Guest Writer: Caestice Raises Some Good Questions

(The following post appears as a comment on the Monster-ator Mash thread:)

Don't you think that there's more to the choice in poetry than truth and status? Personally I would think that those with the higher status would have a greater impact on more people, and it's rare that these people gain their status through truth and muckraking. Is this a conundrum?

Perhaps a level of popularity is necessary for this, and a large group of people with a large audience for an impact to be really made at all.

Perhaps Poets.net will grow into what Foetry was and more, and I think that would be a large step.

That said, I think that poetry today has warped into something totally different from what it ever has been before. These days the number of venues where you can have your poetry published is astonishing. Does this sometimes diminish the quality and effort put into modern poetry?

As a reader of poetry, what would you read, honestly? A book of poems is probably the highest hit, if you really like the author's works. Second is likely the thousands of free electronic websites available, which publish a much higher percentage of the poems which are submitted. But it's free. This creates a subworld of poetry, the poetry posted on a website for collection purposes or status purposes but in the end reach very few people.

What poetry needs, I believe, is an elite magazine which pays decent (therefore creating serious submissions and a wider range of submissions), which can become respected in the poetry world. I've seen poems on discreet websites that are astounding, and have had maybe 100 views if that. A magazine where the articles aren't about the Jorie Grahams and her interviews, but about poetry movements and achievements. A magazine where poems themselves hold higher ground than the kings or peasants who write them.

Maybe with an audience such a magazine could truly turn things around in the right direction, and produce a poem which will be remembered for a few centuries; because I haven't read a famous poem of quality that dates after 1950.

Just throwing fantasies around.

_______________________________________

(Posted with author's permission.)

(WAY Off Topic) WARNING: From the I.R.S.--NOT!!!

On Sunday, I received the following piece of email purporting to be from the I.R.S.:



Over 130 million Americans will receive refunds as part of President Bush program to jumpstart the economy.

Our records indicate that you are qualified to receive the 2008 Economic Stimulus Refund.

The fastest and easiest way to receive your refund is by direct deposit to your checking/savings account.

Please click on the link and fill out the form and submit before May 19th, 2008 to ensure that your refund will be processed as soon as possible.

Submitting your form on May 19th, 2008 or later means that your refund will be delayed due to the volume of requests we anticipate for the Economic Stimulus Refund.

To access Economic Stimulus Refund, please click here.

[Link removed--should you click on this link, you would be directed to this site: www.smfarms.com/catalog/images/hewlett_packard/.refund.php--definitely not the I.R.S.

Gmail also removed the URL from "click here."]

© Copyright 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.
__________________________________________

Despite some of the grammatical errors, this email is very convincing because the sent info specified "service@irs.gov" as the actual sender. To give gmail its just due, the message contained the following warning (Highlighted in bold red):

Warning: This message may not be from whom it claims to be. Beware of following any links in it or of providing the sender with any personal information. Learn more. [This link shows how you can check your gmails for validity.]

Here is the code I found when I clicked on to "Show original":

Delivered-To: [Deleted]
Received: by [Deleted] with SMTP id u1cs271976wfu;
Sun, 18 May 2008 10:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by [Deleted] with SMTP id [deleted];
Sun, 18 May 2008 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path:
Received: from dollman-enterprises.com (mail.dollman-enterprises.com [68.105.207.240])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h8si9853846wxd.26.2008.05.18.10.23.29;
Sun, 18 May 2008 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: fail (google.com: domain of service@irs.gov does not designate 68.105.207.240 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.105.207.240;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=hardfail (google.com: domain of service@irs.gov does not designate 68.105.207.240 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=service@irs.gov
Received: from User ([76.202.29.82]) by dollman-enterprises.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211);
Sun, 18 May 2008 13:23:28 -0400
From: "service@irs.gov"
Subject: 2008 Economic Stimulus Refund ( $1800 )
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 12:24:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1251"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Bcc:
Return-Path: service@irs.gov
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2008 17:23:28.0887 (UTC) FILETIME=[E3464070:01C8B90B]
_______________________________

But I must admit, this particular scam message caught my eye, although I did NOT fall for it; the I.R.S. has offered plenty of warnings about not using emails with links for official business.

Just remember: you need only to file your U.S. Federal tax return to receive your economic stimulus check.

[Disclaimer: I have posted this message on at least two other of my sites. You are welcome to copy it on your site.]

On Parody and Satire...

Emperor "What-Me-Worry?" Dubya

Parody: any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc. --Dictionary.com

In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement.

Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humor in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.--Wikipedia

The Monster-ator Mash

Motet, monster-ator of P &W Speakeasy (not!), bans members for mild, satiric bantering, tends to sulk, needs attention, defends "regulars" who have been there forever and add little to the site, has trouble stimulating discussions on her own, which are few and far between on the Speakeasy.

Motto: "Waaaaaahhhhhhh!"

Worst move: Banning Sawmygirl.

Chrissiekl, monster-ator and former Borg Queen of Poets.borg, recently demoted by inside poets.borg moderator coup, operates with band of moderator-helpers (a.k.a. "The Hive"), Sbunch, "Mr.Kansas," Kaltica, Mr. DUM DUM DUM, Billy 'Go Away' Blazes, but reports to Robin Beth, a young, aspiring "poet" recently short-listed for chap-book contest by Jeff Levine, "critic," publisher of Tupelo Press, and business partner of Our Lady of Poets.Org, Joan Houlihan.

Motto: "You will comply."

Worst move: Banning ACommoner.

The Right to be Silent...

Just a message to both friend and foe.

I'm in charge of what I post on Poets.net and any other other forum. When I post something (for good or ill), it's because I have something to say. I make the decision as to what I post, sometimes scathing, sometimes humorous and downright silly, sometimes newsy, sometimes sad, and sometimes just plain fun. If I don't have something to say, I won't post. It's that simple.

I created Poets.net because there aren't too many places where poets and other writers can post without being cyber-slapped for the silliest of reasons. I'm too old and cranky to be bullied by 20-something power-hungry mods and admins who don't want to see the foibles of their mentors exposed, even when such exposure is warranted.

In addition, there are other issues that seem to be taboo, and it is my hope that Poets.net will be a place where issues, no matter how uncomfortable, can be aired and brought to light.

Very soon, I'll be working on developing an actual forum--I have discovered just how awkward the blog structure can be. That way, members can post whatever they want. Or anyone, including non-members, can lurk. You can be anonymous or "out." You can just "be."

For now, I have been trying to post for others who find the blog structure limiting, but I do have a personal limit as to what I'll post under my own signature, and I'm not comfortable going "stealth" under other aliases--here or anywhere else.

At Poets.net and my other blogs, I have two IDs: Jennifer (my real name) and Bugzita, which was my anonymous ID (for one year) on Foetry and is still my ID on on poets.org and pw.org. Bugzita, a childhood nickname, has her own website. Not much on it, though...

In the meantime, I'll continue to elevate posts at my discretion (and with the author's permission, of course).

But I also want foets to understand that they won't get a free pass at Poets.net.

I don't have the money, time, or staff to do in-depth investigative work, but if I get a tip and can verify it with two or more sources, I'll do my best to act on it in a timely manner. Also, readers can leave comments (or e-mail me) if they want to tell their side.

Last year, on Post Foetry, I posted a Watch List of contests--nary a peep from any of the people running these contests. Perhaps they believe that a wall of silence will silence the discontents, but they would be totally wrong. I may be a kinder and gentler soul, but I'm also persistent and stubborn.

I am the queen of my own domain, where I invoke my right to speak out and the right to be silent.

Bugzita
Jennifer Semple Siegel

On Suppression...

Literature should not be suppressed

merely because it offends

the moral code of the censor.

--William O. Douglas