Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: George J. Dance@novabbs.com (George J. Dance)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: The Return of Michael Monkey
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <893d0c07374428639ba1a1b5cfd722c2@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="131842"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="8+dz2rsm3jrbG2zIijE9ZpD7dtD/aCelSs77CawmFcg";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$ceX8icPWW.Wx1nC2lEwoMeE7igXfEINO86/s0HGQpKAXx7z0eJD9y
X-Rslight-Posting-User: da88b0d4e721c88c814af4f3bade12e63975cfc7
Bytes: 16440
Lines: 344

from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:

Yes, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) has returned, as Will and I
suspected. Even the name of his new sock, "HarryLime", looked like an
obvious clue to the "third man" on Team Monkey (the other two being
Jim/Edward and NancyGene). So we devised a way to have him out himself:
Will would bump up an old thread, I'd reply to it, and if "Harry" were
MMP, he wouldn't be able to resist replying. And it worked.

(Since the backthread has served its purpose, I've snipped most of it.)

> It's "Jerk store!" time, again.  George Dance re-responds to a post I
> made almost two years ago (because he thinks I'm no longer here to smack
> him around).

If further proof that this is MMP were needed, here it is: he walked
right into the trap, and he's still clueless that it even happened.

> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 4:13:51 +0000, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid
>> predetermined formats at all costs.  The "sentence" is incomplete.
>
> GD: That's because it wasn't a "sentence" until "Edward" added the full
> stop. Which demonstrates only that so-so poets should avoid
> repunctuating their betters' poetry.
>
> MMP: GD is now aping PJR (because PJR is no longer here to slap him
> around).

>> Years conspire to decrease possibilities.
>
> GD: Exactly what the poem says, which Michael would have discovered if
> he
> had bothered to look it up. He didn't even need to look it up on line;
> he could have found it in his own "literary journal" (AYOS 2021, 10).
>
> MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
> poetry from AAPC's various members.  The best poetry by Member G does
> not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
>
> As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
> on my memory.

MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.

>> These too lines don't form a coherent sentence.
>
> GD: I think you mean those *two* lines. They are not a sentence, even in
> Edward's edit, and neither of them are a sentence in the actual poem.
> Once again, Edward added a full stop that's not in the original (as
> Michael would have known, if he'd bothered to read the original).
>
> MMP: It seems that Mr. Dance's purpose in reopening this thread is to
> re-state that Mr. Rochester mistakenly added end punctuation to his
> lines, thereby making his poem appear to be more illiterate than it
> actually is.

MMP seems completely clueless about my actual "purpose" but that's par
for the course. So let's focus on what's important:
(1) He claimed my poem was "illiterate";
(2) I pointed out that every example of "illiteracy" he found was added
by his ally Jim;
(3) Now he's claiming my poem is still "illiterate".

Remember, again, that three years ago, when he still hoped to talk me
into becoming his ally, he considered it one of "the best poems" on aapc
that year. Now that he considers me his adversary, it's "illiterate."
"When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to
him and claim he can't write."

> The fact that Mr. Dance feels compelled to do so nearly two years after
> both the original post *and* after his original refutation demonstrates
> an alarming degree of obsessive pettiness on his part.

LOL! Will picked the thread - and it's a good one - but there were many
other possibilities. (heh!) Suffice it to say, Jim is a fool and no one
in their right mind would judge their poetry by what he says about it.

> GD: Having children restores the lost possibilities; you no longer have
> them, but your children do.
>
> MMP: No, they don't.  If the poem is expressing a universal principle,
> then the children's possibilities will necessarily be decreased as they
> mature as well.

Sure, onr's children will fail to realize some of their possibilities,
too; but they will also realize some that their parents did not. Just
because MMP or Jim failed to reach your own goals, for example, it does
not follow that your children will fail at their goals as well.

>> This, again, is not a coherent sentence.
>
> GD: Once again, that is solely due to Edward's editing.
>
> MMP: "Once again,..." Quite.  And one supposes that will be repeating it
> yet a third time two years from now.

If MMP shows up two years from now with a new sock, we might try the
same thing. But not probably with a different thread; the archives are
full of threads like this.

>> You really spend way too much
>> time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.
>
> GD: It figures that you'd try to blame Will; but I don't see how you can
> blame him for Edward's sloppy editing.
>
> MMP: Mr. Donkey serves as proof of the old adage concerning the "one bad
> apple."
>
> In this case, the presence of one illiterate member of a group causes
> the other members to relax their standards.
>
> Or, in the words of another adage, any group will inevitably settle to
> the level of its lowest participant.

MMP repeatedly complains about me repeating this point, but it doesn't
seem to have sunk in yet, so:
The only examples of "illiteracy" that have been shown in this thread
came from Jim. (Better yet, let's "settle" to MMP's level and start
calling Jim Mr. Chimp again.)

I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
adversary. As he says: "When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/EA_gCO9_BDk/m/DWT2Fq0TBwAJ?hl=en

>> How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to
>> irrelevancy by years?
>
> GD: As I already explained: they're restored in the next generation.
>
> MMP: And as I've already explained, the next generation's possibilities
> are as limited as those of their forebears.  Since time and circumstance
> will *always* conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they
> reach adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities at birth are
> necessarily an illusion.

Nonsense; people can and do realize possibilities in their lives,
including those their ancestors never did. No one can do everything, of
course, but plenty of people have done enough to justify their existence
{many of whose ancestors did nothing to justify theirs, beyond - wait
for it - having families).

>> Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences),
>
> GD: I do hope we've spent enough time on Edward's pseudo-sentences.
>
> MMP: LOL! If Mr. Dance actually meant what he said, he wouldn't have
> reopened a two-year old thread in order to bitch about Mr. Rochester's
> "edits" to his poem a second time.

LOL right back. I've already explained why I commented on the thread
Will reopened. But I'm serious; we've advanced the debate. MMP has not
disputed that all "illiteracy" he discovered was caused by Mr. Chimp,
but he's sticking to his story that the poem is still "illiterate"
anway, as per his editorial philosophy: "When [someone] is seen as an
adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."

>> 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.

What is "it"? No one realizes "unlimited" possibilites, but plenty of
people realize some, including ones their parents failed to realize.

>> 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.
>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========