Picking the 10 Best Poets / S D Rodrian
Aardvark
in the sense that you can predict any given work
from any given individual will be "good" or "bad."
Shakespeare wrote a lot of massively boring leagues
& leagues of words; and some of the "worst" poets
of all are those blessed souls who are celebrated for
their singularly unparalleled one poem wonders (W E
Henley's ubiquitous "Invictus").
Without going into the usually lengthy lecture on
what constitutes "Great" or even "good" poetry, here
are a few judgments traveling backwards through time
(hint: study what has survived across the ages)...
Intelligence is what creates good poetry because
poetry is at its core a setting down of our thoughts;
and if our thoughts are dumb, then that's what must
follow as our poetry. Thus the best poets have been
very intelligent persons (Shakespeare, whether "he"
really was Shakespeare or "he" was de Vere ... and
Emily Dickinson, who was not merely a most repressed
neurotic but manifestly a keen and insightful observer/
discoverer of the cosmic in the minutiae around her).
It is very likely that almost everything (though never
all, certainly) by those two poets will prove very good
or even very great poetry.
There are a handful of poets in every age who manage
to write a dozen or more truly distinguished poems
(and some, such as Robert Frost, Dylan Thomas, e e
cummings, T S Eliot, W B Yeats, Keats & Shelley,
Browning & Whitman, Tennyson & Wordsworth, Poe
and Byron, Burns & Blake, Edna Millay & Marianne
Moore, Ezra Pound & Wallace Stevens, A E Housman,
Hart Crane, Milton, Pope ... have all unquestionably
contributed more than just one dozen each).
And so those are the poets on whose work you should
probably concentrate first in order to discern the essence
of "good" poetry (even though I have already given you
the true essence of good and competent poetry: a good
and competent mind). There's a handful of others to be
included, if you're so inclined: Mathew Arnorld, Longfellow,
Stephen Spender, Thomas Hardy, Gerard Manley Hopkins,
Coleridge, Andrew Marvell, John Donne & Ben Jonson,
Marlowe & Herrick, George Baker, Elizabeth B Browning,
W H Auden, W C Williams ... poets who perhaps have
written fewer "great" poems, but who have nevertheless
unquestionably written more "great" poems than most
persons who've tried their hand at it. You should keep
those poets in mind as well when you make up your mind
to inquire into which qualities are more likely to foster
the creation (by you?) of a great/good poem (if the thing's
in you).
And forget about trying to imagine that "modern" poetry
is "better" than "traditional" poetry; or that the opposite
is true: Poetry is what our language says we are thinking.
The "thinking" trumps "the slang."
There are probably many more great poems which have
expressed great thoughts about the most mundane of
matters than there are great poems about "great" subjects:
A great mind will conceive of something great to say;
and a small mind speaking through a megaphone will
still holler out a lot of pointless nonsense.
This, no doubt, will leads us to ask the ages-old question
of what ever happen to Leigh Hunt (who in his time was
popularly considered a "greater" poet than Keats or Shelley
and most of their contemporaries)... and all such "wonders?"
Well, the answer is simple: They did NOT write great poems.
However popular the works of many a song lyricist may be
("the answer, my friend, is blow'n in the wind")... once you
remove the melody, as it were, they are revealed/exposed
as the pointless mouthings they are. (If the poem is not the
answer--does not contain the answer, if the point of the
poem is to point out that you just don't know... then it's a
pretty pointless poem, absent one hell of a great redeeming
melody). This is just as true of every other "extraneous
artifact" which artificially raises the popularity of a given
"poem" or "poet" (such as the efforts of mutual-admiration
societies in whatever forms they take, from mere access to
"a" publication, or membership in academic/"civic clubs"
whose "dues" are paid in currencies other than just poems).
Ben Jonson's marvelous lyric, "Drink to me only with thine
eyes..." is chockful of striking metaphors even 400 years
later (and in spite of the unforgettable melody married to it).
This is certainly NOT the case with Berlin's "White Christmas."
For the sake of "the slang," here are a few 20th Century
poets who, in my sole judgment, have written great lines
(which may yet make of them candidates to be considered
to have been among the great poets)... in no particular order
of importance, although you may note some "popular"
omissions, certainly. These are "modern" masters who
actually managed to create extremely intelligent/competent,
purposeful poetry in & of itself (from whatever why they wrote)
..
Basil Bunting, Grey Burr, Ted Hughes, W S Merwin, Richard
Wilbur, Allen Tate, Theodore Weiss, Archibald MacLeish,
Vassar Miller, Vachel Lindsay, W D Snodgrass, Ralph
Pomeroy, J V Cunningham, X J Kennedy, James Wright,
Howard Nemerov, Robert Lowell, Edgar Bowers, Conrad
Aiken, Edith Sitwell, Elinor Wylie, James Dickey, Kenneth
Rexroth, Louis MacNeice, Robert Horan, G S Fraser, Sylvia
Plath, Selden Rodman, Robert Penn Warren, Laurie Lee,
Marya Zaturenska, Oscar Williams... & some random notes:
[I never found a poem by Robert Graves I thought was great.]
[I remember writing on the edge of a Robert Creeley poem:
"This guy's a jerk." ("Kore" ?) But I liked his, "The Signboard" ,
"I Know A Man" , "After Lorca" & "lots others" of his poems.]
[I consider Stephen Crane nuts, and anybody who likes him
perverse.] [I have no idea why the great W H Auden has fallen
out of favor with some persons, even though perhaps he wrote
more than he should have.] [Although I enjoy W C Williams'
"The Yachts" ... I don't think much of the bulk of his work. Sorry.
I enjoy/admire a lot of Whitman's lines, but, frankly, I find his
endless enumerations annoying.] [Wordsworth is maligned now
for what he did, rather than worshipped for what he wrote...
as he instead ought to be.] [I have never been able to find the
poetry in George Herbert, hard as I've tried to.] [Ferlinghetti's
"Underwear" is funny, albeit screw the sob's politics.] That's it.
There are a few other "extremely" well regarded "modern"
poets about whom I can't say anything especially positive.
Poems/phrases which can be reduced to, "I hurt," or "I feel
bad," "I like this" or "I really, really hate that," or adjectives
for their own sake (usually "dirty words" or quite outrageous
insults)... this is what children do all the time and will never
be real poetry. (In fact, I don't know of anybody who is so
"gentle a soul" as to even be outraged by these antics any
more.) Do not confuse a novel/interesting way of looking at
something ... with just merely telling people how you feel
about the thing--who cares about that outside of your mother?!
Edwin Markham's "The Man With The Hoe" , Edwin Arlington
Robinson's "Richard Cory" , Richard Eberhart's "The Groundhog" ,
Edwin Muir's "The Road" , John Davidson's "Thirty Bob a Week" ,
Emily Bronte's "Remembrance" , Frank O'Hara's "To The
Harbormaster" , Adrienne Rich's "33" , Robert Lowell's "Caligula" ,
Paris Leary's "September 1, 1965" , X J Kennedy's "Heartside
Story" , John Masefield's "Sea-Fever" , W H Davies's "Leisure" ,
Francis Thompson's "The Hound of Heaven" , Edmund Waller's
"Go, Lovely Rose" , William Oldys's "The Fly" , Thomas Carew's
"A Song" , Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach" and Thomas Gray's
"Elegy Written In A Country Churchyard" are some masterpieces
you can mine for the essence of what constitutes great poetry ...
by poets who although they only produced a few great works,
yet managed to touch the greatest heights of this great art with
their handful of undisputed masterpieces.
Study on! *
S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
* I dare not prompt anyone to actually write: Poetry?
There is no more time-wasting a person in this world
than one who goes out of his way to encourage people
to write "poetry" (or to "talk," for that matter).
.
George Dance
> ... There are really no "good" or "bad" poets
> in the sense that you can predict any given work
> from any given individual will be "good" or "bad."
I enjoyed reading your article (though I thought it could benefit from
a good editor), and agreed much of it including your general thesis: a
person should start by finding/judging good and great poems, and
derive their judgements of good and great poets from those more
fundamental ones.
So I haven't snipped anything, but left it all in to be read. However,
I had to interrupt here, because it's not something that's debatable
on alt.arts.poetry.comments. Both here and on rec.arts.poems, it's
been received wisdom for years that the 10 Best Poets are
unquestionably:
> S D Rodrianhttp://sdrodrian.com
George Dance
> On 20-Feb-2011, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > . Both here and on rec.arts.poems, it's
> > been received wisdom for years that the 10 Best Poets are
> > unquestionably:
>
<unsnip>
http://tinyurl.com/the-sp-2 </us>
<quote>
On Dec 21, 3:33 pm, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:
> list of *shit people*.
> Team
> Barbara’s Cat:
> Rob Evans:
> ggamble:
> Dale M. Houstman:
> Peter J. Ross:
> “On the Highways and Bi-Ways God Built”:
> Cheerleaders
> Karla :
> Cythera:
> Gwyneth :
> Rik Roots :
> It's in the archives.
</q>
> Apparently
> am I right?
Well, we'll see who agrees.
Will Dockery
>George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Apparently
> > > am I right?
>
> > Well, we'll see who agrees.
>
This from Gary Gamble, the "man" who has sniffed behind Chuck for
about a decade now... heh.
--
"She Sleeps Tight" / Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uGY157cpiU
Will Dockery
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:16 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > sniffed behind
>
> You ever see the dog whisperer? He says behind sniffing promotes pack
> assimilation, and good socialization skills.
Definitely a "Pete The Dog" moment... heh.
--
Shadowville All-Stars at Doo-Nanny 2011:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=153228701400838
George Dance
>
> George Dance
>
Will Dockery
> in the sense that you can predict any given work
> from any given individual will be "good" or "bad."
> Shakespeare wrote a lot of massively boring leagues
> & leagues of words; and some of the "worst" poets
> of all are those blessed souls who are celebrated for
> their singularly unparalleled one poem wonders (W E
> Henley's ubiquitous "Invictus").
<snipped for brevity>
> This, no doubt, will leads us to ask the ages-old question
> of what ever happen to Leigh Hunt (who in his time was
> popularly considered a "greater" poet than Keats or Shelley
> and most of their contemporaries)... and all such "wonders?"
> Well, the answer is simple: They did NOT write great poems.
> However popular the works of many a song lyricist may be
> ("the answer, my friend, is blow'n in the wind")... once you
> remove the melody, as it were, they are revealed/exposed
> as the pointless mouthings they are. (If the poem is not the
> answer--does not contain the answer, if the point of the
> poem is to point out that you just don't know... then it's a
> pretty pointless poem, absent one hell of a great redeeming
> melody). This is just as true of every other "extraneous
> artifact" which artificially raises the popularity of a given
> "poem" or "poet" (such as the efforts of mutual-admiration
> societies in whatever forms they take, from mere access to
> "a" publication, or membership in academic/"civic clubs"
> whose "dues" are paid in currencies other than just poems).
> Ben Jonson's marvelous lyric, "Drink to me only with thine
> eyes..." is chockful of striking metaphors even 400 years
> later (and in spite of the unforgettable melody married to it).
> This is certainly NOT the case with Berlin's "White Christmas."
I snipped your long and interesting essay to focus on the above.
"Keats or Shelley" [...] "They did NOT write great poems."?
--
Music, poetry & video of Will Dockery & Friends:
http://www.youtube.com/user/WDockery
George Dance
SD's sentences tend to be long and convoluted, so that it's sometimes
hard to follow their meanderings; but I get the sense of the above as
"Leigh Hunt [...] and all such 'wonders' [...] did not write great
poems" -- meant to be in contrast to Keats and Shelley, who did write
some.
Will Dockery
Hunt's poetry sounds at least worth reading, as an oddity, if nothing
else:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Henry_Leigh_Hunt
"...In 1816 he made a mark in English literature with the publication
of Story of Rimini... Hunt's flippancy and familiarity, often
degenerating into the ludicrous, subsequently made him a target for
ridicule and parody."
And
"...Leigh Hunt was the original of Harold Skimpole in Bleak House.
"Dickens wrote in a letter of 25 September 1853, 'I suppose he is the
most exact portrait that was ever painted in words! ... It is an
absolute reproduction of a real man'; and a contemporary critic
commented, 'I recognized Skimpole instantaneously; ... and so did
every person whom I talked with about it who had ever had Leigh Hunt's
acquaintance.'"[7] G. K. Chesterton suggested that Dickens "may never
once have had the unfriendly thought, 'Suppose Hunt behaved like a
rascal!'; he may have only had the fanciful thought, 'Suppose a rascal
behaved like Hunt!'" (Chesterton 1906)..."
George Dance
He sounds like a character. I have to confess the only poem of his
that sticks in my head is "Jenny Kissed Me", which I'd call good but
not great.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery wrote:
> >Aardvark <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I've been reading through some Leigh Hunt poetry, and this one is of
interest, with what looks like a bit that T.S. Eliot might have been
referencing in "The Waste Land":
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=173702
A Thought of the Nile
It flows through old hushed Egypt and its sands,
Like some grave mighty thought threading a dream,
And times and things, as in that vision, seem
Keeping along it their eternal stands,—
Caves, pillars, pyramids, the shepherd bands
That roamed through the young world, the glory extreme
Of high Sesostris, and that southern beam,
The laughing queen that caught the world's great hands.
Then comes a mightier silence, stern and strong,
As of a world left empty of its throng,
And the void weighs on us; and then we wake,
And hear the fruitful stream lapsing along
Twixt villages, and think how we shall take
Our own calm journey on for human sake.
-Leigh Hunt
From "The Waste Land":
Madame Sosostris, famous clairvoyante,43
Had a bad cold, nevertheless
Is known to be the wisest woman in Europe,
With a wicked pack of cards.
From the notes to "The Waste Land":
43. A mock Egyptian name (suggested to Eliot by 'Sesostris, the
Sorceress of Ecbatana', the name assumed by a character in Aldous
Huxley's novel Crome Yellow who dresses up as a gypsy to tell fortunes
at a fair).
Which of course goes back to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesostris
"Sesostris was the name of a legendary king of ancient Egypt who led a
military expedition into parts of Europe, as related by Herodotus..."
Interesting stuff.
Will Dockery
>
> <snipped for brev>
>
> -- Will Dockery
And your point is..?
--
Dream Tears / Will Dockery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DgX035Ybafx4
Will Dockery
>Aardvark <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:
>
> > ... There are really no "good" or "bad" poets
> > in the sense that you can predict any given work
> > from any given individual will be "good" or "bad."
>
> I enjoyed reading your article (though I thought it could benefit from
> a good editor), and agreed much of it including your general thesis: a
> person should start by finding/judging good and great poems, and
> derive their judgements of good and great poets from those more
> fundamental ones.
>
> on alt.arts.poetry.comments. Both here and on rec.arts.poems, it's
> been received wisdom for years that the 10 Best Poets are
> unquestionably:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/the-sp-2>
Well, that switches the subject slightly, to a discussion of the 10
Best *Usenet* Poets, to which I'd like to nominated Stuart Leichter,
the hippest of the hip on Usenet.
Will Dockery
lamarlaw...@gmail.com
> ... There are really no "good" or "bad" poets
> in the sense that you can predict any given work
> from any given individual will be "good" or "bad."
> Shakespeare wrote a lot of massively boring leagues
> & leagues of words; and some of the "worst" poets
> of all are those blessed souls who are celebrated for
> their singularly unparalleled one poem wonders (W E
> Henley's ubiquitous "Invictus").
>
> what constitutes "Great" or even "good" poetry, here
> are a few judgments traveling backwards through time
> (hint: study what has survived across the ages)...
>
> Intelligence is what creates good poetry because
> poetry is at its core a setting down of our thoughts;
> and if our thoughts are dumb, then that's what must
> follow as our poetry. Thus the best poets have been
> very intelligent persons (Shakespeare, whether "he"
> really was Shakespeare or "he" was de Vere ... and
> Emily Dickinson, who was not merely a most repressed
> neurotic but manifestly a keen and insightful observer/
> discoverer of the cosmic in the minutiae around her).
>
> It is very likely that almost everything (though never
> all, certainly) by those two poets will prove very good
> or even very great poetry.
>
> There are a handful of poets in every age who manage
> to write a dozen or more truly distinguished poems
> (and some, such as Robert Frost, Dylan Thomas, e e
> cummings, T S Eliot, W B Yeats, Keats & Shelley,
> Browning & Whitman, Tennyson & Wordsworth, Poe
> and Byron, Burns & Blake, Edna Millay & Marianne
> Moore, Ezra Pound & Wallace Stevens, A E Housman,
> Hart Crane, Milton, Pope ... have all unquestionably
> contributed more than just one dozen each).
>
> And so those are the poets on whose work you should
> probably concentrate first in order to discern the essence
> of "good" poetry (even though I have already given you
> the true essence of good and competent poetry: a good
> and competent mind). There's a handful of others to be
> included, if you're so inclined: Mathew Arnorld, Longfellow,
> Stephen Spender, Thomas Hardy, Gerard Manley Hopkins,
> Coleridge, Andrew Marvell, John Donne & Ben Jonson,
> Marlowe & Herrick, George Baker, Elizabeth B Browning,
> W H Auden, W C Williams ... poets who perhaps have
> written fewer "great" poems, but who have nevertheless
> unquestionably written more "great" poems than most
> persons who've tried their hand at it. You should keep
> those poets in mind as well when you make up your mind
> to inquire into which qualities are more likely to foster
> the creation (by you?) of a great/good poem (if the thing's
> in you).
>
> And forget about trying to imagine that "modern" poetry
> is "better" than "traditional" poetry; or that the opposite
> is true: Poetry is what our language says we are thinking.
> The "thinking" trumps "the slang."
>
> There are probably many more great poems which have
> expressed great thoughts about the most mundane of
> matters than there are great poems about "great" subjects:
> A great mind will conceive of something great to say;
> and a small mind speaking through a megaphone will
> still holler out a lot of pointless nonsense.
> This, no doubt, will leads us to ask the ages-old question
> of what ever happen to Leigh Hunt (who in his time was
> popularly considered a "greater" poet than Keats or Shelley
> and most of their contemporaries)... and all such "wonders?"
> Well, the answer is simple: They did NOT write great poems.
> However popular the works of many a song lyricist may be
> ("the answer, my friend, is blow'n in the wind")... once you
> remove the melody, as it were, they are revealed/exposed
> as the pointless mouthings they are. (If the poem is not the
> answer--does not contain the answer, if the point of the
> poem is to point out that you just don't know... then it's a
> pretty pointless poem, absent one hell of a great redeeming
> melody). This is just as true of every other "extraneous
> artifact" which artificially raises the popularity of a given
> "poem" or "poet" (such as the efforts of mutual-admiration
> societies in whatever forms they take, from mere access to
> "a" publication, or membership in academic/"civic clubs"
> whose "dues" are paid in currencies other than just poems).
> Ben Jonson's marvelous lyric, "Drink to me only with thine
> eyes..." is chockful of striking metaphors even 400 years
> later (and in spite of the unforgettable melody married to it).
> This is certainly NOT the case with Berlin's "White Christmas."
>
> poets who, in my sole judgment, have written great lines
> (which may yet make of them candidates to be considered
> to have been among the great poets)... in no particular order
> of importance, although you may note some "popular"
> omissions, certainly. These are "modern" masters who
> actually managed to create extremely intelligent/competent,
> purposeful poetry in & of itself (from whatever why they wrote)
> ..
> Basil Bunting, Grey Burr, Ted Hughes, W S Merwin, Richard
> Wilbur, Allen Tate, Theodore Weiss, Archibald MacLeish,
> Vassar Miller, Vachel Lindsay, W D Snodgrass, Ralph
> Pomeroy, J V Cunningham, X J Kennedy, James Wright,
> Howard Nemerov, Robert Lowell, Edgar Bowers, Conrad
> Aiken, Edith Sitwell, Elinor Wylie, James Dickey, Kenneth
> Rexroth, Louis MacNeice, Robert Horan, G S Fraser, Sylvia
> Plath, Selden Rodman, Robert Penn Warren, Laurie Lee,
> Marya Zaturenska, Oscar Williams... & some random notes:
>
> [I never found a poem by Robert Graves I thought was great.]
> [I remember writing on the edge of a Robert Creeley poem:
> "This guy's a jerk." ("Kore" ?) But I liked his, "The Signboard" ,
> "I Know A Man" , "After Lorca" & "lots others" of his poems.]
> [I consider Stephen Crane nuts, and anybody who likes him
> perverse.] [I have no idea why the great W H Auden has fallen
> out of favor with some persons, even though perhaps he wrote
> more than he should have.] [Although I enjoy W C Williams'
> "The Yachts" ... I don't think much of the bulk of his work. Sorry.
> I enjoy/admire a lot of Whitman's lines, but, frankly, I find his
> endless enumerations annoying.] [Wordsworth is maligned now
> for what he did, rather than worshipped for what he wrote...
> as he instead ought to be.] [I have never been able to find the
> poetry in George Herbert, hard as I've tried to.] [Ferlinghetti's
> "Underwear" is funny, albeit screw the sob's politics.] That's it.
> There are a few other "extremely" well regarded "modern"
> poets about whom I can't say anything especially positive.
>
> Poems/phrases which can be reduced to, "I hurt," or "I feel
> bad," "I like this" or "I really, really hate that," or adjectives
> for their own sake (usually "dirty words" or quite outrageous
> insults)... this is what children do all the time and will never
> be real poetry. (In fact, I don't know of anybody who is so
> "gentle a soul" as to even be outraged by these antics any
> more.) Do not confuse a novel/interesting way of looking at
> something ... with just merely telling people how you feel
> about the thing--who cares about that outside of your mother?!
>
> Edwin Markham's "The Man With The Hoe" , Edwin Arlington
> Robinson's "Richard Cory" , Richard Eberhart's "The Groundhog" ,
> Edwin Muir's "The Road" , John Davidson's "Thirty Bob a Week" ,
> Emily Bronte's "Remembrance" , Frank O'Hara's "To The
> Harbormaster" , Adrienne Rich's "33" , Robert Lowell's "Caligula" ,
> Paris Leary's "September 1, 1965" , X J Kennedy's "Heartside
> Story" , John Masefield's "Sea-Fever" , W H Davies's "Leisure" ,
> Francis Thompson's "The Hound of Heaven" , Edmund Waller's
> "Go, Lovely Rose" , William Oldys's "The Fly" , Thomas Carew's
> "A Song" , Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach" and Thomas Gray's
> "Elegy Written In A Country Churchyard" are some masterpieces
> you can mine for the essence of what constitutes great poetry ...
> by poets who although they only produced a few great works,
> yet managed to touch the greatest heights of this great art with
> their handful of undisputed masterpieces.
>
> Study on! *
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://sdrodrian.com
>
> * I dare not prompt anyone to actually write: Poetry?
> There is no more time-wasting a person in this world
> than one who goes out of his way to encourage people
> to write "poetry" (or to "talk," for that matter).
>
> .
Some of my favorites in here.................
Will Dockery
>
> > ... There are really no "good" or "bad" poets
> > in the sense that you can predict any given work
> > from any given individual will be "good" or "bad."
>
>
> a good editor), and agreed much of it including your general thesis: a
> person should start by finding/judging good and great poems, and
> derive their judgements of good and great poets from those more
> fundamental ones.
>
> on alt.arts.poetry.comments. Both here and on rec.arts.poems, it's
> been received wisdom for years that the 10 Best Poets are
> unquestionably:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/the-sp-2
:)
General Zod
General Zod
> On Feb 20, 7:00 pm, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:
> >
> > > . Both here and on rec.arts.poems, it's
> > > been received wisdom for years that the 10 Best Poets are
> > > unquestionably:
> >
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/the-sp-2 </us>
>
> <quote>
> On Dec 21, 3:33 pm, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:
> > list of *shit people*.
> > Team
> > Barbara’s Cat:
> > Rob Evans:
> > ggamble:
> > Dale M. Houstman:
> > Peter J. Ross:
> > “On the Highways and Bi-Ways God Built”:
> > Cheerleaders
> > Karla :
> > Cythera:
> > Gwyneth :
> > Rik Roots :
> > It's in the archives.
> </q>
>
> > Apparently
> > am I right?
>
>
> Well, we'll see who agrees.
A piece of history here...……..