So many possibilities
Begin with every baby’s birth,
But years conspire to decrease.
So many possibilities.
Yet still we have our families.
To justify our time on earth:
So many possibilities
Begin with every baby’s birth.
- GJD

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 9:47:17 PM UTC, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> So many possibilities
> Begin with every baby’s birth,
> But years conspire to decrease.
> So many possibilities.
> Yet still we have our families.
> To justify our time on earth:
> So many possibilities
> Begin with every baby’s birth.
> - GJD

We don't think that's a legitimate topic. :-)

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:03:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 9:47:17 PM UTC, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > So many possibilities
> > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > But years conspire to decrease.
> > So many possibilities.
> > Yet still we have our families.
> > To justify our time on earth:
> > So many possibilities
> > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> > - GJD
> We don't think that's a legitimate topic. :-)

We could always ask Dockery

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:06:40 PM UTC, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:03:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 9:47:17 PM UTC, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > So many possibilities
> > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > But years conspire to decrease.
> > > So many possibilities.
> > > Yet still we have our families.
> > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > So many possibilities
> > > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> > > - GJD
> > We don't think that's a legitimate topic. :-)
> We could always ask Dockery

Could we ask Dockery who Joey's influences were?

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:17:43 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:06:40 PM UTC, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:03:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 9:47:17 PM UTC, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > So many possibilities
> > > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > > But years conspire to decrease.
> > > > So many possibilities.
> > > > Yet still we have our families.
> > > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > > So many possibilities
> > > > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> > > > - GJD
> > > We don't think that's a legitimate topic. :-)
> > We could always ask Dockery
> Could we ask Dockery who Joey's influences were?

He doesn't talk about friends or family....much.

On 2023-01-20 4:47 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> So many possibilities
> Begin with every baby’s birth,
> But years conspire to decrease.
> So many possibilities.
> Yet still we have our families.
> To justify our time on earth:
> So many possibilities
> Begin with every baby’s birth.
> - GJD

As will noted, you're my biggest fan.

As I've noted, and don't mind noting again, you're incapable of writing
a poem like that. (It's called a "triolet" BTW.)

Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:23:22 PM UTC, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:17:43 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:06:40 PM UTC, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:03:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 9:47:17 PM UTC, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > > > But years conspire to decrease.
> > > > > So many possibilities.
> > > > > Yet still we have our families.
> > > > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> > > > > - GJD
> > > > We don't think that's a legitimate topic. :-)
> > > We could always ask Dockery
> > Could we ask Dockery who Joey's influences were?
> He doesn't talk about friends or family....much.

We will have to assume that Joey's influences were R. Kelly and Roman Polanski, rather than Shakespeare and Poe.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2023-01-20 4:47 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
> > So many possibilities
> > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > But years conspire to decrease.
> > So many possibilities.
> > Yet still we have our families.
> > To justify our time on earth:
> > So many possibilities
> > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> > - GJD
> As will noted, you're my biggest fan.
>
> As I've noted, and don't mind noting again, you're incapable of writing
> a poem like that. (It's called a "triolet" BTW.)
>
> Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

There is reason why it was never used and why, you may ask?

Your baby birth poem is negative--'years conspire to decrease' told to the parents of the new born. but then told, oh, well, there is family to fall back on, from the dude who wrote of the beltings his father gave.

Your triolet is one big regret to the ears of the parents.

Take Joey and his Dad Dockery -- tell them , 'Yet still we have our families.
To justify our time on earth'. Hogwash.

Your poem is horrid.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2023-01-20 4:47 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >
> > > So many possibilities
> > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > But years conspire to decrease.
> > > So many possibilities.
> > > Yet still we have our families.
> > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > So many possibilities
> > > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> > > - GJD
> > As will noted, you're my biggest fan.
> >
> > As I've noted, and don't mind noting again, you're incapable of writing
> > a poem like that. (It's called a "triolet" BTW.)
> >
> > Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.
> There is reason why it was never used and why, you may ask?
>

No, I'd rather ask what. What was never used? The triolet? It's been used hundreds, possibly thousands of times.

> Your baby birth poem is negative--'years conspire to decrease' told to the parents of the new born. but then told, oh, well, there is family to fall back on

"Years conspire to decrease possibilities" is something everyone should know, even you. Compare the possibilities you had as a child, and look at you now, with have very few possibilities left. Having children, "oh well," is the means of reopening all those possibilities again.

I've explained that to you before, but I don't expect you to get it right away, so I don't mind repeating.

> , from the dude who wrote of the beltings his father gave.
>

That poem certainly touched a nerve in you. But we're discussing this one.
Do you think you're up to writing a triolet?
>
> Your poem is horrid.

Let's see you write a better one.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On 2023-01-20 4:47 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > >
> > > > So many possibilities
> > > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > > But years conspire to decrease.
> > > > So many possibilities.
> > > > Yet still we have our families.
> > > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > > So many possibilities
> > > > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> > > > - GJD
> > > As will noted, you're my biggest fan.
> > >
> > > As I've noted, and don't mind noting again, you're incapable of writing
> > > a poem like that. (It's called a "triolet" BTW.)
> > >
> > > Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.
> > There is reason why it was never used and why, you may ask?
> >
> No, I'd rather ask what. What was never used? The triolet? It's been used hundreds, possibly thousands of times.
> > Your baby birth poem is negative--'years conspire to decrease' told to the parents of the new born. but then told, oh, well, there is family to fall back on
> "Years conspire to decrease possibilities" is something everyone should know, even you. Compare the possibilities you had as a child, and look at you now, with have very few possibilities left. Having children, "oh well," is the means of reopening all those possibilities again.
>
> I've explained that to you before, but I don't expect you to get it right away, so I don't mind repeating.
> > , from the dude who wrote of the beltings his father gave.
> >
> That poem certainly touched a nerve in you. But we're discussing this one..
> Do you think you're up to writing a triolet?
> >
> > Your poem is horrid.
>
> Let's see you write a better one.

"What was never used/"

Your poem was never used, jerk-off, with no explanation.

Do you want me to write double lines, repeat double thoughts?

Fuck off Mensa Man.

Now you can tell everybody you won.

You use many lines Mensa Man, that says very little.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:16:50 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On 2023-01-20 4:47 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > > > But years conspire to decrease.
> > > > > So many possibilities.
> > > > > Yet still we have our families.
> > > > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> > > > > - GJD
> > > > As will noted, you're my biggest fan.
> > > >
> > > > As I've noted, and don't mind noting again, you're incapable of writing
> > > > a poem like that. (It's called a "triolet" BTW.)
> > > >
> > > > Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.
> > > There is reason why it was never used and why, you may ask?
> > >
> > No, I'd rather ask what. What was never used? The triolet? It's been used hundreds, possibly thousands of times.
> > > Your baby birth poem is negative--'years conspire to decrease' told to the parents of the new born. but then told, oh, well, there is family to fall back on
> > "Years conspire to decrease possibilities" is something everyone should know, even you. Compare the possibilities you had as a child, and look at you now, with have very few possibilities left. Having children, "oh well," is the means of reopening all those possibilities again.
> >
> > I've explained that to you before, but I don't expect you to get it right away, so I don't mind repeating.
> > > , from the dude who wrote of the beltings his father gave.
> > >
> > That poem certainly touched a nerve in you. But we're discussing this one.
> > Do you think you're up to writing a triolet?
> > >
> > > Your poem is horrid.
> >
> > Let's see you write a better one.
>
> "What was never used/"
>
> Your poem was never used, jerk-off, with no explanation.
>
I didn't say it was "never used." I said it wasn't in the book; and the explanation was the book never happened.

> Do you want me to write double lines, repeat double thoughts?
>
Once again: I want you to write a triolet, if you think you're capable.

> Fuck off Mensa Man.
>

Sorry, mentally-ill man. You trolled me in here; you don't get to troll me out again. I think I'll stay here talking to you for a while.

> Now you can tell everybody you won.

I'll decide when I win or lose, thanks.

> You use many lines Mensa Man, that says very little.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:16:50 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-01-20 4:47 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > > > > But years conspire to decrease.
> > > > > > So many possibilities.
> > > > > > Yet still we have our families.
> > > > > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> > > > > > - GJD
> > > > > As will noted, you're my biggest fan.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I've noted, and don't mind noting again, you're incapable of writing
> > > > > a poem like that. (It's called a "triolet" BTW.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.
> > > > There is reason why it was never used and why, you may ask?
> > > >
> > > No, I'd rather ask what. What was never used? The triolet? It's been used hundreds, possibly thousands of times.
> > > > Your baby birth poem is negative--'years conspire to decrease' told to the parents of the new born. but then told, oh, well, there is family to fall back on
> > > "Years conspire to decrease possibilities" is something everyone should know, even you. Compare the possibilities you had as a child, and look at you now, with have very few possibilities left. Having children, "oh well," is the means of reopening all those possibilities again.
> > >
> > > I've explained that to you before, but I don't expect you to get it right away, so I don't mind repeating.
> > > > , from the dude who wrote of the beltings his father gave.
> > > >
> > > That poem certainly touched a nerve in you. But we're discussing this one.
> > > Do you think you're up to writing a triolet?
> > > >
> > > > Your poem is horrid.
> > >
> > > Let's see you write a better one.
> >
> > "What was never used/"
> >
> > Your poem was never used, jerk-off, with no explanation.
> >
> I didn't say it was "never used." I said it wasn't in the book; and the explanation was the book never happened.
> > Do you want me to write double lines, repeat double thoughts?
> >
> Once again: I want you to write a triolet, if you think you're capable.
>
> > Fuck off Mensa Man.
> >
>
> Sorry, mentally-ill man. You trolled me in here; you don't get to troll me out again. I think I'll stay here talking to you for a while.
> > Now you can tell everybody you won.
> I'll decide when I win or lose, thanks.
> > You use many lines Mensa Man, that says very little.

The decision has been made, as with your political career, you've lost and any stature you might have had, is gone as well, right here in this silly group.

Live with it.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:16:50 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-01-20 4:47 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > > > > But years conspire to decrease.
> > > > > > So many possibilities.
> > > > > > Yet still we have our families.
> > > > > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> > > > > > - GJD
> > > > > As will noted, you're my biggest fan.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I've noted, and don't mind noting again, you're incapable of writing
> > > > > a poem like that. (It's called a "triolet" BTW.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.
> > > > There is reason why it was never used and why, you may ask?
> > > >
> > > No, I'd rather ask what. What was never used? The triolet? It's been used hundreds, possibly thousands of times.
> > > > Your baby birth poem is negative--'years conspire to decrease' told to the parents of the new born. but then told, oh, well, there is family to fall back on
> > > "Years conspire to decrease possibilities" is something everyone should know, even you. Compare the possibilities you had as a child, and look at you now, with have very few possibilities left. Having children, "oh well," is the means of reopening all those possibilities again.
> > >
> > > I've explained that to you before, but I don't expect you to get it right away, so I don't mind repeating.
> > > > , from the dude who wrote of the beltings his father gave.
> > > >
> > > That poem certainly touched a nerve in you. But we're discussing this one.
> > > Do you think you're up to writing a triolet?
> > > >
> > > > Your poem is horrid.
> > >
> > > Let's see you write a better one.
> >
> > "What was never used/"
> >
> > Your poem was never used, jerk-off, with no explanation.
> >
> I didn't say it was "never used." I said it wasn't in the book; and the explanation was the book never happened

So it was never used..
..
> > Do you want me to write double lines, repeat double thoughts?
> >
> Once again: I want you to write a triolet, if you think you're capable.
>
> > Fuck off Mensa Man.
> >
>
> Sorry, mentally-ill man. You trolled me in here; you don't get to troll me out again. I think I'll stay here talking to you for a while.
> > Now you can tell everybody you won.
> I'll decide when I win or lose, thanks.
> > You use many lines Mensa Man, that says very little.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:16:50 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-01-20 4:47 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > > > > But years conspire to decrease.

The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid predetermined formats at all costs. The "sentence" is incomplete. "Years conspire to decrease" what?

Years conspire to decrease possibilities.

The correct sentence should read: "So many possibilities begin with every baby's birth, but years conspire to decrease their number."

> > > > > > So many possibilities.
> > > > > > Yet still we have our families.

These too lines don't form a coherent sentence. "Yet" implies that ideas addressed in each of the lines are contrapuntal: specifically that the latter serves to either mitigate or compensate for the former. But how? How do families compensate for possibilities? How do they mitigate possibilities (which would not work with "Yet still")?

> > > > > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth.

This, again, is not a coherent sentence. You really spend way too much time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.

How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to irrelevancy by years?

Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences), your poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to achieve it. As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential will be as unrealized as our own.

That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem. Unfortunately, your attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines any possibilities ;-) it might have had.

> > > > > > - GJD
> > > > > As will noted, you're my biggest fan.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I've noted, and don't mind noting again, you're incapable of writing
> > > > > a poem like that. (It's called a "triolet" BTW.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.
> > > > There is reason why it was never used and why, you may ask?
> > > >
> > > No, I'd rather ask what. What was never used? The triolet? It's been used hundreds, possibly thousands of times.
> > > > Your baby birth poem is negative--'years conspire to decrease' told to the parents of the new born. but then told, oh, well, there is family to fall back on
> > > "Years conspire to decrease possibilities" is something everyone should know, even you. Compare the possibilities you had as a child, and look at you now, with have very few possibilities left. Having children, "oh well," is the means of reopening all those possibilities again.
> > >
> > > I've explained that to you before, but I don't expect you to get it right away, so I don't mind repeating.
> > > > , from the dude who wrote of the beltings his father gave.
> > > >
> > > That poem certainly touched a nerve in you. But we're discussing this one.
> > > Do you think you're up to writing a triolet?
> > > >
> > > > Your poem is horrid.
> > >
> > > Let's see you write a better one.
> >
> > "What was never used/"
> >
> > Your poem was never used, jerk-off, with no explanation.
> >
> I didn't say it was "never used." I said it wasn't in the book; and the explanation was the book never happened.

WTF is wrong with you, George?

You didn't mention any book in this thread.

And no one is talking about a book that may or may not have happened (whatever that is supposed to mean).

> > Do you want me to write double lines, repeat double thoughts?
> >
> Once again: I want you to write a triolet, if you think you're capable.

1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any given form. One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a triolet. All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the format.
2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms. If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me. Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit themselves to someone else's rules.
3) Jim is a far better poet than you. Jim's poems strike the reader as being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality. Your poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.

> > Fuck off Mensa Man.
> >
>
> Sorry, mentally-ill man. You trolled me in here; you don't get to troll me out again. I think I'll stay here talking to you for a while.

That's childish.

> > Now you can tell everybody you won.
> I'll decide when I win or lose, thanks.

That's even more childish.

Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.

> > You use many lines Mensa Man, that says very little.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 11:13:52 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:16:50 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On 2023-01-20 4:47 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > > > > > But years conspire to decrease.
> The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid predetermined formats at all costs. The "sentence" is incomplete.

You're replying to a version of the poem posted by "Edward Rochester," which has some endline punctuation added. (There is no endline punctuation in the odd-numbered lines of my poem.) That added punctuation is the reason for the incomplete sentences in his version.

> "Years conspire to decrease" what?

Years conspire to decrease / So many possibilities."
That's how LL3-4 read in the poem.
>
> Years conspire to decrease possibilities.
>
> The correct sentence should read: "So many possibilities begin with every baby's birth, but years conspire to decrease their number."

There is nothing incorrect about the sentence: ""So many possibilities begin with every baby's birth, but years conspire to decrease so many possibilities." If I were writing it in prose, I might have said "... so many of them" or "... so many of those possibilities" - but neither would be needed to make the sentence correct.

> > > > > > > So many possibilities.

Notice how the added punctuation turned the first sentence of the poem into two incomplete sentences. And then notice how the same thing happens to the original.

> > > > > > > Yet still we have our families.
> These too lines don't form a coherent sentence. "Yet" implies that ideas addressed in each of the lines are contrapuntal: specifically that the latter serves to either mitigate or compensate for the former. But how? How do families compensate for possibilities?

How do they mitigate possibilities (which would not work with "Yet still")?

Families don't mitigate the possibilities; they mitigate the latter's decrease, or loss. (X may no longer be a live possibility for you, but it is for your children.) That's clear in the original:

"But years conspire to decrease / So many possibilities. / Yet still we have our families / To justify our time on earth:."

> > > > > > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> This, again, is not a coherent sentence.

Again, it's a piece of a sentence that's been turned into a "sentence" by the added punctuation in the "Rochester" version.

> You really spend way too much time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.
>

Please don't try to blame me for the punctuation Mr. Chimp added.

> How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to irrelevancy by years?

Once again, it's the "families" that justify not realizing one's own possibilities; those that are no longer possible for your genotype, are still possible for future generations of it.
> Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences)

Since we've spent the entire discussion on them, let's not ignore them at all. It is worth repeating that they were the result of changes made to my poem.

> , your poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to achieve it.

That part of your summary is dead on.

As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential will be as unrealized as our own.

I do have to object to the word "solace". The poem doesn't say that our children are of value to give us solace or comfort for what we failed to achieve; it says that they're of value to achieve what we couldn't.
> That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem. Unfortunately, your attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines any possibilities ;-) it might have had.

The unclarity, as we've seen, is only in this version of my poem that "Edward Rochester" posted, and only as a result of the changes that were made to it in this version.

<snip>

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 11:13:52 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:16:50 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On 2023-01-20 4:47 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth,
> > > > > > > But years conspire to decrease.
> The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid predetermined formats at all costs. The "sentence" is incomplete. "Years conspire to decrease" what?
>
> Years conspire to decrease possibilities.
>
> The correct sentence should read: "So many possibilities begin with every baby's birth, but years conspire to decrease their number."
> > > > > > > So many possibilities.
> > > > > > > Yet still we have our families.
> These too lines don't form a coherent sentence. "Yet" implies that ideas addressed in each of the lines are contrapuntal: specifically that the latter serves to either mitigate or compensate for the former. But how? How do families compensate for possibilities? How do they mitigate possibilities (which would not work with "Yet still")?
> > > > > > > To justify our time on earth:
> > > > > > > So many possibilities
> > > > > > > Begin with every baby’s birth.
> This, again, is not a coherent sentence. You really spend way too much time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.
>
> How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to irrelevancy by years?
>
> Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences), your poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to achieve it. As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential will be as unrealized as our own.
>
> That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem. Unfortunately, your attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines any possibilities ;-) it might have had.
> > > > > > > - GJD
> > > > > > As will noted, you're my biggest fan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I've noted, and don't mind noting again, you're incapable of writing
> > > > > > a poem like that. (It's called a "triolet" BTW.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.
> > > > > There is reason why it was never used and why, you may ask?
> > > > >
> > > > No, I'd rather ask what. What was never used? The triolet? It's been used hundreds, possibly thousands of times.
> > > > > Your baby birth poem is negative--'years conspire to decrease' told to the parents of the new born. but then told, oh, well, there is family to fall back on
> > > > "Years conspire to decrease possibilities" is something everyone should know, even you. Compare the possibilities you had as a child, and look at you now, with have very few possibilities left. Having children, "oh well," is the means of reopening all those possibilities again.
> > > >
> > > > I've explained that to you before, but I don't expect you to get it right away, so I don't mind repeating.
> > > > > , from the dude who wrote of the beltings his father gave.
> > > > >
> > > > That poem certainly touched a nerve in you. But we're discussing this one.
> > > > Do you think you're up to writing a triolet?
> > > > >
> > > > > Your poem is horrid.
> > > >
> > > > Let's see you write a better one.
> > >
> > > "What was never used/"
> > >
> > > Your poem was never used, jerk-off, with no explanation.
> > >
> > I didn't say it was "never used." I said it wasn't in the book; and the explanation was the book never happened.
> WTF is wrong with you, George?
>
> You didn't mention any book in this thread.
>
> And no one is talking about a book that may or may not have happened (whatever that is supposed to mean).
> > > Do you want me to write double lines, repeat double thoughts?
> > >
> > Once again: I want you to write a triolet, if you think you're capable.
> 1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any given form. One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a triolet. All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the format.
> 2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms. If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me. Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit themselves to someone else's rules.
> 3) Jim is a far better poet than you. Jim's poems strike the reader as being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality. Your poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.
> > > Fuck off Mensa Man.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, mentally-ill man. You trolled me in here; you don't get to troll me out again. I think I'll stay here talking to you for a while.
> That's childish.
> > > Now you can tell everybody you won.
> > I'll decide when I win or lose, thanks.
> That's even more childish.
>
> Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.
> > > You use many lines Mensa Man, that says very little.

I wrote a reply to some of this (the part that deals with my poem), but I decided to delete that here and move it to the discussion thread for the poem instead:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/qZMQrPINRz0?hl=en

I'll be happy to discuss my poem with you there.