Uh oh, SPQR, you've got William Wordsworth spinning in his grave again.

>>If I were prone to poet flourishes, I might describe your work in with words like: Your posts are like a crisp sea breeze that flushes away the stifling miasma of political correct appeasement.<<

For a start, you can't get away with that sea breeze being "crisp". A sea breeze has its own salty, dampish quality. Which clashes horribly with the idea of it somehow being crisp as well, don't you think?

And a breeze that "flushes away"? I hardly think so.

In my experience, flushing requires a not-insignificant amount of water, to carry away the, errr... debris. And there is no debris here.

Just... miasma. Not easy stuff to flush, eh?

Also, miasma is pretty noxious.

It could, I suppose, also be "stifling", although I can't honestly see anyone sticking around long enough to get stifled. They'd be hoofing it as far away as they could, at top speed.

And the final crunch. "Political correct appeasement". A phrase with all the elegance of changing gear in an FX Holden without the benefit of the clutch.

Y'know, not a lot of poets would attempt to shoehorn that phrase into verse. Even with your attempt to even out the metre by substituting the adjectival for the adverbial, it still doesn't work too well.

Altogether, not quite the glowing encomium to stevenlmeyer's "thoughful, mature and intelligent input into these discussions" that you were hoping for.

Although, somehow... appropriate.

Pericles,
Thank you for your little critique . I suspect it might say more about you than me.

// For a start, you can't get away with that sea breeze being "crisp". A sea breeze has its own salty, dampish quality. Which clashes horribly with the idea of it somehow being crisp as well, don't you think?//
No I don’t agree. You tell us you perceive sea breezes as “salty,dampish” and that’s well and good but, others might just perceive them differently, particularly if they were at Manly on a winters day.

// And a breeze that "flushes away"? I hardly think so. In my experience, flushing requires a not-insignificant amount of water, to carry away the, errr... debris.//
Here, again, you’re telling us about you i) “In my experience” and ii) “I hardly . think so”. Have you stopped to consider that your experience and thoughts may not be universal.

//Y'know, not a lot of poets would attempt to shoehorn that phrase into verse. Even with your attempt to even out the metre by substituting the adjectival for the adverbial, it still doesn't work too well.//
Yes, perhaps, “not a lot of poets would” but, so what?
Even an old poetiphobe (Judged from your comments to Foxy some time back) must allow that poetry is one of the most iconoclastic of genres—things have moved on a bit since William Wordsworth.

// Altogether, not quite the glowing encomium to Stevenlmeyer's "thoughful, mature and intelligent input into these discussions" that you were hoping for.//
Aaaah, Jealousy is a curse ain't it!
I still maintain, that –for me at least – Stevenlmeyer’s posts are as crisp and bracing as a sea breeze. Practically when juxtaposed against some others who appear to want to shoehorn content & style onto their own narrow gauge track.

Not quite, SPQR.

>>Even an old poetiphobe (Judged from your comments to Foxy some time back) must allow that poetry is one of the most iconoclastic of genres<<

It isn't poets that I dislike. Just their poetry.

And I strongly dispute that poetry is at all iconoclastic. It is, I know, a conceit that poets have about their work, but it is not one that bears the slightest scrutiny.

You are right, of course, that my opinion of your attempt at "poetic" flowery language is a personal one. And that the critique itself is based entirely upon my ignorance of the history of poetry - "things have moved on a bit since William Wordsworth", who knew?

But I do value words. Which, when properly organized can indeed be iconoclastic. This little spat we are having here about Catherine Deveny is all about her words, and how she chose to arrange them. In the mouth of someone with greater skill to organize them, they could even have started a riot. In an extreme case, perhaps a holy war.

When was the last time a war was started by someone employing poetry?

"I wandered lonely as a cloud that floats on high o'er vales and hills, when all at once I saw a crowd, a host, of aristocrats.

Aux barricades, citoyens!"

Incidentally, you mention "others who appear to want to shoehorn content & style onto their own narrow gauge track"

Shoehorning onto narrow gauge track? That's some "brave" imagery, right there.

Hi SPQR, Austin Powerless

Thank you for your support.

I am not going to enter into the discussion on poetic styles and conventions. I’m afraid you’re on your own there SPQR.:-)

I’m simply going to remark, yet again, how interesting it is that certain people who loudly proclaim their atheism draw back from attacking Islam. More than that, they attack anyone who attacks Islam without ever being able to offer a coherent explanation for this anomaly.

Now why is that?

One reason I suspect is simple cowardice, especially the fear of “lawfare.”

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare

Once so-called anti-hate speech laws are on the books these can be used to bully people into silence. It doesn’t matter if the case against you has no merit. You still have to devote a lot of time and energy to defending yourself. Most people cannot afford that so they remain silent.*

But I suspect the main reason many people steer clear of attacking Islam is the tribal nature of politics. For what we may describe as the “self-righteous ABC crowd” attacking Islam is something that is “simply not done old chap”. And if you do it, “well I’m awf’ly sorry and all that but I’m afraid you’re no longer welcome in polite society.”

Deveny seems to depend on the self-righteous ABC crowd for a livelihood so I doubt she would do anything to offend their sensibilities.

To the self-righteous ABC crowd questioning why Islam is off-limits is the equivalent of an English gentleman questioning the way he is supposed to use a fork. If you ask the question you’re obviously a boor and are expelled from “Society” unless you are VERY rich.

*Increasingly wealthy individuals and corporation are engaging in a form of lawfare known as a SLAPP suit.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participatio

I guess your little homily deserves a response, stevenlmeyer.

>>...how interesting it is that certain people who loudly proclaim their atheism draw back from attacking Islam. More than that, they attack anyone who attacks Islam without ever being able to offer a coherent explanation for this anomaly.<<

The "anomaly" that you infer is no more than politeness.

I am certainly one of those on this Forum who "loudly proclaim their atheism". And it is also true that I tend not to "attack" Islam.

But you may also have noticed that nor do I "attack" Christianity.

To me, this is simply being polite.

Attacking someone's religion is, in my view, totally reprehensible.

As I have observed on a number of occasions, it is very apparent that religious people's beliefs obviously matter, in a way that is very important to them, while remaining entirely unfathomable to me. To "attack" anyone for having those beliefs is like beating up on a fluffy kitten, simply because it is smaller than you, and you can get away with it.

On the other hand, when I see the fear and loathing towards Muslims that is so frequently in evidence on this Forum, I tend to leap to their defence. Much as I would leap to the defence of that poor fluffy kitten.

If it should occur that a Muslim took aim at your Christian beliefs in the manner that you take aim at theirs, you would quickly find me defending your right to the religion of your choice, too.

You may call this attitude cowardice if you like, that's your prerogative. I simply call it being consistent.

Lexi, was that meant to be sarcasm? If so, it was a weak attempt.

Either you are too dense or you are deliberately missing the point. You certainly dodged it with your last post.

I'm surprised that you recognise logic, as you don't appear to indulge in it yourself.