Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
>> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
>> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
>> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
>> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
>> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
>> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
>> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
>> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
>> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
>> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
>> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
>> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
>> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
>> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
>> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
>> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
>> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
>> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
>> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
>> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
>> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
>> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
>> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
>> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
>> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
>> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
>> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
>> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
>> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
>> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
>> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
>> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
>> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
>> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
>> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
>> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
>> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
>> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
>> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
>> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
>> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
>> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
>> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
>> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
>> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
>> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
>> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
>> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
>> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
>> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
>> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
>> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
>> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
>> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
>> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
>> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
>> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
>> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
>> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
>> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
>> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
>> > > > > > > > boy you are!
>> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
>> > > > > > > > "use" it?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
>> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
>> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
>> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
>> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
>> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
>> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
>> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
>> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
>> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
>> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
>> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
>> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
>> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
>> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
>> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
>> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
>> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
>> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
>> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
>> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
>> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
>> > > > > > > > >> something better.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
>> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
>> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
>> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
>> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
>> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > <snip>
>> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
>> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
>> > > Not true.
>> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
>> No, not just because you say so.
>>
>> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:59:48 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> > > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference.. That is
> > > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> > > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have..
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> > > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> > > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew.. What a silly
> > > > > > > > > boy you are!
> > > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > > > > > > > > "use" it?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > > > > > > > > >> something better.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> > > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> > > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> > > > Not true.
> > > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> > No, not just because you say so.
> >
> > It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> You don't understand

On Wednesday, 30 November 2022 at 20:28:19 UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:59:48 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > > > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > > > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again.. I said that my
> > > > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > > > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > > > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> > > > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > > > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > > > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > > > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > > > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > > > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > > > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts.. The purpose of
> > > > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > > > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > > > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > > > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > > > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > > > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > > > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > > > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > > > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > > > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > > > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > > > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > > > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > > > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > > > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > > > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > > > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > > > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > > > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > > > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > > > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > > > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > > > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > > > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > > > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > > > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > > > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > > > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > > > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > > > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > > > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > > > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > > > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > > > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > > > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > > > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > > > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > > > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > > > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > > > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > > > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> > > > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > > > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > > > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > > > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > > > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > > > > > > > > > boy you are!
> > > > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > > > > > > > > > "use" it?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > > > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > > > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > > > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > > > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > > > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > > > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > > > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > > > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > > > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > > > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > > > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > > > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > > > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > > > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > > > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > > > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > > > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > > > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > > > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > > > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > > > > > > > > > >> something better.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > > > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> > > > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > > > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > > > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > > > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> > > > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> > > > > Not true.
> > > > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> > > No, not just because you say so.
> > >
> > > It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> > You don't understand
> You're wrong, as usual, you shit eating little monkey.
>
>
> I understand perfectly.
>
>

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
>> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
>> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
>> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
>> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
>> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
>> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
>> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
>> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
>> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
>> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
>> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
>> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
>> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
>> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
>> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
>> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
>> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
>> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
>> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
>> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
>> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
>> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
>> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
>> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
>> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
>> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
>> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
>> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
>> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
>> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
>> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
>> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
>> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
>> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
>> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
>> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
>> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
>> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
>> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
>> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
>> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
>> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
>> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
>> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
>> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
>> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
>> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
>> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
>> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
>> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
>> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
>> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
>> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
>> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
>> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
>> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
>> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
>> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
>> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
>> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
>> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
>> > > > > > > > boy you are!
>> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
>> > > > > > > > "use" it?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
>> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
>> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
>> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
>> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
>> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
>> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
>> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
>> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
>> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
>> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
>> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
>> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
>> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
>> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
>> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
>> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
>> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
>> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
>> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
>> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
>> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
>> > > > > > > > >> something better.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
>> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
>> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
>> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
>> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
>> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > <snip>
>> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
>> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
>> > > Not true.
>> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
>> No, not just because you say so.
>>
>> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
>>
>> HTH and HAND.

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:04:22 PM UTC-5, ME wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 November 2022 at 20:28:19 UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:59:48 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > > > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > > > > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > > > > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > > > > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > > > > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > > > > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > > > > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > > > > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > > > > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > > > > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > > > > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > > > > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > > > > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > > > > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > > > > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > > > > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > > > > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > > > > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > > > > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > > > > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > > > > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > > > > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > > > > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > > > > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > > > > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > > > > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > > > > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > > > > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > > > > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > > > > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > > > > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > > > > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > > > > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > > > > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > > > > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > > > > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > > > > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > > > > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > > > > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > > > > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > > > > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > > > > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > > > > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.." That's hardly
> > > > > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > > > > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > > > > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > > > > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> > > > > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > > > > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > > > > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > > > > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > > > > > > > > > > boy you are!
> > > > > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > > > > > > > > > > "use" it?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > > > > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > > > > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > > > > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > > > > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > > > > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > > > > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > > > > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > > > > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > > > > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > > > > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > > > > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > > > > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > > > > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > > > > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > > > > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > > > > > > > > > > >> something better.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > > > > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> > > > > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > > > > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > > > > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > > > > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> > > > > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> > > > > > Not true.
> > > > > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> > > > No, not just because you say so.
> > > >
> > > > It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> > > You don't understand
> > You're wrong, as usual, you shit eating little monkey.
> >
> >
> > I understand perfectly.
> >
> >
> And Class, this is what we call a ‘soup sandwich’ !!!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca
> > wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > >
> > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > based on my own experiences"?
> > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> >
> > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > own beliefs about it.
> > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > >
> > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > >
> > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > >
> > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > you (should) know it.
> > >> Plus, you're
> > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > >
> > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > boy you are!
> > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > "use" it?
> > >
> > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > >
> > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > >>
> > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > >> something better.
> > >
> > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > (immediately above).
> > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
>
> HTH and HAND.
>
> > <snip>

Clearly you did not.
Can you be any more insipid?

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:43:51 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Ash Wurthing wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
> >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it..
> >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > <snip>
> >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> >> > > Not true.
> >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> >> No, not just because you say so.
> >>
> >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
>
> > I can say the sky is grey and you would
> You don't speak for me, Ash.
>
>
>
That would be impossible. No one can meet your level of ignorance, illiteracy and stupidity.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-5, Family Guy wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca
> > > wrote:
> > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > > >
> > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > > based on my own experiences"?
> > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > >
> > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > > own beliefs about it.
> > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > > >
> > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > >
> > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > > >
> > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > > you (should) know it.
> > > >> Plus, you're
> > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > > >
> > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > > boy you are!
> > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > > "use" it?
> > > >
> > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > > >
> > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > > >> something better.
> > > >
> > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > > (immediately above).
> > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> >
> > HTH and HAND.
> >
> > > <snip>
> Clearly you did not

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:39:53 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-5, Family Guy wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > > > based on my own experiences"?
> > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > > >
> > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > > > own beliefs about it.
> > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > > > >
> > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > > > you (should) know it.
> > > > >> Plus, you're
> > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > > > >
> > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > > > boy you are!
> > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > > > "use" it?
> > > > >
> > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > > > >
> > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > > > >> something better.
> > > > >
> > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > > > (immediately above).
> > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> > >
> > > HTH and HAND.
> > >
> > > > <snip>
> > Clearly you did not
> Sure, I did.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:53:23 AM UTC-5, Family Guy wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:39:53 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-5, Family Guy wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > > > >
> > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > > > > own beliefs about it.
> > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > > > > you (should) know it.
> > > > > >> Plus, you're
> > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > > > > boy you are!
> > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > > > > "use" it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else)..
> > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > > > > >> something better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > > > > (immediately above).
> > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> > > >
> > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > Clearly you did not
> > Sure, I did.
> No. No, you didn't.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
> >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it..
> >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > <snip>
> >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> >> > > Not true.
> >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> >> No, not just because you say so.
> >>
> >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> >>
> >> HTH and HAND.
>
> > You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
> > not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
> > obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
> Can you give an example?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> 🙂

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
> >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it..
> >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > <snip>
> >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> >> > > Not true.
> >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> >> No, not just because you say so.
> >>
> >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> >>
> >> HTH and HAND.
>
> > You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
> > not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
> > obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
> Can you give an example?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> 🙂

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:06:45 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> > >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> > >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> > >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> > >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
> > >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > >> > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> > >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> > >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> > >> > > Not true.
> > >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> > >> No, not just because you say so.
> > >>
> > >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> > >>
> > >> HTH and HAND.
> >
> > > You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
> > > not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
> > > obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
> > Can you give an example?
> >
> > I didn't think so.
> >
> > 🙂
> The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.

On 2022-12-01 6:06 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
>>>>>>>>>>> based on my own experiences"?
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
>>>>>>>>>>> that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
>>>>>>>>>>> "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
>>>>>>>>>>> literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
>>>>>>>>>>> but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
>>>>>>>>>>> accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
>>>>>>>>>>> actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>> creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
>>>>>>>>>>> literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
>>>>>>>>>>> add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
>>>>>>>>>>> events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
>>>>>>>>>>> for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
>>>>>>>>>>> autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
>>>>>>>>>>> happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
>>>>>>>>>>> person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
>>>>>>>>>>> between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
>>>>>>>>>>> reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
>>>>>>>>>>> work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
>>>>>>>>>>> own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
>>>>>>>>>>> creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
>>>>>>>>>>> you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
>>>>>>>>>>> difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
>>>>>>>>>>> imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
>>>>>>>>>>> plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
>>>>>>>>>>> own beliefs about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just say so and be done with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
>>>>>>>>>>> we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
>>>>>>>>>>> experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
>>>>>>>>>>> household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
>>>>>>>>>>> were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
>>>>>>>>>>> operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
>>>>>>>>>>> gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
>>>>>>>>>>> scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
>>>>>>>>>>> bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
>>>>>>>>>>> that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
>>>>>>>>>>> unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
>>>>>>>>>>> punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
>>>>>>>>>>> right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
>>>>>>>>>>> you (should) know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
>>>>>>>>>>> successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
>>>>>>>>>>> admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
>>>>>>>>>>> boy you are!
>>>>>>>>>>>> As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
>>>>>>>>>>> "use" it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
>>>>>>>>>>> night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
>>>>>>>>>>> armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
>>>>>>>>>>> But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
>>>>>>>>>>> history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
>>>>>>>>>>> patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
>>>>>>>>>>> creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
>>>>>>>>>>> more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
>>>>>>>>>>> Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
>>>>>>>>>>> account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
>>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
>>>>>>>>>>> embarrassed someone, now, would you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
>>>>>>>>>>>>> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
>>>>>>>>>>> (immediately above).
>>>>>>>>>>> It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
>>>>>>>>>>> an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
>>>>>>>>>>> story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
>>>>>>>>>> If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HTH and HAND.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
>>>>>>>> I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
>>>>>> Not true.
>>>>> Again, the truth is self-evident.
>>>> No, not just because you say so.
>>>>
>>>> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
>>>>
>>>> HTH and HAND.
>>
>>> You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
>>> not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
>>> obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
>> Can you give an example?
>>
>> I didn't think so.
>>
>> 🙂
>
> The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:39:49 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-12-01 6:06 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> >>>>>>>>>>> based on my own experiences"?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> >>>>>>>>>>> that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> >>>>>>>>>>> "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> >>>>>>>>>>> literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> >>>>>>>>>>> but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> >>>>>>>>>>> accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> >>>>>>>>>>> actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> >>>>>>>>>>> creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> >>>>>>>>>>> literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> >>>>>>>>>>> add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> >>>>>>>>>>> events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> >>>>>>>>>>> for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> >>>>>>>>>>> autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> >>>>>>>>>>> happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> >>>>>>>>>>> person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> >>>>>>>>>>> attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> >>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> >>>>>>>>>>> between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> >>>>>>>>>>> reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> >>>>>>>>>>> work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> >>>>>>>>>>> own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> >>>>>>>>>>> creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> >>>>>>>>>>> you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> >>>>>>>>>>> difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> >>>>>>>>>>> imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> >>>>>>>>>>> plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> >>>>>>>>>>> own beliefs about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> just say so and be done with it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> >>>>>>>>>>> we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> >>>>>>>>>>> experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> >>>>>>>>>>> household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> >>>>>>>>>>> were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> >>>>>>>>>>> operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> >>>>>>>>>>> gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> >>>>>>>>>>> scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> >>>>>>>>>>> bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> >>>>>>>>>>> Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> >>>>>>>>>>> that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> >>>>>>>>>>> unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> >>>>>>>>>>> punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> >>>>>>>>>>> right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> >>>>>>>>>>> you (should) know it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, you're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> >>>>>>>>>>> successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> >>>>>>>>>>> admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> >>>>>>>>>>> boy you are!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> >>>>>>>>>>> "use" it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> >>>>>>>>>>> night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> >>>>>>>>>>> armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>> But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> >>>>>>>>>>> history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> >>>>>>>>>>> patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> >>>>>>>>>>> creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> >>>>>>>>>>> more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> >>>>>>>>>>> paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> >>>>>>>>>>> account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> >>>>>>>>>>> embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> something better.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you...."
> >>>>>>>>>>> (immediately above).
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> >>>>>>>>>>> an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> >>>>>>>>>>> story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis..
> >>>>>>>>>> If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> HTH and HAND.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>> You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> >>>>>>>> I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> >>>>>> Not true.
> >>>>> Again, the truth is self-evident.
> >>>> No, not just because you say so.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> >>>>
> >>>> HTH and HAND.
> >>
> >>> You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
> >>> not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
> >>> obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
> >> Can you give an example?
> >>
> >> I didn't think so.
> >>
> >> 🙂
> >
> > The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.
> Great example. You were given a dictionary definition, which you didn't
> like and so decided to label as 'anti-semantic.'

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:39:49 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-12-01 6:06 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> >>>>>>>>>>> based on my own experiences"?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> >>>>>>>>>>> that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> >>>>>>>>>>> "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> >>>>>>>>>>> literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> >>>>>>>>>>> but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> >>>>>>>>>>> accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> >>>>>>>>>>> actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> >>>>>>>>>>> creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> >>>>>>>>>>> literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> >>>>>>>>>>> add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> >>>>>>>>>>> events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> >>>>>>>>>>> for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> >>>>>>>>>>> autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> >>>>>>>>>>> happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> >>>>>>>>>>> person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> >>>>>>>>>>> attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> >>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> >>>>>>>>>>> between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> >>>>>>>>>>> reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> >>>>>>>>>>> work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> >>>>>>>>>>> own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> >>>>>>>>>>> creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> >>>>>>>>>>> you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> >>>>>>>>>>> difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> >>>>>>>>>>> imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> >>>>>>>>>>> plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> >>>>>>>>>>> own beliefs about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> just say so and be done with it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> >>>>>>>>>>> we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> >>>>>>>>>>> experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> >>>>>>>>>>> household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> >>>>>>>>>>> were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> >>>>>>>>>>> operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> >>>>>>>>>>> gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> >>>>>>>>>>> scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> >>>>>>>>>>> bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> >>>>>>>>>>> Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> >>>>>>>>>>> that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> >>>>>>>>>>> unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> >>>>>>>>>>> punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> >>>>>>>>>>> right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> >>>>>>>>>>> you (should) know it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, you're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> >>>>>>>>>>> successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> >>>>>>>>>>> admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> >>>>>>>>>>> boy you are!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> >>>>>>>>>>> "use" it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> >>>>>>>>>>> night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> >>>>>>>>>>> armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>> But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> >>>>>>>>>>> history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> >>>>>>>>>>> patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> >>>>>>>>>>> creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> >>>>>>>>>>> more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> >>>>>>>>>>> paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> >>>>>>>>>>> account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> >>>>>>>>>>> embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> something better.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you...."
> >>>>>>>>>>> (immediately above).
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> >>>>>>>>>>> an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> >>>>>>>>>>> story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis..
> >>>>>>>>>> If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> HTH and HAND.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>> You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> >>>>>>>> I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> >>>>>> Not true.
> >>>>> Again, the truth is self-evident.
> >>>> No, not just because you say so.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> >>>>
> >>>> HTH and HAND.
> >>
> >>> You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
> >>> not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
> >>> obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
> >> Can you give an example?
> >>
> >> I didn't think so.
> >>
> >> 🙂
> >
> > The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.
> Great example. You were given a dictionary definition, which you didn't
> like and so decided to label as 'anti-semantic.'

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:06:45 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur.....@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
>> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
>> > >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
>> > >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
>> > >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
>> > >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
>> > >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
>> > >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
>> > >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
>> > >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
>> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
>> > >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
>> > >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
>> > >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
>> > >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
>> > >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
>> > >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
>> > >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
>> > >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
>> > >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
>> > >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
>> > >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
>> > >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
>> > >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
>> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
>> > >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
>> > >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
>> > >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
>> > >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
>> > >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
>> > >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
>> > >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
>> > >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
>> > >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
>> > >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
>> > >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
>> > >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
>> > >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
>> > >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
>> > >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.." That's hardly
>> > >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
>> > >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
>> > >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
>> > >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
>> > >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
>> > >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
>> > >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
>> > >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
>> > >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
>> > >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
>> > >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
>> > >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
>> > >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
>> > >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
>> > >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
>> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
>> > >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
>> > >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
>> > >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
>> > >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
>> > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
>> > >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
>> > >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
>> > >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
>> > >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
>> > >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
>> > >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
>> > >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > <snip>
>> > >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
>> > >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
>> > >> > > Not true.
>> > >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
>> > >> No, not just because you say so.
>> > >>
>> > >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
>> > >>
>> > >> HTH and HAND.
>> >
>> > > You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
>> > > not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
>> > > obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
>> > Can you give an example?
>> >
>> > I didn't think so.
>> >
>> > 🙂
>> The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:16:47 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:06:45 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> >> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> >> > >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> >> > >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> >> > >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> >> > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> >> > >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> >> > >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> >> > >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> >> > >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> >> > >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> >> > >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> >> > >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> >> > >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> >> > >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> >> > >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> >> > >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> >> > >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> >> > >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> >> > >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> >> > >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> >> > >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> >> > >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> >> > >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> >> > >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> >> > >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> >> > >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> >> > >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> >> > >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> >> > >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> >> > >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> >> > >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> >> > >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> >> > >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> >> > >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> >> > >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> >> > >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> >> > >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> >> > >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> >> > >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> >> > >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> >> > >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> >> > >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> >> > >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> >> > >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> >> > >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> >> > >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile.. No self-respecting
> >> > >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> >> > >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> >> > >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> >> > >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> >> > >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> >> > >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> >> > >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> >> > >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> >> > >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> >> > >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> >> > >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> >> > >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> >> > >> > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> >> > >> > > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > > > <snip>
> >> > >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> >> > >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> >> > >> > > Not true.
> >> > >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> >> > >> No, not just because you say so.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> HTH and HAND.
> >> >
> >> > > You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
> >> > > not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
> >> > > obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
> >> > Can you give an example?
> >> >
> >> > I didn't think so.
> >> >
> >> > 🙂
> >> The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.
> > Saying that one word equals another denies their subtle differences.
> Context matters, I didn't deny that.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:22:51 PM UTC-5, Family Guy wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:16:47 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:06:45 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> > >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > >> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > >> > >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> > >> > >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> > >> > >> > > Not true.
> > >> > >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> > >> > >> No, not just because you say so.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> HTH and HAND.
> > >> >
> > >> > > You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
> > >> > > not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
> > >> > > obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
> > >> > Can you give an example?
> > >> >
> > >> > I didn't think so.
> > >> >
> > >> > 🙂
> > >> The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.
> > > Saying that one word equals another denies their subtle differences.
> > Context matters, I didn't deny that.
> IF context matters how come you never understand it?

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:06:45 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> > >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> > >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> > >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> > >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
> > >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > >> > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> > >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> > >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> > >> > > Not true.
> > >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> > >> No, not just because you say so.
> > >>
> > >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> > >>
> > >> HTH and HAND.
> >
> > > You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
> > > not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
> > > obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
> > Can you give an example?
> >
> > I didn't think so.
> >
> > 🙂
> The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:43:51 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Ash Wurthing wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
> >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it..
> >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > <snip>
> >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> >> > > Not true.
> >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> >> No, not just because you say so.
> >>
> >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
>
> > I can say the sky is grey and you would
> You don't speak for me, Ash.
>

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 1:38:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-21 5:13 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 4:50:07 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> >> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 4:44:34 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
>> >>>> I remember George saying that as a boy, he'd have to lie in bed with his pajama pants pulled down each night while he waited for his father to come in to beat him.
>> >>> "Fecal smearing is a sign of (______) abuse in children...
>> >> Plonk.
>> >
>> > I deserved that plonking, thanks.
>> > George brings out the plonker in me...
>> >
>> > https://youtu.be/GNgz2dA0n88
>> Why are you trying to blame me for your interest in "fecal smearing,"
>> Robert?

> He’s comparing your writing to shit

That's probably just his upper lip he smells.

HTH and HAND.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 3:08:02 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 1:38:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-21 5:13 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> >> > On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 4:50:07 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> >> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 4:44:34 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
> >> >>>> I remember George saying that as a boy, he'd have to lie in bed with his pajama pants pulled down each night while he waited for his father to come in to beat him.
> >> >>> "Fecal smearing is a sign of (______) abuse in children...
> >> >> Plonk.
> >> >
> >> > I deserved that plonking, thanks.
> >> > George brings out the plonker in me...
> >> >
> >> > https://youtu.be/GNgz2dA0n88
> >> Why are you trying to blame me for your interest in "fecal smearing,"
> >> Robert?
>
> > He’s comparing your writing to shit
>
> That's probably just his upper lip he smells.

Congratulations, Donkey!

This post marks the 1,000th time you've used that second-handed "comeback."

Could you possibly be any more worthless?

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:22:51 PM UTC-5, Family Guy wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:16:47 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:06:45 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> > >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > >> > >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> > >> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > >> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > >> > >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> > >> > >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> > >> > >> > > Not true.
> > >> > >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> > >> > >> No, not just because you say so.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> HTH and HAND.
> > >> >
> > >> > > You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
> > >> > > not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
> > >> > > obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
> > >> > Can you give an example?
> > >> >
> > >> > I didn't think so.
> > >> >
> > >> > 🙂
> > >> The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.
> > > Saying that one word equals another denies their subtle differences.
> > Context matters, I didn't deny that.
> IF context matters how come you never understand it?

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 3:37:25 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:22:51 PM UTC-5, Family Guy wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:16:47 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:06:45 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> > >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > >> > >> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> poem was largely based on my own experiences.. I did not say it was
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > based on my own experiences"?
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > An "autobiographical" account is an example of writing history. A poem
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > between history or creative literature, or the difference. That is
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > own beliefs about it.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> just say so and be done with it.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy." That's hardly
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > you (should) know it.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Plus, you're
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > boy you are!
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > "use" it?
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > more compelling story. And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > embarrassed someone, now, would you?
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> something better.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > (immediately above).
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > an admission that you've been telling the truth.. It does make a better
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > >> > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > >> > >> > > > > > You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
> > > >> > >> > > > > I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
> > > >> > >> > > Not true.
> > > >> > >> > Again, the truth is self-evident.
> > > >> > >> No, not just because you say so.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> HTH and HAND.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
> > > >> > > not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
> > > >> > > obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
> > > >> > Can you give an example?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I didn't think so.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 🙂
> > > >> The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.
> > > > Saying that one word equals another denies their subtle differences..
> > > Context matters, I didn't deny that.
> > IF context matters how come you never understand it?
> I'm not the one having the problem with context, Dink.
>
> Try to keep up.