For the edification of all concerned, here is Mark's post:

"How about this? In some times and places people sang poems, in others they 
didn't. Some poems are more amenable to being sung than others, but 
sometimes people sang the less amenable ones anyway. And the Nobel Committee 
didn't care about any of this, because they weren't awarding a prize for 
poetry or song. "

Honestly, it seems to me a potted history (alluding to some of the earlier 
instances where song and poetry coincided). The list is comic in effect and 
in its detail  "but sometimes people sang the less amenable ones anyway". 
Hard to explain jokes, but I think this conjures up a hapless choir that 
have chosen the wrong hymn sheet. Nice one, Mark.

Again referring to the list's rules, David, your last four of five emails 
addressed to me have been discourteous and 'ad hominem'. I've been trying to 
keep it civil, and have made in these last three emails not a single ad 
hominem remark.

Jamie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jamie McKendrick
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 6:29 PM


If you can't see the difference between making a request and an accusation, 
I despair of much further progress.
   I still see Mark 's post as a humorous summary not as definition, and not 
just the closing remark. Where on earth is the definition? Perhaps Mark can 
help us with this?
   I await my 'greatest hits' in the happy future.
Jamie

> On 26 Oct 2016, at 18:21, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Again, you are merely repeating here your accusations from your last post. 
> And again I have to state that I don't see them as applying to my 
> exchanges with you. Repetition doesn't make something true that isn't.
>
> If you interpret the totality of Mark's view as humorous, as you've said, 
> then you have misread it. The major portion was a serious attempt at a 
> definition. True, his last sentence was a pithy throwaway remark about the 
> Nobel which could be interpreted as humourous, but the humour in that 
> closing remark was distinct from the the serious point he had made in what 
> led up to it. By saying, as you do, that "it is clearly not a 'definition' 
> but a humorous and pithy summary of the overlap of poems and songs" is to 
> extend and project the humour of that closing remark on to the more 
> serious and considered statements he makes in the previous sentences 
> dealing with the matter at issue.
>
> So, here, you have misrepresented what he said to suit your position, 
> after accusing me of misrepresenting your various statements--which I 
> flatly deny.
>
> I know that, despite this example of your misrepresentation of Mark's 
> statement, you will probably come back and defend it by re-interpreting 
> what you said (or meant) about it being humourous. You seem to specialise 
> in this sort of, backtracking redefinition of fallacious statements you 
> have made. I'll try yo compile your "greatest hits" of them one day.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------Original Message--------------------------
>
>
> Jamie McKendrick wrote:
>
> David, I'm not accused you of anything, I'm making a request for a more 
> civil kind of exchange than has been the case between us of late.
>   The suggested ground rules were merely to make the discussion less 
> unpleasant, not in the least to make my position easier to defend. I've 
> found that quite easy enough. Why should it be unfair to ask someone not 
> to misrepresent an argument just as one example? Does an argument that 
> becomes abusive mean that a position is harder to defend? No, it just 
> distracts both sides from what the argument is. I can't even see why this 
> reasonable proposal appears to you 'petulant'. Besides which my points are 
> closely aligned to the list's regulations which you might care to have a 
> look at, so I'm really changing nothing.
>   Your last point you raise seems ok - of course it's fine to pick on 
> instances you disagree with but not if it misrepresents the whole argument
> I haven't commented on Mark's post because, despite your frequent 
> references to it as such, it is clearly not a 'definition' but a humorous 
> and pithy summary of the overlap of poems and songs. It is fun to read but 
> neither touches on nor explains any of the concerns I have about the 
> differences between poems and songs, and I'm sure Mark would be the first 
> to acknowledge that, even if he sees no difference.
>
> Of course you must do as you like, but if the discussion degenerates 
> between us in the ways I'm trying to avoid, then I'll ignore your posts as 
> you're free to ignore mine.
>
> Jamie