Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems

In rec.arts.poems, nikolay@husc8.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
>PN
>>> Before you prove me to be an non-entity, your rather pathetic
>>> irony has no weight whatsoever.
>
>> I have not proven you anything at all sir.

>Quite true.

But then you, yourself, have PROVEN absolutely nothing.
We have both merely made assertions.  Perhaps 
it IS time to begin a more rational discussion.
You suggest this later, and I am willing to do it if you are.

>PN
>>> Sleep all you like, but please don't presume to bother me
>>> with your nonsense.

>DQ
>> You choose to be bothered, much in the same way I choose to be
>> bothered by YOUR nonsense.

>But I argue, and you make allegations. Whenever I write nonsense,
>it is merely due to an intellectual failure. Your nonsense
>seems to be caused by ants in your pants.

I disagree with what you assert here, but rather than engage
in a "do so, do not" argument, can we agree to just drop
this?


>PN
>>> I admire your relentless fight for the rights of trashy pen-pushers.

>DQ
>> Do you?  Good.  That warms me in places you can never guess.  I did
>> so wish to win your admiration.
>> But my fight is not relentless.  Stupidity and tediousness will
>> eventually make me stop, and you are doing an admirable job so far.

>Please abstain from groundless allegations, or you will
>prove that Kathleen O'Toole is correct in denying your
>ability to think rationally.

Kathleen implied nothing of the kind, but I am willing to
refrain from invective as much as possible if you are willing to do so
as well.

>PN
>>> Because they are universal, nitwit. If you think otherwise,
>>> it is your business to prove that eating, sleep, sex, shitting
>>> or speech have inherent aesthetic value.

>DQ
>> I think that they do to you.  I am quite sure that you admire them
>> secretly in your own secretions in some dark closet or other.  I
>> would bet money on it.

>I accept. I bet you $ 100. Now proceed to prove that
>you are right, or let me know that you give up, and
>I'll let you know where you can send the dough.

Let's make it a quarter, and I will give up.

 
>PN
>>> Draw your own conclusions.

>DQ
>> Your every command is my only wish.  

>Go fuck yourself.

Ok.

>DQ
>> My conclusion is that you are
>> guilty of self-aggrandizing graphomania yourself.  You just don't
>> like to admit it.

>I am not interested in coclusions without proof.

Fair enough.  Are you willing to offer proof for your 
poetic pogrom in this group.  Another post you made
revealed more of your intent, and I suggested that
I disagreed with some of what I ASSUME to be your
meanings because I have no proof they are true.
Are you serious about your suggestion that this
discussion become more rational?


>DQ 
>> You seem to think that all these people are guilty of some
>>> sort of > crime and that you are the sanctioned judge.

>PN
>>> Yes. What do you propose to do about it?

>> Nothing of course.  I will trade words with you for awhile and then
>> grow weary.  These sorts of exchanges never accomplish anything.
>> But they can be amusing.

>I have already grown weary. These sorts of exchanges accomplish
>as much or as little as you want them to. But I know better
>amusements.

I do as well, and I am interested in raising these exchanges
to a level where they MAY accomplish something.

>PN
>>> I post whatever I please, and do not intend to make anyone care
>>> about my opinions.

>DQ
>> I see.  Of course there is most likely not a single person here who
>> believes this.  Still, you do not care what we believe.

>I care about some people's considered opinions. But ad hominem 
>allegations have no relevance to truth. If truth doesn't matter
>to you, why are you wasting my time?

Do you really want to know?  Your very first interaction with me
was an ad hominem assertion that I had plagiarized Joe Green.
This is despite the fact that your own discourse seems to
be directly stolen from ideas that Joe prestented here, you
sound like a direct copy of Joe, except that he seemed a little
more talented at the style of discourse you are engaging in.
Now I am willing to grant that you are an independent thinker
and have developed this style on your own or through honest
thought and interaction.  The fact that you happen to use
a nearly identical style to accomplish a similar purpose
is not plagiarism as far as I am concerned.  It angers me
that you are unwilling to grant the same respect to me.

I am wasting your time, because I think you are guilty of
what you accuse me of, an ad hominem attack with no relevance
to truth.  Given that I know you do not feel this way, I 
certainly don't expect you to address it at all.  I only
point it out so that you know.

I am more than willing to set it aside and discuss your
ideas.

>PN
>>> But if you don't care about them, why have you posted your
>>> mile-long dribble?

>PN
>>> Your say-so on this score is hardly good enough; I am not,
>>> however, interested in discussing this matter with you.

>DQ
>> I am not, however, interested in discussing this matter with you.
>> I love that phrase.  Do it again.  It sounds so pompous, but I like
>> it.

>At least I'm glad you tacitly admit you say-so isn't worth much.

I do not see how I admitted that.  I do grant that assertions 
are not proofs, but I never admitted that in the statement above.
Can we merely set this aside as well in the interest of 
more useful discussion?

>PN
>>> Let me just tell you that all I seek here is to contribute to the
>>> good life.

>DQ
>> Learn to do it well then.

>Probably not from you, Doug.

Probably not, but were you willing to listen, I would certainly
have some questions for you about whether you are guilty of
evil in your effort to oppose evil.  However, I will admit
that you are unlikely to get anything at all from me unless
you are open to the possibility.  I myself think that you
probably have new ideas for me.  I may not agree with them, 
but I am interested.

>DQ
>> Thanks for the advice.  I happen to like my ass clean, and knowing
>> that it was impossible for you to reveal what you do not know, I did
>> not wait around for your knowledge.

>But you can take another cue from me. Unlike me, you often
>don't know what you are talking about. Avoid that.

This is ad hominem and an unsupported conclusion.
Still, despite the fact that it was intended as insult, I 
will choose to focus on the fact that it is valuable advice
in general.    

>As to looking for a solution inside your scatological self, it
>may actually be a helpful idea. Consider it.

I will consider it.

>PN
>>> Unlike you, I don't give a fuck about my own relative importance.

>DQ
>> Actually, I do not really give much of a fuck about my relative
>> importance either.

>Then why did you bring up the issue of comparative personal 
>importance in the first place?

Look, Phillip, I would hope that the reason I brought it up
was obvious.  I was not saying that I am not as important as
I think I am.  I was saying that you are not as important
as you think you are.  Given that I will make the
effort to move away from ad hominem, I will drop the
assertion, and perhaps we can move on to ideas.

>PN
>>> If I had any claim to greatness, I would not be reading this
>>> newsgroup. 

>DQ
>> EXACTLY!

>My purpose is much humbler than greatness. It is known as
>full humanity. Consider that, Doug.

I have.  Since your last post, I have given it more thought
since I detected a willingness on your part to move away
from invective.  I think that I understand a bit of your
purpose.

I must admit, however that the term 'full humanity' confuses
me a bit in the context of your discourse.  Full humanity would
seem to me to embrace frail people who write badly to make themselves
feel better.  Do you disagree with me on that?  I assume you do.

>PN
>>>But you are right, I have no use for the respect of the herd.

>DQ
>> Now how did I know this?

>Who cares?

Someone may.

>DQ
>> I even knew this.  And as I said, there are plenty of people here
>> who write bad poetry.  SO WHAT?

>It is the moral duty of any rational reader of this group who
>cares enough about poetry, to chastise this thriving graphomaniacal 
>subculture, and thereby contribute to the good life. (Should you be 
>tempted rashly to reduce this proposition _ad absurdum_, try to 
>figure out the difference between perfect and imperfect duties 
>before you do so.)

I am not going to reduce it to _ad absurdum_, because I have found
the idea interesting since it was first presented by Joe.
Your discourse has revealed a subtlety to me that had not occurred
to me before.  So I wish to consider it more.  If you are able
to present your arguments (for the purpose of proof) that 
pure art can contribute to the good life.

By "good life", I can only assume that you are referring to 
some sort of utopian existence, but I grant that perhaps your
goal is not that unrealistic.  I would welcome some illumination 
on this.

I must say that the historical evidence that literature can
effectively contribute to a "better" existence is somewhat
lacking.  Would you suggest that this is due to the adulteration
of literature by "graphomaniacal subcultures?" 
 
>PN
>>> Good for you, Doug. Please make sure you always mention your
>>> sources. 

>DQ
>> You are such a tiresome fellow.

>It's just a matter of perspective.

Yes it is.

>DQ
>> I claim this for most everyone.  There isn't anyone here writing
>> poetry that is likely to go down in history as great.  Of course, I
>> may be wrong about that.  Speaking relatively to great artists, we
>> are all nothing.  

>I am less concerned with greatness than with the distinction
>between good and bad poetry.

Very well.  Are you able to define good poetry versus bad
poetry?  I am not challenging you to do so, I am merely interested
in whether you have done this or not.

>DQ
>> You seem to think that in claiming this I am
>> denigrating my own aims and efforts.  I am not.  Think of me as a
>> special olympian if you must.  I am dim, and a little slow, and
>> never as good as someone who is not.  But there is a certain
>> existential heroism in my effort.  The fact that I am nothing does
>> NOT mean I cannot strive to be something even if the effort fails.
>

>Where have I said anything contrary to this? But the fact that you
>have a right to 'strive to be something' does not make you
>immune to the criticisms of those who find your existential
>heroism to be misapplied.

I understand what you are suggesting.  You suggest that 
the efforts of poets who do not attempt to combat evil
with their poetry are misapplied.  Am I wrong?

I would suggest, on the other hand, that combatting evil
as an end that requires the means of crushing vulnerable
human spirits seems rather dubious to me.  Joe did convince
me that perhaps it is a responsibility of writers to fight
evil, but I never quite managed to understand why
this requires the sacrifices that he and you seem to think
it does.  I would be interested in more discussion of this.

> It is only in that context that you
>have your right, if you exercise it at all. (Don't forget that
>this, too, needs to be demonstrated.)

Yes, if you are in an environment with warriors and predators,
you do need to have survival instincts.  Do you understand
me when I tell you that if you continue with this in this
group you will have people attacking you FAR more harshly
than I, all the while believing that THEY are combatting
evil.  How is it that people are not to conclude that
you are evil.  This is an honest question Phillip.
I ask it rhetorically to give you a chance to answer it.
I, myself, think that I can formulate an answer for this
myself, but I would be interested in hearing yours.

>PN
>>> I really care very little about all that.

>DQ
>> I knew you would care little.  Actually I am rather surprised you
>> did not attack me for saying it.  But I do mean it.  Already I enjoy
>> the sparring.

>I haven't seen any sparring yet.

It's all a matter of perspective.

> So far, you have simply wasted
>my time by making allegations, affecting ironies, and avoiding
>reasoned argument. 

I deny this, but can we drop it in the interest of discussion?

>If you you wish to engage in any sort of
>dialogue with me, quit babbling and start talking. 

I have made an effort to speak to you in the way that you insist
I speak to you.

>If you care to
>have an opinion, learn to present an argument.

I am only too good at argument.  I will explain this rather 
cryptic statement later.

> I give you one
>last chance. If nothing changes, I shall simply ignore you.

Well, Phillip, I think that you have never attempted to 
understand what I was suggsting.  I think that you have
somewhat deliberately reduced and misrepresented arguments
I have made.  I am willing to accept that this was my fault, 
and I have tried to adress you in the way that you will allow
me to address you so that perhaps I may be able to understand
you a little better.  Also, it allows you to present
your case to RAP in a way that more people may be able
to understand should you choose to do so.

If you choose to ignore me, so be it.

>DQ
>> I just wish I had something with which to wipe my hands.  Perhaps
>> you could lend me one of your gerbils.

>You are the victim of the imitative nature of your meagre imagination.

If you say so, but my imagination is larger than you think it is,
and I do not tend to think of myself as a victim.

Are YOU willing to give up ad hominem and present your case?

doug