PDC

[Senna Jawa]

Well, that seems to have worked. Now we have a poetry discussion going on!

Only from here to there. The good thing is that there are two real poems there and not any junk. The sad thing is that this kind of discussions have but minimal impact on everybody (except for the good general feeling, as represented by you). Starting discussions without any advanced base, each time from scratch, from zero, has some brainwashing, brain softening effect on the participants. There has to be a common and advanced understanding in order to go beyond abc.

The main problem is that the observations about the poem cannot be properly felt and understand and their weight cannot be appreciated without placing such observations in the overall ppoetry's framework. Each observation, when the general understanding of the poetry is sorely missing, seems arbitraryand accidental. All remarks seem eqwually important. The general picture of poetry is that of mess, of
a zillion of principles, which sometimes hold and sometimes don't. There is very little good coming out of such discussions.

To summarize, PDC would be an excellent complement to a larger system but alone it's value is minimal.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Such is with most everything.

 

[wildsweetone]

well, for what it's worth, i feel i've learned a lot from having my poem discussed by poets more knowledgeable in the skills area than me.

many have raised good points of view which i am working through and discerning what feels right for me and what doesn't.

i think that the questions both myself and Charley have asked are good indicators of the skill level we are working from. it is up to those who post their work for dissection to put the work in and learn from the discussions, yes?

 

[Senna Jawa]

three thousand years down the drain

well, for what it's worth, i feel i've learned a lot from having my poem discussed by poets more knowledgeable in the skills area than me.

That's a nice illusion.

Actually, it is clear that you have been writing for quite some time. Most likely you, and certainly several of us, went through this kind of discussions many times. Their effect is next to nothing. Otherwise you and several other authors would write much better.

These discussions are with the nose of the participants in the text. There is no distance to them. You see just one poem, one line or phrase at the time. Hundreds of small(?) issues are mentioned during such discussions. And hundreds more can be raised any moment on new occasions. It is impossible to write a poem and to defend the text (during the process of writing it) against hundreds upon thousands of particular different traps. There must be a fundamentally better approach and there is one.

This multitude of issues is a consequence of just four (harmoniously interrelated) simple ideas. When you understand them, then you dynamically and creatively address the mutitude of the finer points, of the special instances of the fundamerntal ideas. It comes to you naturally because those special issues are implied as special instances of the basic four ideas. When you don't understand them, when you do not understand poetry, then it is all chaos and nothing makes much sense.

The common discussions about poems are from scratch, hence they just waste the intelectual potential accumulated over more than three thousand years.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Such is with most everything.

How pitiful, how pathetic.

 

[wildsweetone]

That's a nice illusion.

Actually, it is clear that you have been writing for quite some time. Most likely you, and certainly several of us, went through this kind of discussions many times. Their effect is next to nothing. Otherwise you and several other authors would write much better.

These discussions are with the nose of the participants in the text. There is no distance to them. You see just one poem, one line or phrase at the time. Hundreds of small(?) issues are mentioned during such discussions. And hundreds more can be raised any moment on new occasions. It is impossible to write a poem and to defend the text (during the process of writing it) against hundreds upon thousands of particular different traps. There must be a fundamentally better approach and there is one.

This multitude of issues is a consequence of just four (harmoniously interrelated) simple ideas. When you understand them, then you dynamically and creatively address the mutitude of the finer points, of the special instances of the fundamerntal ideas. It comes to you naturally because those special issues are implied as special instances of the basic four ideas. When you don't understand them, when you do not understand poetry, then it is all chaos and nothing makes much sense.

do you mean, reading, writing, listening and speaking as the four basic ideas? or something else?

The common discussions about poems are from scratch, hence they just waste the intelectual potential accumulated over more than three thousand years.

i still think that the questions i asked were at a slightly more advanced level than the kind of questions i asked when i first started serious writing (which wasn't that long ago), therefore my learning is from a higher 'scratch' than previously. - i think i can't explain that thought well enough for it to make sense. hmm

 

[Lauren Hynde]

How pitiful, how pathetic.

Indeed.

 

[flyguy69]

...
The common discussions about poems are from scratch, hence they just waste the intelectual potential accumulated over more than three thousand years.

I was unaware this was in limited supply. I'll start stockpiling immediately.

 

[tarablackwood22]

That's a nice illusion.

Actually, it is clear that you have been writing for quite some time. Most likely you, and certainly several of us, went through this kind of discussions many times. Their effect is next to nothing. Otherwise you and several other authors would write much better.

These discussions are with the nose of the participants in the text. There is no distance to them. You see just one poem, one line or phrase at the time. Hundreds of small(?) issues are mentioned during such discussions. And hundreds more can be raised any moment on new occasions. It is impossible to write a poem and to defend the text (during the process of writing it) against hundreds upon thousands of particular different traps. There must be a fundamentally better approach and there is one.

This multitude of issues is a consequence of just four (harmoniously interrelated) simple ideas. When you understand them, then you dynamically and creatively address the mutitude of the finer points, of the special instances of the fundamerntal ideas. It comes to you naturally because those special issues are implied as special instances of the basic four ideas. When you don't understand them, when you do not understand poetry, then it is all chaos and nothing makes much sense.

The common discussions about poems are from scratch, hence they just waste the intelectual potential accumulated over more than three thousand years.

You take up a lot of space to say nothing.

 

[flyguy69]

You take up a lot of space to say nothing.

Hey! Hands off that intellectual potential! Damn looters.

 

[Senna Jawa]

do you mean, reading, writing, listening and speaking as the four basic ideas? or something else?

Something else.

I had started to write here about the three axioms behind the poetry a time ago but you really need something like the twin threads to do it properly (I've written more in Polish, a 3 part essay--it is available on Internet). And the other part is "poetry--the art of words". So, you have the two approaches, 3+1, which cooperate one with another.

i still think that the questions i asked were at a slightly more advanced level than the kind of questions i asked when i first started serious writing (which wasn't that long ago), therefore my learning is from a higher 'scratch' than previously. - i think i can't explain that thought well enough for it to make sense. hmm

Do you want to climb up during your whole writing life time just 30m (a hundred feet) or ten kilometers (over six miles)?

Regards,

Senna Jawa​

PS. If there was will then the logistic of twin threads would be easily overcome. The simplest is to introduce just another subforum. But when there is no will then trivial obstacles are presented as something that cannot be solved.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

PS. If there was will then the logistic of twin threads would be easily overcome. The simplest is to introduce just another subforum. But when there is no will then trivial obstacles are presented as something that cannot be solved.

I already told you on the other thread that the twin threads can be easily done. Did you lose its location?

Creating a new subforum for each member would be just pathetic, though.

 

[wildsweetone]

Something else.

I had started to write here about the three axioms behind the poetry a time ago but you really need something like the twin threads to do it properly (I've written more in Polish, a 3 part essay--it is available on Internet). And the other part is "poetry--the art of words". So, you have the two approaches, 3+1, which cooperate one with another.

Do you want to climb up during your whole writing life time just 30m (a hundred feet) or ten kilometers (over six miles)?

Regards,

Senna Jawa​

PS. If there was will then the logistic of twin threads would be easily overcome. The simplest is to introduce just another subforum. But when there is no will then trivial obstacles are presented as something that cannot be solved.

okay i want to say, waiting for the twin threads is like waiting for the sub-forum to arrive. lauren's time off is as long as your pause... get my drift? write and submit the 'theory' under your nickname. call it a standard name and then if you need have Part 1, Part 2 etc just like novel/novelette writing. then open a thread here for discussion.

i wish i could read polish. (is there an english version of your essay?) can you tell i'm interested in what you have to say?

just as i feel i am learning about 'life' each day, so am i learning about writing. life learning is never ending and will go on until the last breath i take. i expect writing to be the same, always and forever evolving. it has to be that way because my spirit is not a stagnant 'thing'.

would i like to climb 10k? i would not be stupid enough to say 'no'. of course it would be preferable. but being that little birdie begging for morsels (thanks KM) from its mother is about where i'm at at the moment.

i've gotta work on that. lol

 

[Senna Jawa]

I already told you on the other thread that the twin threads can be easily done. Did you lose its location?

Does it mean that you are against "twin threads" (and that's why it's not implemented)?

Creating a new subforum for each member would be just pathetic, though.

Then why did you write this nonsensical sentence of yours? Nobody gave you any reason to do so. I have proposed a new subforum for ALL twin threads, and not a separate subforum for every member. Since when such a smart person as you has such horrible comprehension problems?

(But personally I don't care, I am tired. It'd be simpler and easier on me if you ignored these twin threads, and let the LitLife litter on as usual).

 

[Lauren Hynde]

okay i want to say, waiting for the twin threads is like waiting for the sub-forum to arrive. lauren's time off is as long as your pause... get my drift? write and submit the 'theory' under your nickname. call it a standard name and then if you need have Part 1, Part 2 etc just like novel/novelette writing. then open a thread here for discussion.

That would be an even more logic solution. Literotica has an entire section dedicated to essays of every kind, and the new(ish) public comments section makes it even easier. Or would make, if the will existed.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Does it mean that you are aginst "twin threads" (and that's why it's not implemented)?

No. Didn't you read what was said in that thread? Twin threads aren't implemented because no one has started any. Is that difficult to grasp?

Twin threads are hereby implemented. And lo, still none has popped up.

Then why did you write this nonsensical sentence of yours? Nobody gave you any reason to do so. I have proposed a new subforum for ALL twin threads, and not for every member a separate subforum. Since when such a smart person as you has such horrible comprehension problems?

It's not nonsensical, Senna. It's the only way a subforum would be a solution for your twin-thread problem. If you stick all of them in the same subforum, how do you expect them to remain twinned?

(But personally I don't care, I am tired. It'd be simpler and easier on me if you ignored these twin threads, and let the LitLife litter on as usual).

That, I know. It's much easier for you to continue your usual tactic of occasional raids dropping unsubstantiated judgements, no different from just saying "CRAP" or "WOW" without explanation. This twin-threads thing is a good delaying manoeuvre, though.

 

[Senna Jawa]

No. Didn't you read what was said in that thread? Twin threads aren't implemented because no one has started any. Is that difficult to grasp?

That's not what you have written in the "Twin threads" thread. And you have never implemented the twin threads in the first place. (I don't understand why you are bend on confusing things). All you've written was that you can close the initiator's thread after the first post. That was not satisfactory--the thread should stay open to the initiator (and closed to others; thus I waited for your further posts which would propose a better approximation of what is needed).

Let me write again what is needed:

1. Pairs of twin threads titled like: "XYZ" and "XYZ--discussion". The titles may have additional "decoration" for the purpose of managing them (listing), added by the system.

2. Only the initiator would contribute to the "XYZ" thread--let's call it "the topic thread" from now on; the other thread is "the discussion thread"; while everybody, including the initiator, can contribute to the discussion thread.

3. The pair of the twin threads will be listed together, one after another.

Both logistically and for other reasons, I see now that a subforum seems to be the best solution at this time, and for a long time. Then listing the twin threads is relatively easy to implement without interfering with and being interfered by the other threads from the large, main forum. Let me repeat again, that I am talking about ONE subforum for ALL twin threads.

If you stick all of them in the same subforum, how do you expect them to remain twinned?

Keeping them in the main forum makes it certainly harder. Also, until the list of twin threads exceeds one window (one screenful) the issue of listing the twin threads together will not be essential (this applies to the subforum implementation only).

Here are some possibilities for listing the twin threads together (you know Lit's software system hence you should know better than me how to do it):

(a) The starting dates of the twin threads will be the same or virtually the same (within one minute or so; and they should not be intertwined with other twin threads). Thus sorting by the start date would keep the twin threads together;

(b) A "decorative" prefix can be added to the titles:

"001. XYZ" & "001. XYZ -- discussion"
"002. WXY" & "002. WXY -- discussion"
"003. UWX" & "003. UWX -- discussion"
​

etc. This way also the alphabetic order will keep the twin threads together.

(c) I expect that the software already has certain provisions for creating a tree of threads (for hierarchy, for grouping)--it'd be enough then to make each discussion thread a "child" of the topic thread (or something similar and equally simple). A more serious thing would be to add a bit of code to the system but that's probably is asking for too much.

 

[Liar]

(a) The starting dates of the twin threads will be the same or virtually the same (within one minute or so; and they should not be intertwined with other twin threads). Thus sorting by the start date would keep the twin threads together;

I'm not too familiar with the exact works of this bulletin board system, but I know this about the vBulletin style foreum system in general: How the threads in a forum are sorted is set, if it indeed can be set, by each user. The default settings of this is that the creation date of a thread is irrelevant, it's the creation date of the last post in the thread that matters. Or the database ID for the post.

Same result: If you have five twin threads in a forum, and we assume that the discussion threads are posted in more frequently, we'd have five discussion threads on top and five "article" threads below most of the time. No BB system I've worked with have had the option to control this, and I doubt vBulletin can do it either.

What you propose, paired threads sticking to eachother, would look neat. But I'm afraid it's not doable under the current bard system.

On the other hand, I don't see that it's paramount to usher them away to a separate forum. Niether did I think the current poem discussions needed that - all it does imo is draining this forum of solid threads.

Nor do I see why they have to be stuck physically together in order to be accessible. A cross reference link in the opening of each thread to it's twin should do the trick. Maybe even an index post among the stickys. Is the thread sorting really that important for the function of it?

 

[Senna Jawa]

What you propose, paired threads sticking to eachother, would look neat. [...]

On the other hand, I don't see that it's paramount to usher them away to a separate forum. Neither did I think the current poem discussions needed that - all it does imo is draining this forum of solid threads.

??? Subforums are the integral part of the forum. There is no draining. Only a pure gain. The twin threads would be distinctly different from other threads. Thus it is only natural to keep them separated. Also, the topic threads will most likely serve as a reference, which makes it still more preferable to keep them in their own subforum.

Nor do I see why they have to be stuck physically together in order to be accessible. A cross reference link in the opening of each thread to it's twin should do the trick. Maybe even an index post among the stickys. Is the thread sorting really that important for the function of it?

Each item in the listing admits more than one link. Thus you are right, the link to the other twin thread in the listing of the given one would be satisfactory. There can be also, as you seem to suggest, such a link to the other thread at the beginning of the given thread. Still better--at the end. This last suggestion is perhaps hard or impossible to implement automatically under the present software system, but the initiator can do it by hand. Moreover, the initiator may have the links to her/his twin threads in her/his signature too.

As you have admitted, to have the twin threads listed together would be neat, while indeed it is not vital.

Thus the crucial feature is the openess of a topic thread to its initiator, and its closedness to the rest of the world. This feature may be applied also for other situations. It already is but so far for the moderators only.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

That's not what you have written in the "Twin threads" thread. And you have never implemented the twin threads in the first place. (I don't understand why you are bend on confusing things). All you've written was that you can close the initiator's thread after the first post. That was not satisfactory--the thread should stay open to the initiator (and closed to others; thus I waited for your further posts which would propose a better approximation of what is needed).

Are you serious? You can't possibly be having such horrible comprehension problems.

Let me explain slowly:

1. You post a thread;
2. You warn the moderators;
3. The moderators close the thread so that no one else posts there;
4. You want to post again;
5. You warn the moderators;
6. The moderators open the thread so that you can post there;
7. You post to the thread;
8. The moderators close the thread so that no one else posts there;
etc.

There's no point in going over your other suggestions one by one - they're undoable under this system, and quite frankly, impractical even if they were possible. There won't be any sub-forums created for neatness. There has to be a substantial reason. Even if the subforum were to be created, it wouldn't solve your twinning problems. The three solutions you found - sortings by starting date, alphabetically with a prefix, and tree-threading - are already in place and easily implemented on the main Poetry forum. All you need to do is change your own display preferences.

In the thread you started about twin threads I gave you the solution (that you now say it's satisfactory - eight hours ago, it wasn't): You can post whatever you want and, when you ask the moderators, they will close your thread so no one will post there. Include links referencing its twin at the start of each thread so they will always be hyperlinked and effectively twinned.

If that is not a satisfactory solution any more - it's been almost an hour since it was, but it's natural that has changed by now - try saying something this time, instead of just waiting for further posts from me. Telepathy via the Internet is still in its early days, and I'm not yet an expert at it.

You mentioned also that "the topic threads will most likely serve as a reference". That is true. That this means they belong in a separate subforum, though, is not. A better solution for all this would be what wildsweetone suggested. Submit the text that would form these topic threads to Literotica's main site - there is an Essay category, and a How-To, and articles from either of them can be bumped up to the Writer's Resources section. You can submit as many as you'd like, and no one will interrupt your flow. You can allow public comments on them, or you can start new threads here specifically for comments on your articles.

If there were a will.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Lauren's offering the following procedure:

1. You post a thread;
2. You warn the moderators;
3. The moderators close the thread so that no one else posts there;
4. You want to post again;
5. You warn the moderators;
6. The moderators open the thread so that you can post there;
7. You post to the thread;
8. The moderators close the thread so that no one else posts there;
etc.

I hope that there will be initiators of the twin threads who can easily tolerate this procedure. I can't. This discussion went on long enough. So to me the case is closed. Good luck to you guys, enjoy yourselves (I may still lurk from time to time after a while, say around the New Year ).

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Obviously. You're so predictable, Guru Ji.