Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimePost by George J. (George J. Dance)On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:17:27 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
Post by HarryLimePost by George J. (George J. Dance)On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 1:32:37 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
Post by HarryLimeOn Mon, 27 Jan 2025 14:16:34 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
Post by W.DockeryA silly young burro named Bobby
Joined a poetry group for a hobby.
His output was thin,
But he tried to fit in
By acting exceedingly snobby.
Whatever happened to Bobby Burrows?
Who wrote "A silly young burro named Bobby..." that you've inadvertently
quoted above?
All you have to do is look at the top of the thread, MMP. You're flaming
my limerick, that I wrote two years ago.
You really don't get the concept of a rhetorical question, do you,
George?
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeHINT: It wasn't me.
Of course it wasn't. You can't be expected you to be able to 'squeeze'
your poetic thoughts into a form as short as a limerick. You'd have
written a sprawling mess like "Slurp Puppet" about him.
I'll assume that you mean that I'd never have written it.
Are you trying to "assume" you don't write sprawling messes like "Slurp
Puppet"? You've previously admitted that you and your NG flunkie
co-wrote it.
I had diplomatically pointed out what appears to be a typo in your post,
"You can't be expected you to be able to 'squeeze'your poetic thoughts
into a form as short as a limerick. You'd have written a sprawling mess
like 'Slurp Puppet' about him."
"You can't be expected you to be able to 'squeeze'your poetic thoughts
into a form as short as a limerick. Had you that ability, you'd never
have written a sprawling mess like 'Slurp Puppet' about him."
Then you misunderstand what I wrote. I meant to write what I wrote: that
if you were flaming Robert, you'd have written a sprawling mess about
him; just as you did with Will and then with Jordy. No typos.
In a previous post (which appears to have vanished -- possibly because
you'd removed the one I'd been reply to), I informed you that I will be
leaving Usenet AAPC for an unspecified time after having responded (out
of courtesy) to your existing posts.
Such remains the case.
I'm still not clear as to where the idea that I was flaming Robert ever
came from, but... whatever.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeAs to "THE SHITHOLEVILLE MYTHOS: Ode to My Slurp-puppet," I quite proud
to claim my part in it. It's a hilarious, witty, and inventive group
poem (although mostly NancyGene and myself) which holds the record for
being the longest Usenet poem (having beaten out "Penny's Plagiarized
Hat."
I'm glad you're proud of it. It is your signature work, the one that I
hope you'll be known to posterity for. Ny only complaint is that one
cannot put your real name (or NG's, FTM) on it as yet.
Post by HarryLimePost by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimePost by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeSECOND HINT: It wasn't one of my "thugs."
Obviously not. Neither Jim now NG have shown any ability to write even
as simple a form as a limerick, even though they've both been shown how
more than once.
I actually have written limericks here, George. It's a fairly easy form
to master.
Who said you hadn't, Peabrain?
I was merely pointing it out, George.
See above. You misunderstand my earlier comment, and thought I was
saying you didn't have the ability to write a limerick.
Post by HarryLimeFor several years (here), I'd said that I couldn't write a limerick,
however, when I finally gave it a try, I found that it was surprisingly
easy.
Most poetic forms are easy, when one makes the effort to learn them. The
major reason for not learning one is stupidity (willful ignorance).
Agreed. It is easy to learn and master a form. It requires talent,
however, to create a great poem -- regardless of form.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimePost by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimePost by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeTHIRD HINT: It was the same a-hole who started this "Re: Bobby Burro"
thread.
D'uh! Of course when I posted this limerick I started this thread.
That's how it works on Usenet: If you post a poem here as an OP, you're
starting a thread; those are the same action, not two different ones.
I'm glad to hear you admit it, George.
Why are you pretending I ever tried to conceal it?
I'm rather proud of that limerick. It's a good character study, which
describes his behavior to a T, in just five lines. Since it doesn't use
his name, and is applicable to other people who've posted here, I
actually think it's worth going into print next time I publish a book of
poems.
I was referring to the larger spectrum, George. By admitting that you'd
started a thread specifically to mock Robert Burrows with a limerick
you'd written about him, you are tacitly admitting that it was you who'd
attempted to drive him off.
What a stupid inference on your part. I started a new thread to post a
new poem, because that is how one posts a new poem. If I'd thought that
mocking him in a poem would drive him away - well, TBH, I wouldn't have
given a fuck. But it never crossed my mind that he'd run away because
someone wrote a limerick about him.
Not as stupid as your claim that you never once thought your starting a
"Bobby Burro" thread, in which you would show off your Bobby Burro
limerick, with the intention of provoking, harassing, and/or mocking
Robert Burrows.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimePost by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeNow kindly admit that it was threads like this one, attacking Mr.
Burrows, that drove him away from the group.
No one drove him off the group, Paranoid Peabrain. He continued posting
here for two more years, up till the final month of google support.
Is he here now?
No. Do we still have google support now? No. He left because google
closed its usenet portal, as I've already stated at least once in this
thread.
In my MIA thread, I'd posed the following scenario:
Imagine that you have a nine to five job in the city. Each morning you
wake up, brush your teeth, shave, shower, apply deodorant, iron your
clothes, dress, comb your hair, and top it off with an unobtrusive dash
of cologne.
Being conscientious by nature, you opt to take public transportation (in
this particular story, a bus).
One day a "smelly old bum... (who) hasn't showered in a year" (to borrow
the words of a Weird Al Yankovic song) sits down beside you.
You are both physically and emotionally repulsed by his presence, are
afraid that his filth (and its adherent stench) is rubbing off on your
nice fresh outfit, and you suspect that he is harboring colonies of
fleas, lice, bedbugs, and various sorts of deadly bacteria which you are
scared of picking up.
However, you are also a considerate person, so you swallow your mounting
nausea, hold your breath, and subject yourself to the ride.
Unfortunately, no good deed, as they say, ever goes unpunished. Your
consideration toward the pissbum, has made him desirous of having you as
his traveling companion for all future commutes. He therefore makes a
beeline for you whenever he sees an empty seat beside you on the bus.
After several weeks of this, you have reached a point where you dread
having to get on the bus. So when a co-worker from a neighboring town
offers you the opportunity carpool, you jump at the chance.
Now the question: Did the bum drive you off the bus, or was it merely a
"choice" on your part?
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeMany of us stuck it out here until the demise of Google Groups. We then
had a choice: switch to a free Newsreader (Novabbs was relatively simple
to sign up to), or go over to FB.
If you "stuck it out here" then you were not driven off. You can
.. until we no longer stuck it out here. At that point (according to
your argument) we would, in fact, have been driven off.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeWhy do you think Robert, NancyGene, Jim, ME, Ash, Corey, Karen,
Wenceslas, Richard, and I chose to go to Facebook?
RHETORICAL QUESTION ALERT!
too bad. If you ask a question, especially a compound question like
that, you can expect a reply.
I do expect a reply, George. I'm just making it clear that my question
comes with a preconceived *point* that I'd like you to address.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Three n that list were Team Monkey (you,
JIm, and NG) three were Bandar-Log (Robert, ME, and Ash) and one was a
wannabe (Corey). I'll let you speak for them, but I'll note that only
Corey left before google pulled the plug. As for the other three - Karen
(who left aapc after flaming from ME and Dink drove her out), Richard,
and Wenceslas (whom I don't remember, period), I've got to say I don't
know. Maybe they believed that your "Official Notice" that aapc had
moved to facebook really was an "Official Notice". In any case since
they're neither Team Monkey nor Bandar-Log, you do not speak for them.
I'm not speaking for anyone, George. I'm merely reporting the facts.
They used to post here. Now they post on the FB Group.
They obviously left here, to post somewhere else.
Draw your own conclusion.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeThe answer, of course, is obvious. We wanted to be able to post in a
non-combative, friendly atmosphere where the local children wouldn't
call flood the group with spam posts and call us by childish names (like
Bobby Burro).
any of them that they left aapc because of my "Bobby Burro" limerick, or
because they thought I was mean to the poor Burro in general, then I'll
believe it.
It wasn't the one limerick, George. It was the combined total of 100s
of such attack posts that drove everyone away.
There are no Donkeys, Monkeys, Chimps, Nazis, Dunces, Piggies, Dinks,
etc., there.
People come to poetry groups to post and discuss poetry.
They have simply chosen the Official AAPC FB Group's friendly
environment over the toxically hostile environment that has always
existed here.
The real question you should be asking yourself is *why has Usenet AAPC
been unable to create/maintain a friendly atmosphere*?
I feel the answer is obvious. But it's something that you'll need to
figure out for yourself.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimePost by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimePost by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeCare to take a wild guess as to who drove Robert off of this group?
If you seriously think that he left the group because I wrote a limerick
about him, then I guess you think I "drove Robert off the group." But I
doubt that even you think he's that much of a snowflake that he'd run
away to facebook just because someone wrote a limerick about him.
This particular limerick? No.
What soured him on the group were your disgusting comments regarding his
undergoing a bone marrow transplant.
So he "soured" on the group - Well, boo-hoo. That's no reason for you to
pretend that he was driven off.
When the actions of a group of people (in this case, Will Donkey,
"Jordy," Stinky George, and yourself) cause someone to "sour" on the
group (especially by opening attack threads about them), they have
effectively driven them away.
No, that's not true at all. If someone sours on the group, they usually
stay here and troll. Once again, Team Monkey et al left because they
could no longer post on google, plain and simple.
And, once again, everyone had both the ability and the opportunity to do
so.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeI'm sure you pretend that you and Donkey (socks inclusive) didn't drive
me away, but that's exactly what you did.
Of course we didn't drive you away. You stopped posting here because you
had no way to post; as soon as you got one, you were back under a new
sock.
As noted above: I shall be dropping by sporadically from here on in. If
I see anything that needs correcting, I will do so at that time.
If I don't see anything in need of correction, I shall leave without
starting any new threads.
This if my final post for today -- and, consequently for this visit.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimeWhen you make your presence as welcome as excrement, you are driving
people away... the non-coprophiliacs, at any rate.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)Post by HarryLimePost by George J. (George J. Dance)and posted two years ago? How do you think your actions here are any
different from mine in the thread where you were doing your "Jerk Store"
laming?
Why don't you ask your Donkey? He's the one who necroposted it.
He "necroposted" the thread you were flaming me about for replying too,
Michael Monkey Peabrain. Once again: why did you decide to do the same
thing you were previously complaining about my doing?
I haven't flamed your poem, George. I haven't discussed it at all --
apart from pointing out that it was one of the many things you did here
to drive Robert away.
Your limerick isn't funny (which is the most important thing for a
successful limerick to be). It isn't witty, and certainly isn't
profound. In fact, I can't imagine any reason for writing or posting
it, apart from the opportunity it afforded you to indulge in your
favorite pasttime of childish name-calling.
As noted, our senses of humor are completely different. You think that
if you call someone a "pedophile" or a "retard" that's funny or witty.
(Witness your comments on your "Slurp Puppet" above.
There was so much more to "Slurp-puppet" than that, George. But you'd
actually have to read the poem to realize it.
Post by George J. (George J. Dance)As for 'profundity', I'll repeat that it was a very incisive portrait of
a type that I've encountered here repeatedly: the person who tries to
fit into a writing group, not by demonstrating any good writing of his
own, but by adopting an attitude of superiority to put down others'
writing. (Note that when I say "others' writing" I am not referring to
my own writing.)
The proof is in the pudding, George.
I do not put down anyone's work at the Official AAPC FB Group.
Both there, and here, I have offered constructive criticism -- and have
always been grateful upon receiving said in return.
People looked forward to my critiques on the "Sampler" poems, and
repeatedly told me as much. Some, like your Donkey, often begged me to
review their work.
I like to think that my comments have been helpful to them -- as their
comments have most certainly been helpful to me.
As to Will Donkey's poetry, you may recall that I'd avoided commenting
on it for the first year or so that I was here (and Will's ally). It
was only after having watched one of his videos that I was able to do
so. I noted then, that I had refrained from commenting on Will's
poetry, because I found it incomprehensible (read "terrible"), but that
it works quite well as a song lyric -- particularly for a 3am, drunk off
your ass in a barroom audience. I still hold that position today.
If I were drunk off my ass in a bar at 3am and Will Donkey and his
karaoke band were performing, I'd find the music perfect for both the
moment and the milieu. His sentence fragments and often
incomprehensible narratives work as a 3am song lyric. They don't work
as poetry.
IOW: Rather than assuming a lofty attitude and belittling Will's poetry,
I waited until I had found a way in which I could appreciate it *before*
commenting. And, even though we aren't speaking about your poetry, I'd
adopted a similar approach with you.
None of us are successful poets. We're all actively engaged in better
understanding, and working to improve, our craft. Correction: those of
us you refer to as "Team Monkey" feel that way.
The truth is (and some very old threads that NancyGene resurrected have
demonstrated this in no uncertain terms) that you and your Donkey have
never been able to accept any form of criticism regarding your work --
and have responded to even well-intentioned, constructive criticism with
childish insults and "Tit for Tat" "revenge critiques."
And *that* is the reason why AAPC died: in or around 2010 (and probably
several times before), and last year.
Not that it really matters at this point. After all, the only people
still coming her are Will Donkey and his socks.
--