[Jim Hayes]

Hairy Hugh-Clerihew
Baltimore member too,
answers my dock-till
elegantly.

I think it's a pity that
analretentively
some people grump at a
joke they can't see.

oops! did it again.


[This message has been edited by Jim Hayes (edited January 23, 2002).]

[Roger Slater]

Withdrawn.

[This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited February 04, 2002).]

[Jim Hayes]

Rogery-dodgery
crying in the kitchen
pleads to his mother
that it's too hot

saying that Jim Hayes is
most-ungentlemanly
he forgets that I'm giving as
good as I got.

[Roger Slater]

Withdrawn.

[This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited February 04, 2002).]

[Roger Slater]

I'm deleting this post since it stunk.

[This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited February 04, 2002).]

[Jim Hayes]

This has little rhyme and no meter Roger. Even syntactically
it has deficiencies. The line breaks are also ill-judged.
I would say that this is a draft and that it will repay a little polishing.

A good way to judge the intellectual content of a piece is to set it out without the line breaks;

"Hardly, Jim. You deceive your fragile ego if you tell it to believe you gave as well as you got. Poppycock! Why don't you read your stuff prior to posting it?
Then you could tell meter's a casualty when you make war with verse. Where's the wit if you must ring your own bell?"

Now see. The first sentence doesn't really hang together very well. You don't notice that when you use line breaks.
I'm not really sure that the third sentence is a sequitur either. The rhetoric to conclude is rather shrill and inconclusive. Rhetoric is a dangerous tool to use in poetry as you may well get the answer you don't want, and also you run the risk of giving the impression that you don't know what the answer is anyway.

When you have this refined to your satisfaction, we'll have another look at it. In the meantime I think we should leave off writing poems to each other.

[Carol Taylor]

The challenge of this funexcise is double dactyls with well-chosen nonsense words for the first line. I don't want to see the thread become another thinly veiled opportunity for attacking another poster's style or poetic ability under the guise of verse. Poems that answer other poems are fine, as long as they address the poem itself or the points made in the poem and not the writer. Thanks in advance for keeping out any personal criticism.

Carol

[Roger Slater]

Withdrawn.

[This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited February 04, 2002).]

[Jim Hayes]

Yawn.
However I do agree with your suggestion to close. Further, since it is rather apparent that we are hardly likely to be objective to each other's work might I further suggest that we refrain from respectively commenting thereon save by PM.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Carol's requirements and that I wholeheartedly will comply with same, and would also point out that I only responded in
defence to your rather mean-spirited attack on my tongue-in-cheek but harmless nonsense posting 'Dock-till'.

Jim Hayes

[Carol Taylor]

That's fine then, let's let it drop and go on to something else. Thanks.

Carol