On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 10:45:15 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 9:27:59 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 5:10:19 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > Will Dockery wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > George J. Dance wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
> >> > >>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> >> > >>>>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
> >> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> >> > >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> >> > >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> >> > >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> >> > >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> >> > >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> >> > >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> >> > >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> >> > >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> - gjd
> >> > >>>>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> Yes, definitely.
> >> > >>>>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> >> > >>>>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> >> > >>>>> find evidence of readers.
> >> > >>>> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> >> >
> >> > >> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
> >> >
> >> > >> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
> >> >
> >> > >> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> >> > >> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> >> > >> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> >> > >> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
> >> >
> >> > >> One can even take courses on it:
> >> > >> https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Back in the 1990s the young folks called it "freestyle".
> >> > Indeed....
> >> A part of the Hip Hop culture, so no wonder Senetto is clueless about it.
>
>
> > Is that all you really have?
> Of course not, my feeble minded friend.
>
> 🙂

Contamination reported.

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 10:11:47 AM UTC-4, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 9:27:59 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 5:10:19 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > >
> > > > George J. Dance wrote:
> > >
> > > >> On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
> > > >>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >>>>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > > >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > > >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > > >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > > >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > > >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > > >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > > >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > > >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> - gjd
> > > >>>>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Yes, definitely.
> > > >>>>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> > > >>>>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> > > >>>>> find evidence of readers.
> > > >>>> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> > >
> > > >> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
> > >
> > > >> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
> > >
> > > >> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> > > >> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> > > >> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> > > >> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
> > >
> > > >> One can even take courses on it:
> > > >> https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
> > >
> > >
> > > > Back in the 1990s the young folks called it "freestyle".
> > > Indeed....
> > A part of the Hip Hop culture, so no wonder Senetto is clueless about it.
> Is that all you really have?
>
> I'm in New York, not shitkickerville.

This was an enjoyable thread for a while, but it couldn’t go on forever.

On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:15:21 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
> >> >
> >> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
> >>
> >> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
>
> > Because George was making a joke, it was a parody of a well known Usenet poet.
>
> > HTH and HAND.
> No names please... we have a truce....!

Do tell.

🙂

Will Dockery wrote:

> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:15:21 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
>> >> >
>> >> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
>> >>
>> >> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
>>
>> > Because George was making a joke, it was a parody of a well known Usenet poet.
>>
>> > HTH and HAND.
>> No names please... we have a truce....!

> Do tell.

Or a cease fire, I farger,..

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:00:08 AM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> > George J. Dance wrote:
> > >
> > > A Work of Art
> >
> > > I tried to write a work of art
> > > With all my passion, all my heart,
> > > But no idea of what to say
> > > Or what I wanted to convey;
> > > My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >
> > > It really wasn't very smart
> > > To take this trek without a chart:
> > > Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > > But one cannot make art that way,
> > > I should have realized from the start.
> >
> > > - gjd
> > Quite an excellent short poem....
> Yes, definitely.

Hi Ilya S. and agreed....

Victor H. wrote:

> Will Dockery wrote:

>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:15:21 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Will Dockery wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>>> >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
>>> >> >
>>> >> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
>>> >>
>>> >> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
>>>
>>> > Because George was making a joke, it was a parody of a well known Usenet poet.
>>>
>>> > HTH and HAND.
>>> No names please... we have a truce....!

>> Do tell.

> Or a cease fir

Oh yeah, right.

🙂

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:55:50 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:31:00 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-06-22 2:54 p.m., HC wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:11 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:09:48 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> - gjd
> > >>>>>>> In the penultimate line, “that way” should read
> > >>>>>>> ‘this way’ to maintain agreement with “this trek”,
> > >>>>>>> and I agree with NG’s suggestion for the final line.
> > >>>>>> IMO the "that" is part of a separate thought: "Spontaneous writing's fine for play, but one cannot make art that way."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would keep "that" in; as "this way" makes the statement relate specifically to the speaker's trek (attempt); whereas "that way" makes the statement read more like a universal truism.
> > >>>> We agree with the "that," since it is in the past. While we are dissecting the poem, we think that the third line in the first stanza needs a "with" before the "no," although the line would have to be reworked. Alternately, it could just start with "With." We disagree with the semi-colon at the end of the 4th line, first stanza. If George Dance were to put a period at the end of the second line, start the third line with "With," then put a comma at the end of the penultimate line in the first stanza, it would read better. Also, no comma between "doomed" and "and."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Speaking of "trek," I would lose it altogether. As a metaphor, it doesn't really apply to such a short poem. It this were an epic, "trek" would work perfectly... but here it just feels odd.
> > >>>> It brings images of "Star Trek." Is writing a work of art a "trek?" Maybe a journey or path? However, "chart" brings thoughts of celestial navigation, since the author does not say "map." Is writing a voyage?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And, of course, I agree with NancyGene's thoughts on strengthening the final line.
> > >>>> It just does not fit when the poem is read aloud.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ***
> > >>>>>> Content-wise, I have to voice my profound disagreement. I believe that art is created by the spontaneous approach, as this (theoretically) puts the writer in direct contact with his subconscious -- thereby partaking of both the symbolic content of the subconscious and the mythmaking archetypes of the unconscious.
> > >>>> Poems by computer.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Writing poetry from a preconceived plan tends to create formulaic, uninspired work that slavishly adheres to formality and offers little of interest.
> > >>>> There has to be a spark, an inspiration, that starts the poem flowing in the poet's mind.
> > >>>>> The colon rather than a period at the end of the previous line,
> > >>>>> and the premise of the poem, suggests that the whole stanza
> > >>>>> is one fluid thought, rather than a separation of different thoughts.
> > >>>>> Content-wise, I enjoyed it, and whatever I may or may not believe
> > >>>>> about art didn't diminish my appreciation. This was a fun read.
> > >>>> It just needs some reworking in the details.
> > >>> I’d like to see something other than but, but disagree with beginning line three with with,
> > >>> because line two already starts with with, and starting both lines two and three with with
> > >>> would look worse than with but, but I can’t think of a better suggestion to replace but with.
> > >> Maybe "Stirred all my passion" instead of "With all my passion?" That frees "with" for the next line.
> > >
> >
> > I appreciate all the effort; but it's hard to keep all the details
> > straight; which is why I appreciate even more what you did here, and
> > give me this rewrite that summarizes them. (The analogy that popped into
> > my head is that between reading a series of chess moves, and trying to
> > figure out the new board, vs. looking at a picture of the new board.)
> > The latter is far easier to take in, and I appreciate your making the
> > effort.
> Unfortunately, HC only used his own edit in his "final" version. Other suggestions, from Michael and us, were better in some instances.
> >
> > Let me go over it line-by-line, and compare it to what I originally wrote.
> >
> > > “I tried to write this work of art,
> >
> > I don't like the change from "a work" to "this work". The original idea
> > was that the "work of art" the speaker tried to write never got written;
> > and this is just a bit of light verse about not writing it. With that
> > one word change, this 10-line bit of light verses is presented as the
> > (failed) "work of art" itself.
> >
> > > put to pen my passionate heart
> We don't like that. Stick a pen in your heart and see if there is automatic writing?
> >
> > In at least one way, this line is far better: the alliteration is
> > excellent, eg. But it's such an artificial voice; it's hyper-Romantic,
> > something I wouldn't expect to see these days except maybe on a
> > valentine card. Maybe it's meant to be ironic, the poet making fun of
> > his lofty ambitions, but it looks to me like costuming; like the poet
> > trying to turn this light verse into "art" just by dressing it up in
> > more poetic garb.
> >
> > > with no idea of how to say
> > > what all I wanted to convey.
> >
> > I don't know who's responsible for the rewrite of those two lines, but:
> Not hard to scroll up and see that it came from HC.
> > (1) "to say / what all I wanted" does not sound like natural speech or
> > thought;
> "What all" would be a Southernism. We would not use that.
> > (2) the meaning of the lines is inverted. This poet/speaker has
> > something to say, probably a lot to say (that's what I get from "all"),
> > but just doesn't have the tools to express it. Whereas my poet/speaker's
> > problem was that he had the tools, but there was nothing he had to say.
> Our suggestion was better.
> >
> > > My plan was doomed, and fell apart.”
> >
> > Again, just a one-word change. All you changed was "plans" to "plan"
> > (plus the verb agreement) -- and technically that's more accurate, since
> > there was only one plan (to write the work of art).
> >
> > I wanted to use "plans" because the word made me (and, I'm hoping, other
> > readers) think of Burns's line.
> We didn't, as it would have been too obscure of a reference. There should have been something that preceded "plans" that also referenced Burns. Something about a mouse?
> > I didn't want to hit them over the head
> > with that -- I could have worked "best-laid plans" into the line, but
> > no, that would have been too much -- but just get them to remember his
> > moral (shit happens) somewhere back in their minds. The idea being that
> > this is's not really the tragedy that "doomed" suggests.
> Agreed, that would have been too much and also a cliche. However, with the Burns' analogy, the writing of something as a work of art doesn't "work." What plans were laid? "Try" is not a plan. "Do, there is no try." - Yoda
> >

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> A Work of Art
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > >>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > >>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > >>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > >>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > >>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > >>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > >>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > >>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> - gjd
> > >>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yes, definitely.
> > >>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> > >>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> > >>> find evidence of readers.
> > >> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> > >>
> > >> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> > >>
> > >> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> > >
> > > I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> > Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
> >
> > Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
> >
> > "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> > consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> > powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> > "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
> >
> > One can even take courses on it:
> > https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
> I don’t think spontaneous writing is the same
> thing as extemporaneous writing though, is it?
> Don’t the words mean or suggest different things?

I think "spontaneous" fits:

spontaneous
adjective
spon·​ta·​ne·​ous | \ spän-ˈtā-nē-əs
\ Definition of spontaneous

1 : proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint
2 : arising from a momentary impulse

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spontaneous

"Extemporaneous" makes for a better, more specific fit; but it adds two extra beats and would be difficult (if not impossible) to work into the meter.

On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-06-23 7:19 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
> >>>>
> >>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
> >>>
> >>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
> >> He didn’t say die. He specifically said “fizzle out”. Pay attention. Words matter.
> >
> > Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP said "die", "die" was directed at OP--
> No, NG's comment was not directed at me. Are you trying to stir up trouble?

He's not good for much else.

🙂

> > as you say, words matter...

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 11:39:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-06-23 7:19 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
> > >>>
> > >>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
> > >> He didn’t say die. He specifically said “fizzle out”. Pay attention. Words matter.
> > >
> > > Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP said "die", "die" was directed at OP--
> > No, NG's comment was not directed at me. Are you trying to stir up trouble?
>
> He's not good for much else.
>
> > > as you say, words matter...

You willy and your buddy, cannot read-- and you fools say you're so much superior than me!

I told HC, so you fools had no right nosing in as you always do with your trolling-- NG directed the comment at the author of the post that they were responding to.

George is the one trying to stir up trouble and cowardly pinning it on me.

Goddamned fuckwits, stupid shits, nasty ass trolling twits! No wonder they're on Losenet, nothing can stop you from being losers here

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 9:36:36 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> A Work of Art
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > > >>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > > >>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > > >>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > > >>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > > >>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > > >>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > > >>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > > >>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> - gjd
> > > >>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yes, definitely.
> > > >>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> > > >>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> > > >>> find evidence of readers.
> > > >> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> > > >>
> > > >> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> > > >>
> > > >> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> > > >
> > > > I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> > > Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
> > >
> > > Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
> > >
> > > "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> > > consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> > > powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> > > "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
> > >
> > > One can even take courses on it:
> > > https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
> > I don’t think spontaneous writing is the same
> > thing as extemporaneous writing though, is it?
> > Don’t the words mean or suggest different things?
>
> I think "spontaneous" fits:
>
> spontaneous
> adjective
> spon·​ta·​ne·​ous | \ spän-ˈtā-nē-əs
> \
> Definition of spontaneous
>
> 1 : proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint
> 2 : arising from a momentary impulse
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spontaneous
>
> "Extemporaneous" makes for a better, more specific fit; but it adds two extra beats and would be difficult (if not impossible) to work into the meter.

I would had gone with impromptu for sound but you lose a syllable. Don't ask about the stress/unstressed-- I gave that infuriating habit up.

Idiots talk about freestyle rap like they think they know something...

Impromptu rap is mainly playing with rhymes and any meaningful message and writing structure gets set to the side in favor of rhyme and rhyme only...
Iman. and Westside Boogie Freestyle with Eminem On The Phone,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtJ5Zw9Xlqc

Go search for on Youtube and listen to "Sway in the Morning" freestyle. These guys that pull it off have so many rhymes and verses in their heads from years of working with such that they can perform miracles compared to someone who hasn't. But that doesn't mean that it translates to formal poetry.. If you paid attention to song lyrics I posted, hip-hop/rap needs more

Now their "Five Fingers of Death" challenge forces a 5 beat meter on the contestant and it's the ultimate challenge.
"Logic Kills the 5 Fingers of Death Freestyle on Sway in the Morning | Sway's Universe"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWLleo7NKh8

I hit people with spontaneous writing on another thread, rough as is to be expected but hardly ever a polished work but a good start for one.

Victor H. wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:
>>
>> A Work of Art

>> I tried to write a work of art
>> With all my passion, all my heart,
>> But no idea of what to say
>> Or what I wanted to convey;
>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.

>> It really wasn't very smart
>> To take this trek without a chart:
>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
>> But one cannot make art that way,
>> I should have realized from the start.

>> - gjd

> Quite an excellent short poem....

It definitely makes a statement.

NancyGene wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:31:50 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> A Work of Art
>>
>> I tried to write a work of art
>> With all my passion, all my heart,
>> But no idea of what to say
>> Or what I wanted to convey;
>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
>>
>> It really wasn't very smart
>> To take this trek without a chart:
>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
>> But one cannot make art that way,
>> I should have realized from the start.
>>
>> - gjd
> George Dance, your poem breaks down in the last line. "I should have realized from the start" just does not fit with the meter you have established. A suggestion would be "I should have known [also "seen" is a possibility] that from the start," which would put the proper stress on "known."

No, the poem is fine....

On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 4:55:15 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> NancyGene wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:31:50 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> A Work of Art
> >>
> >> I tried to write a work of art
> >> With all my passion, all my heart,
> >> But no idea of what to say
> >> Or what I wanted to convey;
> >> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >>
> >> It really wasn't very smart
> >> To take this trek without a chart:
> >> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> >> But one cannot make art that way,
> >> I should have realized from the start.
> >>
> >> - gjd
> > George Dance, your poem breaks down in the last line. "I should have realized from the start" just does not fit with the meter you have established. A suggestion would be "I should have known [also "seen" is a possibility] that from the start," which would put the proper stress on "known."
>
> No, the poem is fine....

You aren't doing your friend any favors, Zod. His poem has a good deal of potential, but it also has a good deal of weaknesses that keep it from reaching the level that it could.

Just as you let George tighten up some of your poems, George should take these constructive criticisms into account and tighten up his own poem.

There's no honor in keeping your poem sub-par just because you see those offering corrections as "the enemy."

A true friend would tell George to give it another shot.

That said, here are some other thoughts for George Dance to ponder:

The poem's title, opening line, and one assumes, subject is "A Work of Art," but the second stanza shifts the focus to spontaneous writing. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. A writer with such high-flown aspirations (creating "a work of art"), would be prone to meticulously plan out his work -- not to simply jot down whatever thoughts pop into his head.

The opening stanza is pretty good. The poet wishes to write "a work of art," but while the desire is there, he lacks the inspiration. The second stanza *attempts* to pass this approach off as "spontaneous writing," but that really isn't the issue. The issue is that he bit off more than he could chew. Some people lack the talent to achieve greatness in their field, and George's poet appears to be one of them. Even if he had figured out what he wanted to say/convey (btw: "say" and "convey" are too similar to work together, thereby rendering line 4 both superfluous and repetitive), there is no guarantee that his poem would have become the "work of art" that he'd intended it to.

Another problem with the second stanza is the choice to continue the rhymes ("art" and "ay") from the first. Consequently, line 9 works, but the others all seem forced.

Finally, I noticed in your responses that you saw fit to stress the point that the poem, "A Work of Art," is not the poem that the speaker had attempted to write. IMHO, this has no real import to one's appreciation of the work, and should be left up to the reader's interpretation.

In Summation: the poem is meant to be a clever piece of light verse, but it sacrifices wit in order to needlessly sustain the rhymes through two stanzas, and the basic idea is too confused (and poorly expressed) to come across as clever as it should.

Oscar Wilde (wisely) kept his witticisms brief. I would suggest cutting the second stanza entirely and adding two closing lines to the first. These closing lines should state the poem's "moral."

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-4, Rocky Stoneberg wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> >>> >>>>>> A Work of Art
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> >>> >>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> >>> >>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> >>> >>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> >>> >>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> >>> >>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> >>> >>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> >>> >>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> >>> >>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> - gjd
> >>> >>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Yes, definitely.
> >>> >>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> >>> >>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> >>> >>> find evidence of readers.
> >>> >> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> >>> >
> >>> > I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> >>> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
> >>>
> >>> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
> >>>
> >>> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> >>> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> >>> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> >>> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
> >>>
> >>> One can even take courses on it:
>
> > https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
>
> > Jack Kerouac swore by it.
>
> > Charles Bukowski and Allen Ginsberg often used spontaneous methods of poetry writing as well.
>
> > And, I confess... so have I, quite often.
>
> > (Typo corrected)
>
>
> Well put....!

Good morning, thanks again.

🙂

On 2022-06-27 12:01 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 11:39:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> On 2022-06-23 7:19 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
>>>>> He didn’t say die. He specifically said “fizzle out”. Pay attention. Words matter.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP said "die", "die" was directed at OP--
>>> No, NG's comment was not directed at me. Are you trying to stir up trouble?
>>
>> He's not good for much else.
>>
>>>> as you say, words matter...
>
> You willy and your buddy, cannot read-- and you fools say you're so much superior than me!
>
> I told HC, so you fools had no right nosing in

If you want to have private conversations, there's something called
e-mail -- I suggest you learn about it, too.

> as you always do with your trolling-- NG directed the comment at the author of the post that they were responding to.
>

No, that is not what you told HC. What you told HC was:
'Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP
said "die", "die" was directed at OP--'

I'm the OP in this thread.

Terms matter, just like words do. Learn them.

> George is the one trying to stir up trouble and cowardly pinning it on me.
>

At this point, if you weren't trying to stir up trouble, you'd
apologize, and explain that you didn't know what "OP" meant. You aren't;
therefore ...

> Goddamned fuckwits, stupid shits, nasty ass trolling twits!

Gee, where would anyone get the idea that you were trying to stir up
trouble?

> No wonder they're on Losenet, nothing can stop you from being losers here

If usenet bothers you so much, you can always leave. It's not that hard;
I know one guy here who's left dozens of times.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-06-27 12:01 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 11:39:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-06-23 7:19 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
>>>>>> He didn’t say die. He specifically said “fizzle out”. Pay attention. Words matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP said "die", "die" was directed at OP--
>>>> No, NG's comment was not directed at me. Are you trying to stir up trouble?
>>>
>>> He's not good for much else.
>>>
>>>>> as you say, words matter...
>>
>> You willy and your buddy, cannot read-- and you fools say you're so much superior than me!
>>
>> I told HC, so you fools had no right nosing in

> If you want to have private conversations, there's something called
> e-mail -- I suggest you learn about it, too.

>> as you always do with your trolling-- NG directed the comment at the author of the post that they were responding to.
>>

> No, that is not what you told HC. What you told HC was:
> 'Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP
> said "die", "die" was directed at OP--'

> I'm the OP in this thread.

> Terms matter, just like words do. Learn them.

>> George is the one trying to stir up trouble and cowardly pinning it on me.
>>

> At this point, if you weren't trying to stir up trouble, you'd
> apologize, and explain that you didn't know what "OP" meant. You aren't;
> therefore ...

>> Goddamned fuckwits, stupid shits, nasty ass trolling twits!

> Gee, where would anyone get the idea that you were trying to stir up
> trouble?

>> No wonder they're on Losenet, nothing can stop you from being losers here

> If usenet bothers you so much, you can always leave. It's not that hard;
> I know one guy here who's left dozens of times.

Well put G.D.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> A Work of Art
>
> I tried to write a work of art
> With all my passion, all my heart,
> But no idea of what to say
> Or what I wanted to convey;
> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
>
> It really wasn't very smart
> To take this trek without a chart:
> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> But one cannot make art that way,
> I should have realized from the start.
>
> - gjd

Thanks again for helping keep poetry alive on the group, George.

🙂

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-06-27 12:01 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 11:39:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-06-23 7:19 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
>>>>>> He didn’t say die. He specifically said “fizzle out”. Pay attention. Words matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP said "die", "die" was directed at OP--
>>>> No, NG's comment was not directed at me. Are you trying to stir up trouble?
>>>
>>> He's not good for much else.
>>>
>>>>> as you say, words matter...
>>
>> You willy and your buddy, cannot read-- and you fools say you're so much superior than me!
>>
>> I told HC, so you fools had no right nosing in

> If you want to have private conversations, there's something called
> e-mail -- I suggest you learn about it, too.

>> as you always do with your trolling-- NG directed the comment at the author of the post that they were responding to.
>>

> No, that is not what you told HC. What you told HC was:
> 'Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP
> said "die", "die" was directed at OP--'

> I'm the OP in this thread.

> Terms matter, just like words do. Learn them.

>> George is the one trying to stir up trouble and cowardly pinning it on me.
>>

> At this point, if you weren't trying to stir up trouble, you'd
> apologize, and explain that you didn't know what "OP" meant. You aren't;
> therefore ...

>> Goddamned fuckwits, stupid shits, nasty ass trolling twits!

> Gee, where would anyone get the idea that you were trying to stir up
> trouble?

>> No wonder they're on Losenet, nothing can stop you from being losers here

> If usenet bothers you so much, you can always leave. It's not that hard;
> I know one guy here who's left dozens of times.

<Crickets>

🙂

On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 5:04:24 PM UTC-4, the asshole george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-06-27 12:01 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 11:39:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>> On 2022-06-23 7:19 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work.. Did you read the poem?
> >>>>> He didn’t say die. He specifically said “fizzle out”. Pay attention. Words matter.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP said "die", "die" was directed at OP--
> >>> No, NG's comment was not directed at me. Are you trying to stir up trouble?
> >>
> >> He's not good for much else.
> >>
> >>>> as you say, words matter...
> >
> > You willy and your buddy, cannot read-- and you fools say you're so much superior than me!
> >
> > I told HC, so you fools had no right nosing in
> If you want to have private conversations, there's something called
> e-mail -- I suggest you learn about it, too.

Maybe you should send that reminder to certain douchebags who like to praddle on with "good mornings," "hellos" and every attempt in-between........

> > as you always do with your trolling-- NG directed the comment at the author of the post that they were responding to.
> >
> No, that is not what you told HC. What you told HC was:
> 'Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP
> said "die", "die" was directed at OP--'
>
> I'm the OP in this thread.

Original Poopface?

>
> Terms matter, just like words do. Learn them.

Perhaps you should explain that to your pal Donkey.

> > George is the one trying to stir up trouble and cowardly pinning it on me.
> >
> At this point, if you weren't trying to stir up trouble, you'd
> apologize, and explain that you didn't know what "OP" meant. You aren't;
> therefore ...
> > Goddamned fuckwits, stupid shits, nasty ass trolling twits!
> Gee, where would anyone get the idea that you were trying to stir up
> trouble?
> > No wonder they're on Losenet, nothing can stop you from being losers here
> If usenet bothers you so much, you can always leave. It's not that hard;
> I know one guy here who's left dozens of times.

Family Guy wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:
>> On 2022-06-27 12:01 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> > On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 11:39:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >>> On 2022-06-23 7:19 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> >>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work.. Did you read the poem?
>> >>>>> He didn’t say die. He specifically said “fizzle out”. Pay attention. Words matter.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP said "die", "die" was directed at OP--
>> >>> No, NG's comment was not directed at me. Are you trying to stir up trouble?
>> >>
>> >> He's not good for much else.
>> >>
>> >>>> as you say, words matter...
>> >
>> > You willy and your buddy, cannot read-- and you fools say you're so much superior than me!
>> >
>> > I told HC, so you fools had no right nosing in
>> If you want to have private conversations, there's something called
>> e-mail -- I suggest you learn about it, too.

> Maybe you should send that reminder

But if that happened you would have nothing to troll.... ha ha.

>> > as you always do with your trolling-- NG directed the comment at the author of the post that they were responding to.
>> >
>> No, that is not what you told HC. What you told HC was:
>> 'Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP
>> said "die", "die" was directed at OP--'
>>
>> I'm the OP in this thread.

> Original Poopface?

>>
>> Terms matter, just like words do. Learn them.

>
>> > George is the one trying to stir up trouble and cowardly pinning it on me.
>> >
>> At this point, if you weren't trying to stir up trouble, you'd
>> apologize, and explain that you didn't know what "OP" meant. You aren't;
>> therefore ...
>> > Goddamned fuckwits, stupid shits, nasty ass trolling twits!
>> Gee, where would anyone get the idea that you were trying to stir up
>> trouble?
>> > No wonder they're on Losenet, nothing can stop you from being losers here
>> If usenet bothers you so much, you can always leave. It's not that hard;
>> I know one guy here who's left dozens of times.

Ha ha..

On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 5:15:13 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > On 2022-06-27 12:01 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 11:39:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-06-23 7:19 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
> >>>>>> He didn’t say die. He specifically said “fizzle out”. Pay attention. Words matter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP said "die", "die" was directed at OP--
> >>>> No, NG's comment was not directed at me. Are you trying to stir up trouble?
> >>>
> >>> He's not good for much else.
> >>>
> >>>>> as you say, words matter...
> >>
> >> You willy and your buddy, cannot read-- and you fools say you're so much superior than me!
> >>
> >> I told HC, so you fools had no right nosing in
>
> > If you want to have private conversations, there's something called
> > e-mail -- I suggest you learn about it, too.
>
> >> as you always do with your trolling-- NG directed the comment at the author of the post that they were responding to.
> >>
>
> > No, that is not what you told HC. What you told HC was:
> > 'Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP
> > said "die", "die" was directed at OP--'
>
> > I'm the OP in this thread.
>
> > Terms matter, just like words do. Learn them.
>
> >> George is the one trying to stir up trouble and cowardly pinning it on me.
> >>
>
> > At this point, if you weren't trying to stir up trouble, you'd
> > apologize, and explain that you didn't know what "OP" meant. You aren't;
> > therefore ...
>
> >> Goddamned fuckwits, stupid shits, nasty ass trolling twits!
>
> > Gee, where would anyone get the idea that you were trying to stir up
> > trouble?
>
> >> No wonder they're on Losenet, nothing can stop you from being losers here
>
> > If usenet bothers you so much, you can always leave. It's not that hard;
> > I know one guy here who's left dozens of times.
> Well put G.D.

Yes, apparently Ash missed this one while spewing his epic bullshit.

🙂

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-06-27 12:01 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 11:39:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-06-23 7:19 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
>>>>>>> He didn’t say die. He specifically said “fizzle out”. Pay attention. Words matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP said "die", "die" was directed at OP--
>>>>> No, NG's comment was not directed at me. Are you trying to stir up trouble?
>>>>
>>>> He's not good for much else.
>>>>
>>>>>> as you say, words matter...
>>>
>>> You willy and your buddy, cannot read-- and you fools say you're so much superior than me!
>>>
>>> I told HC, so you fools had no right nosing in

>> If you want to have private conversations, there's something called
>> e-mail -- I suggest you learn about it, too.

>>> as you always do with your trolling-- NG directed the comment at the author of the post that they were responding to.
>>>

>> No, that is not what you told HC. What you told HC was:
>> 'Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP
>> said "die", "die" was directed at OP--'

>> I'm the OP in this thread.

>> Terms matter, just like words do. Learn them.

>>> George is the one trying to stir up trouble and cowardly pinning it on me.
>>>

>> At this point, if you weren't trying to stir up trouble, you'd
>> apologize, and explain that you didn't know what "OP" meant. You aren't;
>> therefore ...

>> Goddamned fuckwits, stupid shits, nasty ass trolling twits!

>
> Gee, where would anyone get the idea that you were trying to stir up
>
> trouble?

>> No wonder they're on Losenet, nothing can stop you from being losers here

>
> If usenet bothers you so much, you can always leave. It's not that hard;
>> I know one guy here who's left dozens of times.

<Crickets>

🙂

On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 5:15:13 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On 2022-06-27 12:01 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 11:39:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-06-23 7:19 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>>> I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
>> >>>>>> He didn’t say die. He specifically said “fizzle out”. Pay attention. Words matter.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP said "die", "die" was directed at OP--
>> >>>> No, NG's comment was not directed at me. Are you trying to stir up trouble?
>> >>>
>> >>> He's not good for much else.
>> >>>
>> >>>>> as you say, words matter...
>> >>
>> >> You willy and your buddy, cannot read-- and you fools say you're so much superior than me!
>> >>
>> >> I told HC, so you fools had no right nosing in
>>
>> > If you want to have private conversations, there's something called
>> > e-mail -- I suggest you learn about it, too.
>>
>> >> as you always do with your trolling-- NG directed the comment at the author of the post that they were responding to.
>> >>
>>
>> > No, that is not what you told HC. What you told HC was:
>> > 'Why don't you pay attention to what they said, they didn't say that OP
>> > said "die", "die" was directed at OP--'
>>
>> > I'm the OP in this thread.
>>
>> > Terms matter, just like words do. Learn them.
>>
>> >> George is the one trying to stir up trouble and cowardly pinning it on me.
>> >>
>>
>> > At this point, if you weren't trying to stir up trouble, you'd
>> > apologize, and explain that you didn't know what "OP" meant. You aren't;
>> > therefore ...
>>
>> >> Goddamned fuckwits, stupid shits, nasty ass trolling twits!
>>
>> > Gee, where would anyone get the idea that you were trying to stir up
>> > trouble?
>>
>>> No wonder they're on Losenet, nothing can stop you from being losers here
>
> If usenet bothers you so much, you can always leave. It's not that hard;
>
> I know one guy here who's left dozens of times.

Yes, apparently Ash missed this one while spewing his epic bullshit.

🙂