You can eject me if you are going to be a little bitch, I welcome be
relieved by someone like you.
Do it!
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 25, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Stephen Vincent <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Angel, your message request is not appropriate to this list. Please
> refrain or the exit is not far away.
>
> Back to poetry, please.
>
> Stephen Vincent
>
> --- On Sun, 4/25/10, Angel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Angel <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Adventurous rejected: Magma Blog
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 12:56 PM
>
> I need a book about sex, I think I might not be doing it correct and
> would like to gain some status in that area.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> But Doug, isn’t this “lack” of a definition just a
>> relativistic rationalisation (not from you, I stress) to allow non
>> -poetry the same "status" as poetry?
>>
>> As Bob said to Angel earlier, surely we need definitions and
>> classifications to talk intelligently about the subject. Of course,
>> we shouldn’t be too stringent in our definitions, but surely an al
>> l-out relativistic taxonomy can’t be a good thing?
>>
>>
>>
>> Original Message:
>>
>> I suspect it's many things, & changes with whoever is making a
>> definition, yet, somehow or other, this sloppy set (or whatever the
>> term is) still has a hold on us, & we each of us thinks we know what
>> 'poetry' is.
>>
>> Every time I thought I had a definition that fit, I'd find something
>> that was outside the wall yet struck me, as yes, poetry.
|