Note: The Society of Classical Poets refers to the COVID-19 coronavirus as the CCP virus because the Chinese Communist Party’s coverup and mismanagement allowed the virus to spread throughout China and create a global pandemic.
Thirteen Famous Poems
(Updated for the Quarantine)
by Rob Crisell
Kilmer
I think no eye has ever seen,
A poem like this quarantine.
E.B. Browning
How do I glove thee? Let me count the ways.
Poe
It was many and many a year ago,
In a kingdom not-so-clean,
That a virus there lived that you may know
By the name of COVID-19.
Dickinson
Because I could not stop for death
He kindly stopped for me –
I told him that I had acquired
My herd immunity.
Angelou
The caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of life postponed,
but not the bill.
Shakespeare
Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
My 401k is barely there.
Longfellow
Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere.
Or maybe it’s better to tell you the caper
Of how I discovered some toilet paper
At a Safeway only three miles from here.
Masefield
I must go down to the mall again, to the lonely mall where I’ll buy
Some sort of decent take-out food. This time, I’ll make it Thai.
Pope
To err is Wuhan; to forgive, divine.
Eliot
Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out— DON’T TOUCH YOUR EYE!
Marlowe
Come live with me and be my love,
And we will all the pleasures prove
That yield the valleys, groves, and hills,
So long as you can pay my bills.
Coleridge
Water, water, everywhere,
But all the time we think:
Who wants this water anyway
With so much wine to drink?
Burns
Oh, my love is like a red, red rose
That’s newly sprung in June.
But my love says that she’ll murder me
If this ain’t done real soon.
The Roll of Pandemic Poetry
by Jan Darling
Distressed I searched the stores’ long shelves
Past rows and rows of wilting leaves
All paper gone (removed by elves
Concealed within their ample sleeves)?
“Each customer’s allowed but one”
(Unless you can produce a gun).
I trudged the aisles both left and right
But nary did a roll espy
Considering my roll-less plight
No rolls below, no rolls on high.
Then thousands saw I at a glance
Before I woke from blissful trance.
The shelves at back were groaning piled
High with marinades and spice
That kind of thing—too hot, not mild
Without the roll may not be nice.
I fled from there in panicked hurry
Repelling thoughts of vicious curry.
Other shoppers looked askance
As I retreated full of fright
Some, I thought, prepared to dance
But then it turned into a fight.
“That’s mine” screeched one and snatched a box
“They’re rolls of wax you stupid pox.”
Along the margin of that bay
Those fishwives fought with tooth and claw
They shrieked and pummelled in affray
Until the loser hit the floor.
I gazed and gazed but little thought
That shopping could become so fraught.
So oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood
That scene will lure my inward eye
To supermarket aisles bestrewed;
And as my double scotch I pour
My order turns up at my door.
Haiku
I went to a show
and I sat next to strangers
a lifetime ago.
Quarantine Nursery Rhymes
Oh happy day—it’s finally spring!
The flowers bloom, the birdies sing…
We’re stuck at home, so thank Beijing,
And practice social distancing!
—
Netflix or YouTube, where to look?
Your kids are home, you need a hook.
They’ve heard it all, that gobbledygook…
Do something novel—read a book!
—
This virus from the CCP,
Upending all society,
Made toilet tissue ironically
Our most valuable commodity.
—
I ventured out to take a break,
And thought that I should shop for steak…
Instead, I went down to the lake
With coffee and some carrot cake!
Political Coronavirus Clerihews
Steven Mnuchin,
U.S. Treasury linchpin,
Has suggested corporate wealth
Trumps public health.
Doctor Anthony Fauci,
An NIH bossie,
Is a trusted source
In coronavirus discourse
Donald Trump, the POTUS
And national Asclepius,
Favors limiting social interactions
To financial transactions.
Xi Jinping
Continues hissing
U.S. servicemen were the source
And Wuhan’s Trojan horse.
Charles Ellis Schumer
Vigorously denies the rumor
That he now prefers D.C.
Over New York City.
Nancy Pelosi
Rides the high horsey
As the majority chief
Of the House coronavirus relief.
Tedros Adhanom,
A WHO (you ask?) phenom,
Publically criticized the airlina
When they banned flights to and from China.
Please would someone unplug 3-card’s internet connection. It seems to be short-circuiting in the tosh, crap and bollocks between his ears.
. . and you certainly don’t stand alone in your views; your words will shortly be endorsed by two others in this thread. Maybe more, but definitely two. Watch this space . .
Trois Carte.
. . one down, one to come.
Extracted from a previous comment of mine in this thread:
“What’s more, I thought it (the above poems) was generally good poetry. One of the pieces, although good, seemed slightly rushed, and the last one was incomprehensible to me; not only ‘coz of the foggy diction, but also ‘coz I wasn’t familiar with anyone named in it except flump. But Ms Darling’s piece was exceptional: well-written, relevant and witty.”
Extracted from the puppets recent comment:
“..to tear apart the poetry of those who..”
How well he’s learnt from his master how to blatantly distort other people’s words to lend credibility to his own.
And how well he may realise the irony of him looking-up Buddhist on the internet; only to learn that all his comments have been addressed to . . a Buddhist!
Funny old world . .
The atheistic Chinese Communist Party claims it has the right to decide which Buddhist lamas are authorized to reincarnate.
Of course, you don’t speak up for the oppressed.
You go along… to get along.
That’s what’s we all must learn from you.
Thanks for the re-education.
It’s all clear to me now.
. . and how senseless and disjointed some comments can become when they’re solely comprised of fragments and different sentences gleaned from the internet.
Deflection . . ignore the elephant. This isn’t about the CCP . . This isn’t about me. . I am smart because I go along to get along . . I know . . I will talk about something else . . That will make everyone forget about my support for the CCP . . Besides it’s not support . . I just go along to get along . . Anyone who can’t see that just doesn’t understand . . I will write . . and write . . and write . . ad infinitum.
— Monte
Two down.. like clockwork.
Thus spake Dalai Monté.
Ignore the elephant . .
Amen, Jan
From above:
“And if there were any Chinese amongst the readership here at SCP, one wonders what they’d make of the disclaimer which precedes the above poems.” – Monty Phillips
The disclaimer he references:
Note: The Society of Classical Poets refers to the COVID-19 coronavirus as the CCP virus because the Chinese Communist Party’s coverup and mismanagement allowed the virus to spread throughout China and create a global pandemic.
My comment:
Does Monte really think that freedom loving Chinese people back the CCP?
Does Monte really support that party that is responsible for the systematic torture, murder, re-education, and exploitation of its people?
Does Monte believe that his incessant simplifications and justifications hold weight with the Falun Gong… or the Uyghurs… or the Buddhists of Tibet?
Is his purpose here simply to tear apart the poetry of those who he feels are so beneath him?
Is he here to bring dissension to the Society and an end to the flame of freedom they hold high?
Does he imagine that we can be converted to his “go along to get along” ways?
This Society supports the Freedom of the Chinese people and indeed every single person on this earth.
First they came for the Falun Gong, and Monte did not speak out—
Because he was not Falun Gong.
Then they came for the Uyghurs, and Monte did not speak out—
Because he was not an Uyghur.
Then they came for the Buddhists, and Monte did not speak out—
Because . . he goes along to get along.
And then they came for the over-the-hill pot-heads, and Monty got really scared and ran to hide in Nepal.
Dr. Salemi, you should really consider a career in comedy. Everyone is doubled over in laughter.
Who would’ve thought there’d come a day when I was mighty glad to see the bullied-one join the table? So, now you’re here, sit yourself down (at the other end), put your bib on, and listen; I’ve got some wonderful news that I’ve been dying to tell you.
Your puppet’s miraculously easy-going other half submitted a brilliant, humane, and highly-realistic poem to these pages yesterday – which we know you’ve seen – and I’ve since been waiting for the opportunity to ask if any of the following words from that poem remind you of anyone:
“I opt not to accrue vast knowledge”
“All blissful days are built on ignorance”
“I forego the chance to grow aware”
“Vacant-brained indifference”
“Insight is a blight”
(my fave) “Bonehead days spent in a haze”
“Less is always more”
“I know nothing . . and rejoice”
Well, does it . . . What? You wanna leave the table? But you ain’t even touched your food: what a waste! Why? . . . What d’you mean a stomach-ache? . . . Well, if you must. But before you leave, can I just remind you of an old quote of mine which seemed to hold you in sheer fascination for many months . .
‘I shudder to think how different my life might’ve been if I’d been intelligent.’
. . and ask you if the poem’s gone a little way to helping you understand that quote? I know it puzzled you for a long time.
Go on, then.. you can leave the table now.
But when you’re sat down nursing your sore tummy, you must promise me that you’ll still be thinking about Susan’s poem; and telling yourself: “Everything, just everything I’ve ever held against Monty is contained within that poem, and yet I didn’t bat an eyelid when I read it. All my cries of stupid, uneducated, ignorant . . it’s all there in the poem. It could’ve been written about Monty. It could be his biography!” And once you’ve digested all that, I trust you’ll realise that you’re now faced with only two choices. You can either:
a/ Take back all you’ve ever held against me, and admit: “Yeah, after reading the poem, I can see now why some people don’t wanna know too much: why they wanna leave a space in their head for the present. Perhaps you’ve got life sussed after all, Monty. Perhaps its me who’s got my priorities wrong.
b/ You must tell Susan at the earliest opportunity that you think her poem is meaningless and vacuous, and that no one like that could possibly exist in this life. And when she asks you why you didn’t say as much in the comment you made to her yesterday, you must tell her that you’ve since been forced to view the poem in a different light.
Go on, then: be off with you, and remember, you’re only faced with those two choices.. there’s no third choice.
Hold on, come back a minute, you’ve dropped your bib on the floor. And what’s that orangey stuff all over it . . it’s like carrots?
Monty, we have had our differences but I’ve got to hand it to you, you have a gift for analyzing poetry. Perhaps now is the time to bury the hatchet. I would like to rename the poem ‘Monty’s Sonnet’. Do I have your permission?
I don’t know what this raving lunatic Monty is talking about. Bibs? Orange baby food? I only made one comment to Susan two days ago, and that was to compliment her on her wonderful rondeau redouble, which I compared to the work of Dorothy Parker.
Now, once more, Monty makes his usual “argument from absence.” I didn’t say anything about Susan’s “Foolosophy” sonnet, so therefore I must hate it. What an imbecile this marijuana addict is! I haven’t said anything about the California Redwood Forests, so therefore I must hate them… yeah, sure Monty. You really do need help with your addiction problem.
Moreover, do readers here notice how Monty always tries to give orders or directions every time he posts something here? It’s always “You have to do this, see?” or “You now have only two options, see?” or”You must do this, see?” Who does he think he is? The Dictator of the World? Nobody here has to do spit for Monty. That’s probably why he’s so enraged.
Neither I nor anyone else here at the SCP has to follow any order or directive at all given by this ignoramus with a ganja-addled brain. We only tolerate him here at the SCP for amusement purposes.
I get exactly where you’re coming from Dr. Salemi. Susan and I feel very differently. I will support my wife in whatever direction she wishes to take, but I think her rash decision is ill advised.
As far as I’m concerned, Susan, there’s never been a hatchet to bury with you personally. I’ve tried to make that clear, albeit subtly, on several occasions recently. I consider myself to be a fairly good judge of character, and I’ve felt all along that you were the innocent one caught-up in all this other rubbish, and that you were an unfailingly nice-natured person (not to mention a born poet).
In your writing of ‘Foolosophy’, I’m just grateful that at least one other person at SCP (even if you’re the ONLY other person) can understand that not all humans wish to fill their heads to the brim with knowledge; and that some like to leave some space in their head for other things which they consider to be far more important than knowledge. I’m one such human, and because of that, I’ve been constantly badgered for two years by you-know-who simply for being the person in your poem! And when I defend myself from such badgering, as I always will, I’m not just thinking: “Right, he said blah-blah about me, so I’m gonna say blah-blah back to him”, I’m also defending the fact that such people exist: they exist in me, and they exist in ‘Foolosophy’; and it’s nothing less than shocking that you-know-who just can’t accept that people in your poem exist, and that such people might just be affiliated with the same poetry society that he his. It somehow enrages him. Why? I’m just telling the truth.
If I was to tell lies, and try to give the impression that I’d been educated, and was highly knowledgeable, I could understand ANYONE wanting to have a go at me . . but it’s the exact opposite! I constantly emphasise that I was uneducated; I constantly emphasise that I’m not as knowledgeable as others at SCP . . and what do I get for telling the truth?
But it’s the lies that mystify me. The name-calling doesn’t bother me, especially when it comes from one who’s not capable of anything BUT name-calling, but the constant lies are inexcusable. And not just from you-know-who: Just today, your other half told two flagrant lies about me: a/ He said that I’d “torn apart” the above poems in this thread: so I simply showed him evidence to the exact opposite. But why did he lie in the first place? And, obviously still smarting from that, he b/ Referred to “my support for the Chinese government”. Not only have I never mentioned such support on these pages, I’ve never mentioned such support in my life! I don’t support ANY governments; I don’t recognise ANY governments: I spent the first 37 years of my life in Britain without once ever recognising the British government. What’s more, I said on these pages recently (conveniently forgotten by the liars) that I detest what the Chinese government have done to Tibet (there are more than 20,000 Tibetan refugees in Nepal, a handful of whom I’ve become good friends with over the years; I know more about Tibet than anyone here at SCP, and I ain’t gained that knowledge from the internet). So, not only is it an outright lie to say I support the Chinese government, but it’s not possible to get any further from the truth. And when I defend myself against such impossible lies, another argument begins, and we invade other people’s pages with our arguments, and innocent people like yourself and others get caught up in them. And it results in things such as Ms Darling today raising one of her eye-patches to say on these pages that I’m talking “tosh, crap and bollocks”. And all I am is the person in ‘Foolosophy’!
As flattered as I am with your offer to bestow such an honour on me, I’m afraid that I couldn’t possibly give my consent for you to rename your poem, purely because I feel that the existing title can never be eclipsed. A philosophical poem about fools: Foolosophy! It’s so perfect in every sense. And what’s more, when one says foolosophy quickly, it sounds like philosophy. It’s brilliant, it’s effective, and it’s far to good to change.
Monte C. Hammer
https://www.jibjab.com/view/make/u_cant_touch_this_mc_hammer/577f584e-651d-4516-a407-45fdbe535922
I’ll tell you what, Monty. You quit calling me names and I’ll quit calling YOU names… Deal?
What d’you mean “I’ll tell you what, Monty” . . you’ll tell me nothing. I’ll tell YOU how it is.
Or how it was. It must be two months now since I told you directly and clearly that I had nothing more to say to you, and I wasn’t gonna reply directly to any further comments of yours. At the time, I hoped that would be enough to make you decide: “Well, it’s pointless keep trying to belittle him if he’s not gonna reply” . . but no, on you went, more rampant than ever. It became a new challenge for you; to see if you could goad me into a direct reply . . just so – if I had’ve done – you could’ve then said: “Ha ha, I thought you weren’t gonna reply to me no more”. It was so obvious, and painfully tedious.
So, rather than just stop “calling each other names”, we’ll take it much further than that. We’ll take it up to what was my original intention two months ago:
a/ We make no comments directly to each other, and we don’t reply to comments that one of us has made to someone else.
b/ We don’t refer to each other in our comments to others: not by Name (‘You’re right: Monty’s just a..’); not by Label (‘Ah, I see three-card’s at it again..’); and not by Inference (‘I agree: he’s just a..’). Of course if, for example, the bullied-one says something derogatory about me, you’re still entitled to reply to him directly with such as: “I fully agree with you, Dr Salemi: I’m literally doubled-up with laughter here. You really should take-up a career in comedy”. Such falsehoods give me a sense of satisfaction, so I ain’t got any issues with that . . and you would still’ve made your point, but without actually mentioning me: then it’s as if I don’t exist.. which is my aim.
So there it is. You may or may not’ve noticed that I offered the bullied-one the same covenant some weeks ago, but he flatly refused: he made it quite clear that such verbal exchanges were his lifeblood, his oxygen; hence it became apparent that he could never agree to such a pact.
I sincerely – and I mean sincerely – hope you don’t adopt his stance. To me, my proposal’s the most sensible and effective way to put an emphatic end to all the nonsense; and also the most humane way, in the sense that it’ll preclude other members – innocent members – from having their pages hijacked by ongoing feuds between others.
I ask that if you agree fully to the above, you simply don’t reply to this missive. I’ll take the non-reply as an affirmative . . . and that’ll be it.
Mike, you can see from Monty’s latest post what a lying, manipulative scumbag he is. This is a typical characteristic of most drug addicts. They will do or say anything to control their surroundings and the persons around them.
He claims that he has had “nothing more directly to say to you,” and that he “wasn’t gonna reply directly” to any of your comments. But in fact that is a pure weasel-like evasion, since he has done nothing but refer to you as a “puppet” and “Pinocchio” and “spastic” and a purveyor of “flagrant lies” over the past weeks. (He will claim, of course, that he hasn’t said these things in a direct address to to you, so therefore he hasn’t spoken to you. He has a tendency to fall back upon petty technicalities to defend himself.)
In addition, he’s blatantly attempted to soft-soap your wife Susan with saccharine blandishments and sweet talk, as a way to generate discord. That is a disgusting and sinful thing to do, but Monty will do anything to gain ascendancy in a debate.
Now he shows his real colors when he orders you around, dictating just how you are supposed to act and speak from now on. As I have mentioned previously, he has a penchant for giving orders and pronouncements to other people, telling them how they are to behave. YOU have to do what THE GREAT MONTY prescribes!
The guy would be a joke, if he weren’t such a overweening creep.
And by the way, I haven’t made any of the comments here “directly” to Monty. They are all made to you. So according to his way of thinking, I have not insulted him personally.
You filthy little swine. Just because you’ve never been able to bury a hatchet with anyone, the thought of two other people burying THEIR hatchet also appals you. The very thought of these pages containing less arguments must twist your insides, you depraved loon. Well, it’s none of your sickly business; stay out of it. Your time will come . .
Dr. Salemi,
Monte’s manipulation techniques ARE rather inept. I wonder if drug addicts become narcissists or is it the other way around?In listing Monte’s favored terms, don’t forget “bitch”. You are exactly right about Monte. You’re also completely correct about his attempts to divide Susan and me. Say what you will, Monte does not believe in half measures, he is
“The Fool Monte”, and also quite the dancer.
This response is for your eyes only.
Just noticed something, Dr. Salemi. Are terroristic threats okay with the Society?
It was always your choice; and you’ve chosen to continue as normal. So, continue we will. One can only wonder why you made the offer of a truce. Was that just for appearances sake? Also, would you care to inform Mr Mantyk that you’ve just chosen to let even more irrelevant exchanges appear on his pages?
Wikipedia: Charlotte Figi . .
Mr. Mantyk,
For your eyes only.
My truce was spurned.
Just stop it. (I’m not talking to one specific individual here. There will be a truce when there is no back and forth.
This is just filling up space and if someone came here seeking elegant poetry and ran into this never-ending thread, they would flee the site. There are no winners here. If you have to go on, get into a personal flame email.
I will not respond to responses to this comment as my personal pledge to moving on.
YOUR truce was flimsy and incomplete. It proposed ONLY that we stop calling each other names. That wouldn’t have prevented you from saying such as: “He thinks he knows it all”.. “He’s just deluding himself”.. He’s too stoned to realise..” . . and a thousand other statements in which you WEREN’T ACTUALLY CALLING ME A NAME! In other words, hardly anything would’ve changed.
MY truce was full, fair and complete. It would’ve ended the nonsense once and for all, and forever. No ambiguity, no “but what ifs”, no nothing . . just an end.
For your eyes, Mr Mantyk, if you’re interested.
I know you’re not gonna reply to this, Martin; and I assure you that I’m not looking for a reply. This missive is addressed ostensibly to you, but also to anyone (if any) who might be reading (including, hopefully, Mr Mantyk); hence you don’t even have to read it if you don’t want to.
I just want you and others to see that your above plea to all three of us to “just stop it” doesn’t need to be directed towards me. How can it, when I’ve already made it so clear above that I sincerely wanted us to ‘just stop it”? Read all the words carefully: the second person’s proposal was a HALF-truce – offering only that we stop calling each other names – and wouldn’t have completely eliminated the exchanges on these pages.
My proposal was a FULL-truce, ensuring that there’d be NO further exchanges at all, of ANY kind. Starting right then. That’s why it was laid out so comprehensively, so there’d be no ambiguity, no ‘but what ifs’, no nothing! Just a complete stop. And to make it even easier for the second person, I proposed that a non-reply from him will be an acceptance of the proposal: ‘coz I assumed it might not be so easy for him to actually send a reply saying ‘I accept’. See? I tried to make it as easy as possible for him, so determined was I to “just stop it”.
As can be seen, an hour after I posted my proposal, the third person intervened. Whether you like him or loathe him, you all know that it would’ve pained him to see two others settling for a truce, and one imagines how he must’ve felt in that hour before he intervened, willing the second person to reply to me and refuse my offer. And after an hour, the third person could take it no more: he HAD to intervene, just incase the second person had decided to accept the offer. And in doing so, he patently twisted the words of my proposal, to make it appear that I was “ordering” the second person around, and “dictating what he should do”: but the terms of the proposal were directed at ME as well as the second person. It takes two to tango! Thus, I wasn’t “ordering and dictating” what HE does, I was “ordering and dictating’ what WE do. Both of us!
I ask you to use your imagination, ‘coz the following is purely in the hypothetical . . . Imagine that the second person had read my proposal 10 minutes after I posted it, and told himself that he agreed with it, and wouldn’t reply. That would’ve meant there was peace between me and the second person for 50 minutes, until the third person intervened after an hour.. and changed the second person’s mind. 50 minutes peace . . which may have lasted forever!
Let’s further imagine, hypothetically, that you wanna absolve one person out of the three of any blame for the proposal being rejected. Do you absolve:
The first person . . who made an honest proposal which was flatly refused?
The second person . . who may or may not have agreed to the proposal, until his mind was made up for him?
The third person . . who’s never known peace, and the thought that two others might achieve it was so unbearable to him that he had to ruin it.
No one can fail to see that it’s me who must be absolved. That’s not just me crying: “Don’t blame me, don’t blame me” . . it’s a fact. So, it’s no good telling me to ‘just stop it’ when I’ve already tried my hardest to do so; and it’s no good telling the other two to ‘just stop it’, ‘cos they’ve made it clear that that’s the last thing they wanna do. So that leaves Mr Mantyk. Why don’t you ask him if he can ‘just stop it’? He’s the only one with the power to do so. But I don’t think he wants to stop it either. I appealed to him directly a few weeks back, and I didn’t get a reply! Which leaves only two possibilities: a/ He’s not aware of all these exchanges invading his pages, which I’m sure you’ll agree is inconceivable. How could he not be aware? Which leaves b/ He’s aware of them, and doesn’t feel that they need to stop. That can be the only possible reason why he hasn’t intervened.
I’ve been taxing my brain lately trying to fathom why he’d be content to allow it to continue, and I keep coming back to just the one possibility; that he feels it to be entertainment for other readers, maybe in a soap-opera sort of way.. or a gossip-column sort of way. In which case, Martin, I’m afraid there maybe no hope of ‘stopping it’.
Perhaps you could send him a personal email telling him how you feel about it. I’m sure you’re not the only other reader who’s had enough of all this nonsense.
Truth… always.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anuraghunathan/2020/04/09/indias-drugmakers-ramp-up-production-of-game-changer-coronavirus-drug-hydroxychloroquine/#24d71cf5d5ad
Beat the CCP
If you need Evan to tell you that you need to get a life, then it’s time to get a life.
Interesting how there are two of these going on at the same time.
I wonder if we have indeed been sheltering in place for too long?
I thought this was over two weeks ago, Joe.
Sign me, confused. You’re definitely right that we’ve been sheltering too long… I’ll mow the lawn and maybe that will improve my disposition. With respect, Mike.
I was speaking generally, Mike, and probably more about myself than anyone else. I’ve got quite the edge from the other one I was involved in.
I apologize to all for that.
I find it very easy – perhaps even tantalizing – to get sucked into these and a lot more difficult to extricate myself from them.
I don’t know how many times I’ve had to apologize for having done so.
Joe, have you seen Dr. Salemi’s latest comment on Mr. Spring’s poem? He has been fighting a battle for people to be respected and not to be personally minimized and attacked for their input. Joe, you, Susan and I have all considered leaving this site because we have been made to feel inferior. Take a look at this comment from Mr. Spring’s page. “Those among us who are steadfast in our desire for high standards have clearly been routed by a horde of sheep-like creatures, and the fact that they come from within our ranks only stings the worse…”.
So Joe, you, me, Susan, Dr. Salemi and everyone else on that page (except for two people) are hordes of sheep-like creatures who aren’t steadfast in our desire for high standards. Really? I don’t thinks so. Susan and I think you write beautifully. Susan has commented off-site about your work, and you (and the other “hordes of sheep-like creatures”) are the reason why we have been on the site calling for better treatment of participants on a site that is becoming increasingly elitist. Susan thought she’d found her home here and desperately wants to stay because of people like you, Sally Cook, Jan Darling, Peter Hartley and all those people who write beautiful poetry and have been told that their opinions count for nothing.
Guess what, we do count. Dr. Salemi is fighting this battle for everyone who has ever been made to feel inferior because they’re told they are uneducated and worthless, and has thanked all of us for standing at his side. I may not have the best education, but I know what I like and I know why I like it. We are entitled to a personal opinion without our character and education being questioned.
Susan has been writing poetry since the age of six. It’s her passion and her joy. This is the first time I’ve seen her sad about the subject. That’s not right, and I won’t let it stand… just so you know.
Thanks, Mike
By the way, you have NOTHING to apologize for.
Amen, and thank you, Mike.
Excellent information. I hope you will share this type of article in the future.