How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Give And Get in Poetry   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Give And Get in Poetry

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Errandghost
Junior Member
since 09-10-2003
Posts 18
Thoroughly Abroad


50 posted 03-28-2009 10:24 PM       View Profile for Errandghost   Email Errandghost   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Errandghost

Alas, I admit my breath is running out hoping that Ron may change his mind, despite his fixedness.  Do voices of many that would like to see CA last mean anything?  If so are not they worth at least a third (Critical Analysis #3) and last chance?   If anyone treats anyone as Monk Frost was treated his post can be deleted right away without any question.   Even though the problem with CA seems too large to overcome, who looks more carefully may see it is not so difficult.  The problem is ambiguity among members, and even the moderators sometimes, seeming to suggest a critical "standard, level, etc" .  Obviously I had my confusion about it and spoke wrongly in the past as well.  I think making a clear rule and statement right in the description of the forum, that every one and every level of ability and participation is welcome, shall remove that ambiguity among the people posting in the forum and it may be set as something all, both moderators and members must observe, just as a rule.   It would be much better to see that confusion removed for sake of the CA forum, instead of the CA forum removed for the sake of the confusion.   Is it impossible for Ron to change his mind?

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


51 posted 03-29-2009 04:41 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Ess, I personally haven't seen much enthusiasm here for a new "CA3" forum.  The very name, in my view, is bad news, and any attempt to start a new discussion forum at PiP is doomed to failure without a lot of forethought, and a good deal more consensus than is seen here at the moment.  I for one don't want to see Ron change his mind if it simply means: "another CA with added promises to be "good" from members".  That's just tinkering.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


52 posted 03-29-2009 09:13 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I am sorry if you you are become "all or nothing" too, then, Moonbeam.  It didn't sound like Pete or Brad, moderators themselves, or Jim, Chopsticks, Jenn, or Bob, just to name a few support closing the forum and not having a Critical Analysis #3.  And many other members probably feel no threat of CA ,  since there was no threat to the other forums, and the threat within CA was limited, and was only there, because it was not removed to begin with.  

My point is that it is not that difficult a change that would need to take place to make it work much better.  For it did work already, despite all its confusions.  I have no doubt about that.  It just didn't work without many accompanying confusions, for the exact reason that Grinch pointed out earlier.   But that problem may be removed without denying a Critical Analysis #3.  All Ron would need to do is clarify it as a rule, and in the description of the forum, that everyone and all levels of participation are welcome in the Critical Analysis forum, so that no one, moderators or members have any doubt as they did before.   If that is done I have no doubt that CA may work without the kind of confusion we had in the past.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-29-2009 10:04 AM).]

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


53 posted 03-29-2009 05:22 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

All or nothing?  No quite the reverse.  I wouldn't want the CA forum back in its old form.  

I disagree with you.  I don't think it was working.

Having said that, perhaps I was speaking out of turn.  Perhaps there are people here apart from yourself who would want it back in its old form or something similar.  To them I apologise for being presumptuous.

Anyway whatever.  I've had an idea.

What it seems to me is emerging from this, and what is going on in the Alley and elsewhere, is that there might be a need un-catered for by the present forums (Poetic Haven may be the nearest), for serious discussion of:

"What makes poetry work, tips for writing poetry, getting published, in depth reading and comment on members poems, polishing poems, points of interest from published works, favourite poets, interesting periodicals, poetry competitions, and any other poetry related topic of interest"

It strikes me that the thread on Free Verse that Grinch started here is the sort of thing that people might have liked to have started in the old CA, but the forum was restricted to posting poems.  

What about broadening the brief to include any serious poetry related post.  

Grinch might for instance like to share his extensive researches into Dylan Thomas, Jenn might tell us about art and poetry, we could have competition links, discussions about new collections, essays on our favourite poets or poems, Ess might give some fascinating insights into the roots of language, and underpinning it all we could still have members posting poems for various reasons, for instance to obtain comment or maybe to polish for publication.  

One thing we might do in this respect is, when posting poems, reserve the title line in the forum, not for the title of the poem but for a very specific message about what the poster wanted: "Robust critique please", "Gentle suggestions please", "Advice on how to close the poem please" etc etc.  

The forum would be labelled as a discussion forum and the emphasis would be firmly away from simply posting poems to showcase them and towards interactive discussion of all things poetic.  Just as in the Alley it is virtually unheard of for the originator of a thread to ignore the subsequent discussion, so in this forum the originator of the thread would be expected to participate and drive the thread along.  That would be key to its success in fact.  The thread starter would be, in a sense, responsible for the vibrancy of the thread, and to that end, even if a poem was posted for critique, it would, contrary to normal forum etiquette, not be considered impolite to bring your own thread up to the top with a suitably intelligent observation of course!

Anyway that's the way I'm thinking tonight.  May all change tomorrow   
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


54 posted 03-29-2009 06:33 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

“What is life? What is poetry? Is structure better than free verse? Explore, with us, the secrets of the poetic Universe…”

You mean a Forum with a strap line like the one above Moon? I only read it the other day and it’s been right in front of me for years - go figure. It’s called Philosophy 101.

To me the poetic universe encompasses a whole bunch of topics and possibilities.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


55 posted 03-29-2009 07:46 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

But nevertheless such topics were also accepted within Critical Analysis.  Do you already forget such discussions that we used to have in CA?  Think about when Brad was bringing forth some important poems by published authors for discussion.  Or, Moonbeam, some of your own discussions about using imagery and original wording in a poem.  In CA, those kind of discourses were taking place right alongside sharing poetry because such is part of studying and looking at poetry with more depth and judgement.  That was a great virtue of the forum.    I still think the forum did work and established an important part of Passions which should be improved and continued, not given up on.  We should learn from these experiences and improve the forum, not give up on it.  Nor did Ron ever suggest otherwise in the past, it seemed.  He even pondered giving CA its own site at one time.  But in any case he never suggested that just giving up would be the answer.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


56 posted 03-30-2009 02:04 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Essorant,

           I don't think I'm in favor of closing or against closing CA, truth be told.  I found that I couldn't get the kind of feedback I needed there for writing poems, and I found that I was limited in the kind of feedback I could give in terms of the poems I saw.

     If I see an interesting poem up for discussion, I like to talk about it, especially something current or in process.  Copyright makes this a touch difficult.  For out of copyright poems, there may be problems about how useful they are in terms of technique and in terms of the current dialogue among poets.  In some ways this makes the discussion of current poetry more difficult and privileges the discussion of of older, out of copyright poetry.  It may even give a skewed notion about what the field actually is like for those who actually drop in for a look.

     Though older, out of copyright material is often as interesting as the current stuff and sometimes more so, it comes by its more widely available status because it's cheaper to publish, often, as well as its more familiar qualities of rhyme and meter.  Folks won't publish it solely because it's cheap, but they'll publish it preferentially over stuff of at least equal quality that's copyright protected.

     Where else are we going to talk about questions like that if we don't get over the notion that CA was everything, and we start bringing up some of these questions for discussion wherever, and see where the good Lord feels they're supposed to go.    

     Or Ron, whichever comes first.

     I'd really hate to let anything talk Essorant into keeping his mouth shut about issues like this or issues that he thinks are important or poems that he thinks people want to see.  The problem isn't that Essorant wants to bring them up, but where to put them; and that, it seems to me is something that we need to experiment with until we get it settled.  The need is there.  The resources are there.  How do we put them together.  How do we include Ron the in mix in a way that makes him feel happy about the way things work out?

     We really do need to start thinking in terms of negotiations where everybody ends up winning in the end instead of negotiations where there are winners and losers.  In the long run, it helps the next time an issue comes up that everybody felt that the last experience made everybody felt that the effort was worth it.  That's what I think, at any rate.

     How about you, Essorant?

Bob Kaven, here in scenic Southern California


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


57 posted 03-30-2009 04:09 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Grinch

Yes a bit like 101, but with a much greater focus on poetry as opposed to life.  Specifically in fact trying to get away from airy fairy philosophical questions like: Is Poetry Life? to the nut and bolts issues.  Poems up for discussion, what's going on in contemporary poetry, and classical influences etc.  And of course the focus would mainly be on discussing members poems, which is different to 101.

Ess

Yes to an extent but the forum needs to be more explicit about the encouragement of discussion imo.  Part of the problem with CA in latter days imv was that it became a posting place - a grey reflection of Open.  As Bob said it didn't offer him anything. Same for me, same for quite a few people I think.

Out of time, sorry this is hurried.

M
chopsticks
Senior Member
since 10-02-2007
Posts 870
The US,


58 posted 03-30-2009 07:58 AM       View Profile for chopsticks   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for chopsticks

I know you guys have been waiting for my thoughts , so here they are:

I so wholeheartedly agree with everything Grinch has said on this thread, that I will agree with his next post right now..

If  MF was the probablem , closing CA was not the answer..

Grinch, keep telling it like it should be .

[This message has been edited by chopsticks (03-30-2009 09:16 AM).]

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


59 posted 03-30-2009 09:19 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

MF wasn't the problem.  MF just highlighted part of the problem.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


60 posted 03-30-2009 10:05 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

And while I remember, Balladeer said something a few days ago that imv goes to the heart of why it's tricky introducing a purely critical forum into a place like PiP.

Balladeer:
quote:
As I pointed out, rules were brought up for CA. When you get into critiquing, you get into personalities unless you have some respected, credentialed person doing the critiquing. When someone wants to introduce facts, it's one thing. When someone wants to introduce critiques or opinions, it's something else.

I think what Mike is saying, or what he should be saying imo is that when you get into commenting on someone's poetry it is more likely (than say in the Open forum) that at some point frictions will be generated that will cause the discussion to spill over from a discussion about the words and the poem into a one about personality.  As I said to a friend in e-mail the other day, the less erudite and literarily adept poster might well feel the necessity to defend his writing by attacking not the words of a critiquer, but the personality.  This then starts an unfortunate chain reaction.

But I think a lot of the problem is this whole issue of "critiquing".  And this is where I depart from an often implied underlying assumption, which is that there is a right and wrong in critiquing.  I think it would be foolish of me to deny that if I wrote a poem and had the choice of receiving comment from Mary Oliver or Britney I'd choose Mary, but nevertheless, Britney's opinion would be equally valid and might even throw up one or two unusual angles that a "professional" would never think of.

Several time in Open I've been told outright that critiques are pointless as they are just opinion.  I always respond by agreeing that they are of course just opinion, but that's precisely why they aren't worthless.  Unless of course you aren't remotely interested in what readers think of your work.  

Once you get over the underlying idea that a lot of people have here at PiP that a "critique" is somehow telling somebody how to write a poem or what is right and wrong, and move towards the idea that a critique or comment is simply the honest opinion of a reader at whatever level of poetic expertise he or she happens to have, then I think you can start to dilute some of that personality friction that Mike referred to.

The added implication of Mike's statement above is that you should only believe or not argue with critiques from "experts".  Quite apart from the difficulty of defining what an expert is, I think this is so very wrong.  It misses the whole point of responses to all poetry, formal or otherwise, which is that any reading is valid, and any reading can be useful to the poet.  

In summary, I think there's been a lot of unnecessary friction introduced into PiP over the issue of critiquing (I prefer "commenting").  Critiques are treated with great suspicion and there's a feeling that they can somehow defile the purity of the poetic message.  Even that they are "forced" on the poem.  Look at Mike's syntax above: "When someone wants to introduce critiques or opinions, it's something else".  "Wants to introduce"?  It feels in that statement as if the opinion is being forced or pushed onto a poet as being fact.  "A sonnet has fourteen lines" = fact.  "You should have less adjectives in that line" = opinion whether it comes from Shakespeare or Joe Bloggs.

Finally, as I said at the outset, Mike's statement implies that there is likely to be more scope for friction between personalities in a discussion forum than in say Open.  I couldn't agree more; which is why clear firm forum specific guidelines (rules?) and a very active strong mod/quasi mod presence are necessary.  
chopsticks
Senior Member
since 10-02-2007
Posts 870
The US,


61 posted 03-30-2009 10:14 AM       View Profile for chopsticks   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for chopsticks

Let me restate my hypothesis  ~ If MF was part of the problem, closing CA was not the answer.

Beamer, I’m not sure at all, why it was closed.  And until Ron shows me the nail prints in his hands, I won’t  believe anything .

I just think Grinch has made his case.

Btw, Ron doesn’t have to give me his reason, anymore that I have to give him my pin number to my bank account  

I just don’t think one person should cause it to close or be part of its closing..
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


62 posted 03-30-2009 10:17 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Does Grinch have a case? What do you think Grinch's case is then Chops?  I have to say I am not at all clear.

(I agree with you that no single person was responsible for the closure)
chopsticks
Senior Member
since 10-02-2007
Posts 870
The US,


63 posted 03-30-2009 10:26 AM       View Profile for chopsticks   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for chopsticks

“ I couldn't agree more; which is why clear firm guidelines (rules?) and a very active strong mod/quasi mod presence are necessary. “

I Am Not A Poet, had the answer. He had the target in his sight , but was not allowed to pull the trigger.

Forgive me but I must ~ A dog barks and the journey continues ~

chopsticks
Senior Member
since 10-02-2007
Posts 870
The US,


64 posted 03-30-2009 10:38 AM       View Profile for chopsticks   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for chopsticks

Beamer, reread Grinchs post number 41 that is where he makes his case.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


65 posted 03-30-2009 11:52 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

How about opening a Critical Analysis#3 for a trial period of 6 months with the rule highlighted and made clear that no one must be treated as if (s)he or her/his participation doesn't belong, is somehow obliged to meet some standard of criticalness, some amount of responsiveness or any standard at all beyond the general guidelines agreed upon when becoming a member, in order to be welcome in the Critical Analysis forum.  I believe that as a highlighted rule of the forum everyone would then be clear about it and there won't be the kind of confusion there was in the past.  But if it doesn't work and people make the same mistakes, then it shall be proof that the forum can't work respectfully and should be ended.  

chopsticks
Senior Member
since 10-02-2007
Posts 870
The US,


66 posted 03-30-2009 01:13 PM       View Profile for chopsticks   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for chopsticks

Ess, how about a  Critical Analysis forum with just a couple rules:

1. No personal attacks .

2. One poem a day,

And all other general  rules.

And some of  Grinch‘s ideas from his post 41. ( Like if you don‘t like a poem, don‘t go there ).
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


67 posted 03-30-2009 01:47 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

This:


quote:
with the rule highlighted and made clear that no one must be treated as if (s)he or her/his participation doesn't belong, is somehow obliged to meet some standard of criticalness, some amount of responsiveness or any standard at all beyond the general guidelines agreed upon when becoming a member, in order to be welcome in the Critical Analysis forum.



Plus this:
quote:
2. One poem a day,

And all other general  rules.


Equals:

The Open Forum.

So why don't you post there?

And if you don't like a poem, surely it would be useful to the poet if you tell him why you don't like it.  Isn't that the whole point?
chopsticks
Senior Member
since 10-02-2007
Posts 870
The US,


68 posted 03-30-2009 01:59 PM       View Profile for chopsticks   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for chopsticks

“ So why don't you post there ”  

Beamer, it’s not a critique forum.

“ And if you don't like a poem, surely it would be useful to the poet if you tell him why you don't like it.”

I would never critique a poem I didn’t like and I would never tell the poet it was drivel.

But I will post in open if you and Balladeer and the other seasoned poets will promise you will critique me there, if you like my poem.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


69 posted 03-30-2009 02:01 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Actually I agree with most of what Grinch said in post 41, including, on trial, the ignore button idea, and what Ess said above too.  

I even agree that a limit to one poem a day might be a step forward.

But maybe one poem a day is too mechanistic.  The point is that imo for the forum to be different to how it was, and worthwhile there has to be a shift in emphasis towards discussion and exchange of views. I personally would have no objection to twenty poems per day if the poster was prepared to put in the time and effort on follow up posts.

But over all that I keep coming back to the key point that without a number of likeminded people who are prepared to put in the time to run the forum and participate, and who are in perfect accord with what Ron wants for PiP, it's going to fail again.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


70 posted 03-30-2009 02:12 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Chops

Open is really about as much a "critique" forum as CA had become.  There was far better poetry in Open if you looked for it, and plenty of people with their crit flags set to "Yes".     Any new forum imo has to offer something that will prevent it from simply reverting to what CA became.

As for your comment about not critiquing poems you don't like I'm afraid I just don't get it?  Why not?  Don't you trust yourself not to upset the poet with your comments?  Don't you think the poet will gain from hearing where his poem fails for you? And seriously Chops, if you are uncomfortable with saying anything negative about a poem, then perhaps the people in Open really would be happy to have your comments.  Somebody who only makes good comments about poems in an honest way would be very helpful to those in Open who have their crit flags set to "Yes".  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


71 posted 03-30-2009 03:20 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Moonbeam

What it became (which is a temporary snapshot) is little compared to what it was and overall, which is most important because what it was overall includes not only the negative but the positive experiences and the moments where there was great activity.   There shall always be moments of "what it became" (negative), but there were and likewise will always be (if the forum is revived) many and more examples of "what it became" in a positive way too.  Personally I think the positive even as the forum was, outweighs the negative.  But with a few adjustments along better clarifying "Critical" "Critical" to Critical Analysis is as "Philosophical" to Philosophy 101, a description, not a stipulation of meeting some kind of forum standard, then the negatives of confusion may be prevented even more.   There is no reason why "Critical" shouldn't be respected as flexibley in Critical Analysis as "Philosophical" is in Philosophy 101.  

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


72 posted 03-30-2009 04:04 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Ess

I respect your opinion, and I know there were good times .  I don't altogether agree that latterly (last 2 - 3 years or so) the good outweighted the bad, or perhaps I should say the indifferent (I will be more specific about why I say that in e-mail if you would like).

The forum "drifted" imo, and when a boat drifts rudderless it is more susceptible to storms.  

As for the words "critical" and "analysis", we both understand what is meant by those words and are not intimidated or misled by them.  This is often not the case with other people.  "Critical" is often assigned its most abrasive meaning and no other, which immediately starts things off on the wrong foot. "Analysis" imo is often an affront to those who believe that it is at best unhelpful, perhaps just impossible, and at worst downright sacrilegious to analyse what comes from the heart.  I think that in keeping with your own suggestion that any new forum is as inclusive as possible those two words should be avoided like the plague as being likely to prejudice a largish proportion of the poetic population before they even enter the portals.
chopsticks
Senior Member
since 10-02-2007
Posts 870
The US,


73 posted 03-30-2009 07:27 PM       View Profile for chopsticks   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for chopsticks

As for your comment about not critiquing poems you don't like I'm afraid I just don't get it? “

Oh my Beamer, I hope we’re not starting to back slide, so let me tell you about my comment about not critiquing poems I don’t like;

I would never critique a poem that was detrimental to my country, mental disorder, alcoholism, race, poverty,just to name a few. I may write  a rebuttal poem, but that is just about it.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


74 posted 03-30-2009 08:30 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Essorant and folks,

                           I was wondering, because I was trying to do some exploration here that was including but also made an effort to go beyond the concerns of CA here about this:  Not only WHAT IS IT THAT WE WANT? that CA was offering, but clearly not everybody; but also, WHAT IS IT THAT WE NEED TO GIVE? to offer a more satisfying forum that more folks feel happy to be a part of.

     The what we want seems to be getting clearer for me, though not clear enough that I'd be willing to take a shot yet at paraphrasing it.  The question of what we feel we should be willing to give is totally unclear to me.  Clearly, what we've been giving hasn't been on base or our negotiations have been utterly muddy, but I see nothing that anybody is willing to offer to make CA or something like it appealing in an administrative sense.  The suggestions seem to me to be that we try it again with pretty much the same rules and hope that it ends up differently, but without any explanation for what would actually make that happen short of divine intervention.

     I think the folks who want it or something like it back would need to GIVE something to sweeten the pot here, if they have any sort of realistic expectation of things changing.  Maybe not even then.

     GIVE and GET so there's some sense of satisfaction for everybody, and nobody ends up feeling like they're carrying the slippery end of the stick.  I think.  IMO.  IMHO.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Give And Get in Poetry   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors