veit > kunst.* > kunst.literatuur

 #1  
16.10.2004, 21:40
M.H.Benders
Excellent poets: 2 Benders and Vriezen - two negative votes
Good poets: 1 Dale - one negative vote
Could-be-poets: 1 Jerry - one slightly positive vote
Reliable critics: 1 Chandra - negative vote
Somewhat of a critic: 1 Michael - slightly negative vote
Fortune cookie writers: 1 Rick - negative vote
'Me too' crowd: 6 - all positive
Web TV posters: 5 - all positive
 #2  
16.10.2004, 22:57
michael
"M.H.Benders" <m.benders> wrote in message
news:0201

Excellent pies: 2 Benders and Vriezen - two negative votes
Good pies: 1 Dale - one negative vote
Could-be-pies: 1 Jerry - one slightly positive vote
Reliable pies: 1 Chandra - negative vote
Somewhat of a pie: 1 Michael - slightly negative vote
Fortune cookie pies: 1 Rick - negative vote
'Me too' pies: 6 - all positive
Web TV pies: 5 - all positive

Exceedingly Good Pies- Rudyard Kipling
 #3  
17.10.2004, 02:03
Josh Hill
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:40:36 GMT, "M.H.Benders"
<m.benders> wrote:

>Excellent poets: 2 Benders


Never let it be said that you don't have a sense of humor.
[..]
 #4  
17.10.2004, 02:06
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:

>>Excellent poets: 2 Benders

> Never let it be said that you don't have a sense of humor.


Just ask Vriezen whether he thinks I'm as good as Shakespeare, worse or
better, Josh. You just have to ask!

M.H.Benders
 #5  
17.10.2004, 02:54
Josh Hill
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:06:39 GMT, "M.H.Benders"
<m.benders> wrote:

>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>Excellent poets: 2 Benders

>> Never let it be said that you don't have a sense of humor.

>Just ask Vriezen whether he thinks I'm as good as Shakespeare, worse or
>better, Josh. You just have to ask!


No I don't.
 #6  
17.10.2004, 04:03
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:

>>>Never let it be said that you don't have a sense of humor.

>>Just ask Vriezen whether he thinks I'm as good as Shakespeare, worse or
>>better, Josh. You just have to ask!

> No I don't.


Some people are just scared of the truth.

M.H.Benders
 #7  
17.10.2004, 09:37
Dale
M.H.Benders wrote:
> Excellent poets: 2 Benders and Vriezen - two negative votes
> Good poets: 1 Dale - one negative vote
> Could-be-poets: 1 Jerry - one slightly positive vote
> Reliable critics: 1 Chandra - negative vote
> Somewhat of a critic: 1 Michael - slightly negative vote
> Fortune cookie writers: 1 Rick - negative vote
> 'Me too' crowd: 6 - all positive
> Web TV posters: 5 - all positive


I think you are rather overdoing this bit, although I realize that's
what you do, amusingly enough I suppose. The attention you are giving to
what is essentially a trifle only tends to make it seem more important
than - as a single poem - it could possibly be.

It's not a good (or at least an interesting) poem, agreed. It seems a
bit ridiculous to go to so much effort to convince the fellow who wrote
it to agree with you on this small point.

I've told you before that I find your poetry interesting, but - to be
honest - it really isn't any better than mine is, no matter what level
you tend to place either of them. This hierarchy game is somewhat
childish and petulant.

dmh
 #8  
17.10.2004, 12:52
M.H.Benders
Dale wrote:

> I think you are rather overdoing this bit, although I realize that's
> what you do, amusingly enough I suppose. The attention you are giving to
> what is essentially a trifle only tends to make it seem more important
> than - as a single poem - it could possibly be.
> It's not a good (or at least an interesting) poem, agreed. It seems a
> bit ridiculous to go to so much effort to convince the fellow who wrote
> it to agree with you on this small point.


Wait a minute! P.Hill was claiming that his poetry is much better than
mine. That was the preface for the experiment. He wrote maybe 3 or 4
poems during his lifetime but they were of such ineffable quality that
he had no problems declaring himself a better poet than I would be.

Of course, normally I wouldn't even have commented the rag. But we have
a guy here who is so disturbed that the fact that he can't win any
arguments from me (just witness the insane attempt in the thread 'Josh
thinks USA better than Saddam Hussein)is resulting in an attitude where
he has to convince himself I'm not much of a poet, because of the
religious framework of his mindset. You see, if I would be much of a
poet he'd go insane. It is absolutely necissary for him to believe
I am somehow below him.

Now, that's of course just another ridiculous stance. And frankly, yes,
of course the attention for this little rag is absurd, just as my
dealings with P.Hill in general are absurd. A rational person would long
ago have left him to boil in his own twisted political mind. But he's
just unfortunate enough to have met an absurdist online, and as Sheard
noted the battle between a Kantean rationalist and an absurdist will
likely go on forever.

> I've told you before that I find your poetry interesting, but - to be
> honest - it really isn't any better than mine is, no matter what level
> you tend to place either of them.


Oh, I wouldn't know, to be honest. It could be better, the same or
worse. It doesn't really interest me, one way or the other. It is very
hard to judge the quality of one's own work, and on the other hand you
could say that you can best judge your own work. I think Cohen said once
that he never listens to critics because they're never as austere as he
himself is a critic. I have no idea what to think of my own poetry, I
tend to be much more critical of it than most people who read it.
Moreover, most people who criticize my work are motivated by sheer
ressentiment which makes their criticisms useless and phony in the first
place. Take the ridiculous criticism of P.Hill on my 'dictionary' poem
('The poem isn't finished and has narrating parts) - that's a very silly
criticism of someone who doesn't understand a thing about poetry. When I
responded with a Picasso qoute where Picasso says works are never
finished and shouldn't be finished because finishing them kills them he
responds with 'there are plenty of artists who feel opposite' - when I
asked him to qoute some of those artist, he refuses. That's not the sort
of critic I would ever listen to, to be frank.

M.H.Benders
 #9  
17.10.2004, 14:09
Rik Roots
M.H.Benders wrote:

> Excellent poets: 2 Benders and Vriezen - two negative votes
> Good poets: 1 Dale - one negative vote
> Could-be-poets: 1 Jerry - one slightly positive vote
> Reliable critics: 1 Chandra - negative vote
> Somewhat of a critic: 1 Michael - slightly negative vote
> Fortune cookie writers: 1 Rick - negative vote
> 'Me too' crowd: 6 - all positive
> Web TV posters: 5 - all positive


How dare you leave me off your voting lits! I want my name recorded in full
against the "me too" category (as I don't own a Web TV).

Rik, knee deep.
 #10  
17.10.2004, 21:43
Josh Hill
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:52:37 GMT, "M.H.Benders"
<m.benders> wrote:

>Moreover, most people who criticize my work are motivated by sheer
>ressentiment which makes their criticisms useless and phony in the first
>place.


Heh.
 #11  
17.10.2004, 21:45
Josh Hill
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:03:59 GMT, "M.H.Benders"
<m.benders> wrote:

>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>Never let it be said that you don't have a sense of humor.
>>>Just ask Vriezen whether he thinks I'm as good as Shakespeare, worse or
>>>better, Josh. You just have to ask!

>> No I don't.

>Some people are just scared of the truth.


Heh, yes, you are.
 #12  
17.10.2004, 22:55
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:

>>>>>Never let it be said that you don't have a sense of humor.
>>>>Just ask Vriezen whether he thinks I'm as good as Shakespeare, worse or
>>>>better, Josh. You just have to ask!
>>>No I don't.

>>Some people are just scared of the truth.

> Heh, yes, you are.


Oh sure. That must be why I am the guy who resuses to quote those
artists that claim paintings should be finished. And that must be why
I am the guy who refuses to ask Samuel Vriezen the million dollar question.

M.H.Benders
Soortgelijke onderwerpen