"Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and poetics"

I wonder what kind of dialogue this is, why don't you change topic

or are we dealing with a couple of "minor poets" (plenty in history) who
used the little they knew to show off by stating they had strong opinions,
better by shouting them through

or is there someone behind you all happy that the three of you are fighting,
could that be it?

Anyhow I do not like it, the little that can matter, please stop it.

Out of affection, Anny




> Henry
>
> I didnt said Frederick's response was a mindless response
>
> YOU go back and read my words and dont start throwing around insults
without
> understanding simple statements
>
> possibly rushed but not that rushed
>
> you have read me too quickly
>
> I feared a mindless response
>
> I got a non sequitur
>
> I didnt say mindless
>
> I wrote dishonest
>
> I deleted it
>
> I wish I had left it
>
> | Did you make an argument? I thought you waxed sarcastic about the
Israeli
> | "apology".  Is that making an argument?  No more than Frederick's
comment
> is.
>
> Fair enough except that I have already said that it was an  exclamation of
> outrage so  clearly I dont think much of it as it stands as an argument
>
> I implied an argument
>
> and Frederick may or  may not have wanted to make an argument. It's
> difficult to tell when he doesnt - on past form - explain
>
> and even if it was an argument, for the THIRD time, it was a non sequitur
>
> discussion is that someone says something and someone responds to it
>
> or they dont, andthey stay silent, as most are doing now
>
> or they dont, but they offer a different thread
>
> mixing up the two is pointless
>
> | You are misrepresenting yourself.  You called Frederick's the "official"
> | position, implying, of course, that yours is unofficial.  Or is yours
> | actually another kind of official position?  Maybe you could clear this
up
> | for me.
>
> There is generally one official position and many unofficial positions.
Mine
> is one of them. Things arent black and white. I hope that's not too
complex
>
> From the evidence of Frederick's recommended reading, he favours official
> version
>
> The implicit argument of Frederick's non sequitur is an official version,
> one which Sharon frequently visits your country to reinforce
>
> | >I didn't mention Hamas. Frederick did. It is, yawn, a non sequitur.
> |
> | How so?  Because only Israeli crimes are of interest here?  Careful,
> | Lawrence, your propagandas are showing.
>
> Perhaps you don't *know what a non sequitur  is
>
> It is nothing to do with the content although it is discerned through the
> content.It is a logical error and renders the statement useless
>
> "your propagandas are showing"
> very amusing Henry
>
> Assuming that means my ideology, I am opposed to violence by both sides so
> yelling Hamas at me when I am condemning the Israelis is not making a
point,
> neither logically making a point nor in any sense embarrassing me or
> confounding me as I suspect you believe, just wasting everyone's time
>
> if you dont actually want to discuss this with me, fine
>
> L
>