Gerald England:
> I am not taking a stance Marcus
> I am arguing against the taking of stances.<

Taking a stance against taking a stance? Do you not see what drivel you are
writing here?

Further, you are taking a stance against taking a stance only in response to a
firm stance against the stance you originally took, when you said "this 'poem'
has been round the internet a million times" thus accusing me of plagiarism,
since no 'poem' had been round the internet any times until I wrote one. The
prose observation had, of course, been round the internet, but so what? I dare
say every poem you’ve ever written or even contemplated writing has been around
in prose a million times, too. But so what? Do you expect them to be greeted by
sneering accusations that you’re a plagiarist on that count?

Gerald England:
> Whilst my remark
> > I think this "poem" has been round the internet a million times
> might be mis-interpreted as a suggestion that you might have been a
> plagiarist I have already put the record straight on that point and
> apologised for the suggestion.
> No-one has accused you of plagiarism only of un-originality.<

You made no apology because distinguishing between “un-originality”
and “plagiarism”, as you do in this context, is like apologizing for
saying “You’re an ass!” by saying “I’m sorry you’re an ass!”

There is no “mis-interpreted” about it – you’re making an ugly accusation that
you cannot back up either in theory or in practice – you only repeat it again
and again and pretend you’re apologizing by repeating it, a despicable tactic
known as "the big lie".

> I'm defending myself against both those
> accusations. The standard offered as opposed to my notion that poetry is
> rhetoric, a way of presenting cliched or banal or trite ideas in ways that
> make them non-cliched, non-banal, or non-trite, is that all poetry must be
> "honest originality", of which there are on offer a sum total of exactly zero
> examples so far.

> Well OK Marcus you are right there is no such thing as pure originality
> certainly not in your world where you can't even accept the original grunt of
> language as being original.<

Here again the insistence on your view that there IS pure originality even as
you pretend to agree there is not, while at the same time misrepresenting what
I said entirely; here again the tactic known as "the big lie" of repeating
accusations without any support.

The claim you and Christine and Sue and others are making is that every
collection of words must be always and only “honest originality” or it can’t be
a poem. That’s the view that has been stated and that only I have objected to.

Certainly YOU haven’t objected to it! You offered the fantasy of a pre-historic
grunt as “honest originality” in defense of the idea that only “honest
originality” can make a poem.

I replied that, first, it’s only a fantasy, and second, even granting that it
is an example of “honest originality” why do any of you bother to try to call
any of your effusions “poems” since they are not mere grunts in response to the
universe? And why don’t you merely grunt in awe of the universe instead of
trying to arrange words as you do? How can you even write prose emails claiming
that a grunt in awe of the universe is the only “honest originality” you can
think of and still claim that only “honest originality” can be poetry? Why
aren’t you just grunting in awe of the universe? Why bother writing even prose
when you could be honestly original by grunting?

The point is that your claims don’t even hold together on their own terms, much
less on any reasonable basis. I can only assume that anything you, or any of
your colleagues in awe of the universe, call “a poem” is something you also
think is “honest originality”.

> &gt; I am challenging the view that poetry is composed solely of "honest
> &gt; originality" which is the position from which I'm being accuesed of
> &gt; plagiarism and of not writing anything called poetry in the first place.

> You are challenging (sic) a view that no-one is taking.<

People on this list have taken that view explicitly, and you’re one of them.
You have even offered a defense (the fantasy of the primal grunt) as what you
seem to think of as evidence that there is such a thing as “honest originality”
in contemporary poetry by offering it as the only example you can think of
of “honest originality”!

> My view of your poem is that it is derivative and not very funny -- you
> compared the prices or water and gas and used it make a point.<

You may think it is not very funny, and welcome to it; I can’t object to that –
tastes differ – but to call it derivative is to make a different sort of
accusation altogether. My presentation of the notion was very different from
the prose version’s presentation.

> > I'm sorry, but I'm not merely going to "agree to disagree" about whether
> > I'm a plagiarist or not.

> No one is asking you to.

That’s exactly what you’re asking me to do by repeating and repeating your
accusations. When will these despicable tactics cease?

Happy Easter!

Marcus