Open Season on the Lousy Little Poets.

George.Wright · Post by **George.Wright** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:28 pm

Dear Avalon, they shoot grouse don't they?
I think it is a little out of season for wright shooting. Why don't you practice on yourself or one of your many identities in circle six?
Try Partisan/Starfish or the other one of the three stooges, commander Hairy Tick.
Georges

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:41 pm

Hi Mark B. ~

The monikers, Partisan and Heretic, are one and the same person.

With the poem, 'deep-down offensive' works better as a description than 'lousy' does.

With Witty Owl's directing someone to his poem, when it relates; I don't think that's such a bad thing. They have the choice as to whether to go there or not, and he has left it in the appropriate section of Member's Poetry. Yet, he's letting them know it's there, in case they're interested.

I would also love to see more poems from Leonard. I love it that someone who has so oft been accused of vanity [his impeccable dress, his "ladies man" label, etc.], is at peace with the realities of gravity that come with age. It strongly suggests he's at peace with himself. Looking at other, old and wise figures, worldwide, the mere suggestion of "facelift" is ludicrous.

~ Lizzytysh

George.Wright · Post by **George.Wright** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:30 pm

Mark B, you are entitled to your views but you are sounding like a broken record player, stuck in the groove, and not Madonna!!!
Georges

witty_owl · Post by **witty_owl** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:18 pm

Vanity? Should we explore this one a little deeper? 1. having no real value, idle, worthless. 2. fruitless, unsuccessful. 3. foolish, silly. 4. having or showing undue or excessive pride in one's appearance or achievements.

Such accusations imply that the critic is fully informed as to the intentions of the writer and/or is in a position of authority to judge the veracity of the works. Might I suggest that the critic(s) examine their own intent with regard to the content of their own postings on a public website.

Did it occur to the critic(s) that the "lousy little poets"

may in fact be attempting to communicate with their fellow humans? Why do you presume the intent to be self aggrandising? Perhaps that viewpoint is a reflection of the critic's intent with regard to him/her self. That the very act of slagging others; that being a not so smart mouthed nay sayer gives the critic an elevated or inflated sense of self importance. The dualistic mind sees the act of putting another down as a way of elevating the importance of self. It is so much easier to attack the messenger than to engage a discussion of ideas presented in a message. Do you come to this website to discuss with others and exchange ideas or do you find that these forums offer the opportunity to find idle entertainment and vent your spleen at the expense of others? Consider this.

Communication with one's fellows by discussing together may lead to new or different understandings. Waging a war of opinions with derogatory words is simply a continuation of the same old same old that has distracted our species from the possibility of moving forward for millenia.
That is a gross perversion of the potential that this new communication technology offers.

May the spirit of cooperation thrive yet in the face of negative spite

Regards, Witty Owl.

George.Wright · Post by **George.Wright** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:32 pm

The bullet done away with the need to look your enemy in the eye whilst stabbing him. The internet whilst opening communications, allows personal attacks on an unseen enemy, based on assumptions or feelings. I would prefer to communicate openly, under no nick names or identities, to share my thoughts with (hopefully) like minded souls. I would like people to at least think after reading my offerings. Thanks Witt, for opening up the debate........
Georges

Linda · Post by **Linda** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:55 pm

I never read the poetry, but I come to here to read the spats they are fun to read. When you see the name Heretic it usually means something interesting is stirred up.

Hermitage · Post by **Hermitage** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:40 pm

George.Wright wrote:The bullet done away with the need to look your enemy in the eye whilst stabbing him. The internet whilst opening communications, allows personal attacks on an unseen enemy, based on assumptions or feelings. I would prefer to communicate openly, under no nick names or identities, to share my thoughts with (hopefully) like minded souls. I would like people to at least think after reading my offerings. Thanks Witt, for opening up the debate........
Georges

George,
Do you honestly believe that the responses you received on the Shall We Dance thread were not well thought out? I know mine were. And are you saying, in your thanks to Witty Owl, that you have no further thinking to do yourself, because two people, Witty Owl and Ben Kelly, appear to have approved?

Re: [I do not advocate censorship. /quote]
The form of censorship I advocate is self-censorship. For example, you may have the right to express twisted ideas, but that doesn't mean you ought to. What you ought to do, if you wish to be taken seriously, is research your subject, and only after your research is done, think carefully and decide whether you have a concept which you can express in a meaningful way. You'll be more satisfied with the results, and the feedback will be useful.

[/quote]

witty_owl · Post by **witty_owl** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 7:05 am

I thought I made it quite clear that I would not express approval or disapproval with regard to the "dance" poem. The intent of the posting was to engage discussion on the reactions to the poem.

This thread- "open season" is an example of how discussion on the content of the poems can sadly deteriorate to hostile attacks on the writers and thereby miss the point of having these forums in place.

Honestly people; how can the poems (bad or good) be any more offensive than the nasty ill will and personal denigration expressed towards other posters/poets/writers in non poetic form by some particular individuals. How entertaining it is;

to blaze away at sitting ducks with both barrells like rednecks at a slaughter party

Entertaining spats

Is that all this forum has become? Idle entertaiment for bored minds? I hope not. In the brief time I have resumed activity here; I can once again sense how tedious it becomes to be drawn into these "spats" when much so much more could be achieved from lively, generously spirited discusssion.

NEWS FLASH: Season is closed due to humane protesters getting in the firing line.

Regards, Witty Owl.

Hermitage · Post by **Hermitage** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:08 am

Witty Owl,
It sounds like you support discussing issues, then. Perhaps I can ask you to consider a slightly different situation: suppose I chose to express a point of view on slavery, and I wrote it in a form which I called poetry. Suppose in my "poem" I wrote that while slavery was terrible, really what was important were "itches in the pants of slaves", and "coupling", which I equated with love, that went on ....where?....I don't know, oh, let's say in the fields. Let's assume I used, as George did, other vulgar phrases as well.

Many readers would find that offensive (as do I--I'm sorry for even using the example, but it seemed better than any others. To any I've offended, I am sure I owe an apology. I apologize!!! Is this forgiveable? I am not sure.)

I may have the right to publish such gibberish, but should I?
Would you really believe that this sort of "poem" would be a legitimate subject of discussion?

I don't think it is a legitimate basis for discussion. What do you think? Is it ever important to think about the kind of world this is, the kind we would like it to be, and the kind of atmosphere that this board for the most part tries to support? I for one am glad about the strong reaction George received; it reflects well on the forum over all.
Hermitage

Georges,
I can't help wondering, do you think you would have posted such a piece about the Cambodians, the Kurds, the Armenians, African Americans, or any other group? Really, I am just wondering....

George.Wright · Post by **George.Wright** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:57 am

Hermitage, if you don't write, people forget. If you don't discuss, the subject dissapears.
Georges

Hermitage · Post by **Hermitage** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:32 pm

George, I completely agree with your last remark. The question I am posing, however, is: Are we really remembering the past--or honoring the past--by publishing/posting whatever occurs to us, regardless of the content?
What about the example I put forth in my previous post? By writing something like that example, would I have been helping to recall what slavery was all about?
And do you think you would have been comfortable posting something so obscene about any other people?
Hermitage

George.Wright · Post by **George.Wright** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:03 pm

Hermitage, i did not create the obscenity of the Holocaust. My poem was to evoke the terrible suffering of the Jewish people, whom i have a lot of empathy.
There are other terrible actions in the world, recently in Africa, but i am always drawn to the Holocaust as one of the most terrible crimes to Humanity EVER.
My poem was to shock and to get people to think again, what happened.
Best regards........Georges

Hermitage · Post by **Hermitage** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:16 pm

Okay, George, but you are not answering the question. Do you remember the past, evoke the suffering of victims, no matter what you write?

I, and a few others, think your piece dishonored memory, and creating an obscenity all its own. Let's assume some people would differ (though I cannot imagine how) and get on to broader questions....

Do you think you can evoke a uniquely painful memory by using anything that pops into your head? Is that kind of writing meaningful? What about responsibility? Does the writer have a responsibility to be at least somewhat true, or respectful to history, memory? I really am interested in what you think about these questions.

And I am also interested to hear whether you would have used such foul references about victims in other settings?

George.Wright · Post by **George.Wright** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:05 pm

Hermitage, the past shapes the future by it's actions.
I have wrote other poems about the Holocaust in this forum.(see Holocaust and Christmas Greetings)
I have wrote about Vlad the impaler eating his lunch amongst the death throes of his impaled victims.
I have made reference to weapons of mass destruction, the twin towers, the shooting of Lorca, as evidence of mans inhumanity to man. Evil feeds on evil and needs no parasite. If we can not learn from the actions of the past, we are unlikely to shape much of the future.
Best Regards........Georges

Coco · Post by **Coco** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:06 pm

Hi George!

I have just read your newest poem and I have to say I'm very disappointed in it. I think Hermitage has very valid points and I am surprised that you can't see what people are objecting to. It's just not like you. No one is objecting to the subject matter of inhumanity. But you need to rethink your portrayal. People starved, tortured, dehumanized and on the way to the gas chambers are not going to be sexually aroused during their death throes. Moonlight said you trivialzed a profound subject and I think that is a correct assesment.