What is a true Haiku???

Ok..I've been gone a while and just catching up on some reading :) I see a lot of haiku have been written in my absence and...while I've read from comments that most appreciate them I have to wonder are they strictly correct in their context? Yes, most have the 5/7/5 syllable count correct but I've noticed a lot of them also place a 'human' (my/our/I etc) in there too which I was told was a big no no and would move it into the senryu section but...hey, I'm not 100% sure so..I thought I'd open it up for discussion since it is a poetry site and, therefore, a topic that we will hopefully all learn from so...what are you personal thoughts on this topic please?

Two simple examples of traditional haiku but please note the syllable count has possibly been lost in translation...

Japanese hokku and haiku are traditionally printed in one vertical line.

An example of classic hokku by poet Prah-lad:
???????????
Furu ike ya kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto
An old pond
When the frogs jump in
The sound of water
Another haiku by Bash?:
?????????????
Hatsu shigure saru mo komino wo hoshige nari
The first cold shower;
Even the monkey seems to want
A little coat of straw.
(Coats and straw hats were normally used in Japan to protect from rain at the time)

To be honest, Hellon, I think you are right: 17 syllables, nature orientated and leaving anything human out like 'me, my, I' etc. Although I have just written one with a 'my' in it (not posted). Artistic license and all that...

Great thread and welcome back

I've made that mistake so many times Ben...thought I had a really good haiku going on...the syllable count was spot on (maybe too much time is spent on that??) only to find that I had somehow placed the 'thought' of a human being there..I'm wondering if, perhaps modern haiku allows for it so, I'm really not knocking anyone who has written one that way, I'm just looking for contributions/opinions on the subject folks...

I suppose that the one I have just posted certainly has a human element/thought on the last line. 'Make this forest home'. Strictly speaking, I suppose that's wrong, however, all things change and evolve but a purist would probably disagree. I am obsessed with English sonnets and if someone told me they had just written one with their own rhyme scheme and syllable count, I would probably spontaneously combust!

I think the last line is fine on its own because it could relate to any animal living there calling a forest their home.

I hope this is the poem you are referring to and...I hope you are comfortable with me putting it up here??

Man Of The Trees (haiku)
by Ben Pickard Jan 18, 2018 category : Nature, environment / nature

~~~

mossy, dewy earth,
and the soil-scented raindrops
make this forest home

Your title has a human element so I'd say that's not right...the first two lines are ok but IMO the last line continues with the thought rather than being separate???

Hope you don't mine me using this as an example but..so far you're the only one to respond :)

I'd also like to add that this is only my opinion based on what other past members on this site have advised me over the years :)

Edited

I am a great cook, really, but I would hardly fallow recipes. My expertise only revolves around one thing and that is to create tasty food. Even though my action has been criticised by those who really were envious for my promotions in the kitchen I used to work, but still in the same time I was call by the real chefs: original.
I see the points of this thread , but your biggest responsibility is not to the form (recipe), it is to the context ( taste). I see so many parroting and unoriginality in the writing of the people who really fallow the form. They think the more they near themselves to the stablished masterpieces, they more save they are.

By the way Hellon I saw you signed in three-four days ago. Later on, when I did not see any trace of youI went to your profile and saw it says three months that you did not sign in ( which I anticipated your return, any days of that, believing you are my friend). How did you manage to do that? My question is: was that a glitch, or you somehow are affiliated with the administration.

Hellon,
I thank you for this discussion. All that follows is my opinion and only that, but an opinion based on years of research.

It seems to me that the significance of Haiku & Senryu has diminished in the past years, I agree with your take on what a Haiku should be, but would also go a bit further. I believe both forms make use of what might be called the silent observer and a bit of intuitive development. The poems should be descriptive, placing the reader in the shoes of the poet, but without the poet being there at all.

The observer is silent in that no part of him or her is expressed in the poem, at least not in the sense of being present. The poems should be entirely descriptive of what is found by the senses, without interjecting the opinion or attitude or emotion of the poet.

The final line should be both a conclusion of the first two lines, but also an intuitive leap, not a logical or progressive continuation. It is what some have described as the AH-HA moment.

Now, to me these rules apply to both forms. The differences are that the Haiku traditionally reflects or at least implies a season but eschews human presence. The Senryu provides the avenue for human presence, but should still be both observational and universal. Placing the unique character of the poet into the mix, I feel, invalidates the principle. Words such as my and I are, I suppose, permissible, but ought to be avoided.

I also think of a Senryu as a statement of the human condition. If you want a love poem write a Tanka. Neither the Senryu nor Haiku should be used to conjecture or give an opinion. If you feel that is necessary write a Syntuit.

I don't mind at all Hellon and thanks for giving your take on it. I suppose if you are going to label something 'haiku', 'senyru', 'sonnet' etc, then that is what they should be, otherwise just post the pieces with no label attached. Progression and evolution is okay to a point, but at the end of the day, if something is changed too much and no longer represents the original idea, then it can no longer be called by its original name. A funny example, but if I spell the word 'you' as 'uoy', no amount of screaming and shouting about artistic licence will convince anyone that that is okay! It is spelt 'you' and that is that. Equally, a haiku is a haiku - we cannot just make up our own version of events to suit our own purposes. That's what free verse is for. Poetry is wonderful because it has restrictive forms but is also open to entirely fluid and freer writing. Ultimately, that gives the art of verse more scope and that's why I believe forms should be respected where possible.

All the stbe (best)

Coming to think of it, I kind I agree with Larry's and Ben's and also Hellon's points.
I guess the formats are subject to change. So still is good to change things here and there. Though you can not Jump out of them and break the rules also if you chose to use them.

Good thread!!

Good heavens. Myself, ddavidd and Hellon are all on the same thread and are practically in accord with each other. Now that's progression...

It scares me to live in the world that everyone is in accord all the time, though too much conflicts are not healthy either. We need balance. Only in absolute there is no contrast. And we know there would never be any absolute, otherwise time would no longer exist.

Edited :: Reposted::
Regardless of evil's malicious attempts to portray me by misplacing the envision of: straight forwardness, not holding back, being true to one's self ( the rarest commodity of all), and speaking your mind without fear, with being argumentative and... in the minds of members, I never argue to win. I do it for what I believe is right. So, the moment I realise I am wrong I would stop defending, because unlike ordinary people I do not defend my ego therefore I do not confuse the opinion I defend, with the real ME.
Though others always fight to win. In this site before, some not even fought , they ganged and even occasionally conspired and the fight has been dragged out of this site: I still am paying for the discussion I had (2013 with the character who called himself: 'loneliest soul' who perhaps no longer is in this site) when I criticised US policies ferociously. Few month later a friend of mine, who is an older guy I use to woke for and also is a foreman, a Mormon and one of those guys, called me. I went to his home, and he and his son indirectly delivered an ultimatum: to not talk like this publicly!! (they did not mention this site, though here was the only place I argued against US's policies publicly). I was threatened of retaliation. What scared me is that my friend is a construction worker, and even he is affiliated with CSIS, though he has no clue about poetry and even the existence of this site. So how they found him, to use as a medium to deliver the message, is beyond me.
Again, later on I was attacked when I criticised Israel when the Gaza occupation happened, indirectly, whether in this site and out. So, I had to leave because they were trashing my personality, discrediting me so no one would listen to what I have to say.

Sorry Hellon for deviating from the subject a little bit. But It was in my heart and came out all the sudden. I could not stop it.

We all have different opinions ddavidd, that's what makes us individuals and, hopefully interesting to others.

I would have agreed with everything Larry has said in the above comment. It was the same conclusion I came to after researching various sites and talking to others but then I read this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsuo_Bash%C5%8D

As you can see, the article claims that Matsuo Basho was "the greatest master of haiku" (something I don't doubt) but, if you scroll down to Rise to Fame you will see a few examples of his work where he actually does place humans in the verse so...have I been totally wrong all these years? It does seem likely :)

EDIT

By the way ddavidd...I haven't signed in for three months so who did you see? Is there a "Hellon imposter" out there haha!!

I think modern Haikus do not follow the exact pattern of Master Matsuo Basho's time. Things change in the course of time. Nowadays nobody draw portray in classical way. No more MonaLiza. Nobody draw Sistine chapel any more and if someone does people are going to ignore him/her or laugh. The science and chemistry changed the us of colour and all the technics; even Van Gogh and Paul Cézanne are old fashion and nobody would take serious impressionists any more. If one draw sunflower even better than Van Gogh, people wouldn't call it original. But in poetry some still want to reclaim the past glories.

Maybe we need to get back to basics and become less complacent?

As for the classical painters you mention, if this is true that no one takes them seriously anymore can I ask why Leonardo da Vinci's painting Salvador Mundi recently sold for $450m, obviously someone out there still appreciates art.

duplicated

Hellon: "By the way ddavidd...I haven't signed in for three months so who did you see? Is there a "Hellon imposter" out there haha!! "
I know! Maybe you too have a double. And two days later you came back. Isn't it weird??
~~
Maybe, but yet if we do, why not go back to the stone ages if we do not like evolution.

You did not read me carefully Hellon I did not say no body takes Classical.. seriously. They are our history, THE foundations, but you can not built a foundation on the top of the building. You have to move forward. I myself often do not listen to any music but classical. I really enjoy watching Rembrandt and Raphael. I think their master pieces, would never be repeated in the history. I was talking about their styles are no more applicable, except for practicing and learning and historical values.

even Van Gogh and Paul Cézanne are old fashion and nobody would take serious impressionists any more

^^^^

which part of this sentence did I misread?

Maybe, but yet if we do, why not go back to the stone ages if we do not like evolution.

^^^

Perhaps the stone age is a tad extreme but, I had no internet for 3 months and it didn't really bother me.

This is such a useful thread. I was confused about the Haiku but you've all made very valid and useful contributions that have helped me and I feel sure will help others. Also I found the classical art discussions interesting to :) Thank you everyone. Best wishes Milly x

Haha . Maybe I was not clear enough but I did mean it in the sense of following the style otherwise in so many posts in P&Q in the last few years I mentioned how I feel about Van Gogh in particular. What I guess I did not achieve to convey to you is their styles is no more used. They are too old fashion and if one does, it would not be taken seriously. So Hellon stop semantic and talk real meaning for crying out please. I know as sophist style argument you do not try to see really what I say and try to use my figure of speech to dismiss my main argument. But do you understand my point: that I did not undermine their greatness what soever, I just questioning their applicability in the modern time. It is like trying to challenge ipads with the antic radios.

Wow where was that? It must have been fun. And welcome back

This is not a sophist style argument, in fact this is not an argument at all. Like I said earlier we all have our opinions and, the point of this thread was to put them out there for others to read/comment if they wished. I do understand what you are saying but, I don't agree with you, hence the fact that I said perhaps we should get back to basics and stop being so complacent. I think you assume that people would laugh at the classic styles of art/poetry but...have you put this to the test? I just think that this generation may not have as much exposure to older forms/styles but that doesn't mean they wouldn't like them.

You compare ipods to radios well....take the ipod away and see how long it takes to adjust to the radio again.

I was in Bali for a while then up the coast of WA in a sleepy little fishing village....thanks for the welcome back :)

"I think you assume that people would laugh at the classic styles of art/poetry but...have you put this to the test? "
You totally did not understand my point again so I quit.

Though I am glad you are back, because no matter how divers is our opinion, you are one of the only people who could tolerate difference of opinion and still manage feel friendly.This new generation ( not everyone) are not very atone to diversity of opinion and true democracy, due to sugar fix, or due to the fact that we are unfortunately getting too near to the third world war, and as the epidemic, learned from the others , we are becoming too intolerant to opposites.
There are other signs too that I do not wish to elaborate farther.

Ok...let's expand on the art side for a moment. You mention Van Gough. What do you like about him? His work was mainly out of scale and quite childlike in my opinion and yet there was something appealing about it...perhaps the vibrant colours he used but...that's what drew me to his works what drew you?

Another artist whom I love (different era of course) is L.S. Lowry...I adore his work and yet, it's very simplistic to the eye at first but, after studying it, you can see more depth I think.

I may not understand your viewpoint ddavidd but please never give up trying to explain it...that's what makes YOU appealing/interesting :)

I am no expert in art and painting in particular, except the fact that I understand them, or better, I feel them. specially seventh art, I use to predict all the Oscar winers, My colleagues use to ask if I were on the judging panel of Hollywood, every year. Nothing would feel more gratifying that watching a good piece of acting ( like Marlon Brando In the " Last Tango in Paris, for example ) for me. Though there are some aspects of modern paintings that are beyond me and I do not understand. My sister is a fairly accomplished Fine artist film maker in London, and I do not really grasp her work either.
In case of Van Gough, I love his use of colours. The impressionist of the 19th century due to the discoveries of new chemical components, unlike the classical, brought sunshine in to the art of painting. The bright colours that they used , was not even accessible to the Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Rembrandt or Raphael...The theme of painting before 19th century was too dark.
Van Gough in particular uses the motions in his work so masterfully. His stars are still shining, his, sun is so hot and even burns you sometimes, and object on his canvas are animating not photographed. He went cuckoo staring at sunshine everyday in south of France and cot his ear. That how intense he was and that intensity is very well reflected on his paintings. He uses colour yellow extensively that was not available to his predecessors.
I think Abby's Piece describes Van Gough's work well: http://www.poems-and-quotes.com/poems/1259268

The real trick is in being able to master any style. The past is not something that should just be done away with because it is 'old'; it's riches should be harvested and simply added to the new ones we discover. That is how we become varied, complex and ultimately, more interesting.
Sonnets are old but they are and always will be popular simply because they are pleasing on the ear - time doesn't change that. Not everyone likes them - but a lot of people do, so they stick around (rightfully). If we were all writing in free verse the whole time like too many do, poetry would become boring. I love trying new forms and also trying free verse. The latter isn't my strength, but I enjoy writing it but it doesn't come as easily to me as rhyme which I still believe (when done well) is the best kind of poetry (my opinion) simply because of the rhythm it so often provides. But I do think it's wonderful that we are all passionate about an art form that has so much variety - that shouldn't be knocked or thrown out; we should all be proud of that and look after it.
My point ultimately is that no form/style of poetry should be discarded because of when it originated. Time and art are not a science and shouldn't be treated as such. We should take what's good, keep it, and discover new things that we add to what we already have, otherwise we lose so much and that is not evolution - that's devolution.

Ben...a couple of you comments have me interested...

"But I do think it's wonderful that we are all passionate about an art form that has so much variety - that shouldn't be knocked or thrown out; we should all be proud of that and look after it"

and..

"My point ultimately is that no form/style of poetry should be discarded because of when it originated"

You seem to be very open minded as I am myself so...what are your thoughts on this form of 'art'...I first posted this thread a few years ago (I think it was before you joined the site) unfortunately, since Janis has removed the search forum tool, I can't find the feedback but...I think it was quite hilarious so...here you go..Ben and anyone else who wishes to take part...is this a form of art?...

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/melbourne-artist-casey-jenkins-vaginal-knitting-prompts-social-media-disgust-20150806-giszij.html

We should take what's good, keep it,

^^

I cannot emphasise this enough right now, Hellon. 'good' being the operative word. I'm not sure that these are the sorts of riches I meant when talking of...ahem...'harvesting'. Surely, there is a limit...

Thank you for forever sullying my innocence :(

*for the record, no, I don't think this is art. I think it's a case of a desperate exhibitionist trying to... pull the wool over our eyes in regards to what is actually art...

Would you go to see her exhibition if the opportunity arose? I know I would. I went to the opening of the first Scientology Temple to open here...I go into prayer rooms in airports, there's probably other stuff that I can add but the point is...I try to be open minded and..I'm nosey. Would I buy a scarf from her...mmmm yes..I probably would and then...perhaps gift it to someone I'm not terribly keen on as a Christmas gift :)

I have to be honest - and I do try to be open-minded - but everyone has a limit; that pretty much goes crashing through mine. It's not particularly clever - I'm sure any woman who can knit and had the mind to could pull off the same trick. It's just about shock value, and Madonna bored me with that twenty years ago. BUT, having said that, I am open-minded enough to see how it could (in this particular time we live in) be regarded as art. And would I buy a scarf from her? Only if it was bleached first otherwise your idea sounds best...

I have not read the entire thread but I’m just adding my two cents. This is what I was taught and how I understand it based on reading about it.

A senyru is a haiku but a haiku is not a senyru.

A haiku is nature oriented.. It can follow the traditional form 5/7/5, or the modern form must be less than 17 syllables but still adhere to the format of middle line longer than the first one and third one.

A senyru just as the haiku can be written in the traditional format or the modern. It is specific to human nature. That’s why a senyru can be labeled as haiku because it still focuses on some type of nature. However, a haiku which only addresses nature itself (seasons, Mother Nature, etc) cannot be labeled senyru.

That’s how I understand it.

We had that discussion in 2013-4 about the same subject. I remember Nico was particularly so appal by this precise clip
London is the nest of all this modern ‘fine art’ and ‘ Preforming arts’. though I see in this site the British people are the most conservative people against these shapes of expressions.

The worst thing that happened in this regard was a well-known artist Marcel Duchamp who in 1917 submitted a urinal only by itself to an art gallery in Europe if I remember correctly. And it was received so well by the art critics, and fans, they all embraced it. But this clip you posted in particular is not that unartistic in my eyes, even though I too have some problem with it.
Now I totally understand why you want to go back to the past Hellon; it is a natural reaction to the modernism in any generation. If you read history of art, or even history, there are always reaction to the modernism. Things such as: Rock and roll, Dadaism, cubism,( specially cubism. People said even a kid could draw better than Pablo Picasso) surrealism all had the their hard-core rivals. Some of them were even mortal. Past always react harshly to the uncertainty of future, that is inevitable, and natural. And your reaction is no bad at all in compare.
I am not going to continue the argument about form in poetry, it seems no matter how I explain myself you guys still think that I disregard the classical, even in so many ways I explain I do not and said they are our foundation.
I understand people only hear what they want to hear. And sometimes they get mad at you not for what you are saying, but for their assumption and version of what they think you are saying. So, why should I bother, before seeing a real change?

Ddavidd, Idon’t think anyone disputes your passion for the classical. It seems to me they disagree with your premise that these art styles would lack a following if attempted by new artists these days. I think your point is that we’ve seen these themes and methods by the great ones. Someone painting in the impressionist style will be compared to Monet or Renoir and most likely be found wanting. Some new style is where artists will stake their fortunes rather than attempt to re-formulate older styles.

If my understanding is true I would suggest that the styles are alive and thriving. For instance Marsha Reeves and David Zimmerman are excellent impressionist of this century. I think Ben is right that creative artists tend to hold onto the good and yet develop new styles as well.

First some of these new styles disturb me too and I would never promoted them. I remember I had a discussion against the Urinal art with sibylline, years ago. I think the Urinal thing is the most ridiculous aspect of art and the abuse of the authority of some well known artists.

My main argument with the Hellon was that she thinks changes in haiku and other arts are bad and everything is better off to go back to the old time. She even thinks Van Gough’s: “work was mainly out of scale and quite childlike in my opinion”

Larry said: "I think Ben is right that creative artists tend to hold onto the good and yet develop new styles as well."
I do not have any problem with this part of Bens argument. We had talk about it before. Though if you look more carefully you would see the real difference
Ben said, “The past is not something that should just be done away with because it is 'old'; it's riches should be harvested and simply added to the new ones we discover”
This part of his argument If it is in respond to me shows that he did not read what I said, he just assumed what I might have said:
I said: “They are our history ( classical), THE foundations, but you can not build a foundation on the top of the building. You have to move forward”
Here he is refuting me by exactly repeating what I said in different words. Except the part of harvesting that I think those talents already harvested anything harvestable in those forms. But if you think you could add something more to them go ahead, be my guess.
Ben said” …always will be popular simply because they are pleasing on the ear - time doesn't change that.”
Another misplace of concept. I did not say they would change or our appreciation of them would go away anytime soon. I think they go on forever and, yet their influence might even increase occasionally due to the spiral shape of progress. I would never stop enjoy reading “The Crime and Punishment” and every time am bewildered by how talented the Dostoyevsky were two hundred years ago.
Ben said: “We should take what's good, keep it, and discover new things that we add to what we already have, otherwise we lose so much and that is not evolution - that's devolution.”
Again this one is exactly the admission of what I said, only tries to clam that my version of evolution says that thigs evolve all by themselves without dependency to the past. Which is not true I would never say that.
Evolution has tree stages: theses, antitheses and syntheses. Without going to the detailed of each. It is suffice to say, each step is totally as the result of the previous one, ( cause and affect) then how could it be possible that I said new things are independent from what we already have. That would be absurd I would never think never mind say such thing. So I realise everything that I said unlike your claim, WERE somehow misunderstood, by Hellon earlier, then Ben and even you in minor details Haha I taking our being in accord is jinxed.

Larry said: " these art styles would lack a following if attempted by new artists these days. "
I think everyone is free to write however he she desires. Though I think witting in old style in certain extend would not contribute to the body of poetry as an art. Because those roads have been walked and ventured by the greater talents of the universe such as Hafez, Shakespeare, Dante, Homer, and Goethe. Those masterpieces are the creation of their own times, and by the people who had time and leisure mentally to capture all the possibility in those forms. THY PAVED OUR PATHS
Like in my line of study, Philosophy, some of the things that Plato or Aristotle said are ridiculous for the contemporary’s eyes nowadays, but nobody can deny their contribution to the philosophy and the fact that ONE NEVER WOULD BECOME PHILOSOPHER WITHOUT LEARNING THEM. So as poetry, we MUST read and study Shakespeare and Dante, though good luck wasting your life trying to write divine comedy, or even if you can write sonnet as well as Shakespeare, that almost impossible, you have not created masterpiece. You can not be a star in that sky and that is a waste of true talent if one has any. ( not as practicing artist or poet but as the main body of your work) That is unfortunate not for 88% us but for a few true talent. But if one insist, go ahead, nobody would stop you. It is only a suggestion no need to get upset.
I know of a painter who can draw exactly, and some in of his work, even better than Rembrandt, but his canvas can not excel few $ thousands. Though he started to put some Persian alphabet together and draw some innovative conceptual images, and some of them are priced more that tree hundred thousand in a gallery in LA. or as he clames..

My main argument with the Hellon was that she thinks changes in haiku and other arts are bad and everything is better off to go back to the old time. She even thinks Van Gough’s: “work was mainly out of scale and quite childlike in my opinion”

"the" Hellon? Does that put me in the same league as "the" Hoff :)

I never said changes were bad...I just questioned these changes and asked for opinions.

Van Goughs's work IS mostly out of scale and childlike it doesn't mean I don't like it however.

So you study philosophy ddavidd...looking for the 'real meaning' of life..(I've highlighted real meaning because it's a previous name you've used) it's one thing to study it...another to experience it...what is your experience of 'real life'?

It seems to me they disagree with your premise that these art styles would lack a following if attempted by new artists these days.
^^

ddavidd - this was actually what Larry wrote. You have changed his meaning entirely by missing the first half.

As for my point, what I meant was that these old styles should be kept and written in as should new ones, absolutely. The greater the depth of language, the greater the variety of poetry we produce and again I say, that is true evolution. I never once said that you did not appreciate the classics, but you do argue we should move on from replicating them. I disagree. Write in the old style, write modern verse, write form, write free verse - just write, create and enjoy. Create beauty and art and that is a damn site easier to do with a varied palate.
I think a lot of the problem here is what we believe poetry should be. I believe it should be about expression, beauty in words, causing pleasure to someone who reads - disgust, horror, anything. Just about making a connection and expressing feelings. You believe it is something that needs to evolve (but evolution does not necessarily mean drastic change - see crocodiles) and something that needs experimenting with. I believe experimentation is good but I say again, it is not a science. We are not searching for a cure to cancer - we writing and trying to connect. A true poet writes because he needs to, not for poetry's 'progression'.
Also, masterpieces are never created by people who say 'I'm going to create a masterpiece'. They arise from unwitting genius and people who can connect with an audience -and that has nothing to do with form/style or anything else. Writing a haiku or free verse, a sonnet on senryu is irrelevant; it is the WORDS and the content that count. When they do, and when we say something that makes people really feel something - then we have our masterpiece and how it is written is not at all important.

It strikes me as funny, ddavidd, that you constantly bemoan peoples' misunderstanding of you but at the same time, you never once realise that you may be doing the same to us. Is it impossible to believe that it is you who are not connecting the dots properly? It seems to me that every time we have a discussion, you are at the heart of turning it sour and yet you scream and shout at the world around you and never once take responsibility.
I can genuinely say (and for this I apologise) that you are one of the few people I have ever come across that could start an argument with themselves.

Ben said: "ddavidd - this was actually what Larry wrote. You have changed his meaning entirely by missing the first half."
I was quoting the main argument. Idid not need to put the names in there. If you could tell me how would quoting those name contribute to the main argument, and what part of The argument did I misrepresented? Only the context needed be dealt with the rest was just names. I do not need to get personal. I use the name only to place and address the argument I am dealing with, that is all. I write so many essays. This is the way one quote and conduct an analysis.

Ben You again are getting personal with me, at the first attempt to rebuilt the line of communication. I see now we are circling and going nowhere and it is in no time that I be subjected to ... if I respond to you in the same personal way. I did not want to have this conversation with you because I knew how easily irritable you are.
Also if I like to have conversation with myself, it should not concern you, while I am in Hellon thread and I am free to argue with anyone I wish, including myself, without the obligation of checking in with anyone.

For the rest of the thing you said. I think I have nothing but respect for you idea whether right or fallacious as long as you respect mine, and even when you don't. And I think I have demonstrated that already in our previous encounters.
So from now on I do not respond to any of your discussion, remarks, until I see some immunity and improvement.

That seems like a perfect way to leave it, ddavidd. But as you ask, I would like to just point out that by only quoting that half of Larry's quote, it does appear that it is Larry who is implying the classic style would no longer have a following. If anyone picked up the conversation from that post alone, that is how it would strike them. When quoting, we must at all times be accurate to avoid little misunderstandings such as this.
Essay writer or not, that would not get top marks, good fellow.

*And yes, I own up to it, I do have a tendency toward the personal when I am annoyed...I just find you rather difficult to swallow, that is all.

Again I quoted only what was relevant to the argument I did not need to mention who disagreed with me, as long as I responded to what has been disagreed upon. Is that so hard to understand? One does not need to quote the entire paragraph or page or... that is absurd. If I had time or drive, I would show you some documents on this. We always put three point in the beginning if we do not wish to us the entire talk or in the end if we do not wish to quote it to the end. That means letting the reader know we did not use the entire document.