Confessions

[Jimmy O'Connell]

Greg asks:Why do people post poems here?

To which I would like to reply... anon...

Lizzie gives an analogy: However, if a friend dresses up to go out for the night and comes out, do you begin deconstructing her, march her right back into the bathroom, scrub her face clean of make-up and apply it yourself to your own liking... then take her to her closet and rifle through it till you find an outfit you like better... and then say, "Okay, now you're ready." Or, do you accept her on her own merits, for her own tastes, and go on." I'm not using these attempted analogies to reenforce any ideas of roses and chocolates.

I can't see Laurie allowing this kind of "outfitting" or re-outfitting, either....

Manna gives us options: I have a question too, more out of curiosity for how you think than trying to make any point. Let's say m_1 crits PersonX's poem in such a way that X gets mad. X then ...
1. leaves the forum and never returns
2. calls M a jerk
3. says, "Well, my wife liked it and that's all that matters to me, so bugger off."
4. says something else
5. gets over it and says, "Hey, nice crit. I've got some others, would you mind having a look?"
6. says, "No, it wasn't a stupid line, you just didn't get that it was a reference to the fact that every body of water has a tide, even a glass of water, and even you. And that's why it works, being a moon-sea-love poem."
7. All of the above
8. None of the above
9. Some of the above

ok - here's my question - Do you think any one of these things that X could do is M's responsibility?

The question, rather ought to be, is what is M-1 (or my) responsibility as a critic?
..."say M_1 crits Person X's poem in such a way that x gets mad..."
If I "get mad" at M-1/ Any Critic, I get mad because I think it's personal.
It's either my fault for taking it personal...
Or M_1/Any Critic Is being personal and insulting...
In other words its an argument ad hominum (women too!)... which, as Lizzie indicated, is fine in a court room or law school... but not on a site that has Leonard Cohen as its guiding spirit...

WHY DO I POST POEMS, GREG?
1. To get someone to read my poem. I like an audience... I need a readership... Publishing Houses won't print me 'cause I'm not
famous, have no rep. etc etc...
2. To get a response: and
3. To get a Critique:

2, and 3 are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

2. Response: I like to hear from someone that what I was trying to communicate was understood, appreciated, and expanded the consciousness of at least one person...

3. Critique: I appreciate a critique that attacks the poem... not me... You can attack my poem all you like... I am not my poem... But if you attack the POEM I expect that you know something about literature, and human experience (which includes everyone here...) and that you have genuine ideas as to why my poem does not communicate what I had hoped, or that my poem fails in its intent due to lack of clarity due to mad/bad punctuation, grammar, structure, style etc etc...

Please do not critique my poem so that you can show off to others on the site what a great critic you are... or what a great way you have with words, phrases, and one-liners... or because you feel that someone should be taken down a peg or two because "it's good for my soul"... and "will toughen me up..."

Please don't feel that you have to toughen me up against the real sharky critics out there...
The, "Wow!! wait till those bastards get you and you won't feel so bad that I took you apart....!!!!!" kind of critiquing will do nothing for my soul... BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY does not help me make my poem better!!!!!!!!!

In passing: I notice that M_1 hasn't commented on my latest offering: The Battle of Minsitir 1579.
Now, Michael, I would appreciate a real, genuine, no showoffy critique of my latest offering....
I actually agreed with your last serious outing on my behalf with "We Were Married"... I am still in the process of re-writing...
Which is a very good example of why I actually post here, Greg. Ironically, performed by none other than the bould Michael, hisself!!!!

And again, in passing to Blonde Madonna, whereever and whoever you are... thank you for your support... I appreciate your vote, but have no intention of setting up such a club!!

In the Spirit of Lennie...

Jimmy

[lizzytysh]

Lizzy, I was also tempted to tell you not to let Michael or anyone else tell you not to use emoticons. I wouldn't want him to change you any more than I want you to change him. If either of you changes, it will be your own doing.

I have a question too, more out of curiosity for how you think than trying to make any point. Let's say m_1 crits PersonX's poem in such a way that X gets mad. X then ...
1. leaves the forum and never returns
2. calls M a jerk
3. says, "Well, my wife liked it and that's all that matters to me, so bugger off."
4. says something else
5. gets over it and says, "Hey, nice crit. I've got some others, would you mind having a look?"
6. says, "No, it wasn't a stupid line, you just didn't get that it was a reference to the fact that every body of water has a tide, even a glass of water, and even you. And that's why it works, being a moon-sea-love poem."
7. All of the above
8. None of the above
9. Some of the above

ok - here's my question - Do you think any one of these things that X could do is M's responsibility?

Hi Manna ~

Well, since you didn't let temptation get the best of you, I'll just say I can agree with your would-be comments. Since I used to hate them and since they're such an aggravation, I just figured I'd give it a go... and must say, the emoticonway isn't evil, but it's definitely a bit 'lazy' ~ so easy to insert one vs. making your intention clearer with words. It's a bit chancier, though, as teasing can pretty easily be misinterpreted as serious, when there's no wink that follows. You're right on regarding its being our own doing as to whether we change, of if/how we react, of course. Ultimately that will always be our own doing... unless we're changing from living form to non-living form because someone else has made that decision. Since it's nothing so dramatic here, what the hey... why not try returning to the emoticonless days for a while, at least to see how it feels after so long.

On your questions, again, it is always someone's own 'responsibility/choice' as to how they respond to another person's actions or words. History is filled with such choices. There will always be a variety of actions to which any X can respond in whatever way X chooses, or feels 'compelled' to do, or simply does without knowing or understanding why. With that being the case, however, it doesn't mean or necessarily follow that "Best Practice" is for them to be confronted with having to always make one of those choices or compelled actions or fleeing without knowing or understanding why. How much simpler if they're not confronted by that/those scenario[s] at all...

With some people having their quiet voices, even though they have the right/responsibility/choice to be more assertive, they may be too intimidated to say anything and just leave or whatever. They are still every bit as welcome as the BOLD voices. We don't know their personalities [quiet/shy], circumstances, or what they may be dealing with. My preference is simply that they not be forced to deal with more choices than life is already presenting to them away from here. It would be great if this might be an oasis of kindness... thinking of Leonard. Pretty pollyanna, I know. NO doubt.

Even critiqueing can be both objective and kind, though. I feel it's a reasonable premise and belief. It may take a bit more effort [such as my emoticonless expression], but well worth it in the end. It doesn't seem necessary and certainly not "Best Practice" to back people into a corner, forcing them to make a choice on how they respond, just because you can and just because "It's life... " ~ I know I've seen it expressed numerous times here how people anticipated others here to be kind because of their affinity with Leonard's work. The bottom line is that, as President, it's Bush's 'right' to make the choice to declare war... no matter what anyone else thinks. Ought he though? If the Internet dated back centuries and they visited a Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun site, it would seem reasonable that they wouldn't come with similar expectations as they do when they come here.

I enjoyed our conversation earlier, with a story from earlier in your own life, and appreciate its inadvertently nudging me into taking an action that I've been considering for months. In any direction, a person never knows what effect they may be having on another. Yes... it's all choice. Still... when there are pretty predictable, negative outcomes...


~ Lizzy

[~greg]

Again, you seem to equate "critiqueing" with "attacking"

That is a logical fallacy.

You have taken as given
the very thing you were trying to prove.

If it is true that Michael's way is to "attack",
--and if I agreed that it is,
- then to call it "critiquing",
would have amounted to equating "critiquing" with "attacking".

But I never agreed with you that Michael's way is to attack.
So I didn't equate "critiquing" with "attacking".

You are trying to get away with a rhetorical trick there.

Greg said:

Michael's interest in critiquing poetry does not need explaining.
It's just a way he has of getting outside himself.
("Ecstasy" - "ex-stasis" - outside-standing").

My understanding is that there's an excellent site for this cross-word exercise
... one that Michael himself recommended.

That's another logical fallacy.

This time you are quoting me out of context
in a way that very much changes my meaning.

The context was this:

Michael's interest in critiquing poetry does not need explaining.
It's just a way he has of getting outside himself.
("Ecstasy" - "ex-stasis" - outside-standing").

Some people do crossword puzzles. Others solve chess-endgames.
Or fill sudoku squares. Or write programs. Or count beads.
There are a million and a half ways to do it. And while most people
can remember early instances of their own particular
interests, and while anybody can come up with more or less plausible
psychoanalytical explanations for other people's interests,
these interests don't really need these explanations.
These interests are simply the ways we have of burning off
our daily residue of intellectual energy, which
would otherwise go into getting ourselves into trouble.

In other words, I never said that Michael approaches the critiquing of poetry
as if it was just some kind of crossword puzzle.

I said that his interest in critiquing poetry does not need
to be explained-away, any more than the interest that anybody
takes in anything (-crosswords puzzels, -chess problems, -etc)
needs to be explained away simply because some redneck
somewhere can't appreciate it.

And this is particularly true of poetry.

People who appreciate poetry can experience an "ecstasy" about it.
Reading and thinking about it and critiquing it sometimes has
the ability transport us outside ourselves

like a blessing come from heaven
for something like a second
I was healed and my heart
was at ease.

So this "ecstasy" that I'm talking about there
hasn't anything at all to do with the need
for a writer to learn how to remove his ego from his product.

So that "excellent site' you mention
is irrelevant here.

(You only mentioned it to be sarcastic anyway.)

( Incidentally, the reason that writers need to learn how to remove
their ego from their product, has nothing to do with how well or
how badly they can accept other people's criticisms.
The fact is that it is much more important that they learn how to do it in private,
than that they learn how to pretend to do it in public.
A writer has got to learn how to let go of his infatuation
with his own precious words. And although I don't think
that it is really necessary to call this kind of self-infatuation,
(-which, after all, we all experience from time to time
to some degree or other) --as what it is, - narcissistic
anal-retentiveness, it is very important to recognize it
as a form of writer's block. It is what makes it impossible
to self-edit and change lines, however precious to us,
when that's what's necessary. )


(And, incidentally, this idea that some people
(kids, I hope you mean) only post poems in order
to share some experience, and don't care if they
write it good or not, is utter nonsense.

If they don't care if it's good or not,
then they don't care what anybody says about it.

But you know perfectly well that what usually happens
is that somebody thinks that they've written a great thing,
and so they show it off, but then they get some unexpected
criticism about it, and their feelings are hurt, and so they
try to hurt back, which they do by lying that they never even
mean it to be a good poem, it was always only all about the subject,
not the words, and the subject is like something sacred
to them, like the bible, and they only wanted to share
the good news with everybody, because they are so
wonderfully loving and sensitive, like St Francis,
but now you've gone and defaced everything, like
having drawn a big mustache on their very last
picture of their mother.)

~~~

Your examples of what lawyers are like in general, in your experience,
is interesting. But it is completely irrelevant here.

The examples that you ought to be giving here
are the instances where you think Michael
- and not some other lawyer -
arbitrarily attacks a poem or person.

And you must be clear what it is you are referring to,
so that other people can judge for themselves,
from the contexts if what you say has merit.

( This is what really pissed me off about William.

He removed his "sonnet". But he left
his diatribe against me up.
Like the police conveniently loosing
the evidence "accidentally on purpose."

It made it impossible for anybody who might have
wanted to (-most likely nobody) - to judge between
his claim that I had arrogantly rewritten his poem,
and my clam that I had simply tossed off a metric template
exercise "just to show how easy it is to do,
and to show, sort of, somewhat,
what it might look like with exactly 10 syllables per line."

(Please note how carefully I had worded that,
- precisely so that nobody could possibly get the
idea that I thought of that excercise as some kind of
improved "rewrite" of his poem, in any sense other than metric)

So now if somebody who doesn't know me reads William's
diatribe, they will get the impression that once there was a Camelot,
and a breathlessly marvelous poem in it, so full of heart and meaning
and feeling that it could not possibly be confined to the arbitrary
mathematics of iambic pentameter. Or it would spoil all
its originality. But that, for no other conceivable reason
than that I am a flabbergastingly arrogant person,
I had commanded William to change the whole content
of his poem into something more to my liking.
Which he heroically refused to do. Or it would
have been letting the terrorists win.

I took the gist of that straight from William's diatribe.
And now, with his poem gone, there is no way anyone can judge it.

Or you could just take his word for it.
Or you take my word for it.
Or (what I would do) you could request that we both go to hell.

Absent perfect clarity about what's being talked about,
- these kinds of diatribes amount to nothing more than loyalty tests. )

~~~~


Lizzy, simply repeating your assertions
in slightly variant ways, adds nothing to their plausibility.
Proof by exhaustion is yet another fallacy.

~~

So those were a few of the dastardly rhetorical tricks
you have been trying to pull on me.

~~~

This is one thing that is crystal clear.
Michael really hurt your feelings about the emoticons.
Everybody could feel your pain about that.

For years the emoticons have been the single most important element
in your perception of yourself as a person. So that when Michael said
what he said about them, it must have felt to you like he was attacking
your very existence at its roots.

You have been projecting your hurt about that onto everybody who posts poems here.
You have been looking for reasons to justify the bad mood
that you were already in.

~~

Now, I personally don't have feelings about emoticons.
(Strange to say, they move me not.)

But I think that you ought to know that I have used
your emoticons in a way that you many not have intended them to be used.

I have noticed that the quality of your posts is almost entirely
dependant on the context to which you are responding.

And that when the quality of the context is high, then your posts
are often among the most valuable that I have ever read.

But that when the quality of the context is low, you babble.
Compulsively.

And what I found is that I could usually identify the latter kind
of post without having to read it, simply by counting
the number of emoticons in it.

When there are more than a few emoticons
I find I can usually quite safely skip it, without
missing anything. Without loss of continuity.

[mickey_one]

Greg, your post is brilliant. I have never taken the time and trouble to expose the self-serving logical fallacies that frequent the posts of the complainers. But I had spotted all the ones you mentioned as I read them in the original postings.

[jill]

Why don't people who post their poems make their intention and expectation clear? For example someone can ask for comments brutal or otherwise, rewrites, constructive criticisms, grammatical suggestions or how the imagery and emotional content of the poem affects the reader. Someone can post a poem for reading ask that critics stay the hell away . I like feedback now but others may not. I may not like it at another time.

Of course there is always the chance that some critics may ignore the request. Jill

[lizzytysh]

Hi Greg ~

Actually, I attempted no rhetorical tricks. I've tried to be honest about the way I feel when I read some [I guess I'll say alleged/supposed/portended] 'crits' here that don't stick to the poem and don't phrase suggestions or criticisms in a non-ridiculing way.

I use "critiqueing" as the generally understood use of the term here when we refer to what people are supposedly doing with others' poems.

You missed my pun on cross-word. It had nothing to do with crossword puzzles or equating anything to them. It meant cross words... as in using 'cross'-/attacking-type words, with regard to his/others going to a site where that is apparently the norm or at least fine... and which he himself highly recommends It was totally unrelated to Michael approaching poems the way he does crossword puzzles. I recognized that you merely gave a list of various forms of distraction, i.e. relaxation. The use of "cross-word," however, served the pun I made to make another point.

because some redneck
somewhere can't appreciate it.

Is this to suggest, Greg, that anyone who doesn't "appreciate" Michael's 'critiques' is de facto a redneck? And, since, I live in a region where such references are common and I don't appreciate his manner in doing them that I'm the "some redneck somewhere"? If so, Greg, I'm disappointed that you've said that. You may LOVE his 'crits' but that doesn't mean those who don't are stupid, ignorant, or whatever connotations you assign to the term redneck. And, that those who agree with their content and manner are de facto the intelligentsia somewhere?

People who appreciate poetry can experience an "ecstasy" about it.
Reading and thinking about it and critiquing it sometimes has
the ability transport us outside ourselves

Not doing this [reading/thinking about/critiqueing it] can also transport us outside ourselves, where we can experience an "ecstasy" directly through reading the poem itself, absent the mental excercises.

I didn't mention "excellent site" to be sarcastic. I have no idea, beyond how it's been described by Michael as being that very thing... so, presuming that to be true, why wouldn't he want people to go there, where "egoless" critiqueing and accepting critiqueing prevail? It would be like lauding somewhere you've been as being excellent, but then never suggesting that someone go there to experience far more than they can where they're currently at. It seems to me to be a default function that he would be recommending people join him in that realm, where NO names are used, so no persons stand out amongst the rest as the prevailing best critic. You go on the critique alone. If I'm not understanding how the site functions, then that's another matter.

(And, incidentally, this idea that some people
(kids, I hope you mean) only post poems in order
to share some experience, and don't care if they
write it good or not, is utter nonsense.

No, I didn't mean kids, at all. I meant adults, with poetic form being a legitimate form for sharing.

The examples that you ought to be giving here
are the instances where you think Michael
- and not some other lawyer -
arbitrarily attacks a poem or person.

I would have to go back through the threads and postings to do that, and I'm not going to do it. It has been attacking. It has been arbitrary.

So those were a few of the dastardly rhetorical tricks
you have been trying to pull on me.

I haven't been trying to pull anything on you, Greg. I've been rephrasing as I'm able in vain attempts to convey my objections to the prevailing winds of the presumptuousness of how some take others' poems as fodder for their own use.

~~~

This is one thing that is crystal clear.
Michael really hurt your feelings about the emoticons.
Everybody could feel your pain about that.

You're going off the deep end here, Greg. How could something so untrue be crystal clear. Michael didn't hurt my feeling about the emoticons... much less "really hurt" my feelings about them. He's been saying hyperbolic stuff about them for years, yet I continued with them without pause... as I liked them. I know full well they're not "evil," so how could such comments hurt my feelings? You're being absurd. I just happened, this one time [of many others and by others], to try going back to writing without them. That decision got made at that particular, arbitrary point, but certainly not because of hurt feelings.

For years the emoticons have been the single most important element
in your perception of yourself as a person. So that when Michael said
what he said about them, it must have felt to you like he was attacking
your very existence at its roots.

At this point, you have gone off the deep end, or you're simply [and now we can use the phrase accurately], crystal-clear on a wind-up. Since I don't have the most accurate way of assessing that, never having met you in person, and not in front of you now, with this comment, I have to question everything that preceded it and everything that follows.

The level you're functioning at in this written exercise is surprizing and now your text has lost its ability to even communicate reasonably and isn't facilitating any real understanding. So, not knowing what head or heart space you're really in, I'm going to just stop responding to the rest. I had begun to read it all, but seeing its length, had decided to take it a section at a time and respond as I went. So this, fortunately or unfortunately, means I won't even finish the rest of what you wrote [though curiousity may get the better of me later]. Unlike what appears to be the thrust of your own efforts; no offense to you, Greg.


~ Lizzy

[Manna]

The bottom line is that, as President, it's Bush's 'right' to make the choice to declare war... no matter what anyone else thinks.

WHAT!??!
Oh, God, NO! LIZZY, no-ho-ho. no.
I'm just about crying from disappointment.
Let me get myself together. Oh, geez.

OK, Constitution lesson time. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution (I had to look that up) says "Congress shall have power to (blah blah blah) declare war..." Do you really think one, single guy should have that job alone, no matter what anyone else thinks? It's not a small deal, and we are not a monarchy yet. It's not some legislation that a bunch of people already think should be law, and just needs his approval. I'm not sure about this, but I think Congress hasn't officially declared since WWII. So far in our history, such formal declarations have only occurred at the Pres's request, but formally, this is one power he still does not have, no matter how badly he wants ... oh, never mind what he wants.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

[In_betweenthegrey]

Jill,

I would like to say thank you for sharing something so tragic. and would like to suggest a few things.

red are my suggestions to anything in blue
green are the things that i think take away from its meaning or are just too much

Midnight.
Under the cloak of night
I kneel in front of his tomb.
I kneel before his tomb
Haunted.
Rooted in the hardened earth
of dry moths.
haunted and rooted in the hardened earth of dry moths
Shadows conceal tangled weeds.
I watch the crescent moon weep
frozen tears.
as i watch the crescent moon weep frozen tears
Heart behind granite.
my heart locked inside his granite walls
Silence, but for the crickets and the owl.

Outside the gates,
EMERGENCY!
Charon approaches
by ambulance.
On the roof a light pulses,
blood-red.
It dances in wild celebration.
I do not understand but
It winks at me
as if it knows everything.
All of my secrets.
as though it knows all of my secrets

EMERGENCY!

Sound waves crash onto my chest,
knocking me down.
Tackled by the undertow,
held by the undertow of emotion
I can scarcely breathe.
Like a fetus,
I cover my eyes and ears
so no one can see or hear me
begging for mercy
as I try to conceal that which I cannot name.

Charon approaches.
Two headlights shine in my face.
He commands: "Open your eyes!"
"open your eyes" he commands
I make my confessions to Him.
Blood confessions
Green-eyed confessions.
I shout secrets of betrayal,
scream pain of broken promises.
and scream the pain of broken promises
Crows wail.
as the crows wail

I look up.
The sickle glistens.
dripping blood.
I tear my blouse off
and reveal ancient scars.
revealing anicient scars
Doves cry.

Charon dumps a carcass
onto the trash heap in the graveyard.

I lie beside his tomb,
naked and raw.
The crescent moon
pours milk over me,
cleansing blood stains,
healing wounds.
My heart drinks in balm
Like a suckling.

I lye beside his tomb
naked and raw.
Exhausted in the fading glow of the moon
I breathe and wait.
I breathe and wait.
I breathe and wait.
Silence but for the crickets and the owl.

I kneel before his tomb
in the fading glow of the moon.
Exhausted.
I breathe and wait.
I breathe and wait.
I breathe and wait.
Silence but for the crickets and the owl.

The night makes way for sunrise.
In the morning comes the dawn.

I crawl to the trash heap
in the graveyard.

(The carcass was mine.

I don't need to carry it any more).
I dont think you need this here since the poem is for your father but that is just my opinion

Sincerely,
Jill Majors
yy[/quote]

[lizzytysh]

Of course, you're right, Manna. Sorry for the slip. I get so used to ridiculing him in the extreme and sarcastically that I forget to draw the clear lines of reality. I was going to mention Congress and such, and as I recall, there's a quote out there of his, that actually includes words such as, "Don't bother me with that piece of paper"... something very close to that; and if he even used the word Constitution, I'm not really sure, but it amounted to the quoted portion. With an imperialistic point of view, he's taken to acting outside of everything, the rules, the laws, as though it's his right, outside the realms of others's 'consideration,' including Congressional approval; and no matter what anyone here or worldwide thinks, no matter how our country is constructed. An emoticon at the end would've helped there... this one, in particular .


~ Lizzy

[Manna]

Yes, I think they have the constitution printed on the toilet paper at the White House.

[lizzytysh]

Yes, a parchment of a different nature... good analogy from all angles, Manna. I wish I could find the quote. I heard it on NPR... the only problem is I don't recall if it was in an actual report or a segment with a comedian. Its point was well taken, in any case... but, it seems it really was an actual quote.


~ Lizzy

[In_betweenthegrey]

I dont think you need this here since the poem is for your father but that is just my opinion

i should reitterate here because after thinking some more it seems that maybe by the last few lines of your poem you may have meant that when your father died you did as well.

[mickey_one]

[quote="Jimmy O'Connell1
In passing: I notice that M_1 hasn't commented on my latest offering: The Battle of Minsitir 1579.
Now, Michael, I would appreciate a real, genuine, no showoffy critique of my latest offering....
I actually agreed with your last serious outing on my behalf with "We Were Married"... I am still in the process of re-writing...
Which is a very good example of why I actually post here, Greg. Ironically, performed by none other than the bould Michael, hisself!!!!

Jimmy[/quote]

my teenage daughter is forever pointing out the misuse of the concept of irony, (she obviously had a good English class on the subject last term), and you get it wrong both conceptually (nothing is ironic according to her, well at least never when I use the term) and on the merits ( that's according to me as I am frequently thanked for helpful crits. and only occassionally chastised by interested and sensitive 3rd parties about others).

anyway, I look forward to having the time to read your Battle poem (immediate confession that "history writing" is not something I ususally enjoy) and will offer you my best.

btw you are meant to express your terms and conditions in bold underlined capitals at the start of your post- NO SHOWOFFY PLEASE although, following the spirit of Greg's wise posting it would have been classier to have said nowt at all. Assertions are many, examples are few.

michael

[mickey_one]

Why don't people who post their poems make their intention and expectation clear? For example someone can ask for comments brutal or otherwise, rewrites, constructive criticisms, grammatical suggestions or how the imagery and emotional content of the poem affects the reader. Someone can post a poem for reading ask that critics stay the hell away . I like feedback now but others may not. I may not like it at another time.

Of course there is always the chance that some critics may ignore the request. Jill

It's just too damn simple, Jill.....and yet so is brain surgery, and in my very personal experience that works fine.

as to your outrageous wonder that such requests could be ignored? I don't know of a single example of that happening here but the record-keepers may either disagree quoting examples or agree.

[Jimmy O'Connell]

Michael, a chara,
I look forward to your crit... responses... reflections... on me pome about an obscure battle way back in the mists of time... but... to judge by Manna's and Lizzies few observations about the Great Leader of the West... I think me pome is probably as relevant today as it was over 400 hundred years ago... Ireland was the Iraq/Middle East of the 16th Cerntury... the Wars of the Desmond Rebellion were as much about a larger agenda, the battle between two civilisations: Catholic, Protetsant, Spanish, English... nuttin' changes...

it would have been classier to have said nowt at all.

Never a truer word ould son... never a truer word...

Sometimes it's best to say nowt...
Silence is golden as the Tremeloes sang to the audience and the bishop said to an actress of ill repute...

JImmy