Freedom by expression
Democritus
I use the grey in between,apparently some have never read anything that
wasn't "grammatically" correct.If it's welsh,dutch, Portuguese,the wrong
tense,etc.,I will use what pleases "me" to convey a thought. Where does
poetry originate?"Thought"
How a person expresses it should be up to the individual,for the most
part.I hear the pedigree toters crying already,not to mention the sheep.
<o> <o>
Roger
Destiny has a way,
of working itself out.
Bobby
Bobby
Democritus <Abd...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23620-38...@storefull-615.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Democritus
^
)~~~) <>"<>"<> "pting"
Mike Billard
Democritus <Abd...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23620-38...@storefull-615.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> You have proper and wrong.
Your inability to understand the true nature of the argument is in no way
surprising. Almost every poem posted to this ng is of the common, garden
variety. There is nothing to indicate the poet is trying to achieve anything
subtle or complex with the spelling and grammar variations found in the
poem. In other words, those variations are typically "wrong" because they're
mistakes. When, in response to someone pointing out grammar and spelling
mistakes, the poet says (as is typically the case) "spelling and grammar
don't matter" he immediately makes the mistakes in his work "wrong." Only
when grammar and spelling *do* matter, do variations from the norm mean
anything. Following me? I doubt it.
> I use the grey in between,apparently some have never read anything that
> wasn't "grammatically" correct.
And you fall short yet again. I've read hundreds, if not thousands, of poems
that weren't "grammatically" correct. What's the difference? The poets could
have made those poems grammatically correct had they chosen to do so, but
did not for *specific* intent and effect. I'm sure the subtle nuances of
that idea are completely lost on you.
> If it's welsh,dutch, Portuguese,the wrong
> tense,etc.,I will use what pleases "me" to convey a thought. Where does
> poetry originate?"Thought"
He swings, he misses! Strike three, you're out. So many poems on this ng
suck for the one reason you've so concisely provided above. To coin a
phrase, "it's the thought that counts." Wrong. To quote somebody who a) has
a lot of credibility, and b) you've probably never heard of, Mallarme once
said to Degas (who also benifits from a & b, I'm sure), ". . .poems are not
made out of ideas, they are made out of words." Think on that for a minute
or two while I go to the fridge to get a drink. Okay, I'm back. Let's
continue. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics has some
interesting things to say regarding this. Here's a nice quote:
"Critics who take meaning or 'theme' (q.v.) as the essence of poetry are
encouraged, of course, by our automatic response to the referential and
semantic character of words, so strong in ordinary language use. But they
neglect the medium."
99% of all variations in grammar and spelling that I have ever seen in poems
posted to this ng has been the result of neglecting the medium.
Unintentionally spelling words wrong and then saying it really doesn't
matter 'cause the "meaning" still comes through is akin to accidentally
spilling paint on your painting and saying it doesn't matter 'cause you can
still tell that it's a man having sex with a pig. If you think the only
reason to create a painting is so the viewer can say "oh that's a horsey,
and that's a field of flowers, and that's a fat naked lady on a blanket",
then it makes sense that you would think the medium for poetry is
unimportant in creating the art.
> How a person expresses it should be up to the individual,for the most
> part.I hear the pedigree toters crying already,not to mention the sheep.
It's hard not to cry when one so ignorant and removed from the art as you
tries to gloss over the importance of accuracy and skill with such a poorly
informed article as this. There is no excuse for poor craftsmanship and
sloppy work. Quit trying to make one up. Either take the time and effort to
learn to do it well (not "right", mind you), or take up a less demanding
hobby.
> <o> <o>
Mike Billard
*is* the contents. I'll let you think on that one for awhile, too. I'll give
you untill tomorrow.
Democritus <Abd...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24880-38...@storefull-617.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Well,what's more important,container or contents? <o> <o>
> ^
> )~~~) <>"<>"<> "pting"
>
nic
I have poetic licence, i WriTe thE
way i waNt
i drop full stops where i
like...
MY CAPITAL leteRs go where i
liKE.
i order from MY PeN, i verse the
way i like (i do my spelling write)
According to My MOod.
i HAve poetic licence.
I put my commers where i like,,((()).
(((my brackets are write((
I REPEAT WHen i likE.
i can't go rong,
i look and i.c.
It's rite.
i REpeat when i liKE. i have
poetic licence!
don't question me????
-----
enough said.
nic.
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 18:35:06 -0500 (EST), Abd...@webtv.net (Democritus)
wrote:
>You have proper and wrong.
>I use the grey in between,apparently some have never read anything that
>wasn't "grammatically" correct.If it's welsh,dutch, Portuguese,the wrong
>tense,etc.,I will use what pleases "me" to convey a thought. Where does
>poetry originate?"Thought"
>How a person expresses it should be up to the individual,for the most
>part.I hear the pedigree toters crying already,not to mention the sheep.
><o> <o>
Redclay 6
pends on what kine of container, an whats innit.
Rick Fry
Mike Billard wrote:
> More proof that you haven't the slightest idea about poetry. The container
> *is* the contents. I'll let you think on that one for awhile, too. I'll give
> you untill tomorrow.
>
> Wow, is that like "the medium is the message"?
> now I understand. Thank you ever so much for your patient, and rational
> elucidation of this concept. You've really opened my eyes!
signed
Roger(You knew it was me all along, didn't you?)
> Democritus <Abd...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:24880-38...@storefull-617.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > Well,what's more important,container or contents? <o> <o>
> > ^
> > )~~~) <>"<>"<> "pting"
> >
Rick Fry
Of what use would your skull be without a brain?
Rick Fry
Redclay 6 wrote:
> Well,what's more important,container or contents?>>
>
Redclay 6
alas, poor yorick, an here i am diggin a well.
Panda
Redclay 6 <redc...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19991107012545...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
How well would your brain work without a skull?>>
alas, poor yorick, an here i am diggin a well.
*LOL
Panda
Democritus
Mike fucked the sheep.
Mike fuct the sheep.
The sheep Mike fucked.
Mike gracefully blew
Mike blew gracefully
Gracefully Mike blew.
Mike blue gracefully.
Which one confuses you?
Words are simply a vessel for thought.
You know,I think,therefore,I am.
It's not,I am grammatically correct,etc,etc.
The true guidelines for writing poetry are few.
sophie
in reply to Democritus <Abd...@webtv.net>, (on Freedom by
expression) ...
>
>Words are simply a vessel for thought.
yarss, an if the vessel got a hole innit, the thoughts leaks out.
>You know,I think,therefore,I am.
>It's not,I am grammatically correct,etc,etc.
no. nor is it "I think, therefore I am a poet"
>The true guidelines for writing poetry are few.
please go away.
--
sophie
dale houstman
Reptilicus wrote
> Words are simply a vessel for thought.
Cognitive scientists are not at all certain this is true, but even if it
were would it excuse using the wrong word for the wrong thought? In other
words: if the vessel you use leaks, where goeth the thought?
> You know,I think,therefore,I am.
This - as marvelous as it was - is irrelevant to your "argument", since you
have not proven where language lies in this formulation: in the "think" or
the "am". What is man without language?
> The true guidelines for writing poetry are few.
And these are?
DMH
Mike Billard
Democritus <Abd...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25066-38...@storefull-613.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Mike fucked the sheep.
> Mike fuct the sheep.
> The sheep Mike fucked.
> Mike gracefully blew
> Mike blew gracefully
> Gracefully Mike blew.
> Mike blue gracefully.
> Which one confuses you?
And this is why your poetry sucks. Words, in poetry, are *not* used simply
for the thought they convey, but also for the sounds they make. Poetry, as
so many of you lazy ignoramuses have failed to learn, is an *aural* artform.
it is meant to be heard, and the way a poem sounds is as important to the
meaning and intent as the semantic and referential meaning. As Mary Oliver
points out, "hush", "be quiet", and "shut up" may all mean the same thing
but they don't all say the same thing. Where William Carlos Williams said
"No ideas but in things", Oliver adds "No things but in the sounds of the
words representing them." If you do not choose the words in your poem as
much for the sound as for the "meaning", then you are not writing poetry.
Your statement above is an insult to poetry, and you're too stupid, or at
least ignorant, to even understand why.
> You know,I think,therefore,I am.
> It's not,I am grammatically correct,etc,etc.
> The true guidelines for writing poetry are few.
And what those guidelines are, I'm sure you haven't a clue.
Democritus
Democritus
"In the mind",it meant nothing if you couldn't write.I've met backwoods
rednecks with more poetic talent than you. I'm shure they can pay
somebody to peck a keyboard,which is all you pompous fools bicker
about.Someday I may need a grunt to proofread,I'll keep you in mind.
Democritus
The groop took turns sucking the unicorn
before it holed up in Soapie darkness.
Not correct,but understood.
pees on yew.
Mike Billard
> Before books,where was poetry stored at?
> "In the mind",it meant nothing if you couldn't write.
Hey, you want to talk the history of poetry? I'll kick your ass all over the
newsgroup on that subject. Your above statement is as irrelevent as anything
I've ever read. It's like saying it didn't matter if you couldn't pilot a
plane in 16th century. Duh! What a genius! Imagine that! It didn't matter if
you couldn't write *prior* to the invention of written language. What
insight. But then, poetry doesn't hold the same purpose or form it did three
thousand, or two thousand, or even one thousand years ago. Are you even
aware of *one* of the things that has changed over the millenia? I don't
think so. For instance, did you know that in Ancient Greek verse was based
on the long and short durations of vowel sounds? And that because the poems
were not read from the page (though plenty of folks could write), but were
heard aloud in performance, the poets used only certain metrical devices at
the end of each line so that the listener would know it was the end of the
line? Wwere you aware of the fact that end rhyme served the same purpose -
as an aural indicator to the listener that the end of the line had been
reached? Do you even know who the earliest poets were (in relation to their
place in society), and for what purpose they created and recited poems? Go
ahead, since you've turned our attention the history of poetry, tell me you
at least know *that*.
In the late twentieth century (that's where we are *right* now, in case your
ignorant of that fact as well), 99.9% of all poetry that is consumed is done
so in the form of an individual reading a poem from a printed text. Prior to
readily available printed texts the notion of half meaning (the ambiguity
that can be caused by a careful line break) was non-existent. Now it is an
important device. Concrete poetry could never have existed in the
exclusively oral tradition. The image of the poem on the page has been, for
an awful long time, as imporant an aspect of the poem as any other. What
good, orally, did it do WS Merwin to abandon capital letters and
punctuation? For what oral purpose did Charles Wright adopt the "low rider",
or "drop down" line? And (so obvious an example I'd be remiss to leave him
out) what good would *any* of dear old ee cummings's experiments be if the
reader were unable to view them on the printed page?
It's all about intent and purpose, Demo. The reader is well aware of the
standard spelling of most words, and is probably clued in on the punctuation
of even fairly complex sentences. Every aspect of the poem is perceived by
the reader as having a purpose, as propelling the poem in one direction or
another. Anything in the poem that is a mistake, whether it be simply a typo
or a result of the poet's laziness and unconcern for craft, is a
distraction. Even if only for one word, it leads the reader down a blind
alley, makes him think something is going on that isn't. The reader, poor
trusting soul that he is, thinks the poet put enough effort into his poem to
get all the elements of the poem the way they should be. So when he sees
"horse" spelled "hors", he doesn't say "sounds the same, means the same", he
says "why is the 'e' missing, what significance does that have on the poem?"
When he discovers it has none, and that it is just a mistake, he now has
reason to question every other element in the poem. Here's an example. Hope
you take the time to read it. It's called I Know a Man and is by Robert
Creeley:
As I sd to my
friend, because I am
always talking, --John, I
sd, which was not his
name, the darkness, sur-
rounds us, what
can we do against
it, or else, shall we &
why not, buy a goddamn big car,
drive, he sd, for
christ's sake, look
out where yr going.
If Creeley were to read this poem aloud, do you think he'd pronounce "sd" or
"yr" or the ampersand any differently than as "said" or "your" or "and",
respectively? Nope. Then there must be some significance to how those things
*look* on the page. Creeley, an accomplished poet and one probably not prone
to lazy mistakes, must believe that these variations create a certain effect
when viewed by the reader. The poem is grammatically a mess. It is one big
run on sentence. Creeley did that on purpose, again working toward the same
effect. This poem works. And *that* is all that is important. This poem
works on the page far better than it could ever work in performance because
the visual elements are key to its intended purpose. The difference between
this poem and most of the poems posted on this ng is that Creeley knows what
he's doing and is doing it on purpose. His variations are not arbitrary or
an oversight. Sorry, Demo, but you're not even remotely close to right on
this. Why not just knock it off and quit trying to convince others of such a
stupid notion?
Sweetwater8444
I'm shure they can pay somebody to peck a keyboard,
which is all you pompous fools bicker about.
Someday I may need a grunt to proofread>>
"Squeal like a pig"
sophie
in reply to Democritus <Abd...@webtv.net>, (on Freedom by
expression) ...
>Destiny has a way,
>of working itself out.
indeedy.
PLONK
>
--
sophie
Daniel Hansen
you're answering your own post.
d.
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:00:03 -0500 (EST), Abd...@webtv.net (Democritus), wrote:
>>I didn't think you'd have anything to say. Facts are facts,despite lofty
>>degrees.They do make good tinder though.Give mum my love.
>>
>>Roger
Democritus
JAS Carter
Hansen <dhansenSMAC...@outlook.net> said meaningfully:
>You MIGHT want to quote the post to which you refer. This makes it look like
>you're answering your own post.
I do that all the time.
Julie Carter
--
jsgo...@jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
http://jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
ICQ: 1265510
JAS Carter
jsgo...@geocities.com (JAS Carter) said meaningfully:
>>You MIGHT want to quote the post to which you refer. This makes it look like
>>you're answering your own post.
>
>I do that all the time.
No I don't.
>> >>I didn't think you'd have anything to say. Facts are facts,despite lofty
>> >>degrees.They do make good tinder though.Give mum my love.
JAS Carter
jsgo...@geocities.com (JAS Carter) said meaningfully:
>>>You MIGHT want to quote the post to which you refer. This makes it look like
>>>you're answering your own post.
>>
>>I do that all the time.
>
>No I don't.
Yes, I do.
Daniel Hansen
started talking to himself a few posts back??) ;-{)
d.
JAS Carter
Hansen <dhansenSMAC...@outlook.net> said meaningfully:
>I think you've been talking to Rick too much lately (or was that Dave who
>started talking to himself a few posts back??) ;-{)
That was Rick... er... Margaret.
> >>>>>You MIGHT want to quote the post to which you refer. This makes it look like
> >>>>>you're answering your own post.
> >>>>
> >>>>I do that all the time.
> >>>
> >>>No I don't.
> >>
> >>Yes, I do.
> >>
> >>>>> >>I didn't think you'd have anything to say. Facts are facts,despite lofty
> >>>>> >>degrees.They do make good tinder though.Give mum my love.
Julie Carter
Debi Zathan
JAS Carter <jsgo...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:38523aa2...@news.ohiohills.com...
Its because of childhood deprivation,
and if my spelling aint so good,
You can give it a good revision,
and if I offend with familiarity
I pray you suffer this fool gladly;
For I come to you with a plaintive plea,
A subject which troubles me sadly.
i know we live in america,
(my folks lived through the Depression)
but even so I need to ask you for
Some freedom FROM expression.
<g>
Debi Z
gga...@excite.com
<zat...@harborside.com> wrote:
>>
>If this be not proper ettiquet,
>Its because of childhood deprivation,
good try, but no.
>and if my spelling aint so good,
>You can give it a good revision,
no, that's your job
>and if I offend with familiarity
>I pray you suffer this fool gladly;
try to avoid the cliches
>For I come to you with a plaintive plea,
>A subject which troubles me sadly.
>i know we live in america,
speak for yourself, honey
>(my folks lived through the Depression)
I lived through disco
>but even so I need to ask you for
>Some freedom FROM expression.
><g>
>Debi Z
heh
gg
>
Redclay 6
exclusively oral tradition.>>
hell you say.
bad for you teeth, tho.
Redclay 6
what man?
the man with the power..."
Joy Yourcenar
Carter) wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 20:50:05 GMT, in alt.arts.poetry.comments Daniel
>Hansen <dhansenSMAC...@outlook.net> said meaningfully:
>
>>You MIGHT want to quote the post to which you refer. This makes it look like
>>you're answering your own post.
>
>I do that all the time.
>
>
We've all had those times where the only way to get an intelligent
conversation was to talk to yourself.
Joy
I write most of my stuff without "thinking".
~Rick Fry~
Democritus
should know what these are.To save time and effort,here.
#1.epic,elegiac,iambic,and lyric poetry.
On second thought,I'll not explain myself to anyone.Why beat a dead(coin
a phrase).
Democritus
dale houstman
> If I must.Ancient Greek literature may be divided into three periods.You
> should know what these are.To save time and effort,here.
> #1.epic,elegiac,iambic,and lyric poetry.
These aren't really periods they are genres. The great break in Greek
literature is really between the religious period (when the gods formed the
basis of a functioning religion) and the ironic period (when they had become
mere literary and psychological conceits, used in satires about human,
rather than godly, personalities). This consituted a movement toward what we
see as Western thought. Without this Greek literature would be a vaguely
Oriental curiosity.
DMH
Nomad
>You have proper and wrong.
>I use the grey in between,apparently some
>have never read anything that wasn't
>"grammatically" correct.If it's welsh,dutch,
>Portuguese,the wrong tense,etc.,I will use what
>pleases "me" to convey a thought. Where does
>poetry originate?"Thought"
>How a person expresses it should be up to the
>individual,for the most part.I hear the pedigree
>toters crying already,not to mention the sheep.
Conform to what is considered normal. Otherwise, deviate from what is
considered normal until your deviations are considered normal. Do this
through your poetry, not through argument. Demonstrating the correctness
of your deviations within your poetry is far more effective than
discussing in theory why they are correct.
If your deviations are never accepted as normal after a life of
demonstrating them, or after generations, then you will have failed. You
will have failed because your deviations were weak compared to what is
normal. At the time of your failure, if it occurs, accept it as
necessary or die in regret.
Those are your options.
"Faustus: But may I raise such spirits when I please? / Mephostophilis:
Ay Faustus, and do greater things than these." -- C. Marlowe
JAS Carter
Yourcenar <j...@hfx.andara.com> said meaningfully:
>>>You MIGHT want to quote the post to which you refer. This makes it look like
>>>you're answering your own post.
>>
>>I do that all the time.
>
>We've all had those times where the only way to get an intelligent
>conversation was to talk to yourself.
*snort* Obviously you don't know me well.
No conversation with me as a participant is ever intelligent.
Of course, with me twice, it's like a double negative...
JAS Carter
redc...@aol.com (Redclay 6) said meaningfully:
>"you remind me of a man.
> what man?
> the man with the power..."
(I'm always willing to be the straight man.)
What power?
boy_the...@webtv.net
english teacher suppressed you with
Visit my web sights at the fallowing,
http://community.webtv.net/picturepoet/STEVESPAGEOFPOETRY
http://community.webtv.net/eyeofnight/EYESOFTHENIGHT
Ted Dage
Who do?
You do!
do what?
Great. Now I have to break THAT movie out.
Hee.
TD
--
ScullyClone owner
I cloned my own! Get yours at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4566/
"Why wasn't God watching
Why wasn't God listening
Why wasn't God there ...
for Georgia Lee?"
Tom Waits - 'Georgia Lee'
JAS Carter
Dage" <da...@mindspring.com> said meaningfully:
>The power of voodoo ...
>Who do?
>You do!
>do what?
>
>Great. Now I have to break THAT movie out.
>Hee.
You know you want to.
trou...@webtv.net
on this "groop". There is no right or wrong poetry. If you paint a
picture on canvas, and some "expert" comes along and criticizes it, you
don't paint over, or throw it away to satisfy some anal-retentive twit,
you just smile as they walk away, and keep it as it is. Same with my
poetry.You like it fine, don't like it fine. But don't tell me it is not
valid, or I need to go read some poetry. Thought is the catalyst for
poetic expression. ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID. IF
YOU DISAGREE THAT IS FINE, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE THE WRITER OR ORATOR
WRONG. GET IT?
http://community.webtv.net/trouveur/FELONDEAFEARS
bil...@alsopreview.com
trou...@webtv.net wrote:
> I agree 100%. But, you can't please everybody. Despite what people
think
> on this "groop". There is no right or wrong poetry. If you paint a
> picture on canvas, and some "expert" comes along and criticizes it,
you
> don't paint over, or throw it away to satisfy some anal-retentive
twit,
> you just smile as they walk away, and keep it as it is. Same with my
> poetry.You like it fine, don't like it fine. But don't tell me it is
not
> valid, or I need to go read some poetry. Thought is the catalyst for
> poetic expression. ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID.
Sure they are. And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant
turtle. Right, Charlie?
--
Mike Billard
The Alsop Review
http://www.alsopreview.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Democritus
JAS Carter
bil...@alsopreview.com said meaningfully:
>> I agree 100%. But, you can't please everybody. Despite what people
>think
>> on this "groop". There is no right or wrong poetry. If you paint a
>> picture on canvas, and some "expert" comes along and criticizes it,
>you
>> don't paint over, or throw it away to satisfy some anal-retentive
>twit,
>> you just smile as they walk away, and keep it as it is. Same with my
>> poetry.You like it fine, don't like it fine. But don't tell me it is
>not
>> valid, or I need to go read some poetry. Thought is the catalyst for
>> poetic expression. ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID.
>
>Sure they are. And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant
>turtle. Right, Charlie?
I thought it was on four elephants on a giant turtle.
Dammit, where are my Pratchett books?
Debi Zathan
<bil...@alsopreview.com> wrote in message
news:80a3q2$hq2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> think
> > on this "groop". There is no right or wrong poetry. If you paint a
> > picture on canvas, and some "expert" comes along and criticizes it,
> you
> > don't paint over, or throw it away to satisfy some anal-retentive
> twit,
> > you just smile as they walk away, and keep it as it is. Same with my
> > poetry.You like it fine, don't like it fine. But don't tell me it is
> not
> > valid, or I need to go read some poetry. Thought is the catalyst for
> > poetic expression. ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID.
>
>
> Sure they are. And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant
> turtle. Right, Charlie?
>
Debi Z
dale houstman
<bil...@alsopreview.com> wrote in message
news:80a3q2$hq2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <22007-38...@storefull-233.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> trou...@webtv.net wrote:
>ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE >VALID.
>
>
> Sure they are. And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant
> turtle. Right, Charlie?
>
know is that it's the same damn turtle I wrote "The Beatles Rule!!" on 30
years ago, just before I let it wander off into the Mojave Desert.
It's done better than I have in life...
DMH
Democritus
1.The Early Period
2.The Attic Period
3.The Period of Decline
The first of the three is marked by epic,elegiac,iambic,and lyric
poetry,(yes,all genres),the second by poetic drama,tragic and comic,and
by historical,oratorical and philosophic prose.
The third can be subdivided and literature of this period has little
value.Thanks,for the display of ignorance,(dey all genes).
dale houstman
> Dale,you misunderstood.
Wouldn't be the first time...
Thanksfor the display of ignorance,(dey all genes).
Well... anyone can be incorrect from time to time, but the critical
difference here is that I can admit it, and you can't admit that you're a
pointlessly aggressive jerk.
I win...
DMH
Joy Yourcenar
>In article <22007-38...@storefull-233.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> trou...@webtv.net wrote:
>> I agree 100%. But, you can't please everybody. Despite what people
>think
>> on this "groop". There is no right or wrong poetry. If you paint a
>> picture on canvas, and some "expert" comes along and criticizes it,
>you
>> don't paint over, or throw it away to satisfy some anal-retentive
>twit,
>> you just smile as they walk away, and keep it as it is. Same with my
>> poetry.You like it fine, don't like it fine. But don't tell me it is
>not
>> valid, or I need to go read some poetry. Thought is the catalyst for
>> poetic expression. ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID.
>
>
>Sure they are. And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant
>turtle. Right, Charlie?
Actually, it's supported by elephants that stand on the turtle's back.
Joy
Joy Yourcenar, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Mythologies http://ebb.ns.ca/myth
icon/graphy http://ebb.ns.ca/icon
"We began with myths and later included actual events."
-- Michael Ondaatje
Redclay 6
on this "groop".>>
i know it, i know.
b-leave you it,
er not,
theys some on here thank my dulcinet
tones done breathe like cotton,
they say i caint talk buttons into thowin
theysevs bakkards.
If you paint a
picture on canvas, and some "expert" comes along and criticizes it, you
don't paint over, or throw it away to satisfy some anal-retentive twit,
you just smile as they walk away, and keep it as it is. >>
my uncle do use to cough thu all
the bess parts of the muggin strory.
Thought is the catalyst for
poetic expression.>>
booze.
ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID. IF
YOU DISAGREE THAT IS FINE, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE THE WRITER OR ORATOR
WRONG. GET IT?>>
i ain rong till somebody kin knock me offn the porch.
Redclay 6
1. Ennybody wanna hear somethin good?
2. Everbody dies.
3. Hell, yes, I'll tell one fer wine.
SoEyeSpy
>From: redc...@aol.com (Redclay 6)
>i ain rong till somebody kin knock me offn the porch.
I love this.
If this ain't the essence of poetry, I don't know what is!
.......................................
always pretending to focus.
Redclay 6
DMH>>>
"It's a far, far better thing I do,
than I will ever get credit for."
Redclay 6
Joy>>
what, was atlas drankin at work agin?
trou...@webtv.net
http://community.webtv.net/trouveur/FELONDEAFEARS
Democritus
work.Pointlessly? No,I always have a<point.Aggressive? What can I
say,I'm heterosexual.Jerk? Is "your" opinion.Better try a rewrite.
Daydream
I also think that poetry does not have to please everybody. It never will.
One can say that the rhyme is bad, the ideas are old, the implication
shows disgusting morals...
But one can never say that any poetry is not "valid". Also opinions
are valid. Some are rejectable, but still valid as opinions. Telling
the opposite is self-rightous. We are no longer in the middle-ages,
mankind has achieved something called "freedom of thought".
Thoughts are free. Thoughts are the parents of opinions (lets say
should be), makes opinions free too. Poems are children of
thoughts, and so on.
Where is the border? When thoughts result in acts, that hurt somebody.
There freedom has to end not to restrict someone else's freedom.
That was rather philosophy than poetry but had to be said.
What also needs to be said is that comments like "Sure they are.
And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant turtle."
as answer to a logic argumentation are weak sophistic attempts
to disquise lack of reasonable arguments. Makes people think
"Why then do it? Maybe because they know that on this one
comment -and I am only talking about this ONE comment,
despite what trouver has said anytime before or what I might
not know about him- he is absolutely right and there simply
ARE no reasonable arguments against what he said and what
I said again on top of this mail.
"ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID."
"Ein Federzug von dieser Hand, und neu
Erschaffen wird die Erde. Geben Sie
Gedankenfreiheit!"
Schiller, Don Carlos
Daydream Freethought
Joy Yourcenar <j...@hfx.andara.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
EeIoOPcvAsZ+Mu...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:30:41 GMT, bil...@alsopreview.com wrote:
>
> >In article <22007-38...@storefull-233.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > trou...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> I agree 100%. But, you can't please everybody. Despite what people
> >think
> >> on this "groop". There is no right or wrong poetry. If you paint a
> >> picture on canvas, and some "expert" comes along and criticizes it,
> >you
> >> don't paint over, or throw it away to satisfy some anal-retentive
> >twit,
> >> you just smile as they walk away, and keep it as it is. Same with my
> >> poetry.You like it fine, don't like it fine. But don't tell me it is
> >not
> >> valid, or I need to go read some poetry. Thought is the catalyst for
> >> poetic expression. ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID.
> >
> >
> >Sure they are. And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant
> >turtle. Right, Charlie?
>
>
>
Daniel Hansen
>>"ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID."
Here we go again...
d.
Daydream
opinion about it. Well, if he does it, guess he's read it all
and thought about it.
> >>"ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID."
>
> Here we go again...
>
> d.
Hm. Guess not.
Here sophistic bullshitting goes again I'd rather say...
Well, in a way "Here we go again..." is right. Because I quoted him.
If you try to use this quote to reflect all there is in this msg, you
loose most of the information. But maybe that fits the spectrum of
your intellect... What a pity.
DayD Freethought
bil...@alsopreview.com
No one here ever said it did.
> It never will.
Agreed.
> One can say that the rhyme is bad, the ideas are old, the implication
> shows disgusting morals...
> But one can never say that any poetry is not "valid".
Not a single person in this newsgroup, at least that I can recall, has
ever said that a poen "wasn't valid." It's a non-issue. The term "valid"
is one used almost exclusively by Charlie, and it has almost no
relevence in the discussion. In order for Charlie, or anyone else, to
claim that "all poetry is valid", he must first assign to poetry some
specific purpose or intent to which his claims of validity can be held.
I refuse to do that to poetry. You'll have to check in with Charlie on
the validity issue, it's not my argument.
> Also opinions
> are valid. Some are rejectable, but still valid as opinions.
This is just nonsense. If an opinion is rejectable, then it isn't valid.
The argument isn't over whether opinions are opinions, which is
essentially what you say above, but whether all opinions are valid. If
an opinion is refuted by verifiable fact (rejected) it doesn't stop
being an opinion, it stops being a *valid* opinion. You seem to be
holding as a standard for validity the brain's ability produce the right
electro-chemical processes that lead to the thought the leads to the
opinion. "I think it, therefore it is." Did I mention that I think the
earth is only five miles in circumference and made of styrofoam?
> Telling
> the opposite is self-rightous. We are no longer in the middle-ages,
> mankind has achieved something called "freedom of thought".
> Thoughts are free. Thoughts are the parents of opinions (lets say
> should be), makes opinions free too.
Free, yes. Valid, not always.
Poems are children of
> thoughts, and so on.
A lot of what's above is just so much mumbo jumbo. You'd be closer to
the truth if you were to say that poems are children of the body's
natural reaction to sound and rhythm.
> Where is the border? When thoughts result in acts, that hurt somebody.
> There freedom has to end not to restrict someone else's freedom.
The argument has never been about what people have the right to think.
Don't confuse two entirely different issues. Stick to the one at hand.
>
> That was rather philosophy than poetry but had to be said.
>
> What also needs to be said is that comments like "Sure they are.
> And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant turtle."
> as answer to a logic argumentation are weak sophistic attempts
> to disquise lack of reasonable arguments.
Not really, but you can believe that if you want. The statement Charlie
made was "All opinions are valid." Let's look closely at that statement,
shall we? First a definition:
valid: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and
meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct
So we could say that "all opinions are well grounded or justifiable"
or "all opinions are logically correct." And, of course, they're not.
EXAMPLE:
I am of the opinion that both food and sleep are non-essential to the
continuation of life in a human being. It is my opinion that people can
live long, healthy lives without ever taking in a single nutrient or
getting one minute of sleep.
Hey, it's my opinion and, by your standard, therefore valid. Right?
Wrong. The earth is neither five miles in circumference, nor made of
styrofoam. Nor can humans live without sleep or an intake of nutrients.
Just because I have the ability to put those thoughts into the form of
an opinion in no way validates them. It is that simple. I am perfectly
free to think those thoughts if I choose, and regardless of how wrong
those thoughts are, yes indeedy, they can certainly be labeled as an
"opinion", but not necessarily a valid opinion. Is that a reasonable
enough argument for you?
gga...@excite.com
Democritus
hoo<^>
me spinx me verily mawt,but me just ego dippin>>> spedclay <<vewily
Debi Zathan
Daydream <Dayd...@chello.at> wrote in message
news:%IiW3.490$15.4...@news.chello.at...
> Thoughts have always been free my dear. It is gruel and such which tends
to mess up a budget...:)
Debi Z
> I also think that poetry does not have to please everybody. It never will.
> One can say that the rhyme is bad, the ideas are old, the implication
> shows disgusting morals...
> But one can never say that any poetry is not "valid". Also opinions
> are valid. Some are rejectable, but still valid as opinions. Telling
> the opposite is self-rightous. We are no longer in the middle-ages,
> mankind has achieved something called "freedom of thought".
> Thoughts are free. Thoughts are the parents of opinions (lets say
> should be), makes opinions free too. Poems are children of
> thoughts, and so on.
> Where is the border? When thoughts result in acts, that hurt somebody.
> There freedom has to end not to restrict someone else's freedom.
>
> That was rather philosophy than poetry but had to be said.
>
> What also needs to be said is that comments like "Sure they are.
> And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant turtle."
> as answer to a logic argumentation are weak sophistic attempts
> to disquise lack of reasonable arguments. Makes people think
> "Why then do it? Maybe because they know that on this one
> comment -and I am only talking about this ONE comment,
> despite what trouver has said anytime before or what I might
> not know about him- he is absolutely right and there simply
> ARE no reasonable arguments against what he said and what
> I said again on top of this mail.
> "ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID."
>
> "Ein Federzug von dieser Hand, und neu
> Erschaffen wird die Erde. Geben Sie
> Gedankenfreiheit!"
> Schiller, Don Carlos
>
>
> Daydream Freethought
>
>
>
>
> Joy Yourcenar <j...@hfx.andara.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> EeIoOPcvAsZ+Mu...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:30:41 GMT, bil...@alsopreview.com wrote:
> >
> > >In article <22007-38...@storefull-233.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > > trou...@webtv.net wrote:
> > >> I agree 100%. But, you can't please everybody. Despite what people
> > >think
> > >> on this "groop". There is no right or wrong poetry. If you paint a
> > >> picture on canvas, and some "expert" comes along and criticizes it,
> > >you
> > >> don't paint over, or throw it away to satisfy some anal-retentive
> > >twit,
> > >> you just smile as they walk away, and keep it as it is. Same with my
> > >> poetry.You like it fine, don't like it fine. But don't tell me it is
> > >not
> > >> valid, or I need to go read some poetry. Thought is the catalyst for
> > >> poetic expression. ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID.
> > >
> > >
> > >Sure they are. And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a
giant
Carolyn W.
>
-and I am only talking about this ONE comment,
> despite what trouver has said anytime before or what I might
> not know about him- he is absolutely right and there simply
> ARE no reasonable arguments against what he said and what
> I said again on top of this mail.
> "ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID."
>
ixnay.
to say that all A (poetry) is C (valid), you have to be able to argue
your point reasonably. you ceased to do so, because in the basic
syllogistic structure of any argument or thesis, you've missed one
really important step:
A. poetry is x.
B. all x is valid.
C. therefore, all poetry is valid.
you haven't defined x (although you've skated around it, saying that x
is sort of like an opinion--wrong). you have to define x before you get
to line C; otherwise you have an empty argument.
here's my argument, using websters for definition:
A. poems are compositions in verse, especially characterized by a
highly developed form and the use of heightened language and rhythm to
express an imaginative interpretation of the subject.
B. compositions in verse, especially characterized by a highly
developed form and the use of heightened language and rhythm to express
an imaginative interpretation of the subject are valid, because these
compositions produce the desired result, are effective, are sound and
well-founded.
C. therefore, a poem that is not a composition in verse, is not
characterized by a highly developed form and the use of heightened
language and rhythm to express an imaginative interpretion of the
subject is not valid--meaning that it does not produce the desired
result, nor is that poem effective, sound, or well-founded.
that's not to say that if a composition is underdeveloped, if it uses
common cliches, if it is comprised of some words dropped on the page
with absolutely no structure/insight/imagination/form/etc. that the
composition is incapable of producing a desired effect. but you can't
call the composition poetry. you can call it "touching" perhaps, but
you can't call it poetry.
-carolyn
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Joy Yourcenar
wrote:
>"ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID."
>
I will believe the world is a flat disk riding through space supported
by elephants standing on a giant turtle's back. It's more plausible.
Joy
>
>
>
>Joy Yourcenar <j...@hfx.andara.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>EeIoOPcvAsZ+Mu...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:30:41 GMT, bil...@alsopreview.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <22007-38...@storefull-233.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> > trou...@webtv.net wrote:
>> >> I agree 100%. But, you can't please everybody. Despite what people
>> >think
>> >> on this "groop". There is no right or wrong poetry. If you paint a
>> >> picture on canvas, and some "expert" comes along and criticizes it,
>> >you
>> >> don't paint over, or throw it away to satisfy some anal-retentive
>> >twit,
>> >> you just smile as they walk away, and keep it as it is. Same with my
>> >> poetry.You like it fine, don't like it fine. But don't tell me it is
>> >not
>> >> valid, or I need to go read some poetry. Thought is the catalyst for
>> >> poetic expression. ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID.
>> >
>> >
>> >Sure they are. And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant
>> >turtle. Right, Charlie?
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, it's supported by elephants that stand on the turtle's back.
>>
>> Joy
>
>
Joy Yourcenar, Halifax, Nova Scotia
KATE - d'huit
> the truth if you were to say that poems are children of the body's
> natural reaction to sound and rhythm.
>
i like it.
kate
<bil...@alsopreview.com> wrote in message
news:80cn81$g0c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <%IiW3.490$15.4...@news.chello.at>,
> "Daydream" <Dayd...@chello.at> wrote:
> >
> > I also think that poetry does not have to please everybody.
>
> No one here ever said it did.
>
>
> > It never will.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > One can say that the rhyme is bad, the ideas are old, the implication
> > shows disgusting morals...
> > But one can never say that any poetry is not "valid".
>
> Not a single person in this newsgroup, at least that I can recall, has
> ever said that a poen "wasn't valid." It's a non-issue. The term "valid"
> is one used almost exclusively by Charlie, and it has almost no
> relevence in the discussion. In order for Charlie, or anyone else, to
> claim that "all poetry is valid", he must first assign to poetry some
> specific purpose or intent to which his claims of validity can be held.
> I refuse to do that to poetry. You'll have to check in with Charlie on
> the validity issue, it's not my argument.
>
>
> > Also opinions
> > are valid. Some are rejectable, but still valid as opinions.
>
> This is just nonsense. If an opinion is rejectable, then it isn't valid.
> The argument isn't over whether opinions are opinions, which is
> essentially what you say above, but whether all opinions are valid. If
> an opinion is refuted by verifiable fact (rejected) it doesn't stop
> being an opinion, it stops being a *valid* opinion. You seem to be
> holding as a standard for validity the brain's ability produce the right
> electro-chemical processes that lead to the thought the leads to the
> opinion. "I think it, therefore it is." Did I mention that I think the
> earth is only five miles in circumference and made of styrofoam?
>
> > Telling
> > the opposite is self-rightous. We are no longer in the middle-ages,
> > mankind has achieved something called "freedom of thought".
> > Thoughts are free. Thoughts are the parents of opinions (lets say
> > should be), makes opinions free too.
>
> Free, yes. Valid, not always.
>
> Poems are children of
> > thoughts, and so on.
>
> A lot of what's above is just so much mumbo jumbo. You'd be closer to
> the truth if you were to say that poems are children of the body's
> natural reaction to sound and rhythm.
>
>
> > Where is the border? When thoughts result in acts, that hurt somebody.
> > There freedom has to end not to restrict someone else's freedom.
>
> The argument has never been about what people have the right to think.
> Don't confuse two entirely different issues. Stick to the one at hand.
>
> >
> > That was rather philosophy than poetry but had to be said.
> >
> > What also needs to be said is that comments like "Sure they are.
> > And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant turtle."
> > as answer to a logic argumentation are weak sophistic attempts
> > to disquise lack of reasonable arguments.
>
Daydream
Agreed.
As I read it I felt that you had said just the same as me only with better
words
and an equation.
only problem for me is this part:
>C. therefore, a poem that is not a composition in verse, is not
>characterized by a highly developed form and the use of heightened
>language and rhythm to express an imaginative interpretion of the
>subject is not valid--meaning that it does not produce the desired
>result, nor is that poem effective, sound, or well-founded.
I dont know the right term in english, hope you know what I mean.
Then what about experimental poetry? No verse normally,
highly developed form = p.o.v, heightened language not really,
rhythm fails the test too...
DayD
btw whats "ixnay" pls?
Carolyn W. <caroly...@yahoo.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
rXkW3.7124$L5.8...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:21:47 GMT "Daydream" <Dayd...@chello.at> wrote:
>
> >
> -and I am only talking about this ONE comment,
> > despite what trouver has said anytime before or what I might
> > not know about him- he is absolutely right and there simply
> > ARE no reasonable arguments against what he said and what
> > I said again on top of this mail.
> > "ALL POETRY IS VALID!!!! ALL OPINIONS ARE VALID."
> >
>
Daydream
> ever said that a poen "wasn't valid." It's a non-issue. The term "valid"
> is one used almost exclusively by Charlie, and it has almost no
> relevence in the discussion. In order for Charlie, or anyone else, to
> claim that "all poetry is valid", he must first assign to poetry some
> specific purpose or intent to which his claims of validity can be held.
> I refuse to do that to poetry. You'll have to check in with Charlie on
> the validity issue, it's not my argument.
>
> > Also opinions
> > are valid. Some are rejectable, but still valid as opinions.
>
> This is just nonsense. If an opinion is rejectable, then it isn't valid.
> The argument isn't over whether opinions are opinions, which is
> essentially what you say above, but whether all opinions are valid. If
> an opinion is refuted by verifiable fact (rejected) it doesn't stop
> being an opinion, it stops being a *valid* opinion. You seem to be
> holding as a standard for validity the brain's ability produce the right
> electro-chemical processes that lead to the thought the leads to the
> opinion. "I think it, therefore it is." Did I mention that I think the
> earth is only five miles in circumference and made of styrofoam?
>
Guess we have different ideas about the word "valid".
Might be my fault / my german-shaped-mind's fault.
What I meant is that one has to accept another ones opinions
even if one doesn not like them / shares the p.o.v
After your definition of the world valid (shared by the rest
of the english-spoken worl i guess) opinions are not valid
when "refuted by verifiable fact". But everyone has to
tell for himself if a opinion is valid for him or not, so if
the fact is verifieable or not. When the rest of the world
says earth is not made of styrofoam and you are sure it is,
then for you it exists like that unless you experience the
opposite, doesnt it?
So I would say yes: "I think it, therefore it is." -for me.
Maybe that's our problem. Whe should not say "Valid."
or "Not Valid." neither to opinion nor poem but "Valid
for me." and "Not Valid for me."
> > Telling
> > the opposite is self-rightous. We are no longer in the middle-ages,
> > mankind has achieved something called "freedom of thought".
> > Thoughts are free. Thoughts are the parents of opinions (lets say
> > should be), makes opinions free too.
>
> Free, yes. Valid, not always.
see above
> Poems are children of
> > thoughts, and so on.
>
> A lot of what's above is just so much mumbo jumbo. You'd be closer to
> the truth if you were to say that poems are children of the body's
> natural reaction to sound and rhythm.
writing inspired by dancing? lol you could tap-dance in morse-code.
>
> > Where is the border? When thoughts result in acts, that hurt somebody.
> > There freedom has to end not to restrict someone else's freedom.
>
> The argument has never been about what people have the right to think.
> Don't confuse two entirely different issues. Stick to the one at hand.
>
Wrote this because I wanted to be faster than anyone writing something like
"So, o.k. It is the opinion of a man that children are made to be molested.
As his opinion is valid, he can do it without any further problems or even
having a bad conscience."
;-)
> >
> > That was rather philosophy than poetry but had to be said.
> >
> > What also needs to be said is that comments like "Sure they are.
> > And the world is flat and it rests on the back of a giant turtle."
> > as answer to a logic argumentation are weak sophistic attempts
> > to disquise lack of reasonable arguments.
>
> Not really, but you can believe that if you want. The statement Charlie
> made was "All opinions are valid." Let's look closely at that statement,
> shall we? First a definition:
>
> valid: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and
> meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct
>
see above
> So we could say that "all opinions are well grounded or justifiable"
> or "all opinions are logically correct." And, of course, they're not.
>
> EXAMPLE:
> I am of the opinion that both food and sleep are non-essential to the
> continuation of life in a human being. It is my opinion that people can
> live long, healthy lives without ever taking in a single nutrient or
> getting one minute of sleep.
>
> Hey, it's my opinion and, by your standard, therefore valid. Right?
> Wrong. The earth is neither five miles in circumference, nor made of
> styrofoam. Nor can humans live without sleep or an intake of nutrients.
> Just because I have the ability to put those thoughts into the form of
> an opinion in no way validates them. It is that simple. I am perfectly
> free to think those thoughts if I choose, and regardless of how wrong
> those thoughts are, yes indeedy, they can certainly be labeled as an
> "opinion", but not necessarily a valid opinion. Is that a reasonable
> enough argument for you?
Yep. It all seems reasonable, I enjoy this discussion and
exchange of thoughts.
btw learned some english by it ;-)
DayD Freethought
Carolyn W.
> Carolyn W:
>
> Agreed.
> As I read it I felt that you had said just the same as me only with better
> words
> and an equation.
not exactly. you said that all poetry was valid. i said no, not all
poetry is valid.
i realize that i used an extremely basic illustration (i deviated
terribly and inversed the "therefore" in point c)--but to claim that
all poetry is valid doesn't sit right with me.
> only problem for me is this part:
> >C. therefore, a poem that is not a composition in verse, is not
> >characterized by a highly developed form and the use of heightened
> >language and rhythm to express an imaginative interpretion of the
> >subject is not valid--meaning that it does not produce the desired
> >result, nor is that poem effective, sound, or well-founded.
>
> I dont know the right term in english, hope you know what I mean.
> Then what about experimental poetry? No verse normally,
> highly developed form = p.o.v, heightened language not really,
> rhythm fails the test too...
the word "experimental" is a modifier. i think that's self-explanatory.
>
> DayD
> btw whats "ixnay" pls?
oh, that's slang for "nix," or "no."
-carolyn
Button Presser
thought of going into teaching?
Terry
http://www.thepentagon.com/buttonpresser
I simply do not agree with your premise. I understand it, and reject
it as valid--from my standpoint.
Julie Carter
JAS Carter wrote in message <384196c6...@news.ohiohills.com>...
>
>Dammit, where are my Pratchett books?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Julie Carter
>--
>jsgo...@jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
>
>http://jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
>ICQ: 1265510
>
Daydream
> >>even if one doesn not like them
>
>
> Maybe this is another problem of translating German thought into English,
and I
> suspect you may have mistranslated the word "accept".
>
> In the commonly accepted English meaning, though, anyone who says I must
accept
> any and all opinions can go fart in a tin can.
>
> d.
>
Accept that he /she has this very opinion.
What do you want to do? Kill him for his
opinion? Think we had that in history.
DayD
Joy Yourcenar
<button...@thepentagon.com> wrote:
>It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent whatsoever. Have you
>thought of going into teaching?
>
That is a very broad brush you're painting with, Dave.
Joy
certifiable in English, Social Studies, Literacy and Adult Ed...K-12
NOW KISS MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!!
~Sharon McElroy~
Daniel Hansen
>>one has to accept another ones opinions
>>even if one doesn not like them
Oh? I do?
Daniel Hansen
accepting the opinion.
Pretty critical distinction, doncha think?
d,
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:59:09 GMT, "Daydream" <Dayd...@chello.at>, wrote:
>>> >>one has to accept another ones opinions
>>> >>even if one doesn not like them
>>>
>>> Oh? I do?
>>>
>>> Maybe this is another problem of translating German thought into English,
>>and I
>>> suspect you may have mistranslated the word "accept".
>>>
>>> In the commonly accepted English meaning, though, anyone who says I must
>>accept
>>> any and all opinions can go fart in a tin can.
>>>
>>> d.
>>>
>>
Button Presser
I think it was more of a comment on the british education system, but I take
your point.
Dave
GCE, CSE, MCP, C&G,SOB, 25 yards breast stroke, and life saving.
Just Certifiable really
http://www.thepentagon.com/buttonpresser
I simply do not agree with your premise. I understand it, and reject
it as valid--from my standpoint.
Julie Carter
Joy Yourcenar wrote in message ...
Daydream
valid for myself if thats what you mean, yes.
Daniel Hansen <dhansenSMAC...@outlook.net> schrieb in im
Newsbeitrag: vf8pOK2yKEWOnt...@4ax.com...
> Accepting the fact that someone holds a stupid opinion is not the same
thing as
> accepting the opinion.
>
> Pretty critical distinction, doncha think?
>
> d,
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:59:09 GMT, "Daydream" <Dayd...@chello.at>, wrote:
>
> >>> >>one has to accept another ones opinions
> >>> >>even if one doesn not like them
> >>>
Debi Zathan
form an opinion and create a poem and probably in that genesis state they
are valid. But once you express them, expose them to commentary, then the
premise of validity changes, because they are no longer solely yours. Which
is why a lot of wise folk keep their opinion to themselves. They need for
them to remain valid. Its a self-esteem thing I think. Those of us who don't
are clearly cracked but what the hell. (smile)
Debi Z
daydream <Dayd...@chello.at> wrote in message
news:d8mW3.763$15.6...@news.chello.at...
Nomad
>>It would seem that you have no useful skill or
>>talent whatsoever. Have you thought of going
>>into teaching?
>That is a very broad brush you're painting with,
>Dave.
Since when are generalizations commented on with a tad of reproach by a
regular? Wait, I think I read one other instance.
"Faustus: But may I raise such spirits when I please? / Mephostophilis:
Ay Faustus, and do greater things than these." -- C. Marlowe
House of Chards
Daydream wrote:
> We are no longer in the middle-ages,
> mankind has achieved something called "freedom of thought".
> Thoughts are free. <snip>
I'm a little foggy on my history, so maybe you could help me out with this.
During what specific period during the middle ages were thoughts a purchasable
commodity? And what if you couldn't afford to buy thoughts of your own - could
they be rented inexpensively?
-Lorinda
Redclay 6
No one here ever said it did.>>
hell you say.
nobody done like redclays.
they et it up like ethiafalopians
with oatmeal,
both hants, till they git sick.
all the bad mail i git, they jus jailous.
they jus cain wait to see redclay
et alphamybet soup.
my golten chariot slews crosst the sky,
an they runt to foller my trail,
broken beer bottles under they bare feet.
Daniel Hansen
has been dumped here in recent weeks -- and it's getting old and boring at this
point.
d.
trou...@webtv.net
http://community.webtv.net/trouveur/FELONDEAFEARS
Daydream
them?
DayD
House of Chards <chards...@home.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
382A1580...@home.com...
dale houstman
Democritus <Abd...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7393-38...@storefull-615.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Dale,nice try,but taking the ball and running home won't
> work.Pointlessly? No,I always have a<point.Aggressive? What can I
> say,I'm heterosexual.Jerk? Is "your" opinion.Better try a rewrite.
>
I'll stick with whatI said. I am not actually concerned with whatever your
egoistic pursuit might be. I never said calling you a jerk wasn't just my
opinion, but I am quite comfortable with my having said it.
As for your implied connection between agrressiveness and heterosexuality -
what can one really say to such a self-justification for jerkiness?
As for your original "Greek" info: this sort of information can be gotten
from any reference book, and is not in any way stunning as a revelation, and
is (at any rate) based on the very incomplete written record of the time.
Quite unimpressive...
These sorts of hierarchic divisions are the stuff of dimbulbs, and usually
have little to do with the actual progression of artistic pursuit.
Dale
Democritus
it's still opinion.Don't forget the GRP,give it a go for the gripper
advocates.You're right up there with mildew.
General Zod
> Democritus <Abd...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > Before books,where was poetry stored at?
> > "In the mind",it meant nothing if you couldn't write.
>
> Hey, you want to talk the history of poetry? I'll kick your ass all over the
> newsgroup on that subject. Your above statement is as irrelevent as anything
> I've ever read. It's like saying it didn't matter if you couldn't pilot a
> plane in 16th century. Duh! What a genius! Imagine that! It didn't matter if
> you couldn't write *prior* to the invention of written language. What
> insight. But then, poetry doesn't hold the same purpose or form it did three
> thousand, or two thousand, or even one thousand years ago. Are you even
> aware of *one* of the things that has changed over the millenia? I don't
> think so. For instance, did you know that in Ancient Greek verse was based
> on the long and short durations of vowel sounds? And that because the poems
> were not read from the page (though plenty of folks could write), but were
> heard aloud in performance, the poets used only certain metrical devices at
> the end of each line so that the listener would know it was the end of the
> line? Wwere you aware of the fact that end rhyme served the same purpose -
> as an aural indicator to the listener that the end of the line had been
> reached? Do you even know who the earliest poets were (in relation to their
> place in society), and for what purpose they created and recited poems? Go
> ahead, since you've turned our attention the history of poetry, tell me you
> at least know *that*.
>
> In the late twentieth century (that's where we are *right* now, in case your
> ignorant of that fact as well), 99.9% of all poetry that is consumed is done
> so in the form of an individual reading a poem from a printed text. Prior to
> readily available printed texts the notion of half meaning (the ambiguity
> that can be caused by a careful line break) was non-existent. Now it is an
> important device. Concrete poetry could never have existed in the
> exclusively oral tradition. The image of the poem on the page has been, for
> an awful long time, as imporant an aspect of the poem as any other. What
> good, orally, did it do WS Merwin to abandon capital letters and
> punctuation? For what oral purpose did Charles Wright adopt the "low rider",
> or "drop down" line? And (so obvious an example I'd be remiss to leave him
> out) what good would *any* of dear old ee cummings's experiments be if the
> reader were unable to view them on the printed page?
>
> It's all about intent and purpose, Demo. The reader is well aware of the
> standard spelling of most words, and is probably clued in on the punctuation
> of even fairly complex sentences. Every aspect of the poem is perceived by
> the reader as having a purpose, as propelling the poem in one direction or
> another. Anything in the poem that is a mistake, whether it be simply a typo
> or a result of the poet's laziness and unconcern for craft, is a
> distraction. Even if only for one word, it leads the reader down a blind
> alley, makes him think something is going on that isn't. The reader, poor
> trusting soul that he is, thinks the poet put enough effort into his poem to
> get all the elements of the poem the way they should be. So when he sees
> "horse" spelled "hors", he doesn't say "sounds the same, means the same", he
> says "why is the 'e' missing, what significance does that have on the poem?"
> When he discovers it has none, and that it is just a mistake, he now has
> reason to question every other element in the poem. Here's an example. Hope
> you take the time to read it. It's called I Know a Man and is by Robert
> Creeley:
>
> As I sd to my
> friend, because I am
> always talking, --John, I
>
> sd, which was not his
> name, the darkness, sur-
> rounds us, what
>
> can we do against
> it, or else, shall we &
> why not, buy a goddamn big car,
>
> drive, he sd, for
> christ's sake, look
> out where yr going.
>
> If Creeley were to read this poem aloud, do you think he'd pronounce "sd" or
> "yr" or the ampersand any differently than as "said" or "your" or "and",
> respectively? Nope. Then there must be some significance to how those things
> *look* on the page. Creeley, an accomplished poet and one probably not prone
> to lazy mistakes, must believe that these variations create a certain effect
> when viewed by the reader. The poem is grammatically a mess. It is one big
> run on sentence. Creeley did that on purpose, again working toward the same
> effect. This poem works. And *that* is all that is important. This poem
> works on the page far better than it could ever work in performance because
> the visual elements are key to its intended purpose. The difference between
> this poem and most of the poems posted on this ng is that Creeley knows what
> he's doing and is doing it on purpose. His variations are not arbitrary or
> an oversight. Sorry, Demo, but you're not even remotely close to right on
> this. Why not just knock it off and quit trying to convince others of such a
> stupid notion?
Interesting read
Will-D...@none.i2p
General Zod
>
> The power of voodoo ...
> Who do?
> You do!
> do what?
>
> Great. Now I have to break THAT movie out.
> Hee.
>
> TD
> --
> ScullyClone owner
> I cloned my own! Get yours at
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4566/
>
> "Why wasn't God watching
> Why wasn't God listening
> Why wasn't God there ...
> for Georgia Lee?"
>
> Tom Waits - 'Georgia Lee'
Love the Waits...............
MikeB
Hieronymous Corey
Will Dockery
:)
Zod
> You have proper and wrong.
> I use the grey in between,apparently some have never read anything that
> wasn't "grammatically" correct.If it's welsh,dutch, Portuguese,the wrong
> tense,etc.,I will use what pleases "me" to convey a thought. Where does
> poetry originate?"Thought"
> How a person expresses it should be up to the individual,for the most
> part.I hear the pedigree toters crying already,not to mention the sheep.
> <o> <o>Excellent...
> of working itself out.
Will Dockery
> Democritus <Abd...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> surprising. Almost every poem posted to this ng is of the common, garden
> variety. There is nothing to indicate the poet is trying to achieve anything
> subtle or complex with the spelling and grammar variations found in the
> poem. In other words, those variations are typically "wrong" because they're
> mistakes. When, in response to someone pointing out grammar and spelling
> mistakes, the poet says (as is typically the case) "spelling and grammar
> don't matter" he immediately makes the mistakes in his work "wrong." Only
> when grammar and spelling *do* matter, do variations from the norm mean
> anything. Following me? I doubt it.
> > wasn't "grammatically" correct.
> that weren't "grammatically" correct. What's the difference? The poets could
> have made those poems grammatically correct had they chosen to do so, but
> did not for *specific* intent and effect. I'm sure the subtle nuances of
> that idea are completely lost on you.
> > tense,etc.,I will use what pleases "me" to convey a thought. Where does
> > poetry originate?"Thought"
> suck for the one reason you've so concisely provided above. To coin a
> phrase, "it's the thought that counts." Wrong. To quote somebody who a) has
> a lot of credibility, and b) you've probably never heard of, Mallarme once
> said to Degas (who also benifits from a & b, I'm sure), ". . .poems are not
> made out of ideas, they are made out of words." Think on that for a minute
> or two while I go to the fridge to get a drink. Okay, I'm back. Let's
> continue. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics has some
> interesting things to say regarding this. Here's a nice quote:
> "Critics who take meaning or 'theme' (q.v.) as the essence of poetry are
> encouraged, of course, by our automatic response to the referential and
> semantic character of words, so strong in ordinary language use. But they
> neglect the medium."
> 99% of all variations in grammar and spelling that I have ever seen in poems
> posted to this ng has been the result of neglecting the medium.
> Unintentionally spelling words wrong and then saying it really doesn't
> matter 'cause the "meaning" still comes through is akin to accidentally
> spilling paint on your painting and saying it doesn't matter 'cause you can
> still tell that it's a man having sex with a pig. If you think the only
> reason to create a painting is so the viewer can say "oh that's a horsey,
> and that's a field of flowers, and that's a fat naked lady on a blanket",
> then it makes sense that you would think the medium for poetry is
> unimportant in creating the art.
> > part.I hear the pedigree toters crying already,not to mention the sheep.
> tries to gloss over the importance of accuracy and skill with such a poorly
> informed article as this. There is no excuse for poor craftsmanship and
> sloppy work. Quit trying to make one up. Either take the time and effort to
> learn to do it well (not "right", mind you), or take up a less demanding
> hobby.
>
> > <o> <o>
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
> >
> > Destiny has a way,
> > of working itself out.
> >
Will Dockery
Typo correction:
Share, not sharp.
:)