Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: will.dockery@gmail.com (W.Dockery)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: The Return of Michael Monkey
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:41:30 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <f66d8deeff49bf0d27b6301b9f2f1256@www.novabbs.com>
References: <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="1603475"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Vf9CM7g99yqfGvzEHTw0bhrjcIfvzYBBhUuRma0rLuQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$7tpqfQpvw3iFPCIjFHxdZOg8.SQr5bKlmbrIT6RIpHKwzhLywRttW
X-Rslight-Posting-User: acd0b3e3614eaa6f47211734e4cbca3bfd42bebc
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

George J. Dance wrote:

> 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 ==========