(piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
> NancyGene <nancygene.andjayme@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8-8472-b5e47a8ba118n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
>>> the title?
>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
>> around in Genesis.
>>
>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
>> the title?

(1) neither of us were writing a "review".
(2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
crucial for understanding the work at all).

>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
>

Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.

>
>>> Now you know what that means.
>> We always knew what it meant.
>

Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.

> Do you have any evidence that can be backed up by a Mensa member?
> Otherwise it will be completely discredited as plagiarism, cut and paste
> or some other lame fucking excuse by the Columbus Pissbum Collective who
> must think it's important enough to spam a newsgroup over it. (TINCPC).
>

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:06 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
> > NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
> >>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
> >>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
> >>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
> >>> the title?
> >> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
> >> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
> >> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
> >> around in Genesis.
> >>
> >> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
> >> the title?
> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".

There are different degrees of reviewing, George, and they're frequently determined by the forum for which they were written.

But you're nit-picking just to be annoying (i.e., to troll NancyGene into calling you a dunce, so that you'll have another reason for "titting" after her "tat").

> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> crucial for understanding the work at all).

I never said any such thing, George.

Please don't misquote me in your conveniently "piggybacked" posts.

> >> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
> >> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.

Since my unpiggybacked statement is not here for me to reference, I can only assume that you are referring to my statement that lines from famous poems are often referenced in the titles of books.

I believe I would have said that if one fails to recognize the allusions in works like "Of Mice and Men," "East of Eden," "The Sound and the Fury," and "For Whom the Bell Tolls," one is not going to be able to appreciate the work on a literary level commensurate to that of a literate reader.

Are you really as incapable of comprehending college level English as Will Donkey, or are you intentionally misquoting me as a troll tactic?

> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
> >
> >>> Now you know what that means.
> >> We always knew what it meant.
> >
> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.

Gee, will NancyGene disagree with a made up statement that you've falsely attributed to me... or will she submit to accepting the dunsical alternative?

I'm biting my nails down in suspense!

> > Do you have any evidence that can be backed up by a Mensa member?
> > Otherwise it will be completely discredited as plagiarism, cut and paste
> > or some other lame fucking excuse by the Columbus Pissbum Collective who
> > must think it's important enough to spam a newsgroup over it. (TINCPC).
> >

George J. Dance wrote:

> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
>> NancyGene <nancygene.andjayme@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8-8472-b5e47a8ba118n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
>>>> the title?
>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
>>> around in Genesis.
>>>
>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
>>> the title?

> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> crucial for understanding the work at all).

>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
>>

> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.

>>
>>>> Now you know what that means.
>>> We always knew what it meant.
>>

> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.

Thou hast nailed it once more... G.D...!

On 2022-05-31 2:58 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:06 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
>>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
>>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
>>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
>>>>> the title?
>>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
>>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
>>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
>>>> around in Genesis.
>>>>
>>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
>>>> the title?
>> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
>
> There are different degrees of reviewing, George, and they're frequently determined by the forum for which they were written.
>
> But you're nit-picking just to be annoying (i.e., to troll NancyGene into calling you a dunce, so that you'll have another reason for "titting" after her "tat").

I think you're already 'titting' on their behalf. My point was, I was
merely commenting on the book: why should I have to give the "literary
reference"?

>> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
>> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
>> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
>> crucial for understanding the work at all).
>
> I never said any such thing, George.
>
> Please don't misquote me

I wouldn't dream of it. Here's what you claimed:

"When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a book,
one wonders if you understand the book at all."

> in your conveniently "piggybacked" posts.

And don't whinge about "piggybacking". That sounds like "whataboutism"
(as it's clearly irrelevant to the discussion).

>>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
>>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
>
> Since my unpiggybacked statement is not here for me to reference, I can only assume that you are referring to my statement that lines from famous poems are often referenced in the titles of books.
>
> I believe I would have said that if one fails to recognize the allusions in works like "Of Mice and Men," "East of Eden," "The Sound and the Fury," and "For Whom the Bell Tolls," one is not going to be able to appreciate the work on a literary level commensurate to that of a literate reader.

Perhaps that's what you meant; and I'm glad to see you walk your
original statement back to a more reasonable claim.

But I still disagree with it. Just how does knowing the title of "The
Handmaid's Tale" was a reference to "The Canterbury Tales" increase
one's understanding of the book? Not a damn bit, as far as I can see.

If you want to argue for it, pick one of your four and explain why you
think the title reference makes the book more 'appreciable'.

> Are you really as incapable of comprehending college level English as Will Donkey, or are you intentionally misquoting me as a troll tactic?

Once again, here is what you originally wrote: "When you fail to pick up
on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
understand the book at all." No misquote.

>> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
>>>
>>>>> Now you know what that means.
>>>> We always knew what it meant.
>>>
>> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
>> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
>
> Gee, will NancyGene disagree with a made up statement that you've falsely attributed to me... or will she submit to accepting the dunsical alternative?

Once again, here is your original statement: "When you fail to pick up
on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
understand the book at all."

It's nice that you've walked it back, but it's rather stupid of you to
keep denying you wrote it (since it's right there in the archives).

>
> I'm biting my nails down in suspense!
>
>>> Do you have any evidence that can be backed up by a Mensa member?
>>> Otherwise it will be completely discredited as plagiarism, cut and paste
>>> or some other lame fucking excuse by the Columbus Pissbum Collective who
>>> must think it's important enough to spam a newsgroup over it. (TINCPC).
>>>

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-05-31 2:58 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:06 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>>> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
>>>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
>>>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
>>>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
>>>>>> the title?
>>>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
>>>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
>>>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
>>>>> around in Genesis.
>>>>>
>>>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
>>>>> the title?
>>> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
>>
>> There are different degrees of reviewing, George, and they're frequently determined by the forum for which they were written.
>>
>> But you're nit-picking just to be annoying (i.e., to troll NancyGene into calling you a dunce, so that you'll have another reason for "titting" after her "tat").

> I think you're already 'titting' on their behalf. My point was, I was
> merely commenting on the book: why should I have to give the "literary
> reference"?

>>> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
>>> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
>>> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
>>> crucial for understanding the work at all).
>>
>> I never said any such thing, George.
>>
>> Please don't misquote me

> I wouldn't dream of it. Here's what you claimed:

> "When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a book,
> one wonders if you understand the book at all."

>> in your conveniently "piggybacked" posts.

> And don't whinge about "piggybacking". That sounds like "whataboutism"
> (as it's clearly irrelevant to the discussion).

>>>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
>>>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
>>
>> Since my unpiggybacked statement is not here for me to reference, I can only assume that you are referring to my statement that lines from famous poems are often referenced in the titles of books.
>>
>> I believe I would have said that if one fails to recognize the allusions in works like "Of Mice and Men," "East of Eden," "The Sound and the Fury," and "For Whom the Bell Tolls," one is not going to be able to appreciate the work on a literary level commensurate to that of a literate reader.

> Perhaps that's what you meant; and I'm glad to see you walk your
> original statement back to a more reasonable claim.

> But I still disagree with it. Just how does knowing the title of "The
> Handmaid's Tale" was a reference to "The Canterbury Tales" increase
> one's understanding of the book? Not a damn bit, as far as I can see.

> If you want to argue for it, pick one of your four and explain why you
> think the title reference makes the book more 'appreciable'.

>> Are you really as incapable of comprehending college level English as Will Donkey, or are you intentionally misquoting me as a troll tactic?

> Once again, here is what you originally wrote: "When you fail to pick up
> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
> understand the book at all." No misquote.

>>> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
>>>>
>>>>>> Now you know what that means.
>>>>> We always knew what it meant.
>>>>
>>> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
>>> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
>>
>> Gee, will NancyGene disagree with a made up statement that you've falsely attributed to me... or will she submit to accepting the dunsical alternative?

> Once again, here is your original statement: "When you fail to pick up
> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
> understand the book at all."

> It's nice that you've walked it back, but it's rather stupid of you to
> keep denying you wrote it (since it's right there in the archives).

Pendragon slings so much of his monkey shit that he sometimes loses track of it all.

:)

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 3:30:20 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-05-31 2:58 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:06 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
> >>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>
> >>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
> >>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
> >>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
> >>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
> >>>>> the title?
> >>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
> >>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
> >>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
> >>>> around in Genesis.
> >>>>
> >>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
> >>>> the title?
> >> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
> >
> > There are different degrees of reviewing, George, and they're frequently determined by the forum for which they were written.
> >
> > But you're nit-picking just to be annoying (i.e., to troll NancyGene into calling you a dunce, so that you'll have another reason for "titting" after her "tat").
> I think you're already 'titting' on their behalf. My point was, I was
> merely commenting on the book: why should I have to give the "literary
> reference"?

Okay. I understand what you were saying now. You need to be careful (especially in arguments) with statements that can be interpreted more than one way.

> >> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> >> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> >> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> >> crucial for understanding the work at all).
> >
> > I never said any such thing, George.
> >
> > Please don't misquote me
> I wouldn't dream of it. Here's what you claimed:
> "When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a book,
> one wonders if you understand the book at all."

Yes. I most certainly said that.

I didn't say that it was *necessary* to understand the book. I said that if you're too illiterate to pick up on the reference, one doubt that you possess the knowledge and/or intelligence to understand a complex novel.

> > in your conveniently "piggybacked" posts.
> And don't whinge about "piggybacking". That sounds like "whataboutism"

I'm saying that it's convenient to misquote me (which you did) in a "piggybacked" thread wherein the original statement no longer appears and isn't linked.

> (as it's clearly irrelevant to the discussion).
> >>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
> >>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
> >
> > Since my unpiggybacked statement is not here for me to reference, I can only assume that you are referring to my statement that lines from famous poems are often referenced in the titles of books.
> >
> > I believe I would have said that if one fails to recognize the allusions in works like "Of Mice and Men," "East of Eden," "The Sound and the Fury," and "For Whom the Bell Tolls," one is not going to be able to appreciate the work on a literary level commensurate to that of a literate reader.
> Perhaps that's what you meant; and I'm glad to see you walk your
> original statement back to a more reasonable claim.

That's precisely what I said, albeit without the implied insult.

> But I still disagree with it. Just how does knowing the title of "The
> Handmaid's Tale" was a reference to "The Canterbury Tales" increase
> one's understanding of the book? Not a damn bit, as far as I can see.

I haven't read "The Handmaid's Tale," and cannot comment. Had I read it, I might be able to open your eyes up to a whole new level of understanding.

> If you want to argue for it, pick one of your four and explain why you
> think the title reference makes the book more 'appreciable'.

"East of Eden" obviously alerts the reader to the Biblical parallelism of the plot -- which is a modern reworking of the Adam-Eve-Cain-Abel myth after the Fall.

> > Are you really as incapable of comprehending college level English as Will Donkey, or are you intentionally misquoting me as a troll tactic?
> Once again, here is what you originally wrote: "When you fail to pick up
> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
> understand the book at all." No misquote.

If one fails to pick up the titular reference, one would most likely fail to pick up on the parallelism as well.

> >> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
> >>>
> >>>>> Now you know what that means.
> >>>> We always knew what it meant.
> >>>
> >> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> >> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
> >
> > Gee, will NancyGene disagree with a made up statement that you've falsely attributed to me... or will she submit to accepting the dunsical alternative?
> Once again, here is your original statement: "When you fail to pick up
> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
> understand the book at all."
> It's nice that you've walked it back, but it's rather stupid of you to
> keep denying you wrote it (since it's right there in the archives).

I'm neither walking it back, nor denying it, George.

Because you'd conveniently piggybacked it, I had to attempt to reconstruct it from memory.

The basic message is still the same... I simply forgot about the implied barb attached to the end of it.

> >
> > I'm biting my nails down in suspense!
> >
> >>> Do you have any evidence that can be backed up by a Mensa member?
> >>> Otherwise it will be completely discredited as plagiarism, cut and paste
> >>> or some other lame fucking excuse by the Columbus Pissbum Collective who
> >>> must think it's important enough to spam a newsgroup over it. (TINCPC).
> >>>

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 3:15:13 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
> >> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
> >>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
> >>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
> >>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
> >>>> the title?
> >>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
> >>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
> >>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
> >>> around in Genesis.
> >>>
> >>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
> >>> the title?
>
> > (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
> > (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> > don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> > a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> > crucial for understanding the work at all).
>
> >>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
> >>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
> >>
>
> > Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
>
> >>
> >>>> Now you know what that means.
> >>> We always knew what it meant.
> >>
>
> > Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> > whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
> Thou hast nailed it once more... G.D...!

That he did.

🙂

On 2022-05-31 7:52 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 3:30:20 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-05-31 2:58 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:06 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
>>>>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
>>>>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
>>>>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
>>>>>>> the title?
>>>>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
>>>>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
>>>>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
>>>>>> around in Genesis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
>>>>>> the title?
>>>> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
>>>
>>> There are different degrees of reviewing, George, and they're frequently determined by the forum for which they were written.
>>>
>>> But you're nit-picking just to be annoying (i.e., to troll NancyGene into calling you a dunce, so that you'll have another reason for "titting" after her "tat").
>> I think you're already 'titting' on their behalf. My point was, I was
>> merely commenting on the book: why should I have to give the "literary
>> reference"?
>
> Okay. I understand what you were saying now. You need to be careful (especially in arguments) with statements that can be interpreted more than one way.
>
>>>> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
>>>> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
>>>> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
>>>> crucial for understanding the work at all).
>>>
>>> I never said any such thing, George.
>>>
>>> Please don't misquote me
>> I wouldn't dream of it. Here's what you claimed:
>> "When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a book,
>> one wonders if you understand the book at all."
>
> Yes. I most certainly said that.
>
> I didn't say that it was *necessary* to understand the book. I said that if you're too illiterate to pick up on the reference, one doubt that you possess the knowledge and/or intelligence to understand a complex novel.
>
>>> in your conveniently "piggybacked" posts.
>> And don't whinge about "piggybacking". That sounds like "whataboutism"
>
> I'm saying that it's convenient to misquote me (which you did) in a "piggybacked" thread wherein the original statement no longer appears and isn't linked.
>
>> (as it's clearly irrelevant to the discussion).
>>>>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
>>>>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
>>>
>>> Since my unpiggybacked statement is not here for me to reference, I can only assume that you are referring to my statement that lines from famous poems are often referenced in the titles of books.
>>>
>>> I believe I would have said that if one fails to recognize the allusions in works like "Of Mice and Men," "East of Eden," "The Sound and the Fury," and "For Whom the Bell Tolls," one is not going to be able to appreciate the work on a literary level commensurate to that of a literate reader.
>> Perhaps that's what you meant; and I'm glad to see you walk your
>> original statement back to a more reasonable claim.
>
> That's precisely what I said, albeit without the implied insult.
>
>> But I still disagree with it. Just how does knowing the title of "The
>> Handmaid's Tale" was a reference to "The Canterbury Tales" increase
>> one's understanding of the book? Not a damn bit, as far as I can see.
>
> I haven't read "The Handmaid's Tale," and cannot comment. Had I read it, I might be able to open your eyes up to a whole new level of understanding.
>
>> If you want to argue for it, pick one of your four and explain why you
>> think the title reference makes the book more 'appreciable'.
>
> "East of Eden" obviously alerts the reader to the Biblical parallelism of the plot -- which is a modern reworking of the Adam-Eve-Cain-Abel myth after the Fall.
>
>>> Are you really as incapable of comprehending college level English as Will Donkey, or are you intentionally misquoting me as a troll tactic?
>> Once again, here is what you originally wrote: "When you fail to pick up
>> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
>> understand the book at all." No misquote.
>
> If one fails to pick up the titular reference, one would most likely fail to pick up on the parallelism as well.
>
>>>> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now you know what that means.
>>>>>> We always knew what it meant.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
>>>> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
>>>
>>> Gee, will NancyGene disagree with a made up statement that you've falsely attributed to me... or will she submit to accepting the dunsical alternative?
>> Once again, here is your original statement: "When you fail to pick up
>> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
>> understand the book at all."
>> It's nice that you've walked it back, but it's rather stupid of you to
>> keep denying you wrote it (since it's right there in the archives).
>
> I'm neither walking it back, nor denying it, George >
> Because you'd conveniently piggybacked it, I had to attempt to reconstruct it from memory.

Your statement, word for word, is still backthread. (See above.) The
fact you didn't, before you started speewing bullshit about a "made up
statement that you've falsely attributed to me."

> The basic message is still the same... I simply forgot about the implied barb attached to the end of it.

Oh, you "forgot" what you wrote. Maybe you should have looked, before
trying to pretend you didn't write it. It doesn't help you here, but
maybe next time ...

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 2:04:49 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-05-31 7:52 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 3:30:20 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-05-31 2:58 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:06 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
> >>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
> >>>>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
> >>>>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
> >>>>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
> >>>>>>> the title?
> >>>>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
> >>>>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
> >>>>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
> >>>>>> around in Genesis.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
> >>>>>> the title?
> >>>> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
> >>>
> >>> There are different degrees of reviewing, George, and they're frequently determined by the forum for which they were written.
> >>>
> >>> But you're nit-picking just to be annoying (i.e., to troll NancyGene into calling you a dunce, so that you'll have another reason for "titting" after her "tat").
> >> I think you're already 'titting' on their behalf. My point was, I was
> >> merely commenting on the book: why should I have to give the "literary
> >> reference"?
> >
> > Okay. I understand what you were saying now. You need to be careful (especially in arguments) with statements that can be interpreted more than one way.
> >
> >>>> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> >>>> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> >>>> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> >>>> crucial for understanding the work at all).
> >>>
> >>> I never said any such thing, George.
> >>>
> >>> Please don't misquote me
> >> I wouldn't dream of it. Here's what you claimed:
> >> "When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a book,
> >> one wonders if you understand the book at all."
> >
> > Yes. I most certainly said that.
> >
> > I didn't say that it was *necessary* to understand the book. I said that if you're too illiterate to pick up on the reference, one doubt that you possess the knowledge and/or intelligence to understand a complex novel.
> >
> >>> in your conveniently "piggybacked" posts.
> >> And don't whinge about "piggybacking". That sounds like "whataboutism"
> >
> > I'm saying that it's convenient to misquote me (which you did) in a "piggybacked" thread wherein the original statement no longer appears and isn't linked.
> >
> >> (as it's clearly irrelevant to the discussion).
> >>>>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
> >>>>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
> >>>
> >>> Since my unpiggybacked statement is not here for me to reference, I can only assume that you are referring to my statement that lines from famous poems are often referenced in the titles of books.
> >>>
> >>> I believe I would have said that if one fails to recognize the allusions in works like "Of Mice and Men," "East of Eden," "The Sound and the Fury," and "For Whom the Bell Tolls," one is not going to be able to appreciate the work on a literary level commensurate to that of a literate reader.
> >> Perhaps that's what you meant; and I'm glad to see you walk your
> >> original statement back to a more reasonable claim.
> >
> > That's precisely what I said, albeit without the implied insult.
> >
> >> But I still disagree with it. Just how does knowing the title of "The
> >> Handmaid's Tale" was a reference
Pend to "The Canterbury Tales" increase
> >> one's understanding of the book? Not a damn bit, as far as I can see.
> >
> > I haven't read "The Handmaid's Tale," and cannot comment. Had I read it, I might be able to open your eyes up to a whole new level of understanding.
> >
> >> If you want to argue for it, pick one of your four and explain why you
> >> think the title reference makes the book more 'appreciable'.
> >
> > "East of Eden" obviously alerts the reader to the Biblical parallelism of the plot -- which is a modern reworking of the Adam-Eve-Cain-Abel myth after the Fall.
> >
> >>> Are you really as incapable of comprehending college level English as Will Donkey, or are you intentionally misquoting me as a troll tactic?
> >> Once again, here is what you originally wrote: "When you fail to pick up
> >> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
> >> understand the book at all." No misquote.
> >
> > If one fails to pick up the titular reference, one would most likely fail to pick up on the parallelism as well.
> >
> >>>> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now you know what that means.
> >>>>>> We always knew what it meant.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> >>>> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
> >>>
> >>> Gee, will NancyGene disagree with a made up statement that you've falsely attributed to me... or will she submit to accepting the dunsical alternative?
> >> Once again, here is your original statement: "When you fail to pick up
> >> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
> >> understand the book at all."
> >> It's nice that you've walked it back, but it's rather stupid of you to
> >> keep denying you wrote it (since it's right there in the archives).
> >
> > I'm neither walking it back, nor denying it, George >
> > Because you'd conveniently piggybacked it, I had to attempt to reconstruct it from memory.
> Your statement, word for word, is still backthread. (See above.) The
> fact you didn't, before you started speewing bullshit about a "made up
> statement that you've falsely attributed to me."
> > The basic message is still the same... I simply forgot about the implied barb attached to the end of it.
> Oh, you "forgot" what you wrote. Maybe you should have looked, before
> trying to pretend you didn't write it. It doesn't help you here, but
> maybe next time ...

Pendragon has been forgetting a lot these days.

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 2:04:49 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-05-31 7:52 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 3:30:20 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-05-31 2:58 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:06 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
> >>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
> >>>>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
> >>>>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
> >>>>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
> >>>>>>> the title?
> >>>>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
> >>>>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
> >>>>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
> >>>>>> around in Genesis.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
> >>>>>> the title?
> >>>> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
> >>>
> >>> There are different degrees of reviewing, George, and they're frequently determined by the forum for which they were written.
> >>>
> >>> But you're nit-picking just to be annoying (i.e., to troll NancyGene into calling you a dunce, so that you'll have another reason for "titting" after her "tat").
> >> I think you're already 'titting' on their behalf. My point was, I was
> >> merely commenting on the book: why should I have to give the "literary
> >> reference"?
> >
> > Okay. I understand what you were saying now. You need to be careful (especially in arguments) with statements that can be interpreted more than one way.
> >
> >>>> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> >>>> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> >>>> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> >>>> crucial for understanding the work at all).
> >>>
> >>> I never said any such thing, George.
> >>>
> >>> Please don't misquote me
> >> I wouldn't dream of it. Here's what you claimed:
> >> "When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a book,
> >> one wonders if you understand the book at all."
> >
> > Yes. I most certainly said that.
> >
> > I didn't say that it was *necessary* to understand the book. I said that if you're too illiterate to pick up on the reference, one doubt that you possess the knowledge and/or intelligence to understand a complex novel.
> >
> >>> in your conveniently "piggybacked" posts.
> >> And don't whinge about "piggybacking". That sounds like "whataboutism"
> >
> > I'm saying that it's convenient to misquote me (which you did) in a "piggybacked" thread wherein the original statement no longer appears and isn't linked.
> >
> >> (as it's clearly irrelevant to the discussion).
> >>>>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
> >>>>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
> >>>
> >>> Since my unpiggybacked statement is not here for me to reference, I can only assume that you are referring to my statement that lines from famous poems are often referenced in the titles of books.
> >>>
> >>> I believe I would have said that if one fails to recognize the allusions in works like "Of Mice and Men," "East of Eden," "The Sound and the Fury," and "For Whom the Bell Tolls," one is not going to be able to appreciate the work on a literary level commensurate to that of a literate reader.
> >> Perhaps that's what you meant; and I'm glad to see you walk your
> >> original statement back to a more reasonable claim.
> >
> > That's precisely what I said, albeit without the implied insult.
> >
> >> But I still disagree with it. Just how does knowing the title of "The
> >> Handmaid's Tale" was a reference to "The Canterbury Tales" increase
> >> one's understanding of the book? Not a damn bit, as far as I can see.
> >
> > I haven't read "The Handmaid's Tale," and cannot comment. Had I read it, I might be able to open your eyes up to a whole new level of understanding.
> >
> >> If you want to argue for it, pick one of your four and explain why you
> >> think the title reference makes the book more 'appreciable'.
> >
> > "East of Eden" obviously alerts the reader to the Biblical parallelism of the plot -- which is a modern reworking of the Adam-Eve-Cain-Abel myth after the Fall.
> >
> >>> Are you really as incapable of comprehending college level English as Will Donkey, or are you intentionally misquoting me as a troll tactic?
> >> Once again, here is what you originally wrote: "When you fail to pick up
> >> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
> >> understand the book at all." No misquote.
> >
> > If one fails to pick up the titular reference, one would most likely fail to pick up on the parallelism as well.
> >
> >>>> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now you know what that means.
> >>>>>> We always knew what it meant.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> >>>> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
> >>>
> >>> Gee, will NancyGene disagree with a made up statement that you've falsely attributed to me... or will she submit to accepting the dunsical alternative?
> >> Once again, here is your original statement: "When you fail to pick up
> >> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
> >> understand the book at all."
> >> It's nice that you've walked it back, but it's rather stupid of you to
> >> keep denying you wrote it (since it's right there in the archives).
> >
> > I'm neither walking it back, nor denying it, George >
> > Because you'd conveniently piggybacked it, I had to attempt to reconstruct it from memory.
> Your statement, word for word, is still backthread. (See above.) The
> fact you didn't, before you started speewing bullshit about a "made up
> statement that you've falsely attributed to me."
> > The basic message is still the same... I simply forgot about the implied barb attached to the end of it.
> Oh, you "forgot" what you wrote. Maybe you should have looked, before
> trying to pretend you didn't write it. It doesn't help you here, but
> maybe next time ...

No bullshit has been spewed, George. As I said, the basic message remained the same in both my original sentence and my reconstruction from memory.

Your paraphrase of my statement was simply incorrect. I did not say that knowing the titular reference was *necessary* to understand the book. I said that if one failed to recognize the reference, one would most likely fail to pick up on the related symbolism/parallelism in the text.

That's a big difference, IMHO.

You then presented your misrepresentation to NancyGene as part of an either-or choice, in which she would be forced to either agree with you or to reject my (altered) statement as incorrect.

That's a debating team trick that NancyGene would not have fallen for, but one that needs to be addressed as it leads me to question your honesty in all of your exchanges with others here.

It's also part of a pattern that I've noticed has been repeated numerous times, both in our discussions, and in your discussions with others. You basically misstate something that one of us has said, capturing the general sense of our statement, but tweaking it just enough to make it insupportable in an argument (like, to take one recent example, turning it into an absolute).

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 9:38:34 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 2:04:49 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-05-31 7:52 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 3:30:20 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-05-31 2:58 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:06 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
> > >>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
> > >>>>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
> > >>>>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
> > >>>>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
> > >>>>>>> the title?
> > >>>>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
> > >>>>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
> > >>>>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
> > >>>>>> around in Genesis.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
> > >>>>>> the title?
> > >>>> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
> > >>>
> > >>> There are different degrees of reviewing, George, and they're frequently determined by the forum for which they were written.
> > >>>
> > >>> But you're nit-picking just to be annoying (i.e., to troll NancyGene into calling you a dunce, so that you'll have another reason for "titting" after her "tat").
> > >> I think you're already 'titting' on their behalf. My point was, I was
> > >> merely commenting on the book: why should I have to give the "literary
> > >> reference"?
> > >
> > > Okay. I understand what you were saying now. You need to be careful (especially in arguments) with statements that can be interpreted more than one way.
> > >
> > >>>> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> > >>>> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> > >>>> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> > >>>> crucial for understanding the work at all).
> > >>>
> > >>> I never said any such thing, George.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please don't misquote me
> > >> I wouldn't dream of it. Here's what you claimed:
> > >> "When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a book,
> > >> one wonders if you understand the book at all."
> > >
> > > Yes. I most certainly said that.
> > >
> > > I didn't say that it was *necessary* to understand the book. I said that if you're too illiterate to pick up on the reference, one doubt that you possess the knowledge and/or intelligence to understand a complex novel.
> > >
> > >>> in your conveniently "piggybacked" posts.
> > >> And don't whinge about "piggybacking". That sounds like "whataboutism"
> > >
> > > I'm saying that it's convenient to misquote me (which you did) in a "piggybacked" thread wherein the original statement no longer appears and isn't linked.
> > >
> > >> (as it's clearly irrelevant to the discussion).
> > >>>>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
> > >>>>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
> > >>>
> > >>> Since my unpiggybacked statement is not here for me to reference, I can only assume that you are referring to my statement that lines from famous poems are often referenced in the titles of books.
> > >>>
> > >>> I believe I would have said that if one fails to recognize the allusions in works like "Of Mice and Men," "East of Eden," "The Sound and the Fury," and "For Whom the Bell Tolls," one is not going to be able to appreciate the work on a literary level commensurate to that of a literate reader.
> > >> Perhaps that's what you meant; and I'm glad to see you walk your
> > >> original statement back to a more reasonable claim.
> > >
> > > That's precisely what I said, albeit without the implied insult.
> > >
> > >> But I still disagree with it. Just how does knowing the title of "The
> > >> Handmaid's Tale" was a reference to "The Canterbury Tales" increase
> > >> one's understanding of the book? Not a damn bit, as far as I can see..
> > >
> > > I haven't read "The Handmaid's Tale," and cannot comment. Had I read it, I might be able to open your eyes up to a whole new level of understanding.
> > >
> > >> If you want to argue for it, pick one of your four and explain why you
> > >> think the title reference makes the book more 'appreciable'.
> > >
> > > "East of Eden" obviously alerts the reader to the Biblical parallelism of the plot -- which is a modern reworking of the Adam-Eve-Cain-Abel myth after the Fall.
> > >
> > >>> Are you really as incapable of comprehending college level English as Will Donkey, or are you intentionally misquoting me as a troll tactic?
> > >> Once again, here is what you originally wrote: "When you fail to pick up
> > >> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
> > >> understand the book at all." No misquote.
> > >
> > > If one fails to pick up the titular reference, one would most likely fail to pick up on the parallelism as well.
> > >
> > >>>> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Now you know what that means.
> > >>>>>> We always knew what it meant.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> > >>>> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
> > >>>
> > >>> Gee, will NancyGene disagree with a made up statement that you've falsely attributed to me... or will she submit to accepting the dunsical alternative?
> > >> Once again, here is your original statement: "When you fail to pick up
> > >> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
> > >> understand the book at all."
> > >> It's nice that you've walked it back, but it's rather stupid of you to
> > >> keep denying you wrote it (since it's right there in the archives).
> > >
> > > I'm neither walking it back, nor denying it, George >
> > > Because you'd conveniently piggybacked it, I had to attempt to reconstruct it from memory.
> > Your statement, word for word, is still backthread. (See above.) The
> > fact you didn't, before you started speewing bullshit about a "made up
> > statement that you've falsely attributed to me."
> > > The basic message is still the same... I simply forgot about the implied barb attached to the end of it.
> > Oh, you "forgot" what you wrote. Maybe you should have looked, before
> > trying to pretend you didn't write it. It doesn't help you here, but
> > maybe next time ...
> No bullshit has been spewed, George. As I said, the basic message remained the same in both my original sentence and my reconstruction from memory.
>
> Your paraphrase of my statement was simply incorrect. I did not say that knowing the titular reference was *necessary* to understand the book. I said that if one failed to recognize the reference, one would most likely fail to pick up on the related symbolism/parallelism in the text.
>
> That's a big difference, IMHO.
>
> You then presented your misrepresentation to NancyGene as part of an either-or choice, in which she would be forced to either agree with you or to reject my (altered) statement as incorrect.
>
> That's a debating team trick that NancyGene would not have fallen for, but one that needs to be addressed as it leads me to question your honesty in all of your exchanges with others here.
>
> It's also part of a pattern that I've noticed has been repeated numerous times, both in our discussions, and in your discussions with others. You basically misstate something that one of us has said, capturing the general sense of our statement, but tweaking it just enough to make it insupportable in an argument (like, to take one recent example, turning it into an absolute).
>
> As you might guess, I fully believe that you do this simply to "best" your opponent in an argument, little caring whether their original statement is in fact true. You seem to think we're all a bunch of rubes who just fell off the turnip truck, and who aren't going to be able to figure out how you managed to "nail us to the wall" (as your cheer bois exclaim after each and every one of your posts).
>
> Of course there's always the possibility that you don't quite understand what we are saying, and that your misquotes are merely the result of a misunderstanding on your part, but it happens far too frequently for me to buy it.
>
> Whichever it is, it's something that needs to stop (assuming that you want to be able to "play nice" with the other members of the group). Stop rephrasing every point you want to disprove. If our statement is faulty, you should be able to disprove it without the alterations. If it proves to be correct, you should recognize it as such and move on.
>
> People would find you much less annoying if you did.
>
> I'm not trying to hurt your feelings here. But when you intentionally misquote someone only to "disprove" their statement based on your own misinterpretation of it, people are going to see you as a shyster.
>
> And when you compound this offense by playing the victim (as in your most recent post), you only reaffirm your less than stellar reputation among the other members.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 2:04:49 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-05-31 7:52 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 3:30:20 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >> On 2022-05-31 2:58 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:06 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote: it>
>> >>>> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
>> >>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
>> >>>>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
>> >>>>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
>> >>>>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
>> >>>>>>> the title?
>> >>>>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
>> >>>>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
>> >>>>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
>> >>>>>> around in Genesis.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
>> >>>>>> the title?
>> >>>> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
>> >>>
>> >>> There are different degrees of reviewing, George, and they're frequently determined by the forum for which they were written.
>> >>>
>> >>> But you're nit-picking just to be annoying (i.e., to troll NancyGene into calling you a dunce, so that you'll have another reason for "titting" after her "tat").
>> >> I think you're already 'titting' on their behalf. My point was, I was
>> >> merely commenting on the book: why should I have to give the "literary
>> >> reference"?
>> >
>> > Okay. I understand what you were saying now. You need to be careful (especially in arguments) with statements that can be interpreted more than one way.
>> >
>> >>>> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
>> >>>> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
>> >>>> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
>> >>>> crucial for understanding the work at all).
>> >>>
>> >>> I never said any such thing, George.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please don't misquote me
>> >> I wouldn't dream of it. Here's what you claimed:
>> >> "When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a book,
>> >> one wonders if you understand the book at all."
>> >
>> > Yes. I most certainly said that.
>> >
>> > I didn't say that it was *necessary* to understand the book. I said that if you're too illiterate to pick up on the reference, one doubt that you possess the knowledge and/or intelligence to understand a complex novel.
>> >
>> >>> in your conveniently "piggybacked" posts.
>> >> And don't whinge about "piggybacking". That sounds like "whataboutism"
>> >
>> > I'm saying that it's convenient to misquote me (which you did) in a "piggybacked" thread wherein the original statement no longer appears and isn't linked.
>> >
>> >> (as it's clearly irrelevant to the discussion).
>> >>>>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
>> >>>>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
>> >>>
>> >>> Since my unpiggybacked statement is not here for me to reference, I can only assume that you are referring to my statement that lines from famous poems are often referenced in the titles of books.
>> >>>
>> >>> I believe I would have said that if one fails to recognize the allusions in works like "Of Mice and Men," "East of Eden," "The Sound and the Fury," and "For Whom the Bell Tolls," one is not going to be able to appreciate the work on a literary level commensurate to that of a literate reader.
>> >> Perhaps that's what you meant; and I'm glad to see you walk your
>> >> original statement back to a more reasonable claim.
>> >
>> > That's precisely what I said, albeit without the implied insult.
>> >
>> >> But I still disagree with it. Just how does knowing the title of "The
>> >> Handmaid's Tale" was a reference to "The Canterbury Tales" increase
>> >> one's understanding of the book? Not a damn bit, as far as I can see.
>> >
>> > I haven't read "The Handmaid's Tale," and cannot comment. Had I read it, I might be able to open your eyes up to a whole new level of understanding.
>> >
>> >> If you want to argue for it, pick one of your four and explain why you
>> >> think the title reference makes the book more 'appreciable'.
>> >
>> > "East of Eden" obviously alerts the reader to the Biblical parallelism of the plot -- which is a modern reworking of the Adam-Eve-Cain-Abel myth after the Fall.
>> >
>> >>> Are you really as incapable of comprehending college level English as Will Donkey, or are you intentionally misquoting me as a troll tactic?
>> >> Once again, here is what you originally wrote: "When you fail to pick up
>> >> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
>> >> understand the book at all." No misquote.
>> >
>> > If one fails to pick up the titular reference, one would most likely fail to pick up on the parallelism as well.
>> >
>> >>>> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Now you know what that means.
>> >>>>>> We always knew what it meant.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
>> >>>> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
>> >>>
>> >>> Gee, will NancyGene disagree with a made up statement that you've falsely attributed to me... or will she submit to accepting the dunsical alternative?
>> >> Once again, here is your original statement: "When you fail to pick up
>> >> on literary references in the title of a book, one wonders if you
>> >> understand the book at all."
>> >> It's nice that you've walked it back, but it's rather stupid of you to
>> >> keep denying you wrote it (since it's right there in the archives).
>> >
>> > I'm neither walking it back, nor denying it, George >
>> > Because you'd conveniently piggybacked it, I had to attempt to reconstruct it from memory.
>> Your statement, word for word, is still backthread. (See above.) The
>> fact you didn't, before you started speewing bullshit about a "made up
>> statement that you've falsely attributed to me."
>> > The basic message is still the same... I simply forgot about the implied barb attached to the end of it.
>> Oh, you "forgot" what you wrote. Maybe you should have looked, before
>> trying to pretend you didn't write it. It doesn't help you here, but
>> maybe next time ...

> No bullshit has been spewed, George. As I said, the basic message remained the same in both my original sentence and my reconstruction from memory.

> Your paraphrase of my statement was simply incorrect. I did not say that knowing the titular reference was *necessary* to understand the book. I said that if one failed to recognize the reference, one would most likely fail to pick up on the related symbolism/parallelism in the text.

> That's a big difference, IMHO.

George J. Dance wrote:

> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
>> NancyGene <nancygene.andjayme@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8-8472-b5e47a8ba118n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
>>>> the title?
>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
>>> around in Genesis.
>>>
>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
>>> the title?

> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> crucial for understanding the work at all).

>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
>>

> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.

>>
>>>> Now you know what that means.
>>> We always knew what it meant.
>>

> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.

Good morning, the above is worth remembering.

George J. Dance wrote:

> (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
>> NancyGene <nancygene.andjayme@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8-8472-b5e47a8ba118n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
>>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
>>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
>>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
>>>> the title?
>>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
>>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
>>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
>>> around in Genesis.
>>>
>>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
>>> the title?

> (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
> (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> crucial for understanding the work at all).

>>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
>>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
>>

> Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.

>>
>>>> Now you know what that means.
>>> We always knew what it meant.
>>

> Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.

Interesting points that seem to have fallen by the wayside....

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:05:17 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
> >> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
> >>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
> >>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
> >>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
> >>>> the title?
> >>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
> >>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
> >>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
> >>> around in Genesis.
> >>>
> >>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
> >>> the title?
>
> > (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
> > (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> > don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> > a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> > crucial for understanding the work at all).
>
> >>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
> >>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
> >>
>
> > Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
>
> >>
> >>>> Now you know what that means.
> >>> We always knew what it meant.
> >>
>
> > Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> > whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
> Interesting points that seem to have fallen by the wayside....

Agreed, worth another read.

Will Dockery wrote:

> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:05:17 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>
>> > (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
>> >> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
>> >>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
>> >>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
>> >>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
>> >>>> the title?
>> >>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
>> >>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
>> >>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
>> >>> around in Genesis.
>> >>>
>> >>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
>> >>> the title?
>>
>> > (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
>> > (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
>> > don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
>> > a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
>> > crucial for understanding the work at all).
>>
>> >>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
>> >>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
>> >>
>>
>> > Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
>>
>> >>
>> >>>> Now you know what that means.
>> >>> We always knew what it meant.
>> >>
>>
>> > Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
>> > whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
>> Interesting points that seem to have fallen by the wayside....

> Agreed, worth another read.

Quite true....

On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 4:50:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:05:17 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> George J. Dance wrote:
> >>
> >> > (piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
> >> >> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> >>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
> >> >>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
> >> >>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
> >> >>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
> >> >>>> the title?
> >> >>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
> >> >>> recognize it. We cannot cover everything in our reviews. The Virgin
> >> >>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
> >> >>> around in Genesis.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
> >> >>> the title?
> >>
> >> > (1) neither of us were writing a "review".
> >> > (2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
> >> > don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
> >> > a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
> >> > crucial for understanding the work at all).
> >>
> >> >>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
> >> >>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Now you know what that means.
> >> >>> We always knew what it meant.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
> >> > whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.
> >> Interesting points that seem to have fallen by the wayside....
>
> > Agreed, worth another read.
> Quite true....

Yes.