetry and parroting comments, I never thought he was any
good.
I never thought you were any good either.
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman
"Non Functional" <Crank...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23920-3D...@storefull-2374.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> I have a question for you Martjin. Since you say If one of the peole
> from the lesser two categories praises your poem not to post for three
> months, does that mean that if we like it that it most likely is a BAD
> Browning, Robert Frost, TS Elliot, Robert Graves, and William Alligham.
> So I guess they are all TERRIBLE poets.
>
Ahhh: but you notice they don't post here anymore?
dmh
Dale Houstman
We all need walls.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:agr0r...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <9YDTqlT3...@blueyonder.co.uk>, sophie says...
> >
> >Martijn Benders <maan...@chello.nl> said
> >>
> >>Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a group,
> >
> >we don' need no steenkin' leaders...
> >--
> >
> >sophie
>
> ms. sophie, aren't we MORE than just okay, though?
>
> still, not a bad meter.
>
> except for dale in the first category? please.
>
> :D
>
>
But the FAQ is amusing
dmh
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh, Martijn wants everybody to think it's just a joke,
>
>Liar. The FAQ most certainly is not a joke. The FAQ is realism and
>an instrument to stimulate the participants in AAPC to be better than
>they are now. It gives the people a goal.
Yeah, to get on your good side so you'll promote 'em.
>> Of course, those who make it to the first group, which consists
>> essentially of the small minority uninterested enough or politic
>> enough not to have expressed out-and-out distaste for his insulting,
>> sophomoric posts, are cooing and saying "what a good idea -- all in
>> fun, of course
>
>Ressentiment. The first group simply consists of the best poets available
>here.
>If it would have been a 'friends' thing I'd never put Dale in it who
>frequently has called me an asshole.
If you say so Yourself.
You know, you're rather obviously devious when it comes to this sort
of thing.
>> Meanwhile, wonderful posters like Mike Billard, who in an informal
>> poll a while back was acclaimed by all for having written the best
>> posts,
>
>Billard isn't that good. He has the tendency to only discuss with newbies
>because those are the only ones he's confident he can handle. Once I
>started to discuss some serious matters with him he immediately killfiled
>me. His poetry is nice overall, but leans too much towards a Hugo and this
>gives the impression he still has to find his own voice.
>He's also quite strapped to the whole 'America' thing, not in the least in
>the small impressionism kind of way. Good for a 'quite ok' status, but not
>prime material.
Nope. Not even you believe that. After all, you were the one who said
he was the only American here who could argue, way back when. Be
honest, now, boy: you put him in the doghouse because he told you you
were full of it.
>> or Julie Carter, who has probably done more than anybody else
>> to keep this group alive through its darkest times, are given, because
>> politically suspect, the rank of powerless retainers,
>
>Carter isn't that good either - the 'serious' category is not about people
>who 'did a lot for the newsgroup' anyway. Carter is a lousy polemist but a
>quite good sonnet writer - problem is that that is about the only thing
>she can do. We'd like to see her experiment more with the medium, prove
>she isn't bound to a single trick that always makes her look well.
Ah, I see that you're now referring to yourself in the plural. Well,
I'm glad that all of you have such grand plans for Julie. Wouldn't
want to think that she'd been overlooked by someone whose appreciation
of Shakespeare, Eliot, Yeats, Dante, and Blake is so, er, profound.
>> while others
>> like Mikel Potts, a long-time participant who has regularly submitted
>> poetry, helpful comments,
>
>Rather mediocre poetry and parroting comments, I never thought he was any
>good.
>I never thought you were any good either.
Thank Gawd!
Josh is in the doghouse with Yeats,
Josh is in the doghouse with Yeats,
Glory Hallelujah!
Josh is in the doghouse with Yeats.
Martijn Benders
>
> >Liar. The FAQ most certainly is not a joke. The FAQ is realism and
> >an instrument to stimulate the participants in AAPC to be better than
> >they are now. It gives the people a goal.
>
> Yeah, to get on your good side so you'll promote 'em.
That's not really part of the deal. At any rate, your new lying campaign
already started again, this time you want to make it look like the 'serious'
category on the FAQ 'are all friends of mine' which is clearly untrue, and as
any member of the 'serious' category has equal rights and voting/ nomination
power it's quite obvious that it isn't just my personal parlor. I don't know
what causes you to continue to spread lies about me over the internet, all I
can say is that it proves you fully deserve your present standing.
M.H.Benders
Chuck Lysaght
> in article 3D30AD69...@chello.nl, Martijn Benders at
> maan...@chello.nl wrote on 7/13/02 5:44 PM:
>
> > Gwyneth Box wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Martijn, the new Leader of the FAQ.
> >
> > Thanks, Gwyneth, but the system works more aristocratically: once a person
> > has gained a 'serious' status it's quite hard to lose it, since this would
> > require unanimous vote from all serious participants with every perticipant
> > having a veto right.
>
> realized. Now I'm more proud to be useless than ever. Thank you.
I'm rather proud of being in the dark pit. But, the light at the end
of the tunnel, may be me!!! ; )
>
> ---
> Art
Chuck Lysaght
> FAQ which is much more transparent and lucid as the old one, which was a
> complicated and rather useless document for the beginner who wants to
> know his place.
>
> The new FAQ is located at:
>
> http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
>
> It is the start of a new policy in AAPC, more strictness and more
> clarity, less bollocks.
>
> The Official AAPC FAQ TEAM
Thanks Martijn. You have successfully defined what a complete joke,
and an utter failure this newsgroup really is.
Art McNutt
maan...@chello.nl wrote on 7/14/02 7:57 AM:
[snip]
>> or Julie Carter, who has probably done more than anybody else
>> to keep this group alive through its darkest times, are given, because
>> politically suspect, the rank of powerless retainers,
>
> Carter isn't that good either - the 'serious' category is not about people
> who 'did a lot for the newsgroup' anyway. Carter is a lousy polemist but a
> quite good sonnet writer - problem is that that is about the only thing
> she can do. We'd like to see her experiment more with the medium, prove
> she isn't bound to a single trick that always makes her look well.
This is patently false, Martijn. Even /you/ know this to be so. The pattern
of your "literacy meter" is quite obvious. Painfully so.
You, Martijn, are an incompetent polemist. Evidently you /know/ this to be
so, since you went to the trouble of ranking all the regulars here on your
little Kannibal website in the first place. Your reasoning and motive are
quite plain. This very thing is why I'm not a part of my civilization.
I suppose I was wrong about you; when I was 22 I was insufferably arrogant,
and when we had our recent conversation, this was the age I imagined you to
be. By inviting me to your website, I've discovered you are 31. Obviously
you haven't even started down your path yet, and, Son; the hour's getting
late.
Julie's sonnets are quite powerful, sometimes painfully so. You claim to
want her to experiment in other forms, but then, you have never attained
this level of power in the first place. There's an American saying "Why fix
it if it ain't broke?" You experiment for obvious reasons; Julie needn't
even consider it--she has found her art and she uses it extremely well. The
reason you want her to "fix what ain't broke" is as obvious as the rest of
it.
>> while others
>> like Mikel Potts, a long-time participant who has regularly submitted
>> poetry, helpful comments,
>
> Rather mediocre poetry and parroting comments, I never thought he was any
> good.
> I never thought you were any good either.
Heh.
I am actually a visual artist, and as a poet, I make a pretty good graphic
designer. I write poetry mostly as payment for hanging out here, and in
doing so I have discovered that I have a desire to write /good/ poetry. My
learning curve will never be impressive because of both my own mental
limits, and because I have at least two complete lives I'm living outside of
this new interest of mine. I try.
But all arts have more commonalties than differences. Painting, sculpture,
architecture, poetry, prose--they are all formed by a single set of
principles. In painting class, for instance, we discovered that the least
valuable critique one can give a painting is to say "worthless" or "good" or
"I like it" or "it's mediocre." "Why" is what's important. And formulating
"why" is often extraordinarily difficult. You abrogate this essential
element in most of your critiques, and at most camouflage this lack by
making gross mischaracterizations and by pigeon holing. You do so quite
obviously to appear more astute than you really are, and the end result is
that you are simply a lousy critic.
You think it's a ridiculous notion ("American" is what you said, IIRC) that
the Martial Arts should be considered an art at all. It's actually an
oriental notion, but even so, it's quite pedestrian of you to think so. The
martial arts are definitely true art in every sense of the word, and I often
compare poetry to both painting and the martial arts because I am quite
familiar with them, and I know there are others here who are well acquainted
with them also. The thing about the martial arts, which seems easier to
understand in /them/ than it is in any other art, is that what is required
first and foremost is discipline.
The student who cannot or will not submit to discipline will never attain
more than a white belt. It doesn't matter how athletic (or brilliant) he is,
it doesn't matter how hard he works at it; Without discipline, he is not a
martial artist. Perhaps it seems harsh, but those who are allowed to
experiment; those who are allowed to add to the art; these are required to
be Black Belts first. A Black Belt is the master of the form, and it is
thought that only a master of the form truly understands it and, therefore,
only he/she can validly change it. Quite logical, don't you think?
Twenty four centuries ago a Greek painter wrote this:
"This I say, even though they that hear believe not: I declare that the
clear limits of this art have been found under my hand, and the goal is set
that may not be overpassed, though there is no human work with which fault
may not be found."
If this is your goal, to be able to utter this statement as Parrhasius did
to an audience who /agreed/ with it, then you have a long, long road ahead
of you. The process had better be more important to you than the goal, also,
as not many who walk down that road ever see its end.
---
Art
Dale Houstman
> >
> >Martijn Benders <maan...@chello.nl> said
> >>
> >>Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a group,
> >
> >we don' need no steenkin' leaders...
> >--
> >
> >sophie
>
> ms. sophie, aren't we MORE than just okay, though?
>
> still, not a bad meter.
>
> except for dale in the first category? please.
>
> :D
>
Seriously though... As I said, I'm no fan of hierarchy, BUT I'll put my
"output" up against anyone's in this group. There's no doubt I may be an
"acquired taste" but - objectively as possible - I think my work - if there
must be such a listing - deserves at least a gold star for interest. I'm
sure Josh (and a hundred others) can outdo me in producing sonnets and
villanelles, but I'm as certain Josh (and a hundred others) would realize
that is not what I'm about. This is more a matter of parallel qualities
rather than a continuum.
At least that's what my bruised ego says - today.
dmh
Joy Yourcenar
<rosa1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
***Well, I'd rather be Damned than be stuck in one of the
***middle columns, or not appear at all. So here goes.
no such thing as bad publicity, eh?
***
***Martijn, you are an overbearing, pompous bore, and a sloppy
***debater. I was surprised you received so much positive
***feedback on your star poem, because I personally found it
***boring.
So there you are. There's no getting around taste. There are several
poets who post here that I almost never read, not because there's
anything wrong in or with their poetry but because it just doesn't do
anything for me. Funny, though, I do tend to assume that, in the
absence of technical flaws, the fault is mine and go on to see if
someone I find more interesting, like Dale, Martjiin or Peter Ross has
posted. I have yet to like or even understand what Pete's up to
poetically but I think the mental gymnastics trying to figure it out
are good for me. I know I was born without a Hemingway appreciation
gland which has severely impacted my ability to do anything but wish
he'd popped himself sooner.
There are at least three obvious errors in your FAQ,
Don't be coy. Share!
***and your posts frequently contain typos.
***
***Sincerely,
I've never liked that one. It always makes me think the person is
insincere. Loosen up, ditch "sincerely", this is usenet. Given the
lack of a formal salutation, you're half way to letting yourself go.
***Rosa Rugosa
***
Be honest, now. I bet your Dutch posts are just riddled with typos.
Joy
My Norwegian consists of one word: Lizzy!
***Martian Benders wrote:
***>
***> Sheard's dismissed. A fine fellow, but an awkward guy to lead a
group,
***> let a alone compose a FAQ for it. The AAPC FAQ team has composed
a new
***> FAQ which is much more transparent and lucid as the old one,
which was a
***> complicated and rather useless document for the beginner who
wants to
***> know his place.
***>
***> The new FAQ is located at:
***>
***> http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
***>
***> It is the start of a new policy in AAPC, more strictness and
more
***> clarity, less bollocks.
***>
***> The Official AAPC FAQ TEAM
Joy Yourcenar
Mythologies www.evolvingbeauty.com/myth
icon/graphy www.evolvingbeauty.com/icon
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt, British prime-minister (1759-1806)
Joy Yourcenar
<dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
***
***"Non Functional" <Crank...@webtv.net> wrote in message
***news:23920-3D...@storefull-2374.public.lawson.webtv.net...
***> I have a question for you Martjin. Since you say If one of the
people
***> from the lesser two categories praises your poem not to post for
three
***> months, does that mean that if we like it that it most likely is
a BAD
***> poem???? In that case, I must tell you that I am a fan of Robert
***> Browning, Robert Frost, TS Elliot, Robert Graves, and William
Alligham.
***> So I guess they are all TERRIBLE poets.
***>
***
***Ahhh: but you notice they don't post here anymore?
***
***dmh
***
Remember the brouhaha when we tried to get the "only live people" can
post rule? Screeching cries of discrimination ripped through the
ether. On a more practical level, there's really no way to tell who's
alive, who's dead and who is pretending to be his grief stricken
girlfriend posting after his faux suicide.
Expediency wins again.
Joy
Joshua P. Hill
I don't think many would begrudge you your position there, or for that
matter at the head of our scurvy little pack.
Martijn Benders
>
> You, Martijn, are an incompetent polemist. Evidently you /know/ this to be
> so, since you went to the trouble of ranking all the regulars here on your
> little Kannibal website in the first place. Your reasoning and motive are
> quite plain. This very thing is why I'm not a part of my civilization.
I'm aware that some people don't like hierarchies and ranks, but most of the
anarchists can be found in the 'quite ok' category with the exception of Dale.
That kind of proves we bear no grudge against the anarchists, in fact we don't
really expect anyone to 'like' this hierarchy - the ideal situation would be a
newsgroup consisting only of serious participants.
> I suppose I was wrong about you; when I was 22 I was insufferably arrogant,
> and when we had our recent conversation, this was the age I imagined you to
> be. By inviting me to your website, I've discovered you are 31. Obviously
> you haven't even started down your path yet, and, Son; the hour's getting
> late.
Art, there isn't any 'path'. I don't consider myself to be overly arrogant, I
seriously think that I am a rather modest person who is interested to bring some
simple but effective solutions to the 'AAPC problem'. I've tried the same system
in a dutch literary group and it worked quite well. It even brought back some of
the more serious writers who had long given up on the newsgroup, which was in as
bad a state as AAPC is now.
> Julie's sonnets are quite powerful, sometimes painfully so.
She does write some nice sonnets seomtimes, yes.
> You claim to
> want her to experiment in other forms, but then, you have never attained
> this level of power in the first place.
I don't consider myself to be less of a poet than Julie, for various reasons but
let it be clear that it's certainly not up to you to decide what's the real
meat.
> There's an American saying "Why fix
> it if it ain't broke?" You experiment for obvious reasons; Julie needn't
> even consider it--she has found her art and she uses it extremely well.
This is quite obviously untrue. Think of a painter who would use a single form
all his life: painting self portraits. This painter can develop into someone who
is painstakingly good at painting self portraits, but who on earth wants to see
an oeuvre that consists only of self portaits? I know I don't. There's a reason
for example Picasso was a much superior artist than many of his contemporaries,
and that reason lies in the ability to experiment, to be diverse, to try
different things, and all that kind of stuff. The idea that it's enough to
'stick to the sonnet' seems popular with a certain type of poets who seem to be
merely interested to play 'master of the pigeon-hole' instead of truly
contemplating their own work.
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
Oh, you simple-minded fuckwad.
Here you have set up an ostensible FAQ, all on your lonesome, which
just *happens* to establish a hierarchy which puts you at the top, and
gives you the right to put people anywhere you want, and denies that
right to others, and says you can't be fired, and even gives you the
right to post off-topic posts, while denying that right to others
(some animals being more equal than others) -- and here you have used
that ostensible FAQ to put people exactly where you want them, having
carefully designed it to lend objectivity to some decisions and the
appeareance of objectivity to others so that you can achieve your real
goal, whichis making people act as if they like and respect you
despite your almost daily displays of boorish arrogance, crass
hypocrisy, vile bigotry, shameful ignorance, embarassing childishness,
loony egotism and low rudeness -- here you have set up an ostenisble
FAQ, and misrepresented it as being in some sense representative of
the opinions, decisions, and rules of this group, who, if they had
been asked who they most respect here -- as they have been in the past
-- would have provided a rather different list of names, one which
would very likely not have included your own -- and who would almost
certainly be opposed to the notion that one should establish a
hierarchy and hand out rights and priviledges as if poetry could be
judged, or newsgroups governed, by a bunch of pompous poetry syndics.
Martijn's phony FAQ. Get it? Martijn's little dick, to stroke as he
pleases. But not my FAQ, and not anybody else's -- and I'll thank you
to stop misrepresenting it as if it were.
Dale Houstman
"Joy Yourcenar" <penelopeREMOVE...@evolvingbeauty.com> wrote in
message news:3d3398fc....@news.hfx.eastlink.ca...
I am my own dead girlfriend. She's nice. When she comes over, I have to
leave. Then she steals my faux-Empire chairs and leaves me only memories,
which I promptly sell on e-bay so I can buy more makeup. It's confusing, but
I've heard two can live cheaper than one.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
news:kj63jucojhepqsscp...@4ax.com...
With a name like Smuckers, it has to be good.
dmh
Rosa Rugosa
>
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 23:55:54 -0400, Rosa Rugosa
> <rosa1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ***Well, I'd rather be Damned than be stuck in one of the
> ***middle columns, or not appear at all. So here goes.
>
> no such thing as bad publicity, eh?
I just figure I might as well get it over with. It's going
to happen sooner or later. Probably on Tuesday, when Julie
posts my lyrics-game poem.
> ***
> ***Martijn, you are an overbearing, pompous bore, and a sloppy
> ***debater. I was surprised you received so much positive
> ***feedback on your star poem, because I personally found it
> ***boring.
>
> So there you are. There's no getting around taste. There are several
> poets who post here that I almost never read, not because there's
> anything wrong in or with their poetry but because it just doesn't do
> anything for me.
Yeah. I'm still developing my poetic tastebuds, though, so I
don't really have strong patterns of like and dislike yet.
Or more accurately, the patterns keep changing.
Funny, though, I do tend to assume that, in the
> absence of technical flaws, the fault is mine and go on to see if
> someone I find more interesting, like Dale, Martjiin or Peter Ross has
> posted.
That's a good policy. Plus, sometimes I'll change my mind
about a poem after reading someone else's comments, because
they've made me see something I missed before. But other
times I just can't see what they're seeing.
I have yet to like or even understand what Pete's up to
> poetically but I think the mental gymnastics trying to figure it out
> are good for me.
I liked his last two, but it took a lot of work to get to
that point. Looking up German words when they're actually
multiple words smushed together--ugh. But in both cases, the
more I read it, the more I found that the images and
associations weren't absurd or radical at all, but classic:
madonna/whore, moth-woman/flame-man. I like that--hacking
through all that difficult modernity and finding, at the
bottom, something timeless.
I know I was born without a Hemingway appreciation
> gland
You mean the prostate gland.
> which has severely impacted my ability to do anything but wish
> he'd popped himself sooner.
> There are at least three obvious errors in your FAQ,
>
> Don't be coy. Share!
No thanks, I don't like fighting.
> ***and your posts frequently contain typos.
> ***
> ***Sincerely,
>
> I've never liked that one. It always makes me think the person is
> insincere. Loosen up, ditch "sincerely", this is usenet. Given the
> lack of a formal salutation, you're half way to letting yourself go.
Me, loosen my corset? In mixed company? Oh, good heavens...
> ***Rosa Rugosa
> ***
>
> Be honest, now. I bet your Dutch posts are just riddled with typos.
I can honestly say that I have never made a single Dutch
post that contained a typo.
Art McNutt
maan...@chello.nl wrote on 7/14/02 10:43 AM:
[snip]
>> There's an American saying "Why fix
>> it if it ain't broke?" You experiment for obvious reasons; Julie needn't
>> even consider it--she has found her art and she uses it extremely well.
>
> This is quite obviously untrue. Think of a painter who would use a single form
> all his life: painting self portraits. This painter can develop into someone
> who
> is painstakingly good at painting self portraits, but who on earth wants to
> see
> an oeuvre that consists only of self portaits? I know I don't. There's a
> reason
> for example Picasso was a much superior artist than many of his
> contemporaries,
> and that reason lies in the ability to experiment, to be diverse, to try
> different things, and all that kind of stuff. The idea that it's enough to
> 'stick to the sonnet' seems popular with a certain type of poets who seem to
> be
> merely interested to play 'master of the pigeon-hole' instead of truly
> contemplating their own work.
>
Picasso's greatest achievement was bringing Van Gogh his long overdue
spotlight. In the vast panoply of art, only his Cubism is recognized as a
valuable contribution, and he moved on from it before the century had really
warmed up. Cubism is an empty form, anyway.
Julie's sonnets don't compare to "a painter who only paints self portraits"
though you should remember there was another Dutch painter who was rather
good who only painted portraits, let's see, he's rather obscure because he
was so boring..what was his name...oh yeah: Rembrandt. Vermeer painted
/mostly/ portraits, and he certainly is not "boring" though he may have used
the camera obscura to produce many of his works.
Now Lichtenstein became boring because he was a one trick pony, and he knew
it. But he had very little to say in the first place--though I /liked/ what
he said--yet it /did/ become boring. This is the /real/ issue. Didn't stop
him from paying off the mortgage crankin' out the same stuff year after
year, though. When he jumped off his boat, nobody noticed.
Boring is a subjective value judgement, after all. Subjective value
judgements are valid, but they have no place in criticism.
Julie sticking with sonnets could more be compared to Reubens style: epic
sized canvases, epic subject matter, and his trademark loose, painterly
approach. Not that this is "Julie" but their forms create a framework for
both artists--which never becomes "boring" and allows both to say what they
wish to say.
The more you try to defend yourself, the more you reveal yourself as a clod.
Your classification system in your "literacy meter" is what it is, Martijn.
I needn't explain this to you, because you /know/ it. Certainly, I would
have worried about you if you had classified me as serious or okay, because
I'm neither, but the story behind how you put people where you did is rather
naked.
Subjectivity is not a basis for criticism precisely because of what you did.
Further more, I believe when you created it, you /started/ it with Dennis
Hammes in the "worthless" category and then built it from there. Silly
Rabbit, poetry is for adults.
---
Art
Martijn Benders
>
> Here you have set up an ostensible FAQ, all on your lonesome, which
> just *happens* to establish a hierarchy which puts you at the top, and
> gives you the right to put people anywhere you want, and denies that
> right to others, and says you can't be fired, and even gives you the
> right to post off-topic posts, while denying that right to others
...... snip rest of the whine
And? As I understand it your main objection is the fact that I composed this FAQ
instead of someone else. However, since you're not a poet it's clear that it is of
no concern to you who should or shouldn't have composed the FAQ. The 'useless'
category consists of people who are 'useless' when it comes to poetry exclusively
- I mean you're possibly a really good cook, or maybe you have a wonderful stamp
collection, etc. You're just not a poet. Don't you think it's time you realize
that and stop trying to meddle your nose in affairs that in no way concern you? I
mean, what's wrong with you to come post here in the first place?
M.H.Benders
Rosa Rugosa
besides sonnets.
Martijn Benders
>
> Picasso's greatest achievement was bringing Van Gogh his long overdue
> spotlight.
That's enough 'Art McNutt' for at least 3 decades.
Into the pit with this charlatan! The FAQ is up to date!
The only official FAQ for the newsgroup AAPC:
http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>I'm aware that some people don't like hierarchies and ranks, but most of the
>anarchists can be found in the 'quite ok' category with the exception of Dale.
>That kind of proves we bear no grudge against the anarchists, in fact we don't
>really expect anyone to 'like' this hierarchy - the ideal situation would be a
>newsgroup consisting only of serious participants.
"We"?
As if poets can be organzied into hierarchies and ranks, anyway -- do
you really think that a poem gets one jot better or worse because some
third-rate wannabe puts a stamp on its identity papers?
>Art, there isn't any 'path'. I don't consider myself to be overly arrogant, I
>seriously think that I am a rather modest person who is interested to bring some
>simple but effective solutions to the 'AAPC problem'. I've tried the same system
>in a dutch literary group and it worked quite well. It even brought back some of
>the more serious writers who had long given up on the newsgroup, which was in as
>bad a state as AAPC is now.
Uh, riiight. Chuck's gonna go flyin' out the window because and never
show his face here again because he's not on your list. Sam and Jerry
and Gary are going to come back so you can promote them if they say
nice things about you. I'm going to go back to making comments to
incompetent beginners who disappear without a fare-thee-well and post
poems so that they can be judged by someone who thinks Yeats is a
mediocre poet, or, way way worse, arrogate to myself the pompous and
art-defeating task of assessing the works of others not as a matter of
personal opinion, but as some kind of figure-skating judge.
>> Julie's sonnets are quite powerful, sometimes painfully so.
>
>She does write some nice sonnets seomtimes, yes.
>
>> You claim to
>> want her to experiment in other forms, but then, you have never attained
>> this level of power in the first place.
>
>I don't consider myself to be less of a poet than Julie, for various reasons but
>let it be clear that it's certainly not up to you to decide what's the real
>meat.
No, of course not. And who would that be? I wonder. Could it be . . .
Dale? No? Could it be . . . Mike? No . . . I know! It must be --
Dennis! No??? What? It's Martijn? Wow, I never would have guessed.
>> There's an American saying "Why fix
>> it if it ain't broke?" You experiment for obvious reasons; Julie needn't
>> even consider it--she has found her art and she uses it extremely well.
>
>This is quite obviously untrue. Think of a painter who would use a single form
>all his life: painting self portraits. This painter can develop into someone who
>is painstakingly good at painting self portraits, but who on earth wants to see
>an oeuvre that consists only of self portaits? I know I don't. There's a reason
>for example Picasso was a much superior artist than many of his contemporaries,
>and that reason lies in the ability to experiment, to be diverse, to try
>different things, and all that kind of stuff. The idea that it's enough to
>'stick to the sonnet' seems popular with a certain type of poets who seem to be
>merely interested to play 'master of the pigeon-hole' instead of truly
>contemplating their own work.
Oh, give me a break. Some very great artists have occupied very narrow
niches: think of Chopin, who wrote only for the piano. Shakespeare
wrote sonnets again and again, almost all in the same ABAB CDCD EFEF
GG form. Louis Armtrong never tried his hand at a symphony. T S Eliot
never wrote a novel, and Little Richard didn't try to be a crooner;
and Emily Dickinson didn't write epics, but rather little short things
with dashes in them.
Julie has been writing poetry since she was a teenager. She's had
every opportunity to experiment, and knows damn well what she likes to
write without your help.
Look, you idiot, all you've demonstrated here is your willingness to
impose your own narrow, bureacratic conception of art on people who
neither need nor want your meddling.
You should be teaching in David's Academy, taking talented young
artists and molding them into taxidermists. Innovation is not
something that can be enforced, because anything that can be isn't
innovation at all, but merely the appearance of it. That should be
obvious, but it's not obvious to you, coming as you do from a culture
where the rebellionists union dictates that all revolutions end at
5:00 PM so that everybody can have a leisurely dinner. Like Ataturk,
you order your people to speak and vote freely, and then tell them
what to speak of and who to vote for.
How would you feel if Julie decided *your* poetic output was too
limited, and ordered you to write sonnets?
I thought so.
Dale Houstman
I find almost all of this to be dubious. How is Cubism an "empty form"? The
main focus of painting is light and line and color: Cubism deals centrally
with such things. And it is a bit dismissive to say "only" Picasso's Cubism
is recognized as a valuable contribution. I'm not even sure what that means
really. And even his last paintings are still working out some of the
concerns that Cubism brings to the plate, so I don't think you can say he
had moved on either. And the paintings of his "Blue" period are still quite
highly regarded, as are his many engravings, in whic he reveals a feel for
pure line that is almsot startling, putting to rest (for anyone who bothers
to actually look) the notion that he couldn't draw.
dmh
>
Art McNutt
wrote on 7/14/02 11:44 AM:
> You're both missing the point. She writes other stuff
> besides sonnets.
>
Yes, thank you Rosa, you are correct. She, herself, though, has stated that
she favors them nearly to the point of exclusivity. So in a sense, it is
still valid to talk about her sonnets as her primary form.
The real point is that no one belongs here or makes better use of this
medium than she does. She has only two peers, and one belongs in published
books, not on usenet, though he too makes good use of this medium. The other
is that turd from the the UK who didn't even make Martijn's list--though
he's trying to get him nominated through his poetic parliament.
---
Art
Non Functional
thing. :_ (
( Robert Browning, Robert Frost, TS Elliot, Robert Graves, and William
Alligham).
Joshua P. Hill
Uh, right.
*You're* not a poet.
See, we're even.
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>The only official FAQ for the newsgroup AAPC:
>http://www.kannibaal.nl/aapc.htm
You tedious, blatantly in-your-face liar.
Rosa Rugosa
>
> Joy Yourcenar wrote:
> >
> I know I was born without a Hemingway appreciation
> > gland
>
> You mean the prostate gland.
On second thought, I did like a few of his short stories.
Hills Like White Elephants was good, and that one about
going on a traumatic hunting trip as a kid. Depressing, but
good.
Joshua P. Hill
I agree.
Just another example of why we shouldn't pigeonhole people based on
who likes or dislikes their works (or, in the case of Martijn,
pretends to).
Martijn Benders
>
> *You're* not a poet.
I am mentioned as a 'favorite poet' by one of hollands most famous young poets, Ingmar
Heytze:
This, amongst other things, such as the fact that I actually write poetry and don't
spend all my time polluting this newsgroup with all kind of offtopic stuff, makes me a
poet.
I'm perfectly confident you don't have any such references, and as you write mere tripe
as well the conclusion 'you're not a poet' is a quite safe one.
M.H.Benders