John-Keats.com Allowing Nonsense In Their Forums!!!

[clerihew80]

While perusing the forums of John-Keats.com, a website devoted to the great Romantic poet, I came across some posts related to astrology. To my utter dismay, these presumably intelligent people seem to buy into that gibberish. The following, for example, was posted by no less than a Moderator (proving that Mods are the same wherever you go):
That's a pretty cool website! And the Keats profile was pretty much right on, in my estimation. I remember back in college, I had a roommate who owned a book on astrology and as an example of the quintessential Scorpio, they listed--of all people--our man Keats. He really fits the Scorpio profile to a T.
As if that wasn't bad enough, even the Forum Administrator, who goes by the name Saturn, acceded to the degeneracy.

Piqued, I registered under the handle ChildeHarold80 and posted the following: I hope Malia, Saturn, and AsphodelElysium are aware that, since the signs of the Zodiac were drawn up in the second century A.D. by Ptolemy (the same infallible authority behind the Ptolemaic system which said that the Earth was at the center of the universe), the earth's rotational axis has shifted by some 30 degrees. Thus, the signs commonly used in horoscopes are off by at least a month. They are also insufficient: there should be 13, rather than 12.

In any case, there is absolutely no evidence that the positions of the planets at the time of one's birth have any effect whatsoever on one's personality or fate. By what mechanism, I ask you, could information be related from planet to earthling? Gravity, at such distances, is far too weak to be relevant. All planets, including earth, shine by reflected sunlight, so light is out of the question.

Finally, it is demeaning to arbitrarily divide humanity into twelve separate categories. Is there a substantial difference between asserting differences in temperament between two persons, just because one was born in June and the other in November, and asserting that blacks and whites are inherently different because of their skin colors?

I must state my opinion in full. I believe it is shameful to associate the name and legacy of a great man like Keats with this facile superstition.
In response, I was told not to "have a cow, dude."

This is an abomination, an affront to the memory of John Keats and literature itself. I urge my fellow skeptics to visit this website and register their disgust. The thread referred to is titled "Random Keats Sightings" and it's in the "Keats Around The World" section.

[Gregory]

In response, I was told not to "have a cow, dude."


Sounds about right to me. "Abomination?" "Affront to literature?"

You should try to relax a little; that would be my advise.

[clerihew80]

Sounds about right to me. "Abomination?" "Affront to literature?"

You should try to relax a little; that would be my advise.
What?! I've got to hear this craven complacency here, too? I will not relax! If need be, I will give birth to twenty cows in the name of truth!

I ask you, fellow skeptics, will you be Neville Chamberlains or will you be Churchills?

[Gregory]

What?! I've got to hear this craven complacency here, too?

Yes, you do, because you're acting like a hysterical idiot. But I like how you compare yelling at some astrologers on a Keats forum to Churchill's stand against the Nazis. Seriously, I do; it's absolutely adorable.

[clerihew80]

Yes, you do, because you're acting like a hysterical idiot. But I like how you compare yelling at some astrologers on a Keats forum to Churchill's stand against the Nazis. Seriously, I do; it's absolutely adorable.
It was a metaphor. I made no direct comparison between myself and Churchill. Your unfamiliarity with the use of figurative language, and your apathy in the face of the debauch and profanation of a website devoted to one of our greatest poets, makes evident your contempt for literature. I feel sorry for you.

[Gregory]

Of course you do. Sort of like the 9/11 nut who feels bad for the people who believe the official story, and the Christian fundamentalist who feels sorry for me because I refuse to see his version of the truth.

I don't feel sorry for you, but I do notice that you get hysterical over stupid things, and I think your life might be happier if you tried to control that. That's all.

[clerihew80]

Of course you do. Sort of like the 9/11 nut who feels bad for the people who believe the official story.
A most inappropriate analogy.


I don't feel sorry for you, but I do notice that you get hysterical over stupid things, and I think your life might be happier if you learned some priorities.
Happiness is not the point of existence. And how on earth can it be considered "stupid" to get upset over the idea of the unhallowed specter of Inanity dancing on the grave of John Keats?

[Gregory]

No; the point of existence is screaming at people about astrology on Keats forums. So go to it, big boy!

[-Fran-]

Hmm... though I can understand your frustration, is it really that very surprising that believers in astrology also like poetry? I mean, a bit of newage in such circles are not really all that surprising. :)

Hey, and who are you to talk, you will pretend to believe in astrology just to get a girl in bed. :) Why, here's a golden opportunity, imagine how many of those you can land in bed if you agree with them? :D

[clerihew80]

Hmm... though I can understand your frustration, is it really that very surprising that believers in astrology also like poetry? I mean, a bit of newage in such circles are not really all that surprising. :)
It should be more than surprising. It should be shocking, intolerable.

Hey, and who are you to talk, you will pretend to believe in astrology just to get a girl in bed. :)
That's different. We're talking about Poetry here, not the importunate urges of temporal existence.

Why, here's a golden opportunity, imagine how many of those you can land in bed if you agree with them? :D
I don't know, most of them are probably fat and unattractive.

[-Fran-]

It should be more than surprising. It should be shocking, intolerable.

If you say so :)


That's different. We're talking about Poetry here, not the importunate urges of temporal existence.

If you say so :)


I don't know, most of them are probably fat and unattractive.

Yes, probably, and the poor things are totally missing out on god's gift to women too, how sad :(

[clerihew80]

Yes, probably, and the poor things are totally missing out on god's gift to women too, how sad :(
I never said that I was "god's gift to women." First of all, I don't believe in god. Second, I am well aware of my limitations.

This is typical of my experience on the internet. All kinds of things are attributed to me which I give no countenance to.

[Gregory]

Well, buck up Winston! So, nobody's taking you seriously. Don't get downhearted; you need to expect setbacks. After all, you must not underrate the gravity of the task which lies before you or the temerity of the ordeal, to which you shall not be found unequal. You must expect many disappointments, and many unpleasant surprises, but you may be sure that the task which you have freely accepted is one not beyond the compass and the strength of the atheist and skeptical community.

[-Fran-]

I never said that I was "god's gift to women." First of all, I don't believe in god. Second, I am well aware of my limitations.

This is typical of my experience on the internet. All kinds of things are attributed to me which I give no countenance to.

Who believes in god? But you can't really be especially surprised about that some of your comments will generate certain reactions? That would be naive beyond belief.

[clerihew80]

After all, you must not underrate the gravity of the task which lies before you or the temerity of the ordeal, to which you shall not be found unequal.
Are you sure "temerity" is the word you want here? "Temerity" means "reckless boldness," or "rashness."

[Gregory]

Yes, I'm sure. The whole post is a joke of sorts, although I admit it's a pretty damn obscure one.

[clerihew80]

Joke or not, you still have to choose the proper word. I see no other malapropisms in the post, so I assume it was a discrepancy, rather than a deliberate attempt at humorous misuse.

[Gregory]

I didn't choose the word; that's the joke.

[clerihew80]

I didn't choose the word; that's the joke.
I agree. The joke is obscure - to the point of incomprehensibility.

[fuelair]

While perusing the forums of John-Keats.com, a website devoted to the great Romantic poet, I came across some posts related to astrology. To my utter dismay, these presumably intelligent people seem to buy into that gibberish. The following, for example, was posted by no less than a Moderator (proving that Mods are the same wherever you go):

As if that wasn't bad enough, even the Forum Administrator, who goes by the name Saturn, acceded to the degeneracy.

Piqued, I registered under the handle ChildeHarold80 and posted the following:
In response, I was told not to "have a cow, dude."

This is an abomination, an affront to the memory of John Keats and literature itself. I urge my fellow skeptics to visit this website and register their disgust. The thread referred to is titled "Random Keats Sightings" and it's in the "Keats Around The World" section.


Their forum, their rules. If you want to complain, complain to the forum/web site OWNERS. Oh wow, deja vu all over again - I feel like I have seen a complaint just like this somewhere else!!! Where could that have been???!!!

[clerihew80]

Their forum, their rules. If you want to complain, complain to the forum/web site OWNERS. Oh wow, deja vu all over again - I feel like I have seen a complaint just like this somewhere else!!! Where could that have been???!!!
I did complain to the owners. Did you not read my post?

[Miss Anthrope]

Yes, why the post here about their forum?

[Gregory]

So what, exactly, did you think should have happened? Should they have censored the posts in question because you don't believe in astrology or ... what?

[clerihew80]

Yes, why the post here about their forum?
What do you mean, "why the post here"? Because I thought that skeptics would be interested in an abuse of reason and culture. I guess I was wrong.

[clerihew80]

So what, exactly, did you think should have happened? Should they have censored the posts in question because you don't believe in astrology or ... what?

I HAVE NEVER CALLED FOR CENSORSHIP

[Gregory]

For anybody who cares, here is, in its entirety, the horrific

I actually kinda, sorta created a Keats sighting. I was surfing the net the other night and I came across a website that does astrological profiles of famous and historical figures. They didn't have Keats on their list, so I requested a profile. I got an email and the forum thanked me for the suggestion however because Keats was born before 1800 their system couldn't produce a report. Then they wrote, "However, let's just do his astrological profile for the sake of greatness and... Scorpios." So...here it is. Very Happy


http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/John_Keats/

I put in a request for Fanny as well. We'll see what happens. Very Happy

That's a pretty cool website! And the Keats profile was pretty much right on, in my estimation. I remember back in college, I had a roommate who owned a book on astrology and as an example of the quintessential Scorpio, they listed--of all people--our man Keats. He really fits the Scorpio profile to a T.

I did this horoscope test thingy on Facebook and apparently I'm nothing like a Libran

Maybe it depends on what "house" your in--etc. I have a friend who does readings and he says it is necessary to know the hour (even the minute) of your birth--not just the day and the year--in order to get an accurate reading. I certainly don't know all the details, however. I am a pretty good example of a Libra. I certainly weigh everything I do before I make any decisions (makes my Gemini sister-in-law crazy Laughing ). I don't know if I'm as romantic as they say Libras are, but well, maybe I just haven't found that special someone yet Wink

I'm trying to loosen my obsession with horoscopes; I try not to read them anymore so I'm not too bothered - I'm not typical in anything never mind a typical libran Laughing

So you're a fellow Libran Malia when is your Birthday?

I hope Malia, Saturn, and AsphodelElysium are aware that, since the signs of the Zodiac were drawn up in the second century A.D. by Ptolemy (the same infallible authority behind the Ptolemaic system which said that the Earth was at the center of the universe), the earth's rotational axis has shifted by some 30 degrees. Thus, the signs commonly used in horoscopes are off by at least a month. They are also insufficient: there should be 13, rather than 12.

In any case, there is absolutely no evidence that the positions of the planets at the time of one's birth have any effect whatsoever on one's personality or fate. By what mechanism, I ask you, could information be related from planet to earthling? Gravity, at such distances, is far too weak to be relevant. All planets, including earth, shine by reflected sunlight, so light is out of the question.

Finally, it is demeaning to arbitrarily divide humanity into twelve separate categories. Is there a substantial difference between asserting differences in temperament between two persons, just because one was born in June and the other in November, and asserting that blacks and whites are inherently different because of their skin colors?

I must state my opinion in full. I believe it is shameful to associate the name and legacy of a great man like Keats with this facile superstition.

**Opens envelope**

"^^Okay, and the award for most provocative first post goes to..."

That is not the way to endear yourself to anyone on your first post.

ChildeHarold80 don't have a cow dude Rolling Eyes

We're only having a discussion, you know a jest, a conversation, one of those things where not everything is serious.

This is like a coffee shop, not a University lecture hall.
Rolling Eyes

Sure we have serious discussions sometimes but not all the time.
I don't get where you came up with the idea that anyone was associating Keats with astrology. If you read the whole thread there are many twists and turns and people go from idea to the next, you know how conversations happen...

You are very welcome to this site and I look forward to reading your views but lighten up dude Razz

Don't take everything so seriously.



I HAVE NEVER CALLED FOR CENSORSHIP

Don't have a cow, dude.

[clerihew80]

If you not offended by that exchange, Gregory, then what are you even doing here? Why don't you join the gosylviabrowne forum? They'll love you and your idiosyncratic sense of humor over there.

[Gregory]

I recently gave a test to my students, and a surprising number of them thought that (1/x) + 3 equals (4/x). I'm not "offended" by that, either. Most people can hear an incorrect belief without flying off the handle and acting like ... well, you. Your ludicrous attempt to paint only two options, supporting a belief or taking offense at it, is a false dichotomy.

[jsfisher]

Let's see. In your opening post you said:
This is an abomination, an affront to the memory of John Keats and literature itself. I urge my fellow skeptics to visit this website and register their disgust. The thread referred to is titled "Random Keats Sightings" and it's in the "Keats Around The World" section.

Your outrage to the very existence of the astrology post is clear, and you attempt to incite us to flood the other forum with outrage.

You continue to incite with this:
What?! I've got to hear this craven complacency here, too? I will not relax! If need be, I will give birth to twenty cows in the name of truth!

I ask you, fellow skeptics, will you be Neville Chamberlains or will you be Churchills?

You risk Godwin's Law to emphasize the importance to the free world of stomping out astrology posts.

Later, you add:
It should be more than surprising. It should be shocking, intolerable.

By now, you have the crowd stirred to a fever-pitch, eating out of the palm of your hand, ready to march to the four corners of the Internet.

Then, in response to a simple question of why we were the chosen forum, you said:
What do you mean, "why the post here"? Because I thought that skeptics would be interested in an abuse of reason and culture. I guess I was wrong.

I don't get it. You'd beaten the drums of war louder and louder, then, out of left field, you tell us this was all an FYI? I just don't get it.

[-Fran-]

From this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93107&page=2

Hell, in order to get laid, I've told chicks that I believe in astrology.

And did it work? :)

Hard to say. Really, the astrology thing was one small thread in a grand pattern of dissembling.

I will say this: chicks who are into astrology are easy lays.


-----o0o-----

From this thread here:

What?! I've got to hear this craven complacency here, too? I will not relax! If need be, I will give birth to twenty cows in the name of truth!

[clerihew80]

Do I contradict myself?

Very well then, I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes).

[clerihew80]

I don't get it. You'd beaten the drums of war louder and louder, then, out of left field, you tell us this was all an FYI? I just don't get it.
I don't see any inconsistency in my posts. I beat no "drums of war." My rhetoric may have been a bit emphatic, but bellicosity is your own personal interpretation. It was not my intention.

[jsfisher]

My rhetoric may have been a bit emphatic,...

Ya think?

...but bellicosity is your own personal interpretation. It was not my intention.

We only have your words to gauge your intention. If they belie the meaning you really meant to convey, perhaps you should focus more on your communications skills than your sesquipedalian tendencies.

[clerihew80]

We only have your words to gauge your intention. If they belie the meaning you really meant to convey, perhaps you should focus more on your communications skills than your sesquipedalian tendencies.
Actually, I'm quite happy with my writing style. And where have I used large words where smaller words will do?

[fuelair]

Do I contradict myself?

Very well then, I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes).

No, you are not. Very small, containing infinitissimal nematodes.:D :rolleyes: :jaw-dropp

[The Atheist]

Actually, I'm quite happy with my writing style. And where have I used large words where smaller words will do?

...transitioning ...

QED

[brodski]

I agree. The joke is obscure - to the point of incomprehensibility.

I found it funny. Perhaps you should brush up on your Churchill, if that is who you wish to compare yourself to.

[clerihew80]

QED

Jesus, you had to dig up a post from months ago? Pathetic. OK, what word should I have used, rather than "transitioning"?

This is ridiculous. You people are insufferable.

[clerihew80]

Churchill was a fat, belligerent racist.

[clerihew80]

Now more than ever seems it rich to die

[brodski]

Churchill was a fat, belligerent racist.

And whilst holdng this opinion of him, you chose to compare yourself with him. That says a lot.

[fuelair]

I did complain to the owners. Did you not read my post?
And they responded - and that ends it. You are free to cry about it. Tough luck, hard cheese..............:D

[Mashuna]

Everyone knows that Keats totally ripped off Bob Dylan anyway.

[fuelair]

Everyone knows that Keats totally ripped off Bob Dylan anyway.

:D :D :D

[fuelair]

Jesus, you had to dig up a post from months ago? Pathetic. OK, what word should I have used, rather than "transitioning"?

This is ridiculous. You people are insufferable.

Well, transitioning does not bother me. I suppose "switching" or "moving on"
would work too.:)
In all fairness, you should be able to use whatever (correct) words you wish - I just have that problem with your (apparent) belief that all forums should operate the way you want them to even though they are not set up, run by or paid for by you.

[clerihew80]

Philistines. Is no one else upset about this?

[The Atheist]

Philistines. Is no one else upset about this?

Appears not.

I don't know of any posters from Philistinia, though.

[clerihew80]

I don't know of any posters from Philistinia, though.
Pretty lame, my friend.

[Matt the Poet]

While the OP is clearly overreacting, I feel that as someone with poetic aspirations I've just got to have a tilt at this:

Hmm... though I can understand your frustration, is it really that very surprising that believers in astrology also like poetry? I mean, a bit of newage in such circles are not really all that surprising.

Why, exactly? I’d say it’s just the opposite. The best poetry requires absolute clarity of thought, an unflinching commitment to describing reality as you find it even when you have to bend language itself into exciting new shapes to do so.

There’s nothing riles me more (well, on this particular subject at least) than the whole ‘magical-incantations-to-soothe-the-soul’ view of poetry and poets which pervades the more amateur end of the literary world, and seems to create exactly the general feeling expressed above, that there’s something vaguely woo-ish about the whole enterprise.

<Takes deep breaths, swallows handful of pills, waits for throbbing to subside…>

[jsfisher]

I've learned a new word, "clerihew." Curiously enough, it is a form of poetry. Coincidence and irony frolic together in a field of satire. My day is complete.

[-Fran-]

While the OP is clearly overreacting, I feel that as someone with poetic aspirations I've just got to have a tilt at this:



Why, exactly? I’d say it’s just the opposite. The best poetry requires absolute clarity of thought, an unflinching commitment to describing reality as you find it even when you have to bend language itself into exciting new shapes to do so.

There’s nothing riles me more (well, on this particular subject at least) than the whole ‘magical-incantations-to-soothe-the-soul’ view of poetry and poets which pervades the more amateur end of the literary world, and seems to create exactly the general feeling expressed above, that there’s something vaguely woo-ish about the whole enterprise.

<Takes deep breaths, swallows handful of pills, waits for throbbing to subside…>

Didn't say this view of poetry is the right one. But whether one likes it or not, many woos seems to think that their lifestyle should include some poetry, and do seem to have the view on poetry that you mention above. It's their view of what they think poetry is about, not mine. All I said was that it is not really surprising to encounter a newage view of poetry in newage circles, and that the OP shouldn't have been so shocked about it. I mean, a poetry forum is bound to draw at least a few of those.

Personally I do not think there's anything remotely wooish about poetry in itself.

[clerihew80]

All I said was that it is not really surprising to encounter a newage view of poetry in newage circles, and that the OP shouldn't have been so shocked about it. I mean, a poetry forum is bound to draw at least a few of those.

But if the Administrators and Mods are woos, as well? Isn't that cause for alarm?

[fuelair]

But if the Administrators and Mods are woos, as well? Isn't that cause for alarm?
No - probably 95% + of people are woos in at least one area. And, it is their website/forum - so real good luck on that.

[Morrigan]

OH NOES!!!

Seriously, who cares? Woos are everywhere. Argue with them if you want but why should the JREF be informed and alarmed at this?

Quick everyone, let's make a list of every forum on teh Intarwebs that are heavily into woo!

[clerihew80]

No - probably 95% + of people are woos in at least one area. And, it is their website/forum - so real good luck on that.
Well, what really gets me is that not a single person, other than myself, objected. You'd think there would be other members of that forum who feel the same way that I do about astrology, but I guess not. Either that, or they just don't care.

[Complexity]

Philistines. Is no one else upset about this?


I'm upset.

You abuse my language.

You use words to distract from your lack of ideas.

You claim that you'd have twenty cows for the sake of truth, or some such twaddle.

Incivility removed.

Either way, Keats doesn't need your defense, and probably would have thrown you to the swine if given the chance.

Go forth, and don't multiply.

[Gurdur]

Content removed for violation of rule 11.

In the future, please do not derail public threads to argue about issues you have with another member.

[-Fran-]

But if the Administrators and Mods are woos, as well? Isn't that cause for alarm?

No, but it might be a good reason to leave and become a member of another forum, more fitting of ones opinions, or start your own.

[Gregory]

Well, what really gets me is that not a single person, other than myself, objected. You'd think there would be other members of that forum who feel the same way that I do about astrology, but I guess not. Either that, or they just don't care.

You're right; I absolutely do not care that three complete strangers on an internet forum I've never even visited before believe in astrology. And you haven't really given a coherent reason why I should, for all your hyperbole.

[-Fran-]

Well, what really gets me is that not a single person, other than myself, objected. You'd think there would be other members of that forum who feel the same way that I do about astrology, but I guess not. Either that, or they just don't care.

I do feel the same way about Astrology as you do. That is to say that it's utter nonsense, and I think most people in this thread think so too. I just think your reaction to it all is quite a bit over the top. But, sure, if that's your chosen method of trying to rid the world of Astrology, go ahead.

That I don't agree with your "methods" here, does not mean I support the spread of Astrology.

And as for that forum, you said what was on your mind, which is totally OK, I might have done something similar though I think I would have worded it differently. And, it wasn't well recived, well... that's life. So, people there didn't care. So, people (even those with silly woo beliefs) have the right to create forums with their own rules. So, it was clearly not a forum for you.

So... I don't get it what you expect us here to do about it? You want us all to aid you in a fight to repress free speach for people with silly woo beliefs? It doesn't work that way. You want people to stop believe in Astrology? Then demanding that mods and administrators on any forum dictate what their members can discuss according to what YOU think they can and can not discuss, is really a bad method.

It doesn't work that way, and that's why I think this whole thing is silly, even though Astrology is indeed total bunk. Not withstanding the mildly hypocritical stance you take when you get upset about a few people discussing the astrological chart of a long dead poet, while you gladly would lie to people that you believe in astrology just to get something from them. To defend that with being a "large person" who contains many contradictions is kind of a rather lame excuse. We all lie sometimes, yes, but if we then claim to be some "warrior of truth" then it does not become a contradiction, it becomes hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[clerihew80]

OH NOES!!!

Seriously, who cares? Woos are everywhere. Argue with them if you want but why should the JREF be informed and alarmed at this?

Quick everyone, let's make a list of every forum on teh Intarwebs that are heavily into woo!
I'd expect to run into astrology believers in a typical forum, but John-Keats.com is a site dedicated to high poetry. It should be held to a higher standard.

[clerihew80]

To defend that with being a "large person" who contains many contradictions is kind of a rather lame excuse.
The "Do I contradict myself" bit is a (well-known) passage from Song of Myself by Walt Whitman. My quoting it wasn't really a defense - it was just me being a smartass.

[clerihew80]

You abuse my language.

English is your language? Really? Then why do you use it so awkwardly? I was cutting you some slack because I assumed you were a foreigner. But if that's not the case, what's your excuse?

[The Atheist]

I'd expect to run into astrology believers in a typical forum, but John-Keats.com is a site dedicated to high poetry. It should be held to a higher standard.

Why would you "expect" to find fewer believers in a poetry forum? Do you have any evidence to show that the value of literature under consideration correlates to the level of stupid beliefs people hold? If not, your expectation is pure assumption.

Even better, how do you value the poetry? Why is Keats "higher" than other poets? Should fewer Keats forum members believe in homeopathy than Dylan Thomas fans? If so, why?

It looks to me as though you're guilty of a few beliefs with no evidence yourself.

[clerihew80]

Do you have any evidence to show that the value of literature under consideration correlates to the level of stupid beliefs people hold?
The point is well taken. I suppose I assumed that anyone educated enough to read Keats in this day and age would have also absorbed enough scientific knowledge to be able to recognize astrology for what it is.

your expectation is pure assumption.
Maybe so.

Even better, how do you value the poetry? Why is Keats "higher" than other poets? Should fewer Keats forum members believe in homeopathy than Dylan Thomas fans? If so, why?
"High Poetry" is merely a literary term used to refer to poetry of large aesthetic merit as opposed to, say, doggerel or pedestrian verse. Dylan Thomas would certainly be included under the rubric of High Poetry although he is not considered to be of the same stature as Keats (personally, I am not qualified to make a distinction because, with the exception of "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night," I am unfamiliar with Thomas's oeuvre.)

I would expect to find fewer homeopathy believers among readers of high poetry than among devotees of inspirational, new-age mush or homiletic religious verse, but I have no evidence to support my conjecture.

[-Fran-]

The "Do I contradict myself" bit is a (well-known) passage from Song of Myself by Walt Whitman. My quoting it wasn't really a defense - it was just me being a smartass.

I've read it, still... missed totally that you were quoting that. Does it matter?

[Foolmewunz]

Why do I keep feeling that I'm going to see someone soon sobbing on YouTube, "Leave Keats Alone. You wanna pick on Keats? You're gonna have to go through me!"

[The Atheist]

The point is well taken. I suppose I assumed that anyone educated enough to read Keats in this day and age would have also absorbed enough scientific knowledge to be able to recognize astrology for what it is.

Aha! We make progress.

I don't know many scientists, but I do know lots of engineers, who seem to be very much the same as scientists in many - very smart, logically-inclined, evidentiary approach, test/re-test - and very, very few of them have any interest in aesthetics at all.

For starters, what percentage of Keats forum members are women? It's very well established that astrology is overwhelmingly a female thing and I imagine that a forum dedicated to a poet kight have a high female content? Is it just that simple?

Anyway, it looks like your premise was wrong, so what to do about it? You've complained to the owners and they seem quite happy to link astrology to the forum, so you appear to be dead in the water. If a whole load of us sign up there and have a rant about astrology being the load of bollocks it is, the only real result I can see happening is that we'd upset all of those members and probably most of the others who'd see us as a bunch of meanies.

Is it really that important? Nobody's ripping anyone off, it's just a bunch of sheilas having a gossip.

"High Poetry" is merely a literary term used to refer to poetry of large aesthetic merit ....

Yeah, I knew all that, I was trying to establish whether one poet os more worthy of being removed from the realms of fantasy than another.

Poetry by nature is a very subjective kind of pleasure and I know more women than men who enjoy poetry. Blokes I know are far more likely to enjoy dirty limericks and the doggerel you mentioned. None of them are stupid.

(Do read more of Dylan Thomas, though)

[Complexity]

"Pretentious? Moi?"

Unbelievable.

Don't blame Keats for this - he's blissfully dead.

[Complexity]

English is your language? Really? Then why do you use it so awkwardly? I was cutting you some slack because I assumed you were a foreigner. But if that's not the case, what's your excuse?


It can be difficult to see yourself as others see you.

Let me hold up a mirror:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2976693#post2976693

[clerihew80]

I don't know many scientists, but I do know lots of engineers, who seem to be very much the same as scientists in many - very smart, logically-inclined, evidentiary approach, test/re-test - and very, very few of them have any interest in aesthetics at all.
Blake's "Single Vision," eh? Or maybe all they care about is making money.

I imagine that a forum dedicated to a poet (might) have a high female content?
Why would you imagine that? I don't know any women who are serious poetry readers. I've known some who pretend to be interested in poetry in order to make themselves appear deeper than they really are. That's women for you, though - all about appearances.

Blokes I know are far more likely to enjoy dirty limericks and the doggerel you mentioned. None of them are stupid.
No, just shallow.

[clerihew80]

Don't blame Keats for this - he's blissfully dead.
No, he's not. In fact, he's holding his living hand towards you right now.

[Hokulele]

Why would you imagine that? I don't know any women who are serious poetry readers. I've known some who pretend to be interested in poetry in order to make themselves appear deeper than they really are. That's women for you, though - all about appearances.


If you choose not to use smileys to indicate sarcasm after this type of statement, people may get the impression that you are a misogynist. Just saying.

[Complexity]

No, he's not. In fact, he's holding his living hand towards you right now.


You are woo.

[kmortis]

Blake's "Single Vision," eh? Or maybe all they care about is making money.


Why would you imagine that? I don't know any women who are serious poetry readers. I've known some who pretend to be interested in poetry in order to make themselves appear deeper than they really are. That's women for you, though - all about appearances.


No, just shallow.

Speaking AS an engineer, engineers do not, as a general rule, only care about making money. Not spending money, sure, but making it isn't a necessary and sufficent qualification to be an engineer. Yes, we are well paid for what we do, but we are by far not the highest paid profession.

Also, many engineers are interested in the arts, in general, and poetry specifically. Many of may cow-orkers are musicians of some ilk, many writing their own music.

Don't blame Keats for this - he's blissfully dead.
No, he's not. In fact, he's holding his living hand towards you right now.
I'm going to chose to believe that you mean this in a poetic sense. That his words are still available to us to read, interpret and otherwise consume. I will remind you that this is not a poetry forum, so using poetic language will get you misinterpreted, usually badly.

Now, to the OP. I have to echo the "who cares" sentiment. Unless you can show how the activities on some random forum that, AFAIK, only you frequent, affects this board or its members why the hell should we care? There is no evidence that a reader of "high poetry" is any less susceptable to fuzzy thinking than the rest of the population. Hell, as we've seen recently, even veteran skeptics can fall prey to woo-ish modes of thought.

[clerihew80]

The reference is to one of Keats's poems, "This Living Hand":


This living hand, now warm and capable

Of earnest grasping, would, if it were cold

And in the icy silence of the tomb,

So haunt thy days and chill thy dreaming nights

That thou wouldst wish thine own heart dry of blood

So in my veins red life might stream again,

And thou be conscience-calmed—see here it is—

I hold it towards you.


I didn't expect anyone to get it.

[clerihew80]

Many of may cow-orkers are musicians of some ilk, many writing their own music.

Which is bet is atrocious. Why is it that every male between 15 and 40 thinks they have musical talent?

Your "cow-workers" sound like spoiled, egotistical, overpaid brats. Just because their mommys and daddys put them through college, they think they're entitled to bray their pretension to the world.

[Complexity]

The reference is to one of Keats's poems, "This Living Hand":

<snip>

I didn't expect anyone to get it.


I haven't read much Keats for the past thirty years.

I liked him when I was younger, but I've found several other poets who better challenge me and suit my needs.

I'll have to revisit Keats now that I'm older. I'm sure I'll appreciate him in different ways.

One of my favorite poets for the past several decades has been Richard Wilbur.

[Foolmewunz]

Which is bet is atrocious. Why is it that every male between 15 and 40 thinks they have musical talent?

Your "cow-workers" sound like spoiled, egotistical, overpaid brats. Just because their mommys and daddys put them through college, they think they're entitled to bray their pretension to the world.

I love nitpick posts on spelling or grammar that have glaring typos of their own. (Which is bet is...)

More important, though, is why you'd make such an assumption about the cowo-rkers. Do you know them? Do you have anything to go on other than some artsy fartsy assumption that someone not starving in an attic has no musical talent? Do you have any idea of the number of very talented but not professional musicians holding down "normal" jobs? Can you cite statistics on that for me?

I don't really care for Keats, by the way. Oh, his work is okay... but I'd far rather read, say, Dylan Thomas or Wm. Blake (just to pick two of many who I prefer to Keats). And therefore, to stay on topic of the OP, I don't really care if a couple of Keats fans meander off into a discussion of Astrology, and I'm certainly not going over there to join the crusade.

[clerihew80]

I love nitpick posts on spelling or grammar that have glaring typos of their own. (Which is bet is...)
I wasn't picking on his spelling or grammar. I just found the unintentional neologism humorous.

Do you have any idea of the number of very talented but not professional musicians holding down "normal" jobs? Can you cite statistics on that for me?
I work in bars and nightclubs. I meet musicians, most of whom work day jobs, on a nightly basis. Most of whom, incidentally, are not very talented. So, while I can cite no statistics, I can well attest that the number of deluded or oblivious nincompoops is enormous.

And therefore, to stay on topic of the OP, I don't really care if a couple of Keats fans meander off into a discussion of Astrology, and I'm certainly not going over there to join the crusade.
Fine.

[malbui]

I wasn't picking on his spelling or grammar. I just found the unintentional neologism humorous.


"Cow-orker" is a long-running and established meme on this board.

[UserGoogol]

I'm not terribly knowledgable of Keats, but my impression is that the Romantics weren't a terribly rational bunch to begin with. Romanticism is commonly described as being a sort of reaction to the Enlightenment such that Romantics were more concerned with emotions and intuition than they were with cold hard fact. Romanticism produced some really beautiful stuff, but skeptics they were not. (Free thinkers, probably, but not skeptics.) Thus, I don't see how you can really figure that nonsense on a Keats fansite should be any more of an affront than nonsense on any other of the billions of websites on the Internet.

(Wikipedia does mention some stuff about negative capability that supports that Keats specifically fits into this mold, but I wouldn't want to be presumptuous, since Wikipedia doesn't go into much detail and I'm not going to research deeper just for a message board posting.)

[Miss Anthrope]

UserGoogol is awesome.

[-Fran-]

I'm not terribly knowledgable of Keats, but my impression is that the Romantics weren't a terribly rational bunch to begin with. Romanticism is commonly described as being a sort of reaction to the Enlightenment such that Romantics were more concerned with emotions and intuition than they were with cold hard fact. Romanticism produced some really beautiful stuff, but skeptics they were not. (Free thinkers, probably, but not skeptics.) Thus, I don't see how you can really figure that nonsense on a Keats fansite should be any more of an affront than nonsense on any other of the billions of websites on the Internet.

(Wikipedia does mention some stuff about negative capability that supports that Keats specifically fits into this mold, but I wouldn't want to be presumptuous, since Wikipedia doesn't go into much detail and I'm not going to research deeper just for a message board posting.)

Good point! Yes, most of the classic poets were probably more or less wooish people themselves, so that they would interest wooish readers even today isn't very weird.

[kmortis]

Which is bet is atrocious. Why is it that every male between 15 and 40 thinks they have musical talent?

Your "cow-workers" sound like spoiled, egotistical, overpaid brats. Just because their mommys and daddys put them through college, they think they're entitled to bray their pretension to the world.
Wow, are you this pretentious to everyone, or just anonomous people on the internet? You come here looking for sympathy because your pansy-assed poetry board is full of woo, and then you attack people you've never even met? You're a worthless worm. A parasite living off the backs of the rest of us who have real jobs. Try going out and earning a living for a change, you pretentious ass. And take your whiney complaints to a board that cares.

Please remember to be civil.

[clerihew80]

(Wikipedia does mention some stuff about negative capability that supports that Keats specifically fits into this mold, but I wouldn't want to be presumptuous, since Wikipedia doesn't go into much detail and I'm not going to research deeper just for a message board posting.)
Keats's concept of negative capability, which he described in a letter as "when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason." is essentially a literary theory he developed to account for what he saw as the lack of solipsism in great poets. A poet, in Keats's conception, is the servant of his unfettered imagination. "What shocks the virtuous philosopher," he wrote elsewhere, "delights the chameleon Poet."

The important point to remember about Negative Capability is that it is a literary concern. It does not make or support claims about empirically observable reality. It should not be considered woo.

[clerihew80]

You're a worthless worm.
Thanks.

A parasite living off the backs of the rest of us who have real jobs.
I have a real job. I'm a dishwasher.

And take your whiney complaints to a board that cares.
Yes, that is the problem with this board. It doesn't care.

[Mashuna]

I have a real job. I'm a dishwasher.



Dishwashers, eh, they think they're entitled to bray their pretension to the world.

[clerihew80]

Dishwashers, eh, they think they're entitled to bray their pretension to the world.
No, we're entitled to eight bucks an hour and a free meal.

[Mashuna]

No, we're entitled to eight bucks an hour and a free meal.

Is it a pretentious meal? :p

[clerihew80]

Is it a pretentious meal? :p
Not at the places where I work.

[kmortis]

Yes, that is the problem with this board. It doesn't care.

We care, just not about you and your whiny complaints.

[SomeGuy]

Getting back to the OP.

How does saying John Keats is a typical scorpio, in anyway attack his literatury stature, his personality and the cultural value of his work?

I would have understood the outrage had the person on the other board claimed that John Keats work shown that he was a follower of astrology.

But as far as I can tell they didn't.

[clerihew80]

We care, just not about you and your whiny complaints.
Well, at least you spelled "whiny" correctly this time.

How does saying John Keats is a typical scorpio, in anyway attack his literatury stature, his personality and the cultural value of his work?
It doesn't, really. I may have overreacted in some of my posts. I suppose I was venting my frustration with the literary community in general. It's offensive to me that so many of my fellow poetry buffs are scientifically and historically illiterate.

[roger]

"Cow-orker" is a long-running and established meme on this board.Behold (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=35015).

[strathmeyer]

Behold (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=35015).

Wow, a two year old reference to a ten year old meme...

[Oroborus]

...snip..

Please remember to be civil.

The irony here is that the issue was his over incensed reaction to something fairly trivial.

[LashL]

I'm finding it difficult to get worked up about this, clerihew, but let me know when they start bashing Ode to (on) a Grecian Urn and then, perhaps, I can work up some real indignance.

[clerihew80]

I'm finding it difficult to get worked up about this, clerihew, but let me know when they start bashing Ode to (on) a Grecian Urn and then, perhaps, I can work up some real indignance.
If that happens, you might even work up some indignation.

Skeptics are phonies, and their concerns are trivial.