Grown up review

DELONGPREBUM wrote:
>
>
> What's with this "Yank" business? You are a fool for assuming that I'm
> an American.
>
Nothing really, you sound like a Yank and you've got the lack of
manners, education and insight that one would expect for a Yank. It
isn't a matter of assumptions - most people on the planet don't suffer
from the evident problems that Yanks do. That's a matter for sadness
and regret, but, even sadder, as you point out, Yanks lack insight so
much that they delude themselves into thinking that they're happy with
their sorry lot. As, of course, you do.

It's nice, though, that you're happy with your delusions. You do have
some prentions too, obviously, to education, thinking that reading the
'New Yorker' shows you to have some culture. If it weren't so sad, it'd
be really funny.

I notice, though, that you try to abuse good poets, but can't show any
sensible grown up review to support your liking for the yank low-life
who's eponymous to this group. As I've said, this is no surprise, nor
is your inchoate anger and feeling of inferiority. You obviously think
you're interesting in some way though!
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

DELONGPREBUM wrote:
>
> You've made the mistake of trying place Bukowski's works in the
> category of "literature".
>
Excellent! Well done, lad, you've managed to make a useful and sensible
comment - it's taken you a few days to have this contribution to your
bullshit ration, but you must be congratulated for it.

If it isn't literature, then what do you think it is?
>
> And the TLS, the Times and Granta are no better than the New Yorker.
>
No better? Surely that would depend on the measure of worth. For
information on what is on in New York the latter is clearly superior to
all the former. If it comes to literary reviews, however, the TLS is
incomparable for depth, given the ones you mention.
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> Peter.H.M.Brooks RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
>
> > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > >
> > > You've made the mistake of trying place Bukowski's works in the
> > > category of "literature".
> > >
> > Excellent! Well done, lad, you've managed to make a useful and sensible
> > comment - it's taken you a few days to have this contribution to your
> > bullshit ration, but you must be congratulated for it.
> >
> > If it isn't literature, then what do you think it is?
>
> I'll leave the graduate school pigeon-holeing to you.
>
Oh, dear, and you were trying so hard to show a little intelligence.

If you are going to make a claim, fatuous or not, then, to maintain
some shred of credibility (or, in your case, to build a shred) you do
need to show some ability to defend it, even just a little bit.

You've already shown that you find it important to put, or not put,
things into pigeon holes (taxonomy isn't, of course, everything, but
only a very ignorant or stupid person would imagine it had no value) by
claiming that this chap Bukowski didn't produce literature. To then say
you can't find a better category simply shows your own emptiness of
thought.

You seem to find discussion difficult and talking to you superiors
seems to upset you a very great deal. No doubt you've had a dreadful
upbringing to leave you with such an obvious chip on your shoulder - or
is it that somebody is still trying to bring you up?
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

Peter.H.M.Brooks.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > Peter.H.M.Brooks.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You've made the mistake of trying place Bukowski's works in the
> > > > category of "literature".
> > > >
> > > Excellent! Well done, lad, you've managed to make a useful and sensible
> > > comment - it's taken you a few days to have this contribution to your
> > > bullshit ration, but you must be congratulated for it.
> > >
> > > If it isn't literature, then what do you think it is?
> >
> > I'll leave the graduate school pigeon-holeing to you.
> >
> Oh, dear, and you were trying so hard to show a little intelligence.
>
> If you are going to make a claim, fatuous or not, then, to maintain
> some shred of credibility (or, in your case, to build a shred) you do
> need to show some ability to defend it, even just a little bit.
>
> You've already shown that you find it important to put, or not put,
> things into pigeon holes (taxonomy isn't, of course, everything, but
> only a very ignorant or stupid person would imagine it had no value) by
> claiming that this chap Bukowski didn't produce literature. To then say
> you can't find a better category simply shows your own emptiness of
> thought.
>
> You seem to find discussion difficult and talking to you superiors
> seems to upset you a very great deal. No doubt you've had a dreadful
> upbringing to leave you with such an obvious chip on your shoulder - or
> is it that somebody is still trying to bring you up?


***

I'm mocking you and you don't even know it.

Don't you realise how smug you sound?

You're an effete, prancing, limp-wristed twerp [American slang] who
wouldn't last an hour on the assembly line.

Why do you write your posts as if you're still in the student lounge,
waiting to defend a thesis?

That won't work here.

I condemn you to 10 years of hard laboUr.
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> Peter.H.M.Brooks.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > Peter.H.M.Brooks.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You've made the mistake of trying place Bukowski's works in the
> > > > > category of "literature".
> > > > >
> > > > Excellent! Well done, lad, you've managed to make a useful and sensible
> > > > comment - it's taken you a few days to have this contribution to your
> > > > bullshit ration, but you must be congratulated for it.
> > > >
> > > > If it isn't literature, then what do you think it is?
> > >
> > > I'll leave the graduate school pigeon-holeing to you.
> > >
> > Oh, dear, and you were trying so hard to show a little intelligence.
> >
> > If you are going to make a claim, fatuous or not, then, to maintain
> > some shred of credibility (or, in your case, to build a shred) you do
> > need to show some ability to defend it, even just a little bit.
> >
> > You've already shown that you find it important to put, or not put,
> > things into pigeon holes (taxonomy isn't, of course, everything, but
> > only a very ignorant or stupid person would imagine it had no value) by
> > claiming that this chap Bukowski didn't produce literature. To then say
> > you can't find a better category simply shows your own emptiness of
> > thought.
> >
> > You seem to find discussion difficult and talking to you superiors
> > seems to upset you a very great deal. No doubt you've had a dreadful
> > upbringing to leave you with such an obvious chip on your shoulder - or
> > is it that somebody is still trying to bring you up?
>
> Why do you write your posts as if you're still in the student lounge,
> waiting to defend a thesis?
>
> That won't work here.
>
This is becoming obvious. You clearly believe that you have some sort
of presence and that your anti-intellectual boorishness is charming or,
perhaps, an attempt at a persona that you feel helps you overcome your
feelings of inadequacy.

You mention an assembly line, I'm fairly sure that most people there
would have more decency and respect for aesthetic and intellectual
matters than you appear to have. In fact, by linking such people to
yourself, as you project yourself, and to Bukowski, another low-life,
you insult their dignity and decency - you probably insult Bukowski as
well. It's an effective insult, unlike any of your deliberate,
kindergarten attempts at insult.

I haven't seen any evidence that Bukoski was quite as false to the
working class as you seem to think. He was undoubtably an low-life, but
I think that he had an element of honesty and some respect for decency.
Naturally, though, you'd expect his fans to be drawn more from genuine,
unthinking and anti-intellectual low-life.

It has been interesting to look into this little cess-pit. I'm not sure
that it has been as useful as one grown-up essay (after all, grown-up
essays have been written about very light-weight, minor and popular
figures in the past to general illumination), but it has been
surprisingly revealing.
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

Peter.H.M.Brooks RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > Peter.H.M.Brooks RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > > Peter.H.M.Brooks RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You've made the mistake of trying place Bukowski's works in the
> > > > > > category of "literature".
> > > > > >
> > > > > Excellent! Well done, lad, you've managed to make a useful and sensible
> > > > > comment - it's taken you a few days to have this contribution to your
> > > > > bullshit ration, but you must be congratulated for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it isn't literature, then what do you think it is?
> > > >
> > > > I'll leave the graduate school pigeon-holeing to you.
> > > >
> > > Oh, dear, and you were trying so hard to show a little intelligence.
> > >
> > > If you are going to make a claim, fatuous or not, then, to maintain
> > > some shred of credibility (or, in your case, to build a shred) you do
> > > need to show some ability to defend it, even just a little bit.
> > >
> > > You've already shown that you find it important to put, or not put,
> > > things into pigeon holes (taxonomy isn't, of course, everything, but
> > > only a very ignorant or stupid person would imagine it had no value) by
> > > claiming that this chap Bukowski didn't produce literature. To then say
> > > you can't find a better category simply shows your own emptiness of
> > > thought.
> > >
> > > You seem to find discussion difficult and talking to you superiors
> > > seems to upset you a very great deal. No doubt you've had a dreadful
> > > upbringing to leave you with such an obvious chip on your shoulder - or
> > > is it that somebody is still trying to bring you up?
> >
> > Why do you write your posts as if you're still in the student lounge,
> > waiting to defend a thesis?
> >
> > That won't work here.
> >
> This is becoming obvious. You clearly believe that you have some sort
> of presence and that your anti-intellectual boorishness is charming or,
> perhaps, an attempt at a persona that you feel helps you overcome your
> feelings of inadequacy.
>
> You mention an assembly line, I'm fairly sure that most people there
> would have more decency and respect for aesthetic and intellectual
> matters than you appear to have. In fact, by linking such people to
> yourself, as you project yourself, and to Bukowski, another low-life,
> you insult their dignity and decency - you probably insult Bukowski as
> well. It's an effective insult, unlike any of your deliberate,
> kindergarten attempts at insult.
>
> I haven't seen any evidence that Bukoski was quite as false to the
> working class as you seem to think. He was undoubtably an low-life, but
> I think that he had an element of honesty and some respect for decency.
> Naturally, though, you'd expect his fans to be drawn more from genuine,
> unthinking and anti-intellectual low-life.
>
> It has been interesting to look into this little cess-pit. I'm not sure
> that it has been as useful as one grown-up essay (after all, grown-up
> essays have been written about very light-weight, minor and popular
> figures in the past to general illumination), but it has been
> surprisingly revealing.

***

YAWN!
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> Peter.H.M.Brooks.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > Peter.H.M.Brooks.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > > > Peter.H.M.Brooks.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You've made the mistake of trying place Bukowski's works in the
> > > > > > > category of "literature".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Excellent! Well done, lad, you've managed to make a useful and sensible
> > > > > > comment - it's taken you a few days to have this contribution to your
> > > > > > bullshit ration, but you must be congratulated for it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it isn't literature, then what do you think it is?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll leave the graduate school pigeon-holeing to you.
> > > > >
> > > > Oh, dear, and you were trying so hard to show a little intelligence.
> > > >
> > > > If you are going to make a claim, fatuous or not, then, to maintain
> > > > some shred of credibility (or, in your case, to build a shred) you do
> > > > need to show some ability to defend it, even just a little bit.
> > > >
> > > > You've already shown that you find it important to put, or not put,
> > > > things into pigeon holes (taxonomy isn't, of course, everything, but
> > > > only a very ignorant or stupid person would imagine it had no value) by
> > > > claiming that this chap Bukowski didn't produce literature. To then say
> > > > you can't find a better category simply shows your own emptiness of
> > > > thought.
> > > >
> > > > You seem to find discussion difficult and talking to you superiors
> > > > seems to upset you a very great deal. No doubt you've had a dreadful
> > > > upbringing to leave you with such an obvious chip on your shoulder - or
> > > > is it that somebody is still trying to bring you up?
> > >
> > > Why do you write your posts as if you're still in the student lounge,
> > > waiting to defend a thesis?
> > >
> > > That won't work here.
> > >
> > This is becoming obvious. You clearly believe that you have some sort
> > of presence and that your anti-intellectual boorishness is charming or,
> > perhaps, an attempt at a persona that you feel helps you overcome your
> > feelings of inadequacy.
> >
> > You mention an assembly line, I'm fairly sure that most people there
> > would have more decency and respect for aesthetic and intellectual
> > matters than you appear to have. In fact, by linking such people to
> > yourself, as you project yourself, and to Bukowski, another low-life,
> > you insult their dignity and decency - you probably insult Bukowski as
> > well. It's an effective insult, unlike any of your deliberate,
> > kindergarten attempts at insult.
> >
> > I haven't seen any evidence that Bukoski was quite as false to the
> > working class as you seem to think. He was undoubtably an low-life, but
> > I think that he had an element of honesty and some respect for decency.
> > Naturally, though, you'd expect his fans to be drawn more from genuine,
> > unthinking and anti-intellectual low-life.
> >
> > It has been interesting to look into this little cess-pit. I'm not sure
> > that it has been as useful as one grown-up essay (after all, grown-up
> > essays have been written about very light-weight, minor and popular
> > figures in the past to general illumination), but it has been
> > surprisingly revealing.
>
> YAWN!
>
I'm sorry to have overstretched your limited cognitive ability. I do
realise it a little cruel to tease mental cripples...
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

That was a very interesting argument, well done to both of you!

Peter.H.M.Brooks RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > Peter.H.M.Brooks RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > > Peter.H.M.Brooks RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > > > > Peter.H.M.Brooks RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You've made the mistake of trying place Bukowski's works in the
> > > > > > > > category of "literature".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Excellent! Well done, lad, you've managed to make a useful and sensible
> > > > > > > comment - it's taken you a few days to have this contribution to your
> > > > > > > bullshit ration, but you must be congratulated for it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it isn't literature, then what do you think it is?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll leave the graduate school pigeon-holeing to you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Oh, dear, and you were trying so hard to show a little intelligence.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are going to make a claim, fatuous or not, then, to maintain
> > > > > some shred of credibility (or, in your case, to build a shred) you do
> > > > > need to show some ability to defend it, even just a little bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've already shown that you find it important to put, or not put,
> > > > > things into pigeon holes (taxonomy isn't, of course, everything, but
> > > > > only a very ignorant or stupid person would imagine it had no value) by
> > > > > claiming that this chap Bukowski didn't produce literature. To then say
> > > > > you can't find a better category simply shows your own emptiness of
> > > > > thought.
> > > > >
> > > > > You seem to find discussion difficult and talking to you superiors
> > > > > seems to upset you a very great deal. No doubt you've had a dreadful
> > > > > upbringing to leave you with such an obvious chip on your shoulder - or
> > > > > is it that somebody is still trying to bring you up?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you write your posts as if you're still in the student lounge,
> > > > waiting to defend a thesis?
> > > >
> > > > That won't work here.
> > > >
> > > This is becoming obvious. You clearly believe that you have some sort
> > > of presence and that your anti-intellectual boorishness is charming or,
> > > perhaps, an attempt at a persona that you feel helps you overcome your
> > > feelings of inadequacy.
> > >
> > > You mention an assembly line, I'm fairly sure that most people there
> > > would have more decency and respect for aesthetic and intellectual
> > > matters than you appear to have. In fact, by linking such people to
> > > yourself, as you project yourself, and to Bukowski, another low-life,
> > > you insult their dignity and decency - you probably insult Bukowski as
> > > well. It's an effective insult, unlike any of your deliberate,
> > > kindergarten attempts at insult.
> > >
> > > I haven't seen any evidence that Bukoski was quite as false to the
> > > working class as you seem to think. He was undoubtably an low-life, but
> > > I think that he had an element of honesty and some respect for decency.
> > > Naturally, though, you'd expect his fans to be drawn more from genuine,
> > > unthinking and anti-intellectual low-life.
> > >
> > > It has been interesting to look into this little cess-pit. I'm not sure
> > > that it has been as useful as one grown-up essay (after all, grown-up
> > > essays have been written about very light-weight, minor and popular
> > > figures in the past to general illumination), but it has been
> > > surprisingly revealing.
> >
> > YAWN!
> >
> I'm sorry to have overstretched your limited cognitive ability. I do
> realise it a little cruel to tease mental cripples...
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> Peter.H.M.Brooks wrote:
> > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
>
> > > > > You've made the mistake of trying place Bukowski's works in the
> > > > > category of "literature".
> > > > >
> > > > Excellent! Well done, lad, you've managed to make a useful and
sensible
> > > > comment - it's taken you a few days to have this contribution to
your
> > > > bullshit ration, but you must be congratulated for it.
> > > >
> > > > If it isn't literature, then what do you think it is?
> > >
> > > I'll leave the graduate school pigeon-holeing to you.
> > >
> > Oh, dear, and you were trying so hard to show a little intelligence.
> >
> > If you are going to make a claim, fatuous or not, then, to maintain
> > some shred of credibility (or, in your case, to build a shred) you do
> > need to show some ability to defend it, even just a little bit.
> >
> > You've already shown that you find it important to put, or not put,
> > things into pigeon holes (taxonomy isn't, of course, everything, but
> > only a very ignorant or stupid person would imagine it had no value) by
> > claiming that this chap Bukowski didn't produce literature. To then say
> > you can't find a better category simply shows your own emptiness of
> > thought.
> >
> > You seem to find discussion difficult and talking to you superiors
> > seems to upset you a very great deal. No doubt you've had a dreadful
> > upbringing to leave you with such an obvious chip on your shoulder - or
> > is it that somebody is still trying to bring you up?
>
>
> ***
>
> I'm mocking you and you don't even know it.
>
> Don't you realise how smug you sound?
>
> You're an effete, prancing, limp-wristed twerp [American slang] who
> wouldn't last an hour on the assembly line.

Heh... how can you tell this? Many Brits work real jobs.

> Why do you write your posts as if you're still in the student lounge,
> waiting to defend a thesis?
>
> That won't work here.
>
> I condemn you to 10 years of hard laboUr.

Better him than me...

--
"Ozone Stigmata" by Will Dockery
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery

Will Dockery videos:
http://tinyurl.com/yfmzeq

Greybeard Cavalier [Dockery/0x0000/Fowler]: <http://tinyurl.com/7r7gj>

Barbara's Cat wrote:
>
> > > "stop typing stupid, stupid."
> > > - Renay's advise
> >
> > You mean /advice/, right Barbie?

Now available in condensed, /catshit-poetry free/ version, Barbara's Cat &
her continuing stupidity:

> You little harlet you!
> ^^^^^^
> SCAT> "Missing Testicals"
> ^^^^^^^^^
> SCAT> You shouldn't have ate that day, Vonnie Leigh.
> ^^^
> SCAT> you'd ate seven Soft-Shell Taco Supremes
> ^^^
> SCAT> I want to breath your air
> ^^^^^^

Ready for Hallmark Hammy's /slurp polish/.
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

Peter.H.M.Brooks wrote:
> DELONGPREBUM wrote:
>
> > What's with this "Yank" business? You are a fool for assuming that I'm
> > an American.
> >
> Nothing really, you sound like a Yank and you've got the lack of
> manners, education and insight that one would expect for a Yank. It
> isn't a matter of assumptions - most people on the planet don't suffer
> from the evident problems that Yanks do. That's a matter for sadness
> and regret, but, even sadder, as you point out, Yanks lack insight so
> much that they delude themselves into thinking that they're happy with
> their sorry lot. As, of course, you do.
>
> It's nice, though, that you're happy with your delusions. You do have
> some prentions too, obviously, to education, thinking that reading the
> 'New Yorker' shows you to have some culture. If it weren't so sad, it'd
> be really funny.
>
> I notice, though, that you try to abuse good poets, but can't show any
> sensible grown up review to support your liking for the yank low-life
> who's eponymous to this group. As I've said, this is no surprise, nor
> is your inchoate anger and feeling of inferiority. You obviously think
> you're interesting in some way though!

Do you write poetry, Peter?

If so why not post a sample or two here?

--
Backyard Blues! October 28th, 103 6th Street, Shadowville USA:

http://Here.Nu/Col.jpg

Dillinghams
Eileen D'esterno
Dockery-Conley Show
Patrick Hopkins
Harry Harden
Brent Lindley
Jason Ezell

Bring your own party favors and masks.

"Ozone Stigmata" by Will Dockery
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery

Will Dockery videos:
http://tinyurl.com/yfmzeq
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

Will Dockery wrote:
> Stuart Leichter wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Peter.H.M.Brooks wrote:
> > > > DELONGPREBUM wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What's with this "Yank" business? You are a fool for assuming that I'm
> > > > > an American.
> > > > >
> > > > Nothing really, you sound like a Yank and you've got the lack of
> > > > manners, education and insight that one would expect for a Yank. It
> > > > isn't a matter of assumptions - most people on the planet don't suffer
> > > > from the evident problems that Yanks do. That's a matter for sadness
> > > > and regret, but, even sadder, as you point out, Yanks lack insight so
> > > > much that they delude themselves into thinking that they're happy with
> > > > their sorry lot. As, of course, you do.
> > > >
> > > > It's nice, though, that you're happy with your delusions. You do have
> > > > some prentions too, obviously, to education, thinking that reading the
> > > > 'New Yorker' shows you to have some culture. If it weren't so sad, it'd
> > > > be really funny.
> > > >
> > > > I notice, though, that you try to abuse good poets, but can't show any
> > > > sensible grown up review to support your liking for the yank low-life
> > > > who's eponymous to this group. As I've said, this is no surprise, nor
> > > > is your inchoate anger and feeling of inferiority. You obviously think
> > > > you're interesting in some way though!
> > >
> > > Do you write poetry, Peter?
> > >
> > > If so why not post a sample or two here?
> >
> > He's right, Will, except for the 'prentions' part. He was obviously
> > being polite, and I bet he thinks you're about 8 or 9 years old.
>
> Peter was writing to DELONGPREBUM, Stu. I jusy asked to see his poetry.
>

I bet he thinks you're about 8 or 9 years old, Will.
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

Stuart Leichter wrote:
> Peter.H.M.Brooks wrote:
>
> > > > > It's nice, though, that you're happy with your delusions. You do have
> > > > > some prentions too, obviously, to education, thinking that reading the
> > > > > 'New Yorker' shows you to have some culture. If it weren't so sad, it'd
> > > > > be really funny.
> > > > >
> > > > > I notice, though, that you try to abuse good poets, but can't show any
> > > > > sensible grown up review to support your liking for the yank low-life
> > > > > who's eponymous to this group. As I've said, this is no surprise, nor
> > > > > is your inchoate anger and feeling of inferiority. You obviously think
> > > > > you're interesting in some way though!
>
> I bet he thinks you're about 8 or 9 years old, Will.

I wonder how old he thinks you are, from what he's seen so far, Stu.

Since Peter's here to critique, perhaps he'll begin with a critique of
my favorite of your poems:

Romance in Country

Rayette's overpouting lips cooed round
I'll do anything you want if
you'll only love me Lucky for
me she can't pronounce womanizer

Rayette was working Denny's mopping floors
vacuumed mudroom floormats straightened them
took out trash and freshened up the rest rooms
we met I went there cause they featured entrees
chicken cordon bleu--French stuff
and boocoo freshly brewed coffee that

Kept me up all night watching cotton balls
between her toes at the place we shared
where she also mopped and vacuumed
scrubbed the sink and toilet rim took out
the trash plus dusted did the dishes
slung hash also complained we never talk
So I go What and she goes
You won't ever leave me will you all the time we talk
but I keep going back
they're her CDs her stereo her TV set
her beer and where I can work on the car

-Stuart Leichter

Anyway, thanks for joining in on welcoming Peter to our group, Stu.

--
Backyard Blues! October 28th, 103 6th Street, Shadowville USA:

http://Here.Nu/Col.jpg

Dillinghams
Eileen D'esterno
Dockery-Conley Show
Patrick Hopkins
Harry Harden
Brent Lindley
Jason Ezell

Bring your own party favors and masks.

"Ozone Stigmata" by Will Dockery
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery

Will Dockery videos:
http://tinyurl.com/yfmzeq
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review 

Stuart Leichter wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > Stuart Leichter wrote:
> > > Peter.H.M.Brooks wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > It's nice, though, that you're happy with your delusions. You do have
> > > > > > > some prentions too, obviously, to education, thinking that reading the
> > > > > > > 'New Yorker' shows you to have some culture. If it weren't so sad, it'd
> > > > > > > be really funny.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I notice, though, that you try to abuse good poets, but can't show any
> > > > > > > sensible grown up review to support your liking for the yank low-life
> > > > > > > who's eponymous to this group. As I've said, this is no surprise, nor
> > > > > > > is your inchoate anger and feeling of inferiority. You obviously think
> > > > > > > you're interesting in some way though!
> > >
> > > I bet he thinks you're about 8 or 9 years old, Will.
> >
> > I wonder how old he thinks you are, from what he's seen so far, Stu.
> >
> > Since Peter's here to critique, perhaps he'll begin with a critique of
> > my favorite of your poems:
> >
> > Romance in Country
> >
> > Rayette's overpouting lips cooed round
> > I'll do anything you want if
> > you'll only love me Lucky for
> > me she can't pronounce womanizer
> >
> > Rayette was working Denny's mopping floors
> > vacuumed mudroom floormats straightened them
> > took out trash and freshened up the rest rooms
> > we met I went there cause they featured entrees
> > chicken cordon bleu--French stuff
> > and boocoo freshly brewed coffee that
> >
> > Kept me up all night watching cotton balls
> > between her toes at the place we shared
> > where she also mopped and vacuumed
> > scrubbed the sink and toilet rim took out
> > the trash plus dusted did the dishes
> > slung hash also complained we never talk
> > So I go What and she goes
> > You won't ever leave me will you all the time we talk
> > but I keep going back
> > they're her CDs her stereo her TV set
> > her beer and where I can work on the car
> >
> > -Stuart Leichter
> >
> > Anyway, thanks for joining in on welcoming Peter to our group, Stu.
>
> It's not 'our group', Will, it's anyone's.

That's what makes it /ours/, Stu.

--
Backyard Blues! October 28th, 103 6th Street, Shadowville USA:

http://Here.Nu/Col.jpg

Dillinghams
Eileen D'esterno
Dockery-Conley Show
Patrick Hopkins
Harry Harden
Brent Lindley
Jason Ezell

Bring your own party favors and masks.

"Ozone Stigmata" by Will Dockery
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery

Will Dockery videos:
http://tinyurl.com/yfmzeq
 >> Stay informed about: Grown up review