Rula wrote:[i]We all have our inadequacies Thoe. I thought it is good to admit it but nothing to be ashame of .
You've made it simple and right to the point. sometimes our feelings are so lucid, so we needn't to complicate things when talking about them.(IMHO)
[Admin note: While I agree with your first two points Jeffrey, this last #3 is wholly incorrect. First, you are wrong to imply that "sympathy" comments are welcome all over AT -
What isn't welcome is your intervention here - pointing out a matter that relates to site policy and administration when the Guidelines specifically ask you not to do that.
Jeffrey Gibson wrote:[Admin note: While I agree with your first two points Jeffrey, this last #3 is wholly incorrect. First, you are wrong to imply that "sympathy" comments are welcome all over AT -
Can you point out where I actually said this? Did I use words like "all over"?
I didn't say that you used the words "all over". I deliberately used the word "imply". By saying "it makes AT a sharing/sympathy site" you implied that comments such as the one you were referring to of Rula's make AT a sharing/sympathy site as in the whole site. Although now I read what you wrote again I think I let you off lightly by using the word imply, it seems pretty clear you were making a forceful statement presented as fact.What isn't welcome is your intervention here - pointing out a matter that relates to site policy and administration when the Guidelines specifically ask you not to do that.
So far as I can see, all I did was to ask a question -- and I think a legitimate one, at that --about what effect seeing "sympathy posts" has on the assessment by prospective posters who are looking to improve their craft of what kind of site this actually is
What part of the statementis a question?Jeffrey Gibson wrote:"It makes AT a sharing/sympathy site."
(a question which, I note with interest, you prescind from answering,)
You mean this question?Jeffrey Gibson wrote: "But I wonder how many would-be contributors who are seeking sites that are focused on craft are put off by this and do not join AT?"
Happy to try and answer here in the Discussion Forum Jeffrey. Some I would think. John claims dozens and dozens - I'd like to hear from even 20 of them. Not that it would probably change my mind. If you read the thread which is linked to in my opening post of this thread you'll see that the current policy is based upon about 15 years of experience in all sorts of different literary forums - it's not a whim. To work well a heterogeneous poetry forum requires a certain maturity of approach on the part of its members, if people don't want to join because they object to diversity then that's probably an indication that either they don't have the necessary maturity, or else they should be going off to find one of the multitude of "vanity" forums or, at the other extreme, academic or workshop forums.
I'm puzzled as to why you see this as an intervention or a questioning of policy. It certainly was not meant to be. It was/is a question about how this forum is or might be perceived, given what appears on it, not a questioning or a criticism of site policy or how the site is being run. And FWIT, I note that there's nothing in what I asked that has not already been raised by others such as Bob Kaven whose questions on these matters did not receive the same sort of response as you've now given to mine.
What I actually said was: "What isn't welcome is your intervention here ..." The key word was "here". "Here" being the Poetry Zone. You want to discuss this stuff: please do it here or in PM.
Finally, elsewhere you quoted my comment about your critical comments being welcome at AT. They are. But you have history, and a seeming inability to distinguish when a critical comment might be helpful, and when it is merely destructive and provocative. Practically all your comments are of a negative slant, unleavened by any positives (despite my many pleas). This makes it doubly incumbent on you to make sure that your negativity is designed to be helpful, and to use additional discretion and not to post mere inquisitorial and confrontational "critique" to people you know intensely dislike your approach.
Foxylady22 wrote:Sad all this Rob sometimes poems are about what we see not necessary about ourselves. Its just a poem about aspects of life and all the emotions that go with it. ------Being human and sympathetic we dash to give reassurance JUST IN CASE it being about self. I have got this wrong so many times BUT NO harm was done, with an embrace I thought it women who moaned ( is that sexist?) or part of human nature or has it turned full circle and men who moan now No where on the site did it ever say serious poets only---or established poets---there are many sites these days for pure poetry. Here is a mixture in my womanly opinion we have a bag of allsorts. Learning, some fun, and some sympathy so what's to moan about move on if the water is too cool or hot, moan too if it makes you happy men.
Have a good happy day
well said Foxylady.sometimes poems are about what we see not necessary about ourselves. Its just a poem about aspects of life and all the emotions that go with it. ------Being human and sympathetic
indiscretionate wrote:An old adage comes to mind reading this thread...something along the lines of it being impossible to please All the people, All the time. Rob ...even from a distance...I can see you make every effort to be open and fair. Thanks for trying ...Dale
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests