Before You're Sixty-Four.

Manna · Post by **Manna** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:23 am

By commencing the piece by stating "I'd like to...", it is possible he intends not to effectuate said heathen fornication. Rather than extending an invitation of his own, perhaps he is declining a most tantalizing invitation from a lady, while allowing the lady to maintain her dignity by entertaining with her how beautiful it could be, although, of course, short-lived. Perhaps he is a man of fine honor.

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:26 am

Great reframing, Manna

.

~ Lizzy

Geoffrey · Post by **Geoffrey** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:32 am

I wrote 'unredeemably'.

Diane wrote:
"That should be 'irredeemably'. Please correct it Geoffrey; it makes you appear uneducated."

Thank you for correcting me, Diane. An embarrassing fox's paw, and in the company of a teacher (Andrew) to boot. I am not concerned with literary merit, but nevertheless, purely as an act of gratitude, have taken it upon myself to revise an error in one of YOUR earlier messages.

Diane to Andrew wrote:I do see why you don't quite know how to take him, particularly as it is your poem he is referring to.

This sentence has an object (the word 'poem'), thus making it necessary to avoid ending with a preposition. Try instead:

". . . it is your poem to which he is referring."

So we, in common with Leonard and most every other composer of words, are not infallible. English is not my everyday language; what's your excuse? Just what have you got to say to that then, my dear?

Diane · Post by **Diane** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:38 pm

Thank you for pointing to this error of mine, G. It reads far better the correct way. I regularly make mistakes, but I get by with a little help from my friends.

You know, Geoffrey, maybe it's time for you to let go of your problem with Andrew's poem. You've got things arse about face: The ability to create a piece of art to express the tender joy and pain that springs from our shared, flawed humanity, is one of the few things that does redeem us.

Sideways · Post by **Sideways** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:40 pm

[quote="Geoffrey"/"William"]I wrote 'unredeemably'.[/quote]

surely, William/Geoffrey, that should be "irredeemably".

Remember, Geoffrey/William, "grammar maketh the men"

btw, do both of your identities have alcohol problems?

Sue

"Ironing, Ironing I love ironing."

Geoffrey · Post by **Geoffrey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:22 am

Hello Sideways, and thank you for taking an interest.

Diane wrote:
>You know, Geoffrey, maybe it's time for you to let go of your problem with Andrew's poem.

Yes, how easy to own a cold heart with no care or feelings for others, an egoistic person uninterested in the bothersome nuance between love and self-gratification. Instead of eternally pushing a ramp down to a herd of swine why not climb down and join them in their muck? Very tempting, I am sure. Andrew's verse is all about extra-marital sex, and that should by no means be treated light-heartedly. Indeed, in certain parts of the world people are stoned to death for less. Maybe it's time for you, my little piece of Welsh rarebit, to examine why all the fuss. I am willing, as always, to assist - but because of it's intimate nature would prefer not to do so.

With prayers for your spiritual recovery I remain -
Geoffrey

Diane · Post by **Diane** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:35 am

Geoffrey, you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell.

Geoffrey · Post by **Geoffrey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:44 am

Diane wrote:Geoffrey, you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell.

of . . .?

Sideways · Post by **Sideways** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:11 am

Geoffrey/William wrote:
Diane wrote:Geoffrey, you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell.
of . . .?

Dear William (Geoffrey) you should not end your sentence with "of"

kind regards to Mr Sexy Geoffrey (William) of Norway

Sue

ps you also started your sentence with "of", I don't know if that is ok but it really turns me on!!!!

pps why are you so horrid about this poem, Andrew is a top writer and I think you are more than jealous a bit!!!

Geoffrey · Post by **Geoffrey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:33 am

Sideways wrote:
>Andrew is a top writer . . .

and I can imagine exactly how thrilled he must be to have a person of your intellect as a fan.

William · Post by **William** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:14 am

Geoffrey/Sue/ (the missing person from this forum whose absence has been noted more in his replacement than in the absence itself)
I am not Geoffrey nor would wish to be but I suspect Sue (of the legal leaning handle) enjoys talking to himself.

So (missing person's handle) you have not gone away and yet you ignore my PM's.
The faux paws of Geoffrey (to quote himself) would be anathema to someone who has spent most of his adult life in the academic world - sorry Sue, 'tis not I but, I suspect, 'tis thee, the one who doth protest too much.
Time you got a seat on the bench old chap.
William
PS Anyone know where MIchael has gone?

Manna · Post by **Manna** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:56 am

If this is the same Geoffrey as from the old ng, then I am fairly sure he is neither Sideways Sue nor Mischievous Member sans Moniker. I don't know who William is. I am sure the four of them are all lovers, however. Of course, it is perfectly respectable grammar to begin a sentence with of. It is never ok to end a sentence with of. This rule is only excepted when the "of" is followed by points of ellipses, as Geo did in expectation of an object, and when of is not serving as a preposition, as I have used of.

On a non-LC, non-poetic, semi-tangential side note, I recently read that our ansestors would find it priggish and pedantic that we modernly insist upon wun single korrect spelling of werds. I was reading about the word golf, which does not, in fact, stand for "gents only, ladies forbidden." Such acronymic word jheneration is relatively new, made popular in the 20th-century, while gauffe has been around since something like 1450, when the word golf appeared with several spellings, all fennetically resembling golf.

William · Post by **William** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:04 pm

Well slap my thighs Manna but that is an amazing exposition.
I still maintain Sue is known, well known, to you!!!!
Even if you don't know that you know it, if you follow?

Sideways · Post by **Sideways** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:50 pm

William wrote:Well slap my thighs Manna but that is an amazing exposition.
I still maintain Sue is known, well known, to you!!!!
Even if you don't know that you know it, if you follow?

Geoffrey, you are writing in mystery words. If you were speaking this wordage above I imagine you would be wearing a quilt dressing gown and that you have a squeaky little voice, drink in hand (obviously!) and smoking a pipe. When I am doing clients' ironing I sometimes have a cup of tea!!!!!

Sue

Andrew McGeever · Post by **Andrew McGeever** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:21 am

Manna wrote:By commencing the piece by stating "I'd like to...", it is possible he intends not to effectuate said heathen fornication. Rather than extending an invitation of his own, perhaps he is declining a most tantalizing invitation from a lady, while allowing the lady to maintain her dignity by entertaining with her how beautiful it could be, although, of course, short-lived. Perhaps he is a man of fine honor.

Perhaps I am a man of fine honor (the American spelling of "honour").
Manna made a good point here, I think: nothing happens in the poem. It was never a narrative, just an idea put into words, then commited as a poetry.
In this respect I've been consistent ( oh yes, I have trawled through the correspondence on this thread....took me ages

).

Question time : can a poem be "wicked" per se, or is it the fault of the writer's "wicked" thoughts?

Andrew.

Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re:

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.

Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.