leonardcohenforum.com

Read my original post and tell me why the need to attack me over what I said? By the way not all feel that treatened by what I said, and why should they.

Till we meet again.

This is what you call an attack, Linda? This was an explanation. To be even more specific, this was a cause-effect explanation.

This explains what led to your asking, "why do you all feel the need to defend yourselves?" To be more accurate, why are some of us addressing this?

First, comes Midnight's posting:
"Good Grief! What kind of fans are you? That's one of his most notable early poems. The depth of your ignorance about Leonard's work is astonishing, Lizzytysh...considering your 24-hr-a-day obsession with him."

I did just look at your first post ~ again. That was the "compliment" [to two] phase. I like Hannah, however, I had to wonder why you complimented her out of the blue, when she hadn't guessed anything on the poem, and wasn't involved in the thread, at all. Pulling her in as you did made it quite obvious that you were making a clear distinction between personal traits that make a "true" fan, "that LC can be proud of" and, by omission, the rest who aren't, and of whom he couldn't be.

How did I respond? By giving my expansive and inclusive view of how a "true" fan ~ "that LC can be proud of" ~ might look and be.

Then, your own second post was the "judgemental, dissing one": "I would at least expect a true follower of LC to be knowledgeable of his work, especially someone who has been a fan for many years." [italics mine for emphasis]

Hmm...wonder where this came from, and why. To intentionally contrast the one[s] who didn't recognize it, with one or both of the two, LC-fan role models [both obviously 'knowledgeable,' according to your original post, even though only one had participated and recognized it]? Or, was it simply to throw out an expectation, which you had obviously just seen "not being met."

No reason to think you spontaneously decided to post your second one, with no intent of saying anything negative about anyone, is there? Who was this true follower, this someone [singular or plural]? This goes way beyond "only giving compliments where compliments were due," Linda.

It's interesting to see what you consider an "attack" [an explanation], when sleight-of-hand insult is what you had just delivered.

~ Lizzytysh

Lizzytysh,

Give it a rest will ya?

Good Grief! Stop analysing every little word that everyone writes. It's not all about you.

You're right, Midnight. It's not all about me.

Lizzytysh,

I'm glad you finally realized it.

Margaret wrote:

I think a few comments have been taken a bit too seriously and some have tried to denegrate other members opinions, lack of literary knowledge, or even poetic efforts, such as telling George to use a dictionary etc. M., please leave George be, he is not writing professionally, just as and when he feels inspired by something.

Unfortunately, this is not only inaccurate and inappropriate, but quite unjustified and out of context. If anyone has felt their "literary knowledge", or poetry, "denigrated" by me (which was not, and never would be, my intention) they have not indicated it to me. George knows how much I appreciate his creative talents, and my light-hearted 'ribbing' was not meant, or taken, as anything other than what it was. If not, I'm sure George would have said so himself, at the time; (how many weeks ago?!). Others knew my suggestions were helpful; I was even privately encouraged in such constructive efforts.

Truth & Light,
'M'

Makera, the words are only jumbled fumblings of our true expression under the iceberg. Conditioning only leads to extinguishing the pure energy within. If i make mistakes, so be it.
My creativity will continue for all to comment on. I am able to take concerns on board. Best wishes to all on the Board...............the uninspired georges at the moment.............
Georges

Yes, George, I've always valued a 'natural' more highly than a 'cultured' pearl. And, as you know, I wouldn't comment if I didn't care.
Carry on, my friend....

Love,
Makera

PS Thanks for letting me know who the "Poetry Police" you referred to are.

Midnight ~

I know how you meant it. You know how I meant it. Call it a draw.

However, since you can't seem to do that, I'll explain [in a little more detail] the dynamics that I had/have chosen to address. You came on to this thread, not alone ~ and after the fact, and the answer ~ to merely laugh at those, who were serious and participated, and make unrelated, editorial comments.

The comments were restrictive and divisive, singling out some, excluding others, and negatively including still others. My comments were expansive and inclusive, excluding no one, and being negative toward no one.

I did participate. I was serious. I will follow up, if I care to [which I did], comments made by those who hadn't even taken the risk to be engaged in the thread. This was a time for those who were engaged to laugh at themselves [Margaret's revelation was her own form of engagement] ~ not to burst into the circle laughing and pointing fingers [that includes you] at others, while lauding the [unrelated to poem recognition] personal characteristics and acts of one present, and the same of one not even there [as if anything other than exposure ~ "knowledge," if you must ~ to this particular poem was even relevant].

With feigned 'innocence' on top of all that, receiving an analytical, detailed, and precise explanation should not be 'shocking' or, of all the things that had just occurred, be perceived as an "attack," or as 'inappropriate'/'heavy-handed' by you. So, why you're still here going on with this is puzzling. Why didn't you participate in the beginning? Personal choice, right? Mine was to participate. So was following up with Linda, and now you.

~ Lizzytysh

We meet again.
What the h are you talking about Lizzytysh, I will compliment whoever, wherever and whenever I please. Out of the blue! If you are insulted by it so be it.

Linda ~

You obviously don't get it ~ or choose to ignore it. Had you kept it to mere compliments, out of context and divisive as they were [and worthy of comment], it would not have been quite the issue as throwing in insults to others, as well, and tidying it all up with an innocent, razor-twine bow. I will continue to comment, as I please, on those facts. If you feel attacked by this, so be it.

~ Lizzytysh

Lizzytysh,


Stop telling everyone how to post, what to post and when to post.

Midnight ~

Stop telling me how to post, what to post, and when to post.

~ Lizzytysh

Unfortunately, I was one of those who laughed here but wasn’t engaged in the discussion. I’d like to apologize to everyone who commented that poem for my tactless posting.
Actually, I still was “engaged” somehow - I didn’t post any comments because I preferred to give no comments when it was known preciously that the author would read them (especially “young author” who had no publications) but I took seriously Lightning’s request to interpret/criticize the poem, and read it with all the attentiveness and seriousness without having any ideas regarding the authorship… And laughing at that great joke I was laughing at myself, as well. But in that very context it really might look like laughing at others. I didn’t think about it. So I offer my apologies.

Yours,
TH

Dear Helven ~

You're right, it was a great joke, and one that those, who actively participated, laughed about. The kind of laughter that you brought is the kind that is laughing at the joke itself, not the individuals who commented on the poem. It's when you start bringing in personalities; implicit comparisons of people; scoffing at; and pointing fingers; that the joke itself has been left in the dust, and has now been used for unfriendly and ridicule-ish purposes.

That is not at all what you did, and you don't owe any apologies. It's very gracious of you to apologize, no matter what . Your comment about its being "a very good method.....to get an unprejudiced opinion" is also true, and valid, after-the-fact commentary; and is not intended to make value judgements, or undermine anyone who actively participated [and which, in fact, in the way you stated it, presumes that people do not know who the writer is]. Thanks for your input, Tanya .

Love,
Lizzy