On 2022-11-04 3:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 3:16:10 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
>>>>>> vel
>>>>>>>> l’s
>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
>>>>>> 3."
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
>>>>>
>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
>>>>
>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
>>> You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>>> right there.
>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
>>>
>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
>> Exactly.
>>
>> I stayed out of the thread myself until I noticed it was being used by NancyGene to attack me, and others.
>>
>> Typical example of the malicious agenda of NancyGene.
>
> You stayed out of the thread because Longfellow was never quoted by Batman, Popeye, or the Archies.

Typical TM bullshit propaganda. You don't know whether Will knew the
answer to the question or not.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4,
> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> >>>
> >>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> just bitchiness.
> >>>
> >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>> right there.
> >>>
> >>> A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in
> one's mind.
> >>>
> >>> You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had
> searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made
> you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.
> >>>
> >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> knew
> >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> Donkey."
> >>>
> >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>
> >>> That's all.
> >>>
> >>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >>>
> >>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> >> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo
> >> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo
> DeSockpuppet
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >>>>>>> vel
> >>>>>>>>> l’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >>>>>>> 3."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> >> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> >> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> >> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.>>> You're lying
> >> again, NastyGene.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.>
> >>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> >> just bitchiness.
> >>>
> >> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
> >> Let's see.
> >
> > I didn't call you a name, George.
> >
> > I described the nature of petty accusation.
> >
> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> "pettiness."
> >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>> right there.
> >>>
> >>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> >> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> >> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> >> failed, so let's try that.
> >
> > Deflection noted.
> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> >
> >>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
> >> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> >
> > Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> knowledge through words?
> >
> Not according to you, since the words "aren't in their minds" -- meaning
> that can't contain any "knowledge", either. If they can't contain
> knowledge, they can't be used to transmit it.
> >> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
> >> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
> >
> > If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> > Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> homs.
> > , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> >
> >> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> >> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> >
> > Nope. You're not done.
> >
> > Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> >
> > Definition of knowledge
> > 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
> gained through experience or association
> > (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> > b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> > (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> > answered to the best of my knowledge
> > c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
> through reasoning : COGNITION
> > d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> > a person of unusual knowledge
> > 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
> principles acquired by humankind
> > barchaic : a branch of learning
> > 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> > 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> >
> > As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
> and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
> know it.
>
> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> (epistemologists) use.
>
> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> (3) justified.
> > Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> does not possess knowledge.
> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
> That's what we're discussing.
>
> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17, 1820.[7]
>
> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
> > Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> you further?
> >
> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> you go right ahead.
> >> NG lied about that.
> >>
> >>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> >> searched Google for the answer.
> >> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> >> except for Google.
> >
> > You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> of creating "strawman" arguments.
> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> called it a 'deflection'?
> > Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for
> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> you already are."
> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> incorrect description of PPP.
> >
> > As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> answer.
> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling".
> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> Pond" unless they already knew it? Not from PPP, not from the sources
> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
> >> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> >> remembered it.
> >
> > Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> remembered that I knew it.
> >> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
> >> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom)..
> >
> > I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make
> an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have
> given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of
> Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
> >
> I'd say that's just because you couldn't remember it; not because you
> didn't know the answer at all. "Jeopardy" is a game involving knowlege
> *and* memory, not just the former.
> >>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> >> knowledgeable than you already are.
> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.
>
>
> >> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> knowledge. But, once
> >> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> >
> > And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> observation would not apply.
> >
> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
>
> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
> > I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
> for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
> done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
> than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
> knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
> has access to.
> But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the at answer. As
> did you, at least after you looked it up.
>
> OTOH, those who didn't know it, and read Cuckoo the Meatpuppet's
> statement, and independently verified it, would now
> >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>
> >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> knew
> >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> Donkey."
> >>>
> >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> >> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>
> >>> That's all.
> >>>
> >> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> >> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
> >
> > The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> correct response.
> >
> > And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> "gang's" lack of response.
> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> want to quibble about when they did that. You also admit they were
> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:24:19 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4,
> > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> > Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> > they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> > There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> > >>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> > >>>
> > >>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> > just bitchiness.
> > >>>
> > >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>> right there.
> > >>>
> > >>> A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in
> > one's mind.
> > >>>
> > >>> You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had
> > searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made
> > you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> > >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> > knew
> > >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> > Donkey."
> > >>>
> > >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> > provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> > >>>
> > >>> That's all.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> > >> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo
> > >> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> > >>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo
> > DeSockpuppet
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> > >>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> > >>>>>>> vel
> > >>>>>>>>> l’s
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> > >>>>>>> 3."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> > >>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> > >> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> > >> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> > >> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.>>> You're lying
> > >> again, NastyGene.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.>
> > >>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> > >> just bitchiness.
> > >>>
> > >> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG..
> > >> Let's see.
> > >
> > > I didn't call you a name, George.
> > >
> > > I described the nature of petty accusation.
> > >
> > I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> > "pettiness."
> > >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>> right there.
> > >>>
> > >>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> > >> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> > >> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> > >> failed, so let's try that.
> > >
> > > Deflection noted.
> > No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> > because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> > easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> > blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> > >
> > >>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> > >>>
> > >> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
> > >> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> > >
> > > Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> > knowledge through words?
> > >
> > Not according to you, since the words "aren't in their minds" -- meaning
> > that can't contain any "knowledge", either. If they can't contain
> > knowledge, they can't be used to transmit it.
> > >> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
> > >> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
> > >
> > > If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
> > Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> > write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> > > Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> > Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> > a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> > homs.
> > > , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> > >
> > >> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> > >> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> > >
> > > Nope. You're not done.
> > >
> > > Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> > >
> > > Definition of knowledge
> > > 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
> > gained through experience or association
> > > (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> > > b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> > > (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> > > answered to the best of my knowledge
> > > c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
> > through reasoning : COGNITION
> > > d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> > > a person of unusual knowledge
> > > 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
> > principles acquired by humankind
> > > barchaic : a branch of learning
> > > 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> > > 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> > >
> > > As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
> > and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> > Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
> > know it.
> >
> > But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> > (epistemologists) use.
> >
> > Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> > (3) justified.
> > > Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> > does not possess knowledge.
> > So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> > any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
> > That's what we're discussing.
> >
> > PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> > publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> > Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17, 1820.[7]
> >
> > That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
> > > Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> > you further?
> > >
> > If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> > you go right ahead.
> > >> NG lied about that.
> > >>
> > >>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> > >> searched Google for the answer.
> > >> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> > >> except for Google.
> > >
> > > You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> > its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> > of creating "strawman" arguments.
> > I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> > calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> > called it a 'deflection'?
> > > Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for
> > the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> > so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> > you already are."
> > That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> > incorrect description of PPP.
> > >
> > > As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> > saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> > answer.
> > I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> > "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling".
> > I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> > bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> > So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> > Pond" unless they already knew it? Not from PPP, not from the sources
> > PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
> > >> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> > >> remembered it.
> > >
> > > Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> > It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> > remembered that I knew it.
> > >> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
> > >> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom).
> > >
> > > I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make
> > an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have
> > given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of
> > Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
> > >
> > I'd say that's just because you couldn't remember it; not because you
> > didn't know the answer at all. "Jeopardy" is a game involving knowlege
> > *and* memory, not just the former.
> > >>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> > >> knowledgeable than you already are.
> > There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited..
> >
> >
> > >> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> > knowledge. But, once
> > >> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> > >
> > > And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> > observation would not apply.
> > >
> > Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> > in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
> >
> > And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> > it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> > anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> > happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
> > > I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
> > for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
> > done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
> > than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
> > knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
> > has access to.
> > But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the at answer. As
> > did you, at least after you looked it up.
> >
> > OTOH, those who didn't know it, and read Cuckoo the Meatpuppet's
> > statement, and independently verified it, would now
> > >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >
> > >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> > knew
> > >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> > Donkey."
> > >>>
> > >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> > >> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> > >>>
> > >>> That's all.
> > >>>
> > >> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> > >> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
> > >
> > > The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> > correct response.
> > >
> > > And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> > "gang's" lack of response.
> > So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> > want to quibble about when they did that. You also admit they were
> > trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> > participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> > was that was that I'd left their thread alone.
> Nancy G. mentioned us all three specifically, when it is a FACT that I'm one of the better read poetry fans on this board....

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:21:20 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 3:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 3:16:10 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >>>>>> vel
> >>>>>>>> l’s
> >>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >>>>>> 3."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >>>>
> >>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >>> You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>> right there.
> >>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> >>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >> I stayed out of the thread myself until I noticed it was being used by NancyGene to attack me, and others.
> >>
> >> Typical example of the malicious agenda of NancyGene.
> >
> > You stayed out of the thread because Longfellow was never quoted by Batman, Popeye, or the Archies.
> Typical TM bullshit propaganda. You don't know whether Will knew the
> answer to the question or not.

Pen is very much like Peter, he makes up his lies as he goes along.... ha ha.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 3:16:10 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
> > >> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> > >>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> > >>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> > >>> vel
> > >>>>> l’s
> > >>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> > >>> 3."
> > >>
> > >> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> > >> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> > >>
> > >> I iz teh shockiest.
> > >
> > > Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> > You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > right there.
> > > Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> > In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> > the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
> >
> > Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> Exactly.
>
> I stayed out of the thread myself until I noticed it was being used by NancyGene to attack me, and others.

Inquisition exhibit #999:
"to attack me, and others"
Notice other people, even his so called friends are an afterthought...

> Typical example of the malicious agenda of NancyGene.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4,
> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> >>>
> >>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> just bitchiness.
> >>>
> >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>> right there.
> >>>
> >>> A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in
> one's mind.
> >>>
> >>> You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had
> searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made
> you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.
> >>>
> >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> knew
> >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> Donkey."
> >>>
> >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>
> >>> That's all.
> >>>
> >>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >>>
> >>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> >> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo
> >> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo
> DeSockpuppet
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >>>>>>> vel
> >>>>>>>>> l’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >>>>>>> 3."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> >> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> >> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> >> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.>>> You're lying
> >> again, NastyGene.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.>
> >>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> >> just bitchiness.
> >>>
> >> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
> >> Let's see.
> >
> > I didn't call you a name, George.
> >
> > I described the nature of petty accusation.
> >
> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> "pettiness."
> >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>> right there.
> >>>
> >>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> >> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> >> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> >> failed, so let's try that.
> >
> > Deflection noted.
> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> >
> >>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
> >> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> >
> > Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> knowledge through words?
> >
> Not according to you, since the words "aren't in their minds" -- meaning
> that can't contain any "knowledge", either. If they can't contain
> knowledge, they can't be used to transmit it.
> >> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
> >> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
> >
> > If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> > Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> homs.
> > , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> >
> >> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> >> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> >
> > Nope. You're not done.
> >
> > Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> >
> > Definition of knowledge
> > 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
> gained through experience or association
> > (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> > b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> > (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> > answered to the best of my knowledge
> > c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
> through reasoning : COGNITION
> > d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> > a person of unusual knowledge
> > 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
> principles acquired by humankind
> > barchaic : a branch of learning
> > 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> > 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> >
> > As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
> and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
> know it.
>
> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> (epistemologists) use.
>
> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> (3) justified.
> > Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> does not possess knowledge.
> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
> That's what we're discussing.
>
> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17, 1820.[7]
>
> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
> > Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> you further?
> >
> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> you go right ahead.
> >> NG lied about that.
> >>
> >>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> >> searched Google for the answer.
> >> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> >> except for Google.
> >
> > You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> of creating "strawman" arguments.
> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> called it a 'deflection'?
> > Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for
> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> you already are."
> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> incorrect description of PPP.
> >
> > As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> answer.
> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling".
> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> Pond" unless they already knew it? Not from PPP, not from the sources
> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
> >> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> >> remembered it.
> >
> > Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> remembered that I knew it.
> >> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
> >> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom)..
> >
> > I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make
> an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have
> given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of
> Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
> >
> I'd say that's just because you couldn't remember it; not because you
> didn't know the answer at all. "Jeopardy" is a game involving knowlege
> *and* memory, not just the former.
> >>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> >> knowledgeable than you already are.
> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.
>
>
> >> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> knowledge. But, once
> >> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> >
> > And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> observation would not apply.
> >
> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
>
> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
> > I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
> for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
> done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
> than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
> knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
> has access to.
> But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the at answer. As
> did you, at least after you looked it up.
>
> OTOH, those who didn't know it, and read Cuckoo the Meatpuppet's
> statement, and independently verified it, would now
> >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>
> >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> knew
> >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> Donkey."
> >>>
> >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> >> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>
> >>> That's all.
> >>>
> >> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> >> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
> >
> > The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> correct response.
> >
> > And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> "gang's" lack of response.
> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> want to quibble about when they did that. You also admit they were
> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 1:10:41 PM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:58:14 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-04 11:42 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:30:10 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-04 11:09 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
> > >>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> > >>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> > >>>>>>> vel
> > >>>>>>>>> l’s
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> > >>>>>>> 3."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> > >>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> > >>>> You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>> right there.
> > >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> > >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> > >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jesus fuck, George, wtf is your problem?
> > >> Why the personal attack, Corey? Are the facts too much for you to handle?
> > >>
> > >> (1) I believed this 'Jeopardy' thread of NG's was a propaganda attack on
> > >> "Team Donkey".
> > >> (2) Given NG's past 'Jeopardy' threads, I was justified in believing it
> > >> was an attack on "Team Donkey".
> > >> (3) In fact, NG's has turned out to be a propaganda attack on "Team
> > >> Donkey" -- so (1) is true.
> > >>
> > >> Therefore,
> > >> (4) I knew this thread was a propaganda attack on Team Donkey.
> > >>
> > >> Those are facts. Deal with them.
> > >
> > > Propaganda attack?
> > > ROFLMAO!1!
> >
> >
> > > WTF!?! George, lay off the bleach, I think you huffed too much!
> > As Gary Gamble would say, "Jesus fuck, Ashtroll. What's your problem?"
> >
> >
> > You don't seem very bright, but I used to put you in the midwit category
> > (90-110 IQ). But a midwit should be capable of recognizing propaganda.
> As a matter of fact, as Gary Gamble would actually say, “Jesus fuck, George.
> What’s your problem?” To my knowledge, the question has never been answered.

But it now has been, but not by George. If you haven't notice from his political commentary and how that alt Right/QAnon catch phrases have infiltrated his normal discourse-- he's been huffing bleach.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:36:08 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4,
> > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> > Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> > they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> > There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> > >>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> > >>>
> > >>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> > just bitchiness.
> > >>>
> > >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>> right there.
> > >>>
> > >>> A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in
> > one's mind.
> > >>>
> > >>> You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had
> > searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made
> > you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> > >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> > knew
> > >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> > Donkey."
> > >>>
> > >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> > provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> > >>>
> > >>> That's all.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> > >> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo
> > >> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> > >>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo
> > DeSockpuppet
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> > >>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> > >>>>>>> vel
> > >>>>>>>>> l’s
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> > >>>>>>> 3."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> > >>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> > >> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> > >> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> > >> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.>>> You're lying
> > >> again, NastyGene.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.>
> > >>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> > >> just bitchiness.
> > >>>
> > >> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG..
> > >> Let's see.
> > >
> > > I didn't call you a name, George.
> > >
> > > I described the nature of petty accusation.
> > >
> > I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> > "pettiness."
> > >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>> right there.
> > >>>
> > >>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> > >> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> > >> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> > >> failed, so let's try that.
> > >
> > > Deflection noted.
> > No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> > because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> > easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> > blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> > >
> > >>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> > >>>
> > >> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
> > >> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> > >
> > > Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> > knowledge through words?
> > >
> > Not according to you, since the words "aren't in their minds" -- meaning
> > that can't contain any "knowledge", either. If they can't contain
> > knowledge, they can't be used to transmit it.
> > >> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
> > >> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
> > >
> > > If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
> > Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> > write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> > > Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> > Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> > a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> > homs.
> > > , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> > >
> > >> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> > >> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> > >
> > > Nope. You're not done.
> > >
> > > Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> > >
> > > Definition of knowledge
> > > 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
> > gained through experience or association
> > > (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> > > b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> > > (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> > > answered to the best of my knowledge
> > > c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
> > through reasoning : COGNITION
> > > d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> > > a person of unusual knowledge
> > > 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
> > principles acquired by humankind
> > > barchaic : a branch of learning
> > > 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> > > 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> > >
> > > As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
> > and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> > Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
> > know it.
> >
> > But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> > (epistemologists) use.
> >
> > Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> > (3) justified.
> > > Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> > does not possess knowledge.
> > So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> > any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
> > That's what we're discussing.
> >
> > PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> > publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> > Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17, 1820.[7]
> >
> > That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
> > > Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> > you further?
> > >
> > If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> > you go right ahead.
> > >> NG lied about that.
> > >>
> > >>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> > >> searched Google for the answer.
> > >> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> > >> except for Google.
> > >
> > > You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> > its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> > of creating "strawman" arguments.
> > I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> > calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> > called it a 'deflection'?
> > > Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for
> > the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> > so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> > you already are."
> > That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> > incorrect description of PPP.
> > >
> > > As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> > saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> > answer.
> > I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> > "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling".
> > I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> > bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> > So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> > Pond" unless they already knew it? Not from PPP, not from the sources
> > PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
> > >> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> > >> remembered it.
> > >
> > > Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> > It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> > remembered that I knew it.
> > >> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
> > >> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom).
> > >
> > > I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make
> > an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have
> > given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of
> > Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
> > >
> > I'd say that's just because you couldn't remember it; not because you
> > didn't know the answer at all. "Jeopardy" is a game involving knowlege
> > *and* memory, not just the former.
> > >>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> > >> knowledgeable than you already are.
> > There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited..
> >
> >
> > >> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> > knowledge. But, once
> > >> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> > >
> > > And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> > observation would not apply.
> > >
> > Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> > in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
> >
> > And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> > it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> > anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> > happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
> > > I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
> > for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
> > done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
> > than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
> > knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
> > has access to.
> > But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the at answer. As
> > did you, at least after you looked it up.
> >
> > OTOH, those who didn't know it, and read Cuckoo the Meatpuppet's
> > statement, and independently verified it, would now
> > >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >
> > >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> > knew
> > >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> > Donkey."
> > >>>
> > >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> > >> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> > >>>
> > >>> That's all.
> > >>>
> > >> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> > >> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
> > >
> > > The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> > correct response.
> > >
> > > And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> > "gang's" lack of response.
> > So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> > want to quibble about when they did that. You also admit they were
> > trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> > participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> > was that was that I'd left their thread alone.
> Typical scumbag move by the Voodoo Boy...!

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 1:30:39 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >>>>>>> vel
> >>>>>>>>> l’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >>>>>>> 3."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> >>>
> >>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is just bitchiness.
> >>>
> >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>> right there.
> >>>
> >>> A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> >>>
> >>> You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.
> >>>
> >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
> >>>
> >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>
> >>> That's all.
> >>>
> >>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >>>
> >>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> >> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo
> >> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >>>>>>> vel
> >>>>>>>>> l’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >>>>>>> 3."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> >> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> >> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> >> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.>>> You're lying
> >> again, NastyGene.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.>
> >>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> >> just bitchiness.
> >>>
> >> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
> >> Let's see.
> >
> > I didn't call you a name, George.
> >
> > I described the nature of petty accusation.
> >
> > FYI: "petty" is also not a name.
> >
> >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>> right there.
> >>>
> >>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> >> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> >> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> >> failed, so let's try that.
> >
> > Deflection noted.
> >
> >>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
> >> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> >
> > Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their knowledge through words?
> >
> >> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
> >> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
> >
> > If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
> >
> > Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection, can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> >
> >> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> >> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> >
> > Nope. You're not done.
> >
> > Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> >
> > Definition of knowledge
> > 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
> > (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> > b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> > (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> > answered to the best of my knowledge
> > c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION
> > d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> > a person of unusual knowledge
> > 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
> > barchaic : a branch of learning
> > 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> > 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> >
> > As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance," and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> >
> > Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently, does not possess knowledge.
> >
> > Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass you further?
> >
> >> NG lied about that.
> >>
> >>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> >> searched Google for the answer.
> >> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> >> except for Google.
> >
> > You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice of creating "strawman" arguments.
> >
> > Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are."
> >
> > As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the answer. I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> >
> >> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> >> remembered it.
> >
> > Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> >
> >> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
> >> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom)..
> >
> > I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
> >
> >>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> >> knowledgeable than you already are.
> >> In this case, since I (and you) already had that knowledge. But, once
> >> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> >
> > And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above observation would not apply.
> >
> > I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one has access to.
> >
> >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
> >>>
> >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> >> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>
> >>> That's all.
> >>>
> >> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> >> into an attack the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
> >
> > The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the correct response.
> Stipulated. *When" NG turned the thread into an attack on me and the
> rest of "Team Donkey" is not at issue. We're in agreement that that's
> what they did.
> > And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said "gang's" lack of response.
> >
> So NG decided that I didn't know the answer, and couldn't, just because
> they were ignorant. Their decided to attack me, and their attack was
> pure bullshit.
>
> And then they decided to post their bullshit attacks just to troll me
> into the thread (which worked for them).
>
> Why, if you and NG are not both playing on the same team ("Team
> Monkey"), are you trying to make excuses for that?
> >>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >>>
> >>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> >> You seriously believe that? And just how the fuck could I have "made" NG
> >> turn the thread into an attack on me when (by your own admission) I
> >> hadn't even posted in the thread before their attack?
> >
> > You could have acted like a member of AAPC and taken a guess at the question.
> >
> aapc is a newsgroup, not a team. Teams have 'members' - usenet groups
> just have people who post to them.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:46:51 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 11:26 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:09:47 AM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >>>>>> vel
> >>>>>>>> l’s
> >>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >>>>>> 3."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >>>>
> >>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >>> You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>> right there.
> >>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> >>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >> Jesus fuck, George, wtf is your problem?
> >
> > Lo7!!!
> > It seems that the tat armchair master's ass seems to be tat sore and burning for another game of tatting asses...
> It seems that another Team Monkey member in denial has decided to come
> in and defend NG.

I know you and your dupes give no heed about facts, but I don't see me saying anything about NG, so you're making shit up as usual. Nah, I saw my foes fighting and I'm swooping in for my share of the fight.
You or one of your dupes said something about gaslighting-- screw that shit, that's your specialty- politician, political talking head. No, gas ain't good enough, I play with napalm!

> > Alas! The ignominy of this impasse
> > Of someone having to act like an ass
> > Braying so boldly and behaving so crass
> > A jack ass so smug in his house of glass
> > And those his ass editor rate as low class
> > he harasses to create a hypocritical morass
> > a "real poetry" shitsty that shows "real class"
> > in shit slinging by a "victim", yet crass as ass
> And, as usual, the Ashtroll's response has nothing to do with the
> subject, but is just ad hom attack (though he'll probably pretend he was
> "making fun").

Neither was yours, yours was about some whacked bullshit about propaganda, not Longfellow.
And my verse is definitely making fun of you and your cash cow, just like your Ashtroll poem, and is very relevant to what is happening now that you're here. Only if you would quit spinin', disinformin' and huffing the bleach; and understand the message...
So you're saying that those so called poems you that so proudly posted about Mr Burrows, Mr Rochester and me were "just ad hom attack" then? Especially when you knew your goons would bump them every day to attack us. Thank you for your admission.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:30:10 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-04 11:09 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> >> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >> >>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >> >>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> >> >>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >> >>>>> vel
> >> >>>>>>> l’s
> >> >>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >> >>>>> 3."
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >> >>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >> >> You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >> >> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >> >> right there.
> >> >>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >> >> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> >> >> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey.."
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >> >
> >> > Jesus fuck, George, wtf is your problem?
> >> Why the personal attack, Corey? Are the facts too much for you to handle?
> >>
> >> (1) I believed this 'Jeopardy' thread of NG's was a propaganda attack on
> >> "Team Donkey".
> >> (2) Given NG's past 'Jeopardy' threads, I was justified in believing it
> >> was an attack on "Team Donkey".
> >> (3) In fact, NG's has turned out to be a propaganda attack on "Team
> >> Donkey" -- so (1) is true.
> >>
> >> Therefore,
> >> (4) I knew this thread was a propaganda attack on Team Donkey.
> >>
> >> Those are facts. Deal with them.
> > I’m not attacking you, George.
> > I’m making fun of you. See?
> Like I said, you look like an unfunny Groucho Marx.
>
> HTH and HAND.

I know, but do you understand how that doesn’t make sense?
You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.

Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
> but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
> such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.

But you rarely are.

:)

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:13:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >
> > You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
> > but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
> > such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.
> But you rarely are.
>
> :)

Okay, so say I look like Groucho Marx without the sense of humor.
That makes more sense. Express yourself clearly and meaningfully.

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:13:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> >
>> > You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
>> > but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
>> > such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.
>> But you rarely are.
>>
>> :)

> Okay, so say I look like Groucho Marx without the sense of humor.
> That makes more sense. Express yourself clearly and meaningfully.

Is it true you used to look like a character from M*A*S*H...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yqx0VrbOhI

M*A*S*H (1970)

*********** Starring: Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould, Tom Skerritt
Directed By: Robert Altman
Synopsis: The staff of a Korean War field hospital use humor and high jinks to keep their sanity in the face of the horror of war. ***************

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:23:59 PM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:13:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >
> > > You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
> > > but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
> > > such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.
> > But you rarely are.
> >
> > :)
> Okay, so say I look like Groucho Marx without the sense of humor.
> That makes more sense. Express yourself clearly and meaningfully.

Okay, thanks.

:)

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:30:48 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:23:59 PM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:13:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
> > > > but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
> > > > such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.
> > > But you rarely are.
> > >
> > > :)
> > Okay, so say I look like Groucho Marx without the sense of humor.
> > That makes more sense. Express yourself clearly and meaningfully.
> Okay, thanks.
>
> :)

You’re welcome.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:34:26 PM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:30:48 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:23:59 PM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> > > > > You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
> > > > > but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
> > > > > such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.
> > > > But you rarely are.
> > > >
> > > > :)
> > > Okay, so say I look like Groucho Marx without the sense of humor.
> > > That makes more sense. Express yourself clearly and meaningfully.
> > Okay, thanks.
> >
> > :)
> You’re welcome.

By the way, you do get a good joke in from time-to-time, but more of the Shel Silverstein style.

HTH and HAND.

On 2022-11-04 4:36 p.m., Zod wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
>> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4,
>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
>>>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
>> just bitchiness.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
>>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>>>>>> right there.
>>>>>
>>>>> A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in
>> one's mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had
>> searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made
>> you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
>> knew
>>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
>> Donkey."
>>>>>
>>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
>>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo
>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo
>> DeSockpuppet
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
>>>>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
>>>>>>>>> vel
>>>>>>>>>>> l’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
>>>>>>>>> 3."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
>>>>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
>>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
>>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.>>> You're lying
>>>> again, NastyGene.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.>
>>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
>>>> just bitchiness.
>>>>>
>>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
>>>> Let's see.
>>>
>>> I didn't call you a name, George.
>>>
>>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
>>>
>> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
>> "pettiness."
>>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
>>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>>>>>> right there.
>>>>>
>>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
>>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
>>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
>>>> failed, so let's try that.
>>>
>>> Deflection noted.
>> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
>> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
>> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
>> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
>>>
>>>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
>>>>>
>>>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
>>>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
>>>
>>> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
>> knowledge through words?
>>>
>> Not according to you, since the words "aren't in their minds" -- meaning
>> that can't contain any "knowledge", either. If they can't contain
>> knowledge, they can't be used to transmit it.
>>>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
>>>> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
>>>
>>> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
>> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
>> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
>>> Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
>> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
>> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
>> homs.
>>> , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
>>>
>>>> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
>>>> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
>>>
>>> Nope. You're not done.
>>>
>>> Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
>>>
>>> Definition of knowledge
>>> 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
>> gained through experience or association
>>> (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
>>> b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
>>> (2): the range of one's information or understanding
>>> answered to the best of my knowledge
>>> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
>> through reasoning : COGNITION
>>> d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
>>> a person of unusual knowledge
>>> 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
>> principles acquired by humankind
>>> barchaic : a branch of learning
>>> 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
>>> 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
>>>
>>> As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
>> and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
>> Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
>> know it.
>>
>> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
>> (epistemologists) use.
>>
>> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
>> (3) justified.
>>> Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
>> does not possess knowledge.
>> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
>> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
>> That's what we're discussing.
>>
>> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
>> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
>> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17, 1820.[7]
>>
>> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
>>> Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
>> you further?
>>>
>> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
>> you go right ahead.
>>>> NG lied about that.
>>>>
>>>>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
>>>> searched Google for the answer.
>>>> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
>>>> except for Google.
>>>
>>> You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
>> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
>> of creating "strawman" arguments.
>> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
>> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
>> called it a 'deflection'?
>>> Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for
>> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
>> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
>> you already are."
>> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
>> incorrect description of PPP.
>>>
>>> As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
>> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
>> answer.
>> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
>> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling".
>> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
>> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
>> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
>> Pond" unless they already knew it? Not from PPP, not from the sources
>> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
>>>> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
>>>> remembered it.
>>>
>>> Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
>> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
>> remembered that I knew it.
>>>> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
>>>> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom).
>>>
>>> I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make
>> an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have
>> given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of
>> Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
>>>
>> I'd say that's just because you couldn't remember it; not because you
>> didn't know the answer at all. "Jeopardy" is a game involving knowlege
>> *and* memory, not just the former.
>>>>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
>>>> knowledgeable than you already are.
>> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.
>>
>>
>>>> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
>> knowledge. But, once
>>>> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
>>>
>>> And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
>> observation would not apply.
>>>
>> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
>> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
>>
>> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
>> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
>> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
>> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
>>> I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
>> for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
>> done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
>> than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
>> knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
>> has access to.
>> But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the at answer. As
>> did you, at least after you looked it up.
>>
>> OTOH, those who didn't know it, and read Cuckoo the Meatpuppet's
>> statement, and independently verified it, would now
>>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>>
>>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
>> knew
>>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
>> Donkey."
>>>>>
>>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
>>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all.
>>>>>
>>>> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
>>>> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
>>>
>>> The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
>> correct response.
>>>
>>> And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
>> "gang's" lack of response.
>> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
>> want to quibble about when they did that. You also admit they were
>> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
>> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
>> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.
>
> Typical scumbag move by the Voodoo Boy...!

On 2022-11-04 4:45 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:36:08 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4,
>>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
>>>>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
>>> just bitchiness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
>>>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>>>>>>> right there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in
>>> one's mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had
>>> searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made
>>> you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>>>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
>>> knew
>>>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
>>> Donkey."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
>>>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo
>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo
>>> DeSockpuppet
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
>>>>>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
>>>>>>>>>> vel
>>>>>>>>>>>> l’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
>>>>>>>>>> 3."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
>>>>>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
>>>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
>>>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.>>> You're lying
>>>>> again, NastyGene.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.>
>>>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
>>>>> just bitchiness.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
>>>>> Let's see.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't call you a name, George.
>>>>
>>>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
>>>>
>>> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
>>> "pettiness."
>>>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
>>>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>>>>>>> right there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
>>>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
>>>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
>>>>> failed, so let's try that.
>>>>
>>>> Deflection noted.
>>> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
>>> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
>>> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
>>> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
>>>>
>>>>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
>>>>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
>>> knowledge through words?
>>>>
>>> Not according to you, since the words "aren't in their minds" -- meaning
>>> that can't contain any "knowledge", either. If they can't contain
>>> knowledge, they can't be used to transmit it.
>>>>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
>>>>> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
>>>>
>>>> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
>>> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
>>> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
>>>> Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
>>> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
>>> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
>>> homs.
>>>> , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
>>>>
>>>>> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
>>>>> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. You're not done.
>>>>
>>>> Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
>>>>
>>>> Definition of knowledge
>>>> 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
>>> gained through experience or association
>>>> (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
>>>> b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
>>>> (2): the range of one's information or understanding
>>>> answered to the best of my knowledge
>>>> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
>>> through reasoning : COGNITION
>>>> d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
>>>> a person of unusual knowledge
>>>> 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
>>> principles acquired by humankind
>>>> barchaic : a branch of learning
>>>> 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
>>>> 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
>>>>
>>>> As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
>>> and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
>>> Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
>>> know it.
>>>
>>> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
>>> (epistemologists) use.
>>>
>>> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
>>> (3) justified.
>>>> Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
>>> does not possess knowledge.
>>> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
>>> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
>>> That's what we're discussing.
>>>
>>> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
>>> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
>>> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17, 1820.[7]
>>>
>>> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
>>>> Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
>>> you further?
>>>>
>>> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
>>> you go right ahead.
>>>>> NG lied about that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
>>>>> searched Google for the answer.
>>>>> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
>>>>> except for Google.
>>>>
>>>> You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
>>> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
>>> of creating "strawman" arguments.
>>> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
>>> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
>>> called it a 'deflection'?
>>>> Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for
>>> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
>>> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
>>> you already are."
>>> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
>>> incorrect description of PPP.
>>>>
>>>> As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
>>> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
>>> answer.
>>> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
>>> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling".
>>> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
>>> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
>>> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
>>> Pond" unless they already knew it? Not from PPP, not from the sources
>>> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
>>>>> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
>>>>> remembered it.
>>>>
>>>> Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
>>> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
>>> remembered that I knew it.
>>>>> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
>>>>> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom).
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make
>>> an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have
>>> given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of
>>> Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
>>>>
>>> I'd say that's just because you couldn't remember it; not because you
>>> didn't know the answer at all. "Jeopardy" is a game involving knowlege
>>> *and* memory, not just the former.
>>>>>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
>>>>> knowledgeable than you already are.
>>> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
>>> knowledge. But, once
>>>>> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
>>>>
>>>> And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
>>> observation would not apply.
>>>>
>>> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
>>> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
>>>
>>> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
>>> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
>>> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
>>> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
>>>> I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
>>> for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
>>> done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
>>> than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
>>> knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
>>> has access to.
>>> But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the at answer. As
>>> did you, at least after you looked it up.
>>>
>>> OTOH, those who didn't know it, and read Cuckoo the Meatpuppet's
>>> statement, and independently verified it, would now
>>>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
>>> knew
>>>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
>>> Donkey."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
>>>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
>>>>> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
>>>>
>>>> The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
>>> correct response.
>>>>
>>>> And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
>>> "gang's" lack of response.
>>> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
>>> want to quibble about when they did that. You also admit they were
>>> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
>>> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
>>> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.
>> Typical scumbag move by the Voodoo Boy...!
>
> Soon, so soon, you'll be going off with your trademark "motherfucker"...

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:13:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >
> > You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
> > but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
> > such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.
> But you rarely are.

Only to you and your social support lackeys, because you don't like what or even understand it half the time. I'm surprised you haven't started accusing him of gibberish.
I find humor in his writing- sometimes even when it's directed at me. But then I don't have an insecure ego ruling over me.

sWilly, why must you be such a LAMe hill-billy
it's not my fault, so don't get so chilly
that your ego rides you like a filly
and makes your sorry ass look so silly

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 6:07:53 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:13:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >
> > > You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
> > > but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
> > > such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.
> > But you rarely are.
> Only to you and your social support lackeys, because you don't like what or even understand it half the time. I'm surprised you haven't started accusing him of gibberish.
> I find humor in his writing- sometimes even when it's directed at me. But then I don't have an insecure ego ruling over me.
>
> sWilly, why must you be such a LAMe hill-billy
> it's not my fault, so don't get so chilly
> that your ego rides you like a filly
> and makes your sorry ass look so silly

Thank you. It’s nice to know somebody gets it.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 6:01:20 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 4:36 p.m., Zod wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4,
> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> >> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> >> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> >> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >>>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> >> just bitchiness.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>>>> right there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in
> >> one's mind.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had
> >> searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made
> >> you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> >> knew
> >>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> >> Donkey."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> >> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> >>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo
> >> DeSockpuppet
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>>>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >>>>>>>>> vel
> >>>>>>>>>>> l’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >>>>>>>>> 3."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >>>>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> >>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> >>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> >>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.>>> You're lying
> >>>> again, NastyGene.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.>
> >>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> >>>> just bitchiness.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG..
> >>>> Let's see.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't call you a name, George.
> >>>
> >>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> >> "pettiness."
> >>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>>>> right there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> >>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> >>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> >>>> failed, so let's try that.
> >>>
> >>> Deflection noted.
> >> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> >> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> >> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> >> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> >>>
> >>>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
> >>>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> >>>
> >>> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> >> knowledge through words?
> >>>
> >> Not according to you, since the words "aren't in their minds" -- meaning
> >> that can't contain any "knowledge", either. If they can't contain
> >> knowledge, they can't be used to transmit it.
> >>>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
> >>>> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
> >>>
> >>> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
> >> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> >> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> >>> Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> >> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> >> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> >> homs.
> >>> , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> >>>
> >>>> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> >>>> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> >>>
> >>> Nope. You're not done.
> >>>
> >>> Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> >>>
> >>> Definition of knowledge
> >>> 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
> >> gained through experience or association
> >>> (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> >>> b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> >>> (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> >>> answered to the best of my knowledge
> >>> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
> >> through reasoning : COGNITION
> >>> d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> >>> a person of unusual knowledge
> >>> 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
> >> principles acquired by humankind
> >>> barchaic : a branch of learning
> >>> 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> >>> 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> >>>
> >>> As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
> >> and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> >> Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
> >> know it.
> >>
> >> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> >> (epistemologists) use.
> >>
> >> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> >> (3) justified.
> >>> Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> >> does not possess knowledge.
> >> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> >> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire..
> >> That's what we're discussing.
> >>
> >> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> >> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> >> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17, 1820.[7]
> >>
> >> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
> >>> Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> >> you further?
> >>>
> >> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> >> you go right ahead.
> >>>> NG lied about that.
> >>>>
> >>>>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> >>>> searched Google for the answer.
> >>>> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> >>>> except for Google.
> >>>
> >>> You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> >> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> >> of creating "strawman" arguments.
> >> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> >> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> >> called it a 'deflection'?
> >>> Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for
> >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> >> you already are."
> >> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> >> incorrect description of PPP.
> >>>
> >>> As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> >> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> >> answer.
> >> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> >> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling".
> >> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> >> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> >> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> >> Pond" unless they already knew it? Not from PPP, not from the sources
> >> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
> >>>> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> >>>> remembered it.
> >>>
> >>> Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> >> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> >> remembered that I knew it.
> >>>> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
> >>>> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom).
> >>>
> >>> I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make
> >> an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have
> >> given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of
> >> Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
> >>>
> >> I'd say that's just because you couldn't remember it; not because you
> >> didn't know the answer at all. "Jeopardy" is a game involving knowlege
> >> *and* memory, not just the former.
> >>>>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> >>>> knowledgeable than you already are.
> >> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> >> knowledge. But, once
> >>>> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> >>>
> >>> And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> >> observation would not apply.
> >>>
> >> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> >> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
> >>
> >> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> >> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> >> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> >> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
> >>> I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
> >> for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
> >> done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
> >> than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
> >> knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
> >> has access to.
> >> But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the at answer. As
> >> did you, at least after you looked it up.
> >>
> >> OTOH, those who didn't know it, and read Cuckoo the Meatpuppet's
> >> statement, and independently verified it, would now
> >>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>
> >>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> >> knew
> >>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> >> Donkey."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> >>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's all.
> >>>>>
> >>>> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> >>>> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
> >>>
> >>> The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> >> correct response.
> >>>
> >>> And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> >> "gang's" lack of response.
> >> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> >> want to quibble about when they did that. You also admit they were
> >> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> >> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> >> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.
> >
> > Typical scumbag move by the Voodoo Boy...!
> It's all too typical, both of trolls and those who fight propaganda
> wars; the attacker always tries to blame the victim for the attacks.
>
> But this has to be silliest use of it I've seen. If Team Monkey had
> attacked one of us us because we'd posted on a TM thread, that would be
> worth debating; but attacking TD because we didn't post into their
> trollthread is just scumbag behavior.
>
> No wonder NG dropped out to let a couple of other TM players defend them.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 6:06:39 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 4:45 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:36:08 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4,
> >>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> >>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> >>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> >>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >>>>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> >>> just bitchiness.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>>>>> right there.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in
> >>> one's mind.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had
> >>> searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made
> >>> you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> >>> knew
> >>>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> >>> Donkey."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> >>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> >>>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>> DeSockpuppet
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>>>>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >>>>>>>>>> vel
> >>>>>>>>>>>> l’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >>>>>>>>>> 3."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >>>>>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> >>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> >>>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it..
> >>>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.>>> You're lying
> >>>>> again, NastyGene.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.>
> >>>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> >>>>> just bitchiness.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
> >>>>> Let's see.
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn't call you a name, George.
> >>>>
> >>>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
> >>>>
> >>> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> >>> "pettiness."
> >>>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>>>>> right there.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> >>>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> >>>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> >>>>> failed, so let's try that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Deflection noted.
> >>> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> >>> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> >>> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> >>> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
> >>>>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy..
> >>>>
> >>>> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> >>> knowledge through words?
> >>>>
> >>> Not according to you, since the words "aren't in their minds" -- meaning
> >>> that can't contain any "knowledge", either. If they can't contain
> >>> knowledge, they can't be used to transmit it.
> >>>>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
> >>>>> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
> >>>>
> >>>> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind..
> >>> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> >>> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> >>>> Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> >>> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> >>> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> >>> homs.
> >>>> , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> >>>>> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope. You're not done.
> >>>>
> >>>> Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> >>>>
> >>>> Definition of knowledge
> >>>> 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
> >>> gained through experience or association
> >>>> (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> >>>> b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> >>>> (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> >>>> answered to the best of my knowledge
> >>>> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
> >>> through reasoning : COGNITION
> >>>> d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> >>>> a person of unusual knowledge
> >>>> 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
> >>> principles acquired by humankind
> >>>> barchaic : a branch of learning
> >>>> 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> >>>> 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> >>>>
> >>>> As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
> >>> and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> >>> Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
> >>> know it.
> >>>
> >>> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> >>> (epistemologists) use.
> >>>
> >>> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> >>> (3) justified.
> >>>> Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> >>> does not possess knowledge.
> >>> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> >>> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
> >>> That's what we're discussing.
> >>>
> >>> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> >>> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> >>> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17, 1820.[7]
> >>>
> >>> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified..
> >>>> Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> >>> you further?
> >>>>
> >>> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> >>> you go right ahead.
> >>>>> NG lied about that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> >>>>> searched Google for the answer.
> >>>>> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> >>>>> except for Google.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> >>> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> >>> of creating "strawman" arguments.
> >>> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> >>> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> >>> called it a 'deflection'?
> >>>> Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for
> >>> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> >>> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> >>> you already are."
> >>> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> >>> incorrect description of PPP.
> >>>>
> >>>> As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> >>> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> >>> answer.
> >>> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> >>> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling".
> >>> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> >>> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> >>> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> >>> Pond" unless they already knew it? Not from PPP, not from the sources
> >>> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
> >>>>> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> >>>>> remembered it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> >>> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> >>> remembered that I knew it.
> >>>>> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
> >>>>> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom).
> >>>>
> >>>> I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make
> >>> an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have
> >>> given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of
> >>> Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
> >>>>
> >>> I'd say that's just because you couldn't remember it; not because you
> >>> didn't know the answer at all. "Jeopardy" is a game involving knowlege
> >>> *and* memory, not just the former.
> >>>>>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> >>>>> knowledgeable than you already are.
> >>> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> >>> knowledge. But, once
> >>>>> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> >>>>
> >>>> And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> >>> observation would not apply.
> >>>>
> >>> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> >>> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
> >>>
> >>> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> >>> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> >>> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> >>> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
> >>>> I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
> >>> for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
> >>> done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
> >>> than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
> >>> knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
> >>> has access to.
> >>> But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the at answer. As
> >>> did you, at least after you looked it up.
> >>>
> >>> OTOH, those who didn't know it, and read Cuckoo the Meatpuppet's
> >>> statement, and independently verified it, would now
> >>>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> >>> knew
> >>>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> >>> Donkey."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> >>>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> >>>>> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
> >>>>
> >>>> The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> >>> correct response.
> >>>>
> >>>> And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> >>> "gang's" lack of response.
> >>> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> >>> want to quibble about when they did that. You also admit they were
> >>> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> >>> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> >>> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.
> >> Typical scumbag move by the Voodoo Boy...!
> >
> > Soon, so soon, you'll be going off with your trademark "motherfucker"....
> Why shouldn't he call MMP a motherfucker? What's your problem with that?

On Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 08:33:34 UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lovell’s Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 13."
>
> None of the contestants guessed the correct "answer." Guesses were: Who is Pendragon, who is NancyGene, and who is Benders.
>
> No Googling! We will know and you will be disqualified.

Good morning NG.
I didn’t chime in on this one. I wanted to give the others a chance to win.
But I see rhat it turned into a goat rodeo.
Sorry about that. But it happens when you’ve got paranoia running rampant here.
Please keep up the good work.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 7:18:43 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 1:43:34 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-04 12:58 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:52:07 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >> >>>>>>>>> vel
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> l’s
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >> >>>>>>>>> 3."
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >> >>>>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >> >>>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >> >>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >> >>>>>> right there.
> >> >>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >> >>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> >> >>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Jesus fuck, George, wtf is your problem?
> >> >>>> Why the personal attack, Corey? Are the facts too much for you to handle?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> (1) I believed this 'Jeopardy' thread of NG's was a propaganda attack on
> >> >>>> "Team Donkey".
> >> >>>> (2) Given NG's past 'Jeopardy' threads, I was justified in believing it
> >> >>>> was an attack on "Team Donkey".
> >> >>>> (3) In fact, NG's thread has turned out to be a propaganda attack on "Team
> >> >>>> Donkey" -- so (1) is true.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Therefore,
> >> >>>> (4) I knew this thread was a propaganda attack on Team Donkey.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Those are facts. Deal with them.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I’m not attacking you, George.
> >> >> Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack.
> >> >>> I’m making fun of you. See?
> >> >> So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal with the
> >> >> facts. No surprise there.
> >> >
> >> > Your facts aren’t factual.
> >>
> >>
> >> > I’m sorry you perceive
> >> > me as a smug asshole.
> >> That's unfortunate. Learning how others perceive your behavior can be an
> >> opportunity to change, not just to feel sorry for yourself.
> >> > We could be having fun.
> >> So let's have fun.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you think you come across as a smug asshole?
>
> > You previously perceived me as a homophobe and anti-Semite
>
> I missed that, can you post a link to that thread?
>
>
> TIA.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180410161735/http://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/J._Corey_Connor