How to be a good poet

AND I ALWAYS THOUGHT

And I always thought: the very simplest words
Must be enough. When I say what things are like
Everyone’s hearts must be torn to shreds.
That you’ll go down if you don’t stand up for yourself—
Surely you see that.

Brecht says, and that’s all you need to know:

and as he also says, and as we may all take note of here:

Everything Changes

Everything changes. You can make
A fresh start with your latest breath.
But what has happened has happened. And the water
You once poured into the wine cannot be
Drained off again.

What has happened has happened. The water
You once poured into the wine cannot be
Drained off again, but
Everything changes. You can make
A fresh start with your latest breath.

WW

Mote and beam

I think in the circumstances it’s useful to have an overview: this from the excellent   http://www.contentious.com/

There’s much in this for us all to take note of: the links are a bit errant: it’s easier to use the search function at the site to find the section you want.

Contrary to popular opinion, the internet is not really about technology. It’s about people, specifically how people communicate.

Despite the best efforts of evolution and civilization, human beings still have a lot of rough edges – individually and collectively. We annoy, denigrate, and dismiss each other all the time. Sometimes this is intentional, often it is not.

The plain text which comprises most online communication makes our rough edges hard to miss. It strips away many of the subtle buffers and safeguards we’ve created to minimize the inherent emotional and psychological risks of communication. Also, online media presents a deeply weird juxtaposition of isolation and connectedness, anonymity and identity, parts and whole. In this baffling environment people can be unbelievably brash and vulnerable at the same time.

In this realm, the vermin of communication thrive. Recognizing them, and choosing to react appropriately, is the key to avoiding their damage…

In my time on the internet, I’ve encountered just about every kind of online vermin. At times, I admit, I’ve even participated in the pestilence. Over the years I’ve learned some useful strategies for handling conflicts with each of the major online pests. In this series, I’ll share these tips.

MAJOR TYPES OF ONLINE VERMIN:

• Porcupines: People who seem unable to write a sentence that lacks a barb. There’s a rude, condescending, dismissive, or insulting edge to nearly everything they say. Often these barbs are thinly disguised as humor, or as hyper-rationality. Believe it or not, most porcupines are not aware of how irritating or hurtful they can be. They believe it’s “just their personality,” or they transfer the problem to you. (”Can’t you take a joke?”) They believe they are concealing their vulnerabilities, when in fact barbs only make underlying insecurities more obvious. (How to handle an online porcupine…)
• Trolls: These vermin want to provoke a reaction. They bait in order to get you to snap back, thus granting them perceived license to attack even more fiercely. They will set out to stir up conflict and push people’s emotional buttons. They enjoy polarizing communities and disrupting discourse. Combative aggressive, polarized TV shows like Crossfire showcase and glorify trolling behavior – even though they claim to offer debate. To a troll any attention is good, and the more intense the better. Negative attention tends to be especially intense online. They think they look insightful and strong when they tear others down, but the effect is more like watching a tantrum. (How to handle a troll…)
• Zealots: These people confuse their opinions and perspectives with “the ultimate truth.” They can’t function well without clearly marked boundaries. They calm their deep fear of uncertainty by sparring with people who disagree with them. To zealots, any disagreement with their chosen truth (even if totally impersonal and unrelated to them) feels like a deeply personal affront which they must avenge and crush. Zealots are more comfortable with crusades than conversation. (How to handle a zealot…)
• Skewers: These people routinely skew the words, actions, perspectives, or opinions of others. They believe that they know you better than you know yourself, so they’re better-equipped to explain who you are and what you’re doing. This misrepresentation usually indicates a lack of understanding. Sometimes that comes from a simple lack of information – but other times it demonstrates a profound inability or unwillingness to listen or understand. Rarely is this motivated by animosity. However, being skewed by a skewer can be exceptionally frustrating – kind of like identity theft. Skewers tend to get rigid, and find it almost impossible to admit they were wrong, even slightly. (How to handle a skewer…)
• Leeches: Online media promotes a culture of sharing. However, some people approach the internet with an exagerrated sense of entitlement. If you share your knowledge or resources by answering one question or helping solve one problem, leeches slither close and expect you to answer every question and help solve every problem. They assume, they wheedle, they nag. They may get angry or resentful when you don’t realign your priorities to match their desires. They drain your energy and offer little or nothing in return. (How to handle a leech…)
• Burns: These people take everything personally, in a negative way. Any contact is risky. Even the slightest touch of communication, the slightest possible hint of an insinuation, causes them to react with pain – anger, shame, guilt, despair, regret, self-pity, etc. And you’ll hear about it – loudly. (How to handle a burn…)

RESPONSIBILITY AND PERSPECTIVE

It’s easy to point fingers at other people who annoy, dismiss, or denigrate you online. However, in my experience nearly everyone has been guilty of these bad online communication practices at some point – usually unintentionally. As you read through this series, assume that you have played the role of each of these vermin at some point. You may or may not be able to recall specific instances. But it’s a safe assumption.

“Vermin” labels apply to behaviors, not to people. It’s an important distinction. When you encounter online vermin, don’t assume that their vermin-like qualities represent who they are. When people act like online vermin, that’s merely how they’re behaving at that time, in that situation. Don’t exaggerate these unpleasant encounters by overpersonalizing them.

We all behave badly sometimes, so leave room for compassion and face-saving. Generally this means not reacting strongly or at all to online vermin.

That said, temper compassion with practicality. Maintain your boundaries, especially with strangers. You are not responsible for correcting or curing online vermin.

RESPOND WITHOUT COUNTERATTACKING

Some vermin take a very long time to improve their online communication style, or they may even prefer to behave badly online (and elsewhere). In these cases, more direct measures are required. The most important principle of responding to vermin is to never try to attack or trap them.

Simplistic countermeasures only attract more vermin, like a swarm of wasps stirred to frenzy by the scent of a swatted member of their hive. Successful countermeasures require pausing to look at the big picture, then choosing actions that negate or undermine the vermin’s impact. This deters vermin by removing the perceived rewards for bad online behavior, or by denying them access to your environment.

In the vast majority of cases, countermeasures are not needed at all. Most online vermin tend to undermine and negate themselves pretty immediately and thoroughly. Most of the time, the best approach is simply to recognize and ignore the vermin. If the vermin persists, a calm, positive, nonpersonal, respectful response which reframes the context of the interaction can quell the vermin. Only if the vermin persists beyond that are specific deterence strategies required.

How to be a bad poet

There is a Bad Poetry Explosion,
and you can be part of it!

Thus begins The Bad Poetry Seminar by Sparrow, which teaches the undeniable truth about today’s Poetry Renaissance: Poetry is on the upswing and much of what is being written is bad — really bad. Now, there are those who will tell you that bad poetry is actually good, and although I wouldn’t go quite that far, bad poetry does have its place. The fact is, at slams and open mikes across the country, actually at just about any poetry reading you go to, you’re bound to hear some doozies and you’ll have to admit, bad poetry makes the good stuff really shine.

So, without further ado, sharpen your wits and pencils and get ready for the Bad Poetry Seminar. With a click of the mouse you’ll:

(a) discover how rapidly the percentage of bad poetry is rising,
(b) explore the history of bad poetry,
(c) learn how to differentiate a good bad poem, a mediocre bad poem and a bad bad poem, &
(d) join in chanting the Bad Poetry Anthem.

Once you feel like you’ve got a handle on things, try your hand at writing a few stinkers yourself. There are a host of resources out there just waiting to critique your work and even some set-up to help you whip up a masterpiece on the fly. Who knows, once you’ve finished your course of study, you may even be ready to start up your own seminar.

You can also visit Very Bad Poetry:

Welcome to the last refuge for the world’s worst poetry.

It’s difficult to understand how, in this age of information, poems that merely miss the mark can be tossed into the cold world to fend for themselves, only to whither and be forgotten.

Well, not quite the last refuge. There’s always the Bad Poetry generator

Mendel’s Serenade

i just wanna make you scream

though his foot dared cross the line, once drawn

which will destroy the seam

he munched on a salad of lettuce, cheese and prawn

or

Mendel’s Serenade

i just wanna make you scream

I wonder what Nietzsche would say about this

winding road of starlaced dreams

I don’t believe people really contribute to this

Bedtime story

Once upon a time there lived a lovely princess and one day she made a journey into the colourful world of blogland. Her visit was rudely interrupted by the unwelcome intrusion of an ugly troll stamping his feet in an ungainly fashion and muttering incoherently about things he knew nothing of. When the princess came home at last and took out her pillowbook, as she did every night, she became thoughtful. She had been lucky enough to have been taught by wise wizards many years ago – should she not share some of that wisdom? So she wrote in her pillowbook some simple explanations of basic critical thinking as passed down by the ancient defenders of reason. Unfortunately, the princess was naive in the ways of the world and used some of the troll’s rantings as her starting-point. And the troll waxed mad when he discovered this. His small pinched brain could not comprehend even the simplest argument and recoiled at making the slightest effort. The poor troll possessed but one fixed idea – that he was entitled to free speech. And, being but a troll, he understand that in only a threadbare way as the right to offend anyone he liked. For why do trolls exist if not to make rude noises like a gibbering monkey or a yapping dog?

(cont)

Good reading No 1

At the moment the bedtime story for my daughter is Dracula (abridged) but a long time favourite was :

which is the story of a brother and sister on a midwest farm who accidentally provoke a troll into invading their farm. One night they went out and in the barn:

A squat, ugsome troll was sitting on a stool, milking a cow. There was a pile of eggs on the floor next to his feet.
The troll had a long nose and a bristling tail. He was wearing bib overalls and a large, gold earring in his ear. When Karl barked, the troll was surprised, so he jumped up on a beam under the rafters and said, “What are you kids doing in my barn.”.
Karin looked up and held out her stick. “It’s not your barn, it’s our barn. Are you a troll, a warthog, or a donkey?”
I’m a troll. I’m not a warthog or a donkey, I’m a troll! Donkeys can’t talk and hogs can’t fly.”
“Well, you better get out of our barn or I’ll hit you with this stick.”
“Ha! Ha! Hah! Ho! Ho! Hoh!, the troll laughed wickedly. “You can’t even reach me with that stick.”

It’s an exciting tale, with a happy ending. Read more here

Anything but Sue

‘Boys growing up with popular names such as Michael, Joshua and Christopher have a good chance of leading law-abiding lives.

But young men named Kareem, Walter or Ivan could run afoul of the law.

That’s according to a recent US study that claims the more unpopular, uncommon or feminine a boy’s first name, the greater the chance he will end up behind bars.

While Shippensburg University professor David Kalist’s report in Social Science Quarterly shows that “unpopular names are likely not the cause of crime,” he explains that factors often associated with those names can “increase the tendency toward juvenile delinquency.”

Boys with unpopular, girlish or uncommon names often are ridiculed by peers, come from families of low socioeconomic status and face discrimination in the workforce based on a preconceived bias about their names, according to the study, which analysed more than 15,000 names.

Jay Corzine, chairman of the University of Central Florida’s sociology department, said, “Some kids could have a name that leads to teasing and being picked on and, in return, that child could become aggressive with others.”

Top 10 bad-boy names

Alec, Ernest, Garland, Ivan, Kareem, Luke, Malcolm, Preston, Tyrell, Walter.’

Wow. Alec?  Luke?  Malcolm?

The end is nigh for all liverals

Never mind, Kay, you can always move to Alaska

Will the Antichrist be a homosexual?

By Ron Hamman
Religion Views
Published on Monday, May 25, 2009 9:15 PM AKDT

In answering this question, it is important to assert the question does not originate with me, lest someone out there think that I am bringing some new doctrine out to bolster the political climate. But as the study of Bible prophecy includes verbiage as to the behavior of the one called “that Wicked” by Paul in II Thessalonians, it is not only a legitimate question to ask, but also one to answer.

While the word “homosexual” is not in the Bible, the behavior of those who practice homosexuality, and God’s estimation of them, very definitely is. When the word came into existence I cannot tell you, but what we can say for sure is that when Noah Webster published his first dictionary in 1828, it was not included. This means that homosexuality is a modern word invented to replace the word Noah Webster did include, sodomy, defined as a crime against nature. This is historical revisionism in action.

If you can stand to read more, go here

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2009/05/27/faith/doc4a1b794bd0fd9907394285.txt