On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-09 9:29 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:39:31 AM UTC-5,
> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-08 12:22 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:43:22 AM UTC-5,
> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-01 8:44 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 4:14:45 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-4,
> michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>> The rule is part of our FAQs
> >>>>>> Not really, Pen...!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, really, Stink.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The current AAPC members collaborated on a set of GLs and posted
> them under our new FAQs. You'll find the issue in question under 8):
> >>>> Since you're giving a link, you don't have to paste the whole
> >>>> monstrosity in here; just the relevant section.
> >>>
> >>> This precludes the possibility of your pretending not to have seen it..
> >>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 8) Don’t post and run. If you post a famous poem, make an
> original comment on it. We all have, or are capable of subscribing to,
> Poem a Day. We don’t need to read (or reread) every single poem that you
> do. If you like a poem, but can’t think of anything to say about it,
> don’t post it.
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> BTW, you're using 'post and run' incorrectly. "Post and run" refers to
> posting an OP and then leaving the thread.

No offense intended, George.

I have already spent far more time on this than the topic deserves.

> >>>> Which "current AAPC members" collaborated on these "Guidelines"?
> Not me.
> >>>
> >>> You were involved in the initial discussions -- possibly some of
> the later ones as well.
> >> The discussion you linked to was not a discussion of "GLs". You haven't
> >> shown that there was any discussion on aapc of "GLs".
> >
> > The title of the thread I'd posted a link to is "FAQ: First Draft of
> Part I."
> >
> > This clearly shows that the revision was still a work in progress,
> and the act of my posting a work in progress is in itself a call for
> c&c. However, I specifically ask for group input in my opening statement:
> >
> > "Here's a very rough draft of the first portion of our proposed FAQs.
> I've done a quick edit/update from the original FAQs (thanks Will), and
> welcome as many suggestions/changes (and discussions) as possible)."
> >
> > As you can see from my addressing "Will," the Donkey was involved at
> this stage as well.
> >
> The important point is that it's a "first portion of our proposed FAQs,"
> not of "rules" or "GLs". More importantly, there's no further discussion.

And, again, even in its first draft, and under the guise of FAQs, it still includes one very significant rule: "All posts *should* be related to poetry as defined above."

> > But we're really interested in what George Dance had to say:
> >
> > "I'm happy to see you pick up the ball and run with it; and I don't
> see anything I object to strongly. I added my 2 poetry sites, of
> course. Beyond that, I made 2 changes: I changed "critiques" to
> "criticism" - I think the former word is way too pretentious, and
> offputting: I know we allow comments, too, but the idea of having to
> write a 'critique' may still scare some people into silence. Let's leave
> the critiques to Kant. The other one word change I'd suggest is "The
> vast majority" to "Many" - it's more likely to remain true, no matter
> who or how many join, while still making the point. I indicated those
> changes up above, XX'ing out the words I'd omit and adding the
> suggestions after them. Thanks again, and please carry on."
> >
> since you're so interested, I'll quote something else I said in that thread:
>
> "A FAQ is just a way to pre-answer questions; it is not what some people
> tried to use the old FAQ for, as 'rules' to tell anyone how to behave."

You'll note that the single rule I'd included said, and italicized (via surrounding asterisks), "*should*."

This means that it is not an enforceable rule (as that has never been the intent of the FAQs or the GLs), but a strongly recommended suggestion.

> Monday, May 29, 2017 at 1:14:36 PM UTC-4
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bazlxZjkvdo/m/YmmIW4eTAwAJ?hl=en
> > Wow! George Dance was "happy" to see this first draft of the new
> FAQs/GLs. Not only that, but George Dance made suggestions as to the
> wording of it, and George Dance thanked me for undertaking this project
> and expressed wish, no... pleaded with me, to continue it.
> I still think a FAQ has value. As I said in the same message I just quoted:
> "What will a FAQ do? I think it's part of sprucing up the group. I
> notice you've been promoting aapc-un on fb, and I've noticed more
> readers here, probably as a result. I don't expect any one step to turn
> this into a great poetry place again, but they're all steps in that
> direction."
>
> I supported your FAQ initiative just as I supported the Chimp's Sampler
> initiative. I did not support you telling me what I can and can't post
> on my own threads. Once again, that is not what a FAQ is for.

Your PPB threads have been shown, by PJR, to be cancellable spam. Our GLs have taken your desire to post only a portion of the poem as a teaser to lure people to your blog into account. As long as you post a comment that could potentially initiate a poetry-related discussion, your spamming will be overlooked. You should be grateful that the GLs made allowances specifically to accommodate your practice.

> > Of course, we were discussion the FAQs at this time, not the GLs
> (which is what he will argue now), however, it specifically lists one
> very important rule: "All posts *should* be related to poetry as defined
> above."
>
> >>> All the members* were involved to the degree that they accepted the
> finished GLs/FAQs.
> >>>
> >> You also haven't shown that anyone "accepted" your "finished" version of
> >> them, either.
> >
> > Over the course of the next four years, various drafts were
> submitted, discussed, and modified until the final set appeared.
> Really? Yet there's no record of that that I've been able to find;
> nothing between your "FAQ: First Draft of Part I" and the "Official
> Guidelines" four years later.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/search?q=faq%20author%3Amichael%20author%3Apendragon&hl=en
>
>
> You may have been discussing it with Team Monkey on e-mail, but I
> suspect you wrote this yourself. Not that there's anything wrong with
> that; as I told you four years ago, it needed a person to pick up the
> ball, and better you than me.

Of course I wrote it.

That should be apparent from my having posted a self-written first draft.

It was discussed in AAPC. I don't believe it was discussed in private emails, although I may have received suggestions and complaints through my email. However, I chose to keep the discussions in AAPC so that all concerned could be aware of them.

> > No one voted to "accept" it, if that's what you mean. The final
> draft was accepted in the sense that no one involved saw fit to offer
> any further changes/corrections.
> I had no problem with it, until it began being used as a pretext to
> troll PPB threads.

I am not using it to troll your threads, George.

In fact, it was only *after* you started trolling Jim's comment-free links that I began reminding you *both* to include a comment.

And, again -- the comment stipulation was created specifically to allow for the existence of your PPB threads which were labeled as cancellable spam by PJR.