On Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:44:26 PM UTC-5, Dale Houstman wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 12:38 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> >
> >>George Dance wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Nov 27, 9:56 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Spring Again
> >>>
> >>>>It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> >>>>I'd add "thank God for that" (if I believed)
> >>>>For frozen by its high beams I have seen
> >>>>Oncoming dread: one dead and one bereaved.
> >>>>I cannot pray to live eternally
> >>>>Or gain a brave new body after death.
> >>>>This is my all - a thought which forces me
> >>>>To not go tharn, to fight for every breath;
> >>>>A battle till the setting of each sun,
> >>>>A conquest every sunset we survive,
> >>>>Another day my love and I have won
> >>>>And death has lost. Today I am alive,
> >>>> This world is mine, its grass and trees are green,
> >>>> It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> >>>
> >>>The only reason I posted this (one-word) revision was that I thought
> >>>it would allow me to read Dale's last post, which google won't allow
> >>>me to for some reason.
> >>
> >>>Dale, I'm sure this revision doesn't change your opinion of the thing
> >>>in the slightest: so if you want to re-send your previous post, as a
> >>>reply to this one, I'd appreciate it.
> >>
> >>It was short...
> >>
> >>"Still (and I wager, forever) wretched, harn, tharn, or everywharn..."
> >>
> >>So you weren't missing much...
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah, you were just being a tharn in my side. Well, you've given me more
> > below, so my missing the original might have been of value.
> >
> >
> >
> >>The striking thing here is the nature of your "re-write" which appears
> >>to reveal that you have as much trouble with the re-writing process as
> >>you do with the writing process: you are vastly timorous, afraid to make
> >>"big choices" and step outside what you have already laid dow so as to
> >>(possibly) achieve a higher plane of poetic expression. All the writers
> >>I have known (including myself) have had to make the hard choices, the
> >>severe triage, of gutting entire phrases, of smashing the form and
> >>re-imaging it, of breaking away from "what is" to create "what might be"
> >>etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > I understand the situation. I've had to go through a lot of my old
> > work this month, and found a couple of pieces lke that; one I rewrote
> > completely, while the other I haven't been able to do anything with.
> > But of course you can't see that; you're commenting on the basis of
> > what I did with this poem alone (which admittedly wasn't much in
> > either revision; I certainly wouldn't call either a "rewrite" of the
> > poem).
> Well, you do call it a "revision" - which is six of one, half a dozen of
> the other... Obvioulsy I can't judge what I haven't seen. But I've
> watched you approach all the critiquing here, and seen your response to
> it, and - frankly - it's a pretty vapid display: after all that noise,
> you chose to re-present the poem with only one word changed. If you
> can't do anything with it, you can't do anything with it...but to
> present something as a "revision" with only one word changed, and to
> then expect some new comments is - well - sort of dumb.
> >
> >
> >
> >>If you really think you can turn a bland bit of melo-drama into a
> >>striking poem by simply changing one (or two, or a dozen) words, then
> >>you misunderstand the necessary "heartbreak" of the re-write, in which
> >>you have to admit your baby is ugly and opt for either radical surgery,
> >>or a quick death and burial.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that's only one option; the radical surgery you mention is
> > really just going back to the beginning and writing a new poem. The
> > original dies in either case.
> So? Some deaths are necessary, even merciful. And actually, one can
> radically sculpt a poem without starting a new one (in effect). It is
> admittedlydifficult in this case, because the material you have to work
> with is so deficient, so tossing that ugly baby under the carriage
> wheels is actually the best course available.
> Spring Is Maureen
> Spring is Maureen.
> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
> Her beams are frozen
> In dear dread
> And I am dead
> To our unbereaved.
> Yet, I am not prey to her polished body,
> After each crush of each thought,
> I cannot force her vein,
> And enter a bruised sunroom,
> Because each sunset is survived
> By love unwon,
> And an absence we are driven to wake in,
> Lost up a garden path.
> Today is not mine,
> Its grass and trees,
> Our smallest green dial,
> Their distant starts of roses...
> Smudged into smoke by haste...
> Spring is Maureen.
> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
> ......
> No great deal, but you see - as long as there are words in a thing,
> something better (if less overtly "meaningful") can be rooted from it.
> This is why your so-called revision (and all the timid reworkings
> previous) are so chillingly disappointing, so redolent of linguistic
> cowardice and delusion...
> >
> >>Almost all good poems are really "sculpted"
> >>in the re-write, and "sculpted" is not an arbitrary term: it is usually
> >>a matter of chiseling away large chunks of the drivel to see if there is
> >>anything breathing in there, or in you.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's a good metaphor, which I've thought myself. There's a big
> > difference with word sculpture, though, in that one can take out and
> > replace any piece.
> A minor quibble with a useful metaphor...and - like all analogies - it
> must fall apart if pushed too hard. It was addressed precisely to your
> (seeming) inability to take the knife to what is essentially a grotesque
> growth, which actually hides beauty more than it dares to revel in.
> >In this case, though, I thought I was past that; I
> > gave this a form months ago.
> Well - it is no good. You might be enamored of the machine you built,
> but it doesn't work, and you might stop re-presenting it...
> >
> >
> >>I personally don't think you
> >>have the stuff to make anything out the material you have supplied
> >>yourself, which is a mostly inferior grade of marble (i.e. fool's gold)..
> >>There simply isn't enough "there" to reveal.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Sure; you're still telling me to throw it away.
> Well - yeah...Unless you find it in you to make more than baby steps in
> a swamp of odorless mud, you might as well...
> dmh

Hi

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 1:41:35 PM UTC-4, Jordy C. wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
> > >>George Dance wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>On Nov 27, 9:56 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>Spring Again
> > >>>
> > >>>>It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> > >>>>I'd add "thank God for that" (if I believed)
> > >>>>For frozen by its high beams I have seen
> > >>>>Oncoming dread: one dead and one bereaved.
> > >>>>I cannot pray to live eternally
> > >>>>Or gain a brave new body after death.
> > >>>>This is my all - a thought which forces me
> > >>>>To not go tharn, to fight for every breath;
> > >>>>A battle till the setting of each sun,
> > >>>>A conquest every sunset we survive,
> > >>>>Another day my love and I have won
> > >>>>And death has lost. Today I am alive,
> > >>>> This world is mine, its grass and trees are green,
> > >>>> It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> > >>>

> Hi

Hi, Jordy. This poem went through a few more tweaks before getting written. Here's the final version:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/moKJq_IVGbA/m/TH70Oe2qFA4J?hl=en

Jordy C. wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:44:26 PM UTC-5, Dale Houstman wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
>> > On Nov 28, 12:38 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>George Dance wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Nov 27, 9:56 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>>>Spring Again
>> >>>
>> >>>>It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
>> >>>>I'd add "thank God for that" (if I believed)
>> >>>>For frozen by its high beams I have seen
>> >>>>Oncoming dread: one dead and one bereaved.
>> >>>>I cannot pray to live eternally
>> >>>>Or gain a brave new body after death.
>> >>>>This is my all - a thought which forces me
>> >>>>To not go tharn, to fight for every breath;
>> >>>>A battle till the setting of each sun,
>> >>>>A conquest every sunset we survive,
>> >>>>Another day my love and I have won
>> >>>>And death has lost. Today I am alive,
>> >>>> This world is mine, its grass and trees are green,
>> >>>> It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
>> >>>
>> >>>The only reason I posted this (one-word) revision was that I thought
>> >>>it would allow me to read Dale's last post, which google won't allow
>> >>>me to for some reason.
>> >>
>> >>>Dale, I'm sure this revision doesn't change your opinion of the thing
>> >>>in the slightest: so if you want to re-send your previous post, as a
>> >>>reply to this one, I'd appreciate it.
>> >>
>> >>It was short...
>> >>
>> >>"Still (and I wager, forever) wretched, harn, tharn, or everywharn..."
>> >>
>> >>So you weren't missing much...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ah, you were just being a tharn in my side. Well, you've given me more
>> > below, so my missing the original might have been of value.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>The striking thing here is the nature of your "re-write" which appears
>> >>to reveal that you have as much trouble with the re-writing process as
>> >>you do with the writing process: you are vastly timorous, afraid to make
>> >>"big choices" and step outside what you have already laid dow so as to
>> >>(possibly) achieve a higher plane of poetic expression. All the writers
>> >>I have known (including myself) have had to make the hard choices, the
>> >>severe triage, of gutting entire phrases, of smashing the form and
>> >>re-imaging it, of breaking away from "what is" to create "what might be"
>> >>etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I understand the situation. I've had to go through a lot of my old
>> > work this month, and found a couple of pieces lke that; one I rewrote
>> > completely, while the other I haven't been able to do anything with.
>> > But of course you can't see that; you're commenting on the basis of
>> > what I did with this poem alone (which admittedly wasn't much in
>> > either revision; I certainly wouldn't call either a "rewrite" of the
>> > poem).
>> Well, you do call it a "revision" - which is six of one, half a dozen of
>> the other... Obvioulsy I can't judge what I haven't seen. But I've
>> watched you approach all the critiquing here, and seen your response to
>> it, and - frankly - it's a pretty vapid display: after all that noise,
>> you chose to re-present the poem with only one word changed. If you
>> can't do anything with it, you can't do anything with it...but to
>> present something as a "revision" with only one word changed, and to
>> then expect some new comments is - well - sort of dumb.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>If you really think you can turn a bland bit of melo-drama into a
>> >>striking poem by simply changing one (or two, or a dozen) words, then
>> >>you misunderstand the necessary "heartbreak" of the re-write, in which
>> >>you have to admit your baby is ugly and opt for either radical surgery,
>> >>or a quick death and burial.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think that's only one option; the radical surgery you mention is
>> > really just going back to the beginning and writing a new poem. The
>> > original dies in either case.
>> So? Some deaths are necessary, even merciful. And actually, one can
>> radically sculpt a poem without starting a new one (in effect). It is
>> admittedlydifficult in this case, because the material you have to work
>> with is so deficient, so tossing that ugly baby under the carriage
>> wheels is actually the best course available.
>> Spring Is Maureen
>> Spring is Maureen.
>> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
>> Her beams are frozen
>> In dear dread
>> And I am dead
>> To our unbereaved.
>> Yet, I am not prey to her polished body,
>> After each crush of each thought,
>> I cannot force her vein,
>> And enter a bruised sunroom,
>> Because each sunset is survived
>> By love unwon,
>> And an absence we are driven to wake in,
>> Lost up a garden path.
>> Today is not mine,
>> Its grass and trees,
>> Our smallest green dial,
>> Their distant starts of roses...
>> Smudged into smoke by haste...
>> Spring is Maureen.
>> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
>> ......
>> No great deal, but you see - as long as there are words in a thing,
>> something better (if less overtly "meaningful") can be rooted from it.
>> This is why your so-called revision (and all the timid reworkings
>> previous) are so chillingly disappointing, so redolent of linguistic
>> cowardice and delusion...
>> >
>> >>Almost all good poems are really "sculpted"
>> >>in the re-write, and "sculpted" is not an arbitrary term: it is usually
>> >>a matter of chiseling away large chunks of the drivel to see if there is
>> >>anything breathing in there, or in you.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It's a good metaphor, which I've thought myself. There's a big
>> > difference with word sculpture, though, in that one can take out and
>> > replace any piece.
>> A minor quibble with a useful metaphor...and - like all analogies - it
>> must fall apart if pushed too hard. It was addressed precisely to your
>> (seeming) inability to take the knife to what is essentially a grotesque
>> growth, which actually hides beauty more than it dares to revel in.
>> >In this case, though, I thought I was past that; I
>> > gave this a form months ago.
>> Well - it is no good. You might be enamored of the machine you built,
>> but it doesn't work, and you might stop re-presenting it...
>> >
>> >
>> >>I personally don't think you
>> >>have the stuff to make anything out the material you have supplied
>> >>yourself, which is a mostly inferior grade of marble (i.e. fool's gold)..
>> >>There simply isn't enough "there" to reveal.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sure; you're still telling me to throw it away.
>> Well - yeah...Unless you find it in you to make more than baby steps in
>> a swamp of odorless mud, you might as well...
>> dmh

> Hi

Good find.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:40:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Jordy C. wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:44:26 PM UTC-5, Dale Houstman wrote:
> >> George Dance wrote:
> >> > On Nov 28, 12:38 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>George Dance wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Nov 27, 9:56 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> >>>>Spring Again
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> >> >>>>I'd add "thank God for that" (if I believed)
> >> >>>>For frozen by its high beams I have seen
> >> >>>>Oncoming dread: one dead and one bereaved.
> >> >>>>I cannot pray to live eternally
> >> >>>>Or gain a brave new body after death.
> >> >>>>This is my all - a thought which forces me
> >> >>>>To not go tharn, to fight for every breath;
> >> >>>>A battle till the setting of each sun,
> >> >>>>A conquest every sunset we survive,
> >> >>>>Another day my love and I have won
> >> >>>>And death has lost. Today I am alive,
> >> >>>> This world is mine, its grass and trees are green,
> >> >>>> It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The only reason I posted this (one-word) revision was that I thought
> >> >>>it would allow me to read Dale's last post, which google won't allow
> >> >>>me to for some reason.
> >> >>
> >> >>>Dale, I'm sure this revision doesn't change your opinion of the thing
> >> >>>in the slightest: so if you want to re-send your previous post, as a
> >> >>>reply to this one, I'd appreciate it.
> >> >>
> >> >>It was short...
> >> >>
> >> >>"Still (and I wager, forever) wretched, harn, tharn, or everywharn...."
> >> >>
> >> >>So you weren't missing much...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ah, you were just being a tharn in my side. Well, you've given me more
> >> > below, so my missing the original might have been of value.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>The striking thing here is the nature of your "re-write" which appears
> >> >>to reveal that you have as much trouble with the re-writing process as
> >> >>you do with the writing process: you are vastly timorous, afraid to make
> >> >>"big choices" and step outside what you have already laid dow so as to
> >> >>(possibly) achieve a higher plane of poetic expression. All the writers
> >> >>I have known (including myself) have had to make the hard choices, the
> >> >>severe triage, of gutting entire phrases, of smashing the form and
> >> >>re-imaging it, of breaking away from "what is" to create "what might be"
> >> >>etc.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I understand the situation. I've had to go through a lot of my old
> >> > work this month, and found a couple of pieces lke that; one I rewrote
> >> > completely, while the other I haven't been able to do anything with.
> >> > But of course you can't see that; you're commenting on the basis of
> >> > what I did with this poem alone (which admittedly wasn't much in
> >> > either revision; I certainly wouldn't call either a "rewrite" of the
> >> > poem).
> >> Well, you do call it a "revision" - which is six of one, half a dozen of
> >> the other... Obvioulsy I can't judge what I haven't seen. But I've
> >> watched you approach all the critiquing here, and seen your response to
> >> it, and - frankly - it's a pretty vapid display: after all that noise,
> >> you chose to re-present the poem with only one word changed. If you
> >> can't do anything with it, you can't do anything with it...but to
> >> present something as a "revision" with only one word changed, and to
> >> then expect some new comments is - well - sort of dumb.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>If you really think you can turn a bland bit of melo-drama into a
> >> >>striking poem by simply changing one (or two, or a dozen) words, then
> >> >>you misunderstand the necessary "heartbreak" of the re-write, in which
> >> >>you have to admit your baby is ugly and opt for either radical surgery,
> >> >>or a quick death and burial.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I think that's only one option; the radical surgery you mention is
> >> > really just going back to the beginning and writing a new poem. The
> >> > original dies in either case.
> >> So? Some deaths are necessary, even merciful. And actually, one can
> >> radically sculpt a poem without starting a new one (in effect). It is
> >> admittedlydifficult in this case, because the material you have to work
> >> with is so deficient, so tossing that ugly baby under the carriage
> >> wheels is actually the best course available.
> >> Spring Is Maureen
> >> Spring is Maureen.
> >> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
> >> Her beams are frozen
> >> In dear dread
> >> And I am dead
> >> To our unbereaved.
> >> Yet, I am not prey to her polished body,
> >> After each crush of each thought,
> >> I cannot force her vein,
> >> And enter a bruised sunroom,
> >> Because each sunset is survived
> >> By love unwon,
> >> And an absence we are driven to wake in,
> >> Lost up a garden path.
> >> Today is not mine,
> >> Its grass and trees,
> >> Our smallest green dial,
> >> Their distant starts of roses...
> >> Smudged into smoke by haste...
> >> Spring is Maureen.
> >> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
> >> ......
> >> No great deal, but you see - as long as there are words in a thing,
> >> something better (if less overtly "meaningful") can be rooted from it.
> >> This is why your so-called revision (and all the timid reworkings
> >> previous) are so chillingly disappointing, so redolent of linguistic
> >> cowardice and delusion...
> >> >
> >> >>Almost all good poems are really "sculpted"
> >> >>in the re-write, and "sculpted" is not an arbitrary term: it is usually
> >> >>a matter of chiseling away large chunks of the drivel to see if there is
> >> >>anything breathing in there, or in you.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It's a good metaphor, which I've thought myself. There's a big
> >> > difference with word sculpture, though, in that one can take out and
> >> > replace any piece.
> >> A minor quibble with a useful metaphor...and - like all analogies - it
> >> must fall apart if pushed too hard. It was addressed precisely to your
> >> (seeming) inability to take the knife to what is essentially a grotesque
> >> growth, which actually hides beauty more than it dares to revel in.
> >> >In this case, though, I thought I was past that; I
> >> > gave this a form months ago.
> >> Well - it is no good. You might be enamored of the machine you built,
> >> but it doesn't work, and you might stop re-presenting it...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>I personally don't think you
> >> >>have the stuff to make anything out the material you have supplied
> >> >>yourself, which is a mostly inferior grade of marble (i.e. fool's gold)..
> >> >>There simply isn't enough "there" to reveal.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sure; you're still telling me to throw it away.
> >> Well - yeah...Unless you find it in you to make more than baby steps in
> >> a swamp of odorless mud, you might as well...
> >> dmh
>
> > Hi
> Good find.
Well, it was the fake Jordy that posted, but glad that you and George were nevertheless able to find something positive from this post anyway! 😊👍

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:57:23 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:40:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > Jordy C. wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:44:26 PM UTC-5, Dale Houstman wrote:
> > >> George Dance wrote:
> > >> > On Nov 28, 12:38 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>George Dance wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>On Nov 27, 9:56 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >>>>Spring Again
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>>It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> > >> >>>>I'd add "thank God for that" (if I believed)
> > >> >>>>For frozen by its high beams I have seen
> > >> >>>>Oncoming dread: one dead and one bereaved.
> > >> >>>>I cannot pray to live eternally
> > >> >>>>Or gain a brave new body after death.
> > >> >>>>This is my all - a thought which forces me
> > >> >>>>To not go tharn, to fight for every breath;
> > >> >>>>A battle till the setting of each sun,
> > >> >>>>A conquest every sunset we survive,
> > >> >>>>Another day my love and I have won
> > >> >>>>And death has lost. Today I am alive,
> > >> >>>> This world is mine, its grass and trees are green,
> > >> >>>> It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>The only reason I posted this (one-word) revision was that I thought
> > >> >>>it would allow me to read Dale's last post, which google won't allow
> > >> >>>me to for some reason.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>Dale, I'm sure this revision doesn't change your opinion of the thing
> > >> >>>in the slightest: so if you want to re-send your previous post, as a
> > >> >>>reply to this one, I'd appreciate it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>It was short...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>"Still (and I wager, forever) wretched, harn, tharn, or everywharn...."
> > >> >>
> > >> >>So you weren't missing much...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Ah, you were just being a tharn in my side. Well, you've given me more
> > >> > below, so my missing the original might have been of value.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>The striking thing here is the nature of your "re-write" which appears
> > >> >>to reveal that you have as much trouble with the re-writing process as
> > >> >>you do with the writing process: you are vastly timorous, afraid to make
> > >> >>"big choices" and step outside what you have already laid dow so as to
> > >> >>(possibly) achieve a higher plane of poetic expression. All the writers
> > >> >>I have known (including myself) have had to make the hard choices, the
> > >> >>severe triage, of gutting entire phrases, of smashing the form and
> > >> >>re-imaging it, of breaking away from "what is" to create "what might be"
> > >> >>etc.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I understand the situation. I've had to go through a lot of my old
> > >> > work this month, and found a couple of pieces lke that; one I rewrote
> > >> > completely, while the other I haven't been able to do anything with.
> > >> > But of course you can't see that; you're commenting on the basis of
> > >> > what I did with this poem alone (which admittedly wasn't much in
> > >> > either revision; I certainly wouldn't call either a "rewrite" of the
> > >> > poem).
> > >> Well, you do call it a "revision" - which is six of one, half a dozen of
> > >> the other... Obvioulsy I can't judge what I haven't seen. But I've
> > >> watched you approach all the critiquing here, and seen your response to
> > >> it, and - frankly - it's a pretty vapid display: after all that noise,
> > >> you chose to re-present the poem with only one word changed. If you
> > >> can't do anything with it, you can't do anything with it...but to
> > >> present something as a "revision" with only one word changed, and to
> > >> then expect some new comments is - well - sort of dumb.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>If you really think you can turn a bland bit of melo-drama into a
> > >> >>striking poem by simply changing one (or two, or a dozen) words, then
> > >> >>you misunderstand the necessary "heartbreak" of the re-write, in which
> > >> >>you have to admit your baby is ugly and opt for either radical surgery,
> > >> >>or a quick death and burial.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I think that's only one option; the radical surgery you mention is
> > >> > really just going back to the beginning and writing a new poem. The
> > >> > original dies in either case.
> > >> So? Some deaths are necessary, even merciful. And actually, one can
> > >> radically sculpt a poem without starting a new one (in effect). It is
> > >> admittedlydifficult in this case, because the material you have to work
> > >> with is so deficient, so tossing that ugly baby under the carriage
> > >> wheels is actually the best course available.
> > >> Spring Is Maureen
> > >> Spring is Maureen.
> > >> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
> > >> Her beams are frozen
> > >> In dear dread
> > >> And I am dead
> > >> To our unbereaved.
> > >> Yet, I am not prey to her polished body,
> > >> After each crush of each thought,
> > >> I cannot force her vein,
> > >> And enter a bruised sunroom,
> > >> Because each sunset is survived
> > >> By love unwon,
> > >> And an absence we are driven to wake in,
> > >> Lost up a garden path.
> > >> Today is not mine,
> > >> Its grass and trees,
> > >> Our smallest green dial,
> > >> Their distant starts of roses...
> > >> Smudged into smoke by haste...
> > >> Spring is Maureen.
> > >> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
> > >> ......
> > >> No great deal, but you see - as long as there are words in a thing,
> > >> something better (if less overtly "meaningful") can be rooted from it.
> > >> This is why your so-called revision (and all the timid reworkings
> > >> previous) are so chillingly disappointing, so redolent of linguistic
> > >> cowardice and delusion...
> > >> >
> > >> >>Almost all good poems are really "sculpted"
> > >> >>in the re-write, and "sculpted" is not an arbitrary term: it is usually
> > >> >>a matter of chiseling away large chunks of the drivel to see if there is
> > >> >>anything breathing in there, or in you.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > It's a good metaphor, which I've thought myself. There's a big
> > >> > difference with word sculpture, though, in that one can take out and
> > >> > replace any piece.
> > >> A minor quibble with a useful metaphor...and - like all analogies - it
> > >> must fall apart if pushed too hard. It was addressed precisely to your
> > >> (seeming) inability to take the knife to what is essentially a grotesque
> > >> growth, which actually hides beauty more than it dares to revel in.
> > >> >In this case, though, I thought I was past that; I
> > >> > gave this a form months ago.
> > >> Well - it is no good. You might be enamored of the machine you built,
> > >> but it doesn't work, and you might stop re-presenting it...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>I personally don't think you
> > >> >>have the stuff to make anything out the material you have supplied
> > >> >>yourself, which is a mostly inferior grade of marble (i.e. fool's gold)..
> > >> >>There simply isn't enough "there" to reveal.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Sure; you're still telling me to throw it away.
> > >> Well - yeah...Unless you find it in you to make more than baby steps in
> > >> a swamp of odorless mud, you might as well...
> > >> dmh
> >
> > > Hi
> > Good find.
> Well, it was the fake Jordy that posted, but glad that you and George were nevertheless able to find something positive from this post anyway! 😊👍

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 6:18:43 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:57:23 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:40:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > Jordy C. wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:44:26 PM UTC-5, Dale Houstman wrote:
> > > >> George Dance wrote:
> > > >> > On Nov 28, 12:38 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>George Dance wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>>On Nov 27, 9:56 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> >>>>Spring Again
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>>It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> > > >> >>>>I'd add "thank God for that" (if I believed)
> > > >> >>>>For frozen by its high beams I have seen
> > > >> >>>>Oncoming dread: one dead and one bereaved.
> > > >> >>>>I cannot pray to live eternally
> > > >> >>>>Or gain a brave new body after death.
> > > >> >>>>This is my all - a thought which forces me
> > > >> >>>>To not go tharn, to fight for every breath;
> > > >> >>>>A battle till the setting of each sun,
> > > >> >>>>A conquest every sunset we survive,
> > > >> >>>>Another day my love and I have won
> > > >> >>>>And death has lost. Today I am alive,
> > > >> >>>> This world is mine, its grass and trees are green,
> > > >> >>>> It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>The only reason I posted this (one-word) revision was that I thought
> > > >> >>>it would allow me to read Dale's last post, which google won't allow
> > > >> >>>me to for some reason.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>>Dale, I'm sure this revision doesn't change your opinion of the thing
> > > >> >>>in the slightest: so if you want to re-send your previous post, as a
> > > >> >>>reply to this one, I'd appreciate it.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>It was short...
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>"Still (and I wager, forever) wretched, harn, tharn, or everywharn..."
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>So you weren't missing much...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ah, you were just being a tharn in my side. Well, you've given me more
> > > >> > below, so my missing the original might have been of value.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>The striking thing here is the nature of your "re-write" which appears
> > > >> >>to reveal that you have as much trouble with the re-writing process as
> > > >> >>you do with the writing process: you are vastly timorous, afraid to make
> > > >> >>"big choices" and step outside what you have already laid dow so as to
> > > >> >>(possibly) achieve a higher plane of poetic expression. All the writers
> > > >> >>I have known (including myself) have had to make the hard choices, the
> > > >> >>severe triage, of gutting entire phrases, of smashing the form and
> > > >> >>re-imaging it, of breaking away from "what is" to create "what might be"
> > > >> >>etc.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I understand the situation. I've had to go through a lot of my old
> > > >> > work this month, and found a couple of pieces lke that; one I rewrote
> > > >> > completely, while the other I haven't been able to do anything with.
> > > >> > But of course you can't see that; you're commenting on the basis of
> > > >> > what I did with this poem alone (which admittedly wasn't much in
> > > >> > either revision; I certainly wouldn't call either a "rewrite" of the
> > > >> > poem).
> > > >> Well, you do call it a "revision" - which is six of one, half a dozen of
> > > >> the other... Obvioulsy I can't judge what I haven't seen. But I've
> > > >> watched you approach all the critiquing here, and seen your response to
> > > >> it, and - frankly - it's a pretty vapid display: after all that noise,
> > > >> you chose to re-present the poem with only one word changed. If you
> > > >> can't do anything with it, you can't do anything with it...but to
> > > >> present something as a "revision" with only one word changed, and to
> > > >> then expect some new comments is - well - sort of dumb.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>If you really think you can turn a bland bit of melo-drama into a
> > > >> >>striking poem by simply changing one (or two, or a dozen) words, then
> > > >> >>you misunderstand the necessary "heartbreak" of the re-write, in which
> > > >> >>you have to admit your baby is ugly and opt for either radical surgery,
> > > >> >>or a quick death and burial.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I think that's only one option; the radical surgery you mention is
> > > >> > really just going back to the beginning and writing a new poem. The
> > > >> > original dies in either case.
> > > >> So? Some deaths are necessary, even merciful. And actually, one can
> > > >> radically sculpt a poem without starting a new one (in effect). It is
> > > >> admittedlydifficult in this case, because the material you have to work
> > > >> with is so deficient, so tossing that ugly baby under the carriage
> > > >> wheels is actually the best course available.
> > > >> Spring Is Maureen
> > > >> Spring is Maureen.
> > > >> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
> > > >> Her beams are frozen
> > > >> In dear dread
> > > >> And I am dead
> > > >> To our unbereaved.
> > > >> Yet, I am not prey to her polished body,
> > > >> After each crush of each thought,
> > > >> I cannot force her vein,
> > > >> And enter a bruised sunroom,
> > > >> Because each sunset is survived
> > > >> By love unwon,
> > > >> And an absence we are driven to wake in,
> > > >> Lost up a garden path.
> > > >> Today is not mine,
> > > >> Its grass and trees,
> > > >> Our smallest green dial,
> > > >> Their distant starts of roses...
> > > >> Smudged into smoke by haste...
> > > >> Spring is Maureen.
> > > >> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
> > > >> ......
> > > >> No great deal, but you see - as long as there are words in a thing,
> > > >> something better (if less overtly "meaningful") can be rooted from it.
> > > >> This is why your so-called revision (and all the timid reworkings
> > > >> previous) are so chillingly disappointing, so redolent of linguistic
> > > >> cowardice and delusion...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>Almost all good poems are really "sculpted"
> > > >> >>in the re-write, and "sculpted" is not an arbitrary term: it is usually
> > > >> >>a matter of chiseling away large chunks of the drivel to see if there is
> > > >> >>anything breathing in there, or in you.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It's a good metaphor, which I've thought myself. There's a big
> > > >> > difference with word sculpture, though, in that one can take out and
> > > >> > replace any piece.
> > > >> A minor quibble with a useful metaphor...and - like all analogies - it
> > > >> must fall apart if pushed too hard. It was addressed precisely to your
> > > >> (seeming) inability to take the knife to what is essentially a grotesque
> > > >> growth, which actually hides beauty more than it dares to revel in..
> > > >> >In this case, though, I thought I was past that; I
> > > >> > gave this a form months ago.
> > > >> Well - it is no good. You might be enamored of the machine you built,
> > > >> but it doesn't work, and you might stop re-presenting it...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>I personally don't think you
> > > >> >>have the stuff to make anything out the material you have supplied
> > > >> >>yourself, which is a mostly inferior grade of marble (i.e. fool's gold)..
> > > >> >>There simply isn't enough "there" to reveal.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sure; you're still telling me to throw it away.
> > > >> Well - yeah...Unless you find it in you to make more than baby steps in
> > > >> a swamp of odorless mud, you might as well...
> > > >> dmh
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > Good find.
> > Well, it was the fake Jordy that posted, but glad that you and George were nevertheless able to find something positive from this post anyway! 😊👍
> This may even be another fake Jordy. Too bad my Thunderbird is down so I can't check the address.
Hi George, , this is me… I know it’s tricky, the trolls are insidious…

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:57:23 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:40:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > Jordy C. wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:44:26 PM UTC-5, Dale Houstman wrote:
> > >> George Dance wrote:
> > >> > On Nov 28, 12:38 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>George Dance wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>On Nov 27, 9:56 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >>>>Spring Again
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>>It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> > >> >>>>I'd add "thank God for that" (if I believed)
> > >> >>>>For frozen by its high beams I have seen
> > >> >>>>Oncoming dread: one dead and one bereaved.
> > >> >>>>I cannot pray to live eternally
> > >> >>>>Or gain a brave new body after death.
> > >> >>>>This is my all - a thought which forces me
> > >> >>>>To not go tharn, to fight for every breath;
> > >> >>>>A battle till the setting of each sun,
> > >> >>>>A conquest every sunset we survive,
> > >> >>>>Another day my love and I have won
> > >> >>>>And death has lost. Today I am alive,
> > >> >>>> This world is mine, its grass and trees are green,
> > >> >>>> It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>The only reason I posted this (one-word) revision was that I thought
> > >> >>>it would allow me to read Dale's last post, which google won't allow
> > >> >>>me to for some reason.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>Dale, I'm sure this revision doesn't change your opinion of the thing
> > >> >>>in the slightest: so if you want to re-send your previous post, as a
> > >> >>>reply to this one, I'd appreciate it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>It was short...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>"Still (and I wager, forever) wretched, harn, tharn, or everywharn...."
> > >> >>
> > >> >>So you weren't missing much...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Ah, you were just being a tharn in my side. Well, you've given me more
> > >> > below, so my missing the original might have been of value.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>The striking thing here is the nature of your "re-write" which appears
> > >> >>to reveal that you have as much trouble with the re-writing process as
> > >> >>you do with the writing process: you are vastly timorous, afraid to make
> > >> >>"big choices" and step outside what you have already laid dow so as to
> > >> >>(possibly) achieve a higher plane of poetic expression. All the writers
> > >> >>I have known (including myself) have had to make the hard choices, the
> > >> >>severe triage, of gutting entire phrases, of smashing the form and
> > >> >>re-imaging it, of breaking away from "what is" to create "what might be"
> > >> >>etc.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I understand the situation. I've had to go through a lot of my old
> > >> > work this month, and found a couple of pieces lke that; one I rewrote
> > >> > completely, while the other I haven't been able to do anything with.
> > >> > But of course you can't see that; you're commenting on the basis of
> > >> > what I did with this poem alone (which admittedly wasn't much in
> > >> > either revision; I certainly wouldn't call either a "rewrite" of the
> > >> > poem).
> > >> Well, you do call it a "revision" - which is six of one, half a dozen of
> > >> the other... Obvioulsy I can't judge what I haven't seen. But I've
> > >> watched you approach all the critiquing here, and seen your response to
> > >> it, and - frankly - it's a pretty vapid display: after all that noise,
> > >> you chose to re-present the poem with only one word changed. If you
> > >> can't do anything with it, you can't do anything with it...but to
> > >> present something as a "revision" with only one word changed, and to
> > >> then expect some new comments is - well - sort of dumb.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>If you really think you can turn a bland bit of melo-drama into a
> > >> >>striking poem by simply changing one (or two, or a dozen) words, then
> > >> >>you misunderstand the necessary "heartbreak" of the re-write, in which
> > >> >>you have to admit your baby is ugly and opt for either radical surgery,
> > >> >>or a quick death and burial.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I think that's only one option; the radical surgery you mention is
> > >> > really just going back to the beginning and writing a new poem. The
> > >> > original dies in either case.
> > >> So? Some deaths are necessary, even merciful. And actually, one can
> > >> radically sculpt a poem without starting a new one (in effect). It is
> > >> admittedlydifficult in this case, because the material you have to work
> > >> with is so deficient, so tossing that ugly baby under the carriage
> > >> wheels is actually the best course available.
> > >> Spring Is Maureen
> > >> Spring is Maureen.
> > >> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
> > >> Her beams are frozen
> > >> In dear dread
> > >> And I am dead
> > >> To our unbereaved.
> > >> Yet, I am not prey to her polished body,
> > >> After each crush of each thought,
> > >> I cannot force her vein,
> > >> And enter a bruised sunroom,
> > >> Because each sunset is survived
> > >> By love unwon,
> > >> And an absence we are driven to wake in,
> > >> Lost up a garden path.
> > >> Today is not mine,
> > >> Its grass and trees,
> > >> Our smallest green dial,
> > >> Their distant starts of roses...
> > >> Smudged into smoke by haste...
> > >> Spring is Maureen.
> > >> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
> > >> ......
> > >> No great deal, but you see - as long as there are words in a thing,
> > >> something better (if less overtly "meaningful") can be rooted from it.
> > >> This is why your so-called revision (and all the timid reworkings
> > >> previous) are so chillingly disappointing, so redolent of linguistic
> > >> cowardice and delusion...
> > >> >
> > >> >>Almost all good poems are really "sculpted"
> > >> >>in the re-write, and "sculpted" is not an arbitrary term: it is usually
> > >> >>a matter of chiseling away large chunks of the drivel to see if there is
> > >> >>anything breathing in there, or in you.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > It's a good metaphor, which I've thought myself. There's a big
> > >> > difference with word sculpture, though, in that one can take out and
> > >> > replace any piece.
> > >> A minor quibble with a useful metaphor...and - like all analogies - it
> > >> must fall apart if pushed too hard. It was addressed precisely to your
> > >> (seeming) inability to take the knife to what is essentially a grotesque
> > >> growth, which actually hides beauty more than it dares to revel in.
> > >> >In this case, though, I thought I was past that; I
> > >> > gave this a form months ago.
> > >> Well - it is no good. You might be enamored of the machine you built,
> > >> but it doesn't work, and you might stop re-presenting it...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>I personally don't think you
> > >> >>have the stuff to make anything out the material you have supplied
> > >> >>yourself, which is a mostly inferior grade of marble (i.e. fool's gold)..
> > >> >>There simply isn't enough "there" to reveal.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Sure; you're still telling me to throw it away.
> > >> Well - yeah...Unless you find it in you to make more than baby steps in
> > >> a swamp of odorless mud, you might as well...
> > >> dmh
> >
> > > Hi
> > Good find.
> Well, it was the fake Jordy that posted, but glad that you and George were nevertheless able to find something positive from this post anyway! 😊👍

Jordy C. wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:44:26 PM UTC-5, Dale Houstman wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
>> > On Nov 28, 12:38 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>George Dance wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Nov 27, 9:56 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>Spring Again
>> >>>
>> >>>>It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
>> >>>>I'd add "thank God for that" (if I believed)
>> >>>>For frozen by its high beams I have seen
>> >>>>Oncoming dread: one dead and one bereaved.
>> >>>>I cannot pray to live eternally
>> >>>>Or gain a brave new body after death.
>> >>>>This is my all - a thought which forces me
>> >>>>To not go tharn, to fight for every breath;
>> >>>>A battle till the setting of each sun,
>> >>>>A conquest every sunset we survive,
>> >>>>Another day my love and I have won
>> >>>>And death has lost. Today I am alive,
>> >>>> This world is mine, its grass and trees are green,
>> >>>> It's spring again, and I am with Maureen.
>> >>>
>> >>>The only reason I posted this (one-word) revision was that I thought
>> >>>it would allow me to read Dale's last post, which google won't allow
>> >>>me to for some reason.
>> >>
>> >>>Dale, I'm sure this revision doesn't change your opinion of the thing
>> >>>in the slightest: so if you want to re-send your previous post, as a
>> >>>reply to this one, I'd appreciate it.
>> >>
>> >>It was short...
>> >>
>> >>"Still (and I wager, forever) wretched, harn, tharn, or everywharn..."
>> >>
>> >>So you weren't missing much...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ah, you were just being a tharn in my side. Well, you've given me more
>> > below, so my missing the original might have been of value.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>The striking thing here is the nature of your "re-write" which appears
>> >>to reveal that you have as much trouble with the re-writing process as
>> >>you do with the writing process: you are vastly timorous, afraid to make
>> >>"big choices" and step outside what you have already laid dow so as to
>> >>(possibly) achieve a higher plane of poetic expression. All the writers
>> >>I have known (including myself) have had to make the hard choices, the
>> >>severe triage, of gutting entire phrases, of smashing the form and
>> >>re-imaging it, of breaking away from "what is" to create "what might be"
>> >>etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I understand the situation. I've had to go through a lot of my old
>> > work this month, and found a couple of pieces lke that; one I rewrote
>> > completely, while the other I haven't been able to do anything with.
>> > But of course you can't see that; you're commenting on the basis of
>> > what I did with this poem alone (which admittedly wasn't much in
>> > either revision; I certainly wouldn't call either a "rewrite" of the
>> > poem).
>> Well, you do call it a "revision" - which is six of one, half a dozen of
>> the other... Obvioulsy I can't judge what I haven't seen. But I've
>> watched you approach all the critiquing here, and seen your response to
>> it, and - frankly - it's a pretty vapid display: after all that noise,
>> you chose to re-present the poem with only one word changed. If you
>> can't do anything with it, you can't do anything with it...but to
>> present something as a "revision" with only one word changed, and to
>> then expect some new comments is - well - sort of dumb.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>If you really think you can turn a bland bit of melo-drama into a
>> >>striking poem by simply changing one (or two, or a dozen) words, then
>> >>you misunderstand the necessary "heartbreak" of the re-write, in which
>> >>you have to admit your baby is ugly and opt for either radical surgery,
>> >>or a quick death and burial.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think that's only one option; the radical surgery you mention is
>> > really just going back to the beginning and writing a new poem. The
>> > original dies in either case.
>> So? Some deaths are necessary, even merciful. And actually, one can
>> radically sculpt a poem without starting a new one (in effect). It is
>> admittedlydifficult in this case, because the material you have to work
>> with is so deficient, so tossing that ugly baby under the carriage
>> wheels is actually the best course available.
>> Spring Is Maureen
>> Spring is Maureen.
>> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
>> Her beams are frozen
>> In dear dread
>> And I am dead
>> To our unbereaved.
>> Yet, I am not prey to her polished body,
>> After each crush of each thought,
>> I cannot force her vein,
>> And enter a bruised sunroom,
>> Because each sunset is survived
>> By love unwon,
>> And an absence we are driven to wake in,
>> Lost up a garden path.
>> Today is not mine,
>> Its grass and trees,
>> Our smallest green dial,
>> Their distant starts of roses...
>> Smudged into smoke by haste...
>> Spring is Maureen.
>> Thank God for that" (so to apeak)...
>> ......
>> No great deal, but you see - as long as there are words in a thing,
>> something better (if less overtly "meaningful") can be rooted from it.
>> This is why your so-called revision (and all the timid reworkings
>> previous) are so chillingly disappointing, so redolent of linguistic
>> cowardice and delusion...
>> >
>> >>Almost all good poems are really "sculpted"
>> >>in the re-write, and "sculpted" is not an arbitrary term: it is usually
>> >>a matter of chiseling away large chunks of the drivel to see if there is
>> >>anything breathing in there, or in you.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It's a good metaphor, which I've thought myself. There's a big
>> > difference with word sculpture, though, in that one can take out and
>> > replace any piece.
>> A minor quibble with a useful metaphor...and - like all analogies - it
>> must fall apart if pushed too hard. It was addressed precisely to your
>> (seeming) inability to take the knife to what is essentially a grotesque
>> growth, which actually hides beauty more than it dares to revel in.
>> >In this case, though, I thought I was past that; I
>> > gave this a form months ago.
>> Well - it is no good. You might be enamored of the machine you built,
>> but it doesn't work, and you might stop re-presenting it...
>> >
>> >
>> >>I personally don't think you
>> >>have the stuff to make anything out the material you have supplied
>> >>yourself, which is a mostly inferior grade of marble (i.e. fool's gold)..
>> >>There simply isn't enough "there" to reveal.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sure; you're still telling me to throw it away.
>> Well - yeah...Unless you find it in you to make more than baby steps in
>> a swamp of odorless mud, you might as well...
>> dmh

> Hi

Good afternoon, fake Jordy.

Hello to the real Jordy also.