On 2022-09-16 6:23 p.m., Will Dockery wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-09-16 4:15 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>
>>> It should be obvious to anyone reading the list that there has been a sharp increase in Jim Senetto's this past week.”
>>>
>>> How many Jim Senetto’s are there now?
>> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto". If we use that as a
>> general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
>> means, then I'd say there are now four of you.
>
> True, apostrophes don't matter.
>
> 🙂

Of course they matter. At minimum they serve a gatekeeper role: they
separate the yobs (who don't understand them) from the snobs (who at
least understand the rules of how to use them).

You just used an apostrophe, "don't". You understand why; it's a
contraction, and the apostrophe means you left out some letters in one
word to combine it with another one. Right?

I remember Stuart Leichter explaining that's exactly what the possessive
form "'s" does (or at least did, originally). Think of it that way and
it's much harder to get wrong.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:26:04 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-09-16 6:10 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >
> >> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto".
> >
> > There’s something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?
> Once again, that depends on whom it's wrong to (or for).
>
> What's wrong for me is that it omitted a word, "one". Though on
> reflection it would have been better in the passive tense; so in that
> sense, it would have still been wrong as there was a better way to put it..
>
> Whereas for you, what was wrong with it was that it led to the next
> sentence, the one you post-edited out:
>
> "If we use that [ie, "Jim Senetto"] as a
> general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
> means, then I'd say there are now four of you."

You’re too smart for me, George Dance.

On 2022-09-16 6:41 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:26:04 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-09-16 6:10 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>
>>>> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto".
>>>
>>> There’s something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?
>> Once again, that depends on whom it's wrong to (or for).
>>
>> What's wrong for me is that it omitted a word, "one". Though on
>> reflection it would have been better in the passive tense; so in that
>> sense, it would have still been wrong as there was a better way to put it.
>>
>> Whereas for you, what was wrong with it was that it led to the next
>> sentence, the one you post-edited out:
>>
>> "If we use that [ie, "Jim Senetto"] as a
>> general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
>> means, then I'd say there are now four of you."
>
> You’re too smart for me, George Dance.

Thanks, Corey. After years of hearing how your alleged higher IQ made
you superior to me, I'm happy to now see you realize that IQ isn't
everything.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:57:19 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-09-16 6:41 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:26:04 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-09-16 6:10 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto".
> >>>
> >>> There’s something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?
> >> Once again, that depends on whom it's wrong to (or for).
> >>
> >> What's wrong for me is that it omitted a word, "one". Though on
> >> reflection it would have been better in the passive tense; so in that
> >> sense, it would have still been wrong as there was a better way to put it.
> >>
> >> Whereas for you, what was wrong with it was that it led to the next
> >> sentence, the one you post-edited out:
> >>
> >> "If we use that [ie, "Jim Senetto"] as a
> >> general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
> >> means, then I'd say there are now four of you."
> >
> > You’re too smart for me, George Dance.
> Thanks, Corey. After years of hearing how your alleged higher IQ made
> you superior to me, I'm happy to now see you realize that IQ isn't
> everything.

I’m sorry that you’ve been hearing things for years.
My alleged high IQ prevents me from thinking myself
superior, but I’m sure that was very troubling for you.
Smart people such as yourself tend to suffer from mental
stress and fatigue far more than stupid people like me do.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:02:03 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-09-15 9:57 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 8:41:40 PM UTC-4,
> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> "Chimp Obsesso" - Jim Senetto's Dockery Obsession Index, Sep. 14, 2022
> >>
> >> It should be obvious to anyone reading the list that there has been a
> >> sharp increase in Jim Senetto's this past week. However, "obvious" isn't
> >> always good enough. Accordingly, when asked for statistical evidence, I
> >> decided to see what I could come up with.
> >>
> >> Methodology - I decided to limit myself to the subject's OPs, to
> >> eliminate replies to others' posts that mentioned Will, or that simply
> >> quoted mentions of Will, neither of which is credible evidence of
> >> obsession. Using the Google feed,
> >>
> >> For the previous 7 days (Sept. 7-13) I added up the number of OPs made
> >> by the subject, and the number that mentioned Will, for the 7-day period
> >> Sept. 7-13 and used the latter as a percentage of the former to
> >> calculate the subject's Dockery Obsession Index. I then used the
> >> previous 8 days (Aug. 30-Sep. 6), adding an extra day to make up for
> >> Labor Day (when the subject did not post any OPs).
> >>
> >> Results - For the control period, the subject made 18 OPs, 10 of which
> >> mentioned or alluded to Will Dockery, for a Dockery Obsession Index of
> >> 55.56%. In contrast, over the following 7 days saw the subject's OPs
> >> nearly doubled, from 18 to 35. Even more dramatic was the rise in posts
> >> mentioning Will Dockery, which rose from 10 to 29, nearly triple. Which
> >> gives the subject a Dockery Obsession Index of 82.86%.
> >>
> >> I think these figures speak for themselves.
> >
> >
> > Most interesting survey, however, If I were you, I would be more
> concerned with the weight of your wife and daughter,
> My wife and daughter are always in my thoughts, old man.

Do they know that you are an online sociopath?

>It's a pity you
> have neither, since that would probably be enough to get your unwanted
> Dockery thoughts down to a more normal percentage.

It's a pity that you have your head so far up Dockery's ass that you could check his intestines for polyps.

> > which seems far more dangerous to health than my thinking Dockery
> Oh, that's not true. Physical illness can have severe outcomes, but in
> the normal case only on one person; while mental illness can affect many
> others as well. Look at those "few dead kids" (Alex Cain) in Uvalde, for
> instance.

Why, Georgie! Whatever did I do to make you reference?
Besides calling you out on your bullcrap, I mean?

> > is a twat, something he has heard for 25 years from various folks and
> groups.
> Yes, we your pal Alex Cain has been obsessed by unwanted thoughts of
> Will Dockery, and the same compulsive posting about him, for 25 yeas;

No, Georgie Porgie, I have not.
But you might want to double-check on who is "obsessed," when the Dockery and his lap dog post about me, asking where I "am," when I do not post for a bit due to having an actual life.

> but just because Alex Cain's been living with OCD without problems
> (other than obesity) does not mean that you should, too.

I have no "OCD", Georgie.
Again-what did I do to make you think of me so much?

>
> If Alex ("What's a few dead kids?") Cain shot up a school, would you?

I wouldn't do that, but I wouldn't put it past you to do it, or the lap dog Sulzbach.

> > At 75, I carry 186 in weight, 6' in height on a 32-inch waist.
> > > Personally, I think you should focus more on their health rather
> than my interest in useless bums
> We're taking care of ourselves, thanks. But you really need to ask a
> trained professional about OCD.

You should asked a trained professional about delusional thinking.

> , or your dismal political career where you posted 0 wins and 10 loses.
> >
> I'm glad that's already been discussed, so we don't have to get into it
> now:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/2LMjE55S1do/m/OcKpyOHpAAAJ?hl=en
> > Other than that, I wish you a pleasant evening.
> >
> Stay safe. And remember those letters: OCD.

How about you remember these letters: F & U.

George J. Dance wrote:
>
> (cleaned-up copy)

> "Chimp Obsesso" - Jim Senetto's Dockery Obsession Index, Sep. 14, 2022

> It should be obvious to anyone reading aapc that there has been a
> sharp increase in Jim Senetto's Will Dockery Obsession this past week.
> However, "obvious" isn't always good enough. Accordingly, when asked for
> statistical evidence, I decided to see what I could come up with.

> Methodology - I decided to use only the subject's OPs, to
> eliminate replies to others' posts that mentioned Will Dockery, or posts
> quoted mentions of Will Dockery in the backthread (neither of which is
> credible evidence of
> obsession. Using the Google feed).

> For the observation period (Sept. 7-13) I added up the number of OPs made
> by the subject, and the number that mentioned Will, and used the latter
> as a percentage of the former to calculate
> the subject's Dockery Obsession Index. I then used the previous 8 days
> (Aug. 30-Sep. 6) as a control, adding an extra day to make up for
> Labor Day (when the subject did not post any OPs).

> Results - For the control period, the subject made 18 OPs, 10 of which
> mentioned or alluded to Will Dockery, for a Dockery Obsession Index of
> 55.56%. In contrast, over the following 7 days saw the subject's OPs
> rose from 18 to 35 (up 94%). Even more dramatic was the rise in posts
> mentioning Will Dockery, which rose from 10 to 29 (up 190%), which
> gives the subject a Dockery Obsession Index of 82.86%.

> Conclusion - I think these figures speak for themselves.

Again, well put, George Dance.

Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and for setting the record straight.

And so it goes.

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 5:11:33 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> > (cleaned-up copy)
>
> > "Chimp Obsesso" - Jim Senetto's Dockery Obsession Index, Sep. 14, 2022
>
> > It should be obvious to anyone reading aapc that there has been a
> > sharp increase in Jim Senetto's Will Dockery Obsession this past week.
> > However, "obvious" isn't always good enough. Accordingly, when asked for
> > statistical evidence, I decided to see what I could come up with.
>
> > Methodology - I decided to use only the subject's OPs, to
> > eliminate replies to others' posts that mentioned Will Dockery, or posts
> > quoted mentions of Will Dockery in the backthread (neither of which is
> > credible evidence of
> > obsession. Using the Google feed).
>
> > For the observation period (Sept. 7-13) I added up the number of OPs made
> > by the subject, and the number that mentioned Will, and used the latter
> > as a percentage of the former to calculate
> > the subject's Dockery Obsession Index. I then used the previous 8 days
> > (Aug. 30-Sep. 6) as a control, adding an extra day to make up for
> > Labor Day (when the subject did not post any OPs).
>
> > Results - For the control period, the subject made 18 OPs, 10 of which
> > mentioned or alluded to Will Dockery, for a Dockery Obsession Index of
> > 55.56%. In contrast, over the following 7 days saw the subject's OPs
> > rose from 18 to 35 (up 94%). Even more dramatic was the rise in posts
> > mentioning Will Dockery, which rose from 10 to 29 (up 190%), which
> > gives the subject a Dockery Obsession Index of 82.86%.
>
> > Conclusion - I think these figures speak for themselves.
> Again, well put, George Dance.
>
> Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and for setting the record straight.
>
> And so it goes.

🏗

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-09-16 6:10 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>
>>> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto".
>>
>> There’s something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?

> Once again, that depends on whom it's wrong to (or for).

> What's wrong for me is that it omitted a word, "one". Though on
> reflection it would have been better in the passive tense; so in that
> sense, it would have still been wrong as there was a better way to put it.

> Whereas for you, what was wrong with it was that it led to the next
> sentence, the one you post-edited out:

> "If we use that [ie, "Jim Senetto"] as a
> general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
> means, then I'd say there are now four of you."

He was just writing yesterday that he didn't approve of editing posts.

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 5:11:33 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> > (cleaned-up copy)
>
> > "Chimp Obsesso" - Jim Senetto's Dockery Obsession Index, Sep. 14, 2022
>
> > It should be obvious to anyone reading aapc that there has been a
> > sharp increase in Jim Senetto's Will Dockery Obsession this past week.
> > However, "obvious" isn't always good enough. Accordingly, when asked for
> > statistical evidence, I decided to see what I could come up with.
>
> > Methodology - I decided to use only the subject's OPs, to
> > eliminate replies to others' posts that mentioned Will Dockery, or posts
> > quoted mentions of Will Dockery in the backthread (neither of which is
> > credible evidence of
> > obsession. Using the Google feed).
>
> > For the observation period (Sept. 7-13) I added up the number of OPs made
> > by the subject, and the number that mentioned Will, and used the latter
> > as a percentage of the former to calculate
> > the subject's Dockery Obsession Index. I then used the previous 8 days
> > (Aug. 30-Sep. 6) as a control, adding an extra day to make up for
> > Labor Day (when the subject did not post any OPs).
>
> > Results - For the control period, the subject made 18 OPs, 10 of which
> > mentioned or alluded to Will Dockery, for a Dockery Obsession Index of
> > 55.56%. In contrast, over the following 7 days saw the subject's OPs
> > rose from 18 to 35 (up 94%). Even more dramatic was the rise in posts
> > mentioning Will Dockery, which rose from 10 to 29 (up 190%), which
> > gives the subject a Dockery Obsession Index of 82.86%.
>
> > Conclusion - I think these figures speak for themselves.
> Again, well put, George Dance.
>
> Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and for setting the record straight.
>
> And so it goes.

Troll much, Will?

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 10:47:47 AM UTC-4, Family Guy wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 5:11:33 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > George J. Dance wrote:
> > >
> > > (cleaned-up copy)
> >
> > > "Chimp Obsesso" - Jim Senetto's Dockery Obsession Index, Sep. 14, 2022
> >
> > > It should be obvious to anyone reading aapc that there has been a
> > > sharp increase in Jim Senetto's Will Dockery Obsession this past week..
> > > However, "obvious" isn't always good enough. Accordingly, when asked for
> > > statistical evidence, I decided to see what I could come up with.
> >
> > > Methodology - I decided to use only the subject's OPs, to
> > > eliminate replies to others' posts that mentioned Will Dockery, or posts
> > > quoted mentions of Will Dockery in the backthread (neither of which is
> > > credible evidence of
> > > obsession. Using the Google feed).
> >
> > > For the observation period (Sept. 7-13) I added up the number of OPs made
> > > by the subject, and the number that mentioned Will, and used the latter
> > > as a percentage of the former to calculate
> > > the subject's Dockery Obsession Index. I then used the previous 8 days
> > > (Aug. 30-Sep. 6) as a control, adding an extra day to make up for
> > > Labor Day (when the subject did not post any OPs).
> >
> > > Results - For the control period, the subject made 18 OPs, 10 of which
> > > mentioned or alluded to Will Dockery, for a Dockery Obsession Index of
> > > 55.56%. In contrast, over the following 7 days saw the subject's OPs
> > > rose from 18 to 35 (up 94%). Even more dramatic was the rise in posts
> > > mentioning Will Dockery, which rose from 10 to 29 (up 190%), which
> > > gives the subject a Dockery Obsession Index of 82.86%.
> >
> > > Conclusion - I think these figures speak for themselves.
> > Again, well put, George Dance.
> >
> > Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and for setting the record straight.
> >
> > And so it goes.
> Troll much, Will?

Look who's talking.

🙂

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:18:30 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > On 2022-09-16 6:10 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>
> >>> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto".
> >>
> >> There’s something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?
>
> > Once again, that depends on whom it's wrong to (or for).
>
> > What's wrong for me is that it omitted a word, "one". Though on
> > reflection it would have been better in the passive tense; so in that
> > sense, it would have still been wrong as there was a better way to put it.
>
> > Whereas for you, what was wrong with it was that it led to the next
> > sentence, the one you post-edited out:
>
> > "If we use that [ie, "Jim Senetto"] as a
> > general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
> > means, then I'd say there are now four of you."
> He was just writing yesterday that he didn't approve of editing posts.

There is something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:48:48 PM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:18:30 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-09-16 6:10 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto".
> > >>
> > >> There’s something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?
> >
> > > Once again, that depends on whom it's wrong to (or for).
> >
> > > What's wrong for me is that it omitted a word, "one". Though on
> > > reflection it would have been better in the passive tense; so in that
> > > sense, it would have still been wrong as there was a better way to put it.
> >
> > > Whereas for you, what was wrong with it was that it led to the next
> > > sentence, the one you post-edited out:
> >
> > > "If we use that [ie, "Jim Senetto"] as a
> > > general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
> > > means, then I'd say there are now four of you."
> > He was just writing yesterday that he didn't approve of editing posts.
> There is something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?

At least I got the apostrophe right.

🙂

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 2:12:20 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:48:48 PM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:18:30 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > George J. Dance wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2022-09-16 6:10 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto".
> > > >>
> > > >> There’s something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?
> > >
> > > > Once again, that depends on whom it's wrong to (or for).
> > >
> > > > What's wrong for me is that it omitted a word, "one". Though on
> > > > reflection it would have been better in the passive tense; so in that
> > > > sense, it would have still been wrong as there was a better way to put it.
> > >
> > > > Whereas for you, what was wrong with it was that it led to the next
> > > > sentence, the one you post-edited out:
> > >
> > > > "If we use that [ie, "Jim Senetto"] as a
> > > > general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
> > > > means, then I'd say there are now four of you."
> > > He was just writing yesterday that he didn't approve of editing posts..
> > There is something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?
> At least I got the apostrophe right.
>
> 🙂

So the answer is no.

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 2:12:20 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:48:48 PM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:18:30 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > George J. Dance wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On 2022-09-16 6:10 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > > >> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto".
>> > > >>
>> > > >> There’s something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?
>> > >
>> > > > Once again, that depends on whom it's wrong to (or for).
>> > >
>> > > > What's wrong for me is that it omitted a word, "one". Though on
>> > > > reflection it would have been better in the passive tense; so in that
>> > > > sense, it would have still been wrong as there was a better way to put it.
>> > >
>> > > > Whereas for you, what was wrong with it was that it led to the next
>> > > > sentence, the one you post-edited out:
>> > >
>> > > > "If we use that [ie, "Jim Senetto"] as a
>> > > > general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
>> > > > means, then I'd say there are now four of you."
>> > > Corey was just writing yesterday that he didn't approve of editing posts..
>> > There is something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?
>> At least I got the apostrophe right.
>>
>> 🙂

> So the answer is no.

Maybe not.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-09-16 6:10 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>>> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto".
>>
>> There’s something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?

> Once again, that depends on whom it's wrong to (or for).

> What's wrong for me is that it omitted a word, "one". Though on
> reflection it would have been better in the passive tense; so in that
> sense, it would have still been wrong as there was a better way to put it.

> Whereas for you, what was wrong with it was that it led to the next
> sentence, the one you post-edited out:

> "If we use that [ie, "Jim Senetto"] as a
> general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
> means, then I'd say there are now four of you."

Corey was just writing yesterday that he didn't approve of editing posts.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:40:40 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-09-16 6:23 p.m., Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-09-16 4:15 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>
> >>> It should be obvious to anyone reading the list that there has been a sharp increase in Jim Senetto's this past week.”
> >>>
> >>> How many Jim Senetto’s are there now?
> >> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto". If we use that as a
> >> general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
> >> means, then I'd say there are now four of you.
> >
> > True, apostrophes don't matter.
> >
> > 🙂
> Of course they matter. At minimum they serve a gatekeeper role: they
> separate the yobs (who don't understand them) from the snobs (who at
> least understand the rules of how to use them).
>
> You just used an apostrophe, "don't". You understand why; it's a
> contraction, and the apostrophe means you left out some letters in one
> word to combine it with another one. Right?
>
> I remember Stuart Leichter explaining that's exactly what the possessive
> form "'s" does (or at least did, originally). Think of it that way and
> it's much harder to get wrong.

Yes, I remember that discussion with Stuart, many years ago.

George J. Dance wrote:

> "Chimp Obsesso" - Jim Senetto's Dockery Obsession Index, Sep. 14, 2022

> It should be obvious to anyone reading the list that there has been a
> sharp increase in Jim Senetto's this past week. However, "obvious" isn't
> always good enough. Accordingly, when asked for statistical evidence, I
> decided to see what I could come up with.

> Methodology - I decided to limit myself to the subject's OPs, to
> eliminate replies to others' posts that mentioned Will, or that simply
> quoted mentions of Will, neither of which is credible evidence of
> obsession. Using the Google feed,

> For the previous 7 days (Sept. 7-13) I added up the number of OPs made
> by the subject, and the number that mentioned Will, for the 7-day period
> Sept. 7-13 and used the latter as a percentage of the former to
> calculate the subject's Dockery Obsession Index. I then used the
> previous 8 days (Aug. 30-Sep. 6), adding an extra day to make up for
> Labor Day (when the subject did not post any OPs).

> Results - For the control period, the subject made 18 OPs, 10 of which
> mentioned or alluded to Will Dockery, for a Dockery Obsession Index of
> 55.56%. In contrast, over the following 7 days saw the subject's OPs
> nearly doubled, from 18 to 35. Even more dramatic was the rise in posts
> mentioning Will Dockery, which rose from 10 to 29, nearly triple. Which
> gives the subject a Dockery Obsession Index of 82.86%.

> I think these figures speak for themselves.

Note to Corey:

https://news.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=169631&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#169631

Have a look at the thread on Nova BBS, and you can see the post was definitely a crosspost:

https://news.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=169631&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#169631

Will Dockery wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:

>> "Chimp Obsesso" - Jim Senetto's Dockery Obsession Index, Sep. 14, 2022

>> It should be obvious to anyone reading the list that there has been a
>> sharp increase in Jim Senetto's this past week. However, "obvious" isn't
>> always good enough. Accordingly, when asked for statistical evidence, I
>> decided to see what I could come up with.

>> Methodology - I decided to limit myself to the subject's OPs, to
>> eliminate replies to others' posts that mentioned Will, or that simply
>> quoted mentions of Will, neither of which is credible evidence of
>> obsession. Using the Google feed,

>> For the previous 7 days (Sept. 7-13) I added up the number of OPs made
>> by the subject, and the number that mentioned Will, for the 7-day period
>> Sept. 7-13 and used the latter as a percentage of the former to
>> calculate the subject's Dockery Obsession Index. I then used the
>> previous 8 days (Aug. 30-Sep. 6), adding an extra day to make up for
>> Labor Day (when the subject did not post any OPs).

>> Results - For the control period, the subject made 18 OPs, 10 of which
>> mentioned or alluded to Will Dockery, for a Dockery Obsession Index of
>> 55.56%. In contrast, over the following 7 days saw the subject's OPs
>> nearly doubled, from 18 to 35. Even more dramatic was the rise in posts
>> mentioning Will Dockery, which rose from 10 to 29, nearly triple. Which
>> gives the subject a Dockery Obsession Index of 82.86%.

>> I think these figures speak for themselves.

> Note to Corey:

> https://news.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=169631&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#169631

> Have a look at the thread on Nova BBS, and you can see the post was definitely a crosspost:

> https://news.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=169631&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#169631

Yes, quite right...

About the author George J. Dunce:

I wiki the poetry like a smutty stud notary!
And proudly count the masses
coming to read others' poetry
While I call mine doggerel--
which is just irregular poesy
the uninitiated call it mongrel--
may I say that's merely done anecdotally--
because what do they know, those trolls!
I blog about "democracy" with such viral potency!
Pawning cogency for darkest conspiracy
for the reality seemingly fit
for what I deem worthy to print--
What does the news know? They're fakers!
Pawns! Media control purveyors!
And I will nastily tat every tit
of those low class raters I snipped,
all those jealous haters I list--
yes, I also maintain a list of dissed--
always checking it once, checking it twice
for those that I judge naughty or those I deem nice

On 2022-09-15 9:57 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 8:41:40 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> "Chimp Obsesso" - Jim Senetto's Dockery Obsession Index, Sep. 14, 2022
>>
>> It should be obvious to anyone reading the list that there has been a
>> sharp increase in Jim Senetto's this past week. However, "obvious" isn't
>> always good enough. Accordingly, when asked for statistical evidence, I
>> decided to see what I could come up with.
>>
>> Methodology - I decided to limit myself to the subject's OPs, to
>> eliminate replies to others' posts that mentioned Will, or that simply
>> quoted mentions of Will, neither of which is credible evidence of
>> obsession. Using the Google feed,
>>
>> For the previous 7 days (Sept. 7-13) I added up the number of OPs made
>> by the subject, and the number that mentioned Will, for the 7-day period
>> Sept. 7-13 and used the latter as a percentage of the former to
>> calculate the subject's Dockery Obsession Index. I then used the
>> previous 8 days (Aug. 30-Sep. 6), adding an extra day to make up for
>> Labor Day (when the subject did not post any OPs).
>>
>> Results - For the control period, the subject made 18 OPs, 10 of which
>> mentioned or alluded to Will Dockery, for a Dockery Obsession Index of
>> 55.56%. In contrast, over the following 7 days saw the subject's OPs
>> nearly doubled, from 18 to 35. Even more dramatic was the rise in posts
>> mentioning Will Dockery, which rose from 10 to 29, nearly triple. Which
>> gives the subject a Dockery Obsession Index of 82.86%.
>>
>> I think these figures speak for themselves.
>
>
> Most interesting survey, however, If I were you, I would be more concerned with the weight of your wife and daughter, which seems far more dangerous to health than my thinking Dockery is a twat, something he has heard for 25 years from various folks and groups.
>
> At 75, I carry 186 in weight, 6' in height on a 32-inch waist.
>
> Personally, I think you should focus more on their health rather than my interest in useless bums, or your dismal political career where you posted 0 wins and 10 loses.
>
> Other than that, I wish you a pleasant evening.
>

I already replied to this post, but it's worth pointing out again it
exists -
Message-ID: <3f07292f-5935-441b-9f1a-35f648826304n@googlegroups.com>
- in light of the fact that
(1) he deleted his reply, and declared (again) that he had left aapc; and
(2) his allies are now saying it was "posted behind his back," meaning
he never saw it.

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 3:34:33 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-09-15 9:57 p.m., Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 8:41:40 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> >> "Chimp Obsesso" - Jim Senetto's Dockery Obsession Index, Sep. 14, 2022
> >>
> >> It should be obvious to anyone reading the list that there has been a
> >> sharp increase in Jim Senetto's this past week. However, "obvious" isn't
> >> always good enough. Accordingly, when asked for statistical evidence, I
> >> decided to see what I could come up with.
> >>
> >> Methodology - I decided to limit myself to the subject's OPs, to
> >> eliminate replies to others' posts that mentioned Will, or that simply
> >> quoted mentions of Will, neither of which is credible evidence of
> >> obsession. Using the Google feed,
> >>
> >> For the previous 7 days (Sept. 7-13) I added up the number of OPs made
> >> by the subject, and the number that mentioned Will, for the 7-day period
> >> Sept. 7-13 and used the latter as a percentage of the former to
> >> calculate the subject's Dockery Obsession Index. I then used the
> >> previous 8 days (Aug. 30-Sep. 6), adding an extra day to make up for
> >> Labor Day (when the subject did not post any OPs).
> >>
> >> Results - For the control period, the subject made 18 OPs, 10 of which
> >> mentioned or alluded to Will Dockery, for a Dockery Obsession Index of
> >> 55.56%. In contrast, over the following 7 days saw the subject's OPs
> >> nearly doubled, from 18 to 35. Even more dramatic was the rise in posts
> >> mentioning Will Dockery, which rose from 10 to 29, nearly triple. Which
> >> gives the subject a Dockery Obsession Index of 82.86%.
> >>
> >> I think these figures speak for themselves.
> >
> >
> > Most interesting survey, however, If I were you, I would be more concerned with the weight of your wife and daughter, which seems far more dangerous to health than my thinking Dockery is a twat, something he has heard for 25 years from various folks and groups.
> >
> > At 75, I carry 186 in weight, 6' in height on a 32-inch waist.
> >
> > Personally, I think you should focus more on their health rather than my interest in useless bums, or your dismal political career where you posted 0 wins and 10 loses.
> >
> > Other than that, I wish you a pleasant evening.
> >
> I already replied to this post, but it's worth pointing out again it
> exists -
> Message-ID: <3f07292f-5935-441b...@googlegroups.com>
> - in light of the fact that
> (1) he deleted his reply, and declared (again) that he had left aapc; and
> (2) his allies are now saying it was "posted behind his back," meaning
> he never saw it.

Yes, I remember that.

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 6:51:23 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> About the author George J. Dunce:
>
> I wiki the poetry like a smutty stud notary!
> And proudly count the masses
> coming to read others' poetry
> While I call mine doggerel--
> which is just irregular poesy
> the uninitiated call it mongrel--
> may I say that's merely done anecdotally--
> because what do they know, those trolls!
> I blog about "democracy" with such viral potency!
> Pawning cogency for darkest conspiracy
> for the reality seemingly fit
> for what I deem worthy to print--
> What does the news know? They're fakers!
> Pawns! Media control purveyors!
> And I will nastily tat every tit
> of those low class raters I snipped,
> all those jealous haters I list--
> yes, I also maintain a list of dissed--
> always checking it once, checking it twice
> for those that I judge naughty or those I deem nice

And what readers say about the author, George J Dunce:

"Poetry" the poet reads
his drollery so unreal
a book of doggerel supposedly
bandied here as "real poetry"
All the poets agree
that it's so funny
that it makes no money
So to the trash pile with the "poetry"
and also the self acclaimed votary
who edited the unspeakable poesy
of he whose ego stinks of bigotry
the posey proclaiming real poetry.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-09-16 6:10 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:17:30 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>
>>> Depends on what means by the term "Jim Senetto".
>>
>> There’s something wrong with that sentence. Do you know what it is?

> Once again, that depends on whom it's wrong to (or for).

> What's wrong for me is that it omitted a word, "one". Though on
> reflection it would have been better in the passive tense; so in that
> sense, it would have still been wrong as there was a better way to put it.

> Whereas for you, what was wrong with it was that it led to the next
> sentence, the one you post-edited out:

> "If we use that [ie, "Jim Senetto"] as a
> general term for those too stupid to know, or care, what an apostrophe
> means, then I'd say there are now four of you."

Well put G.D.

perhaps we need to make a Dockery typo and word misuse index...

and a Sod necropost index!

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:12:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> perhaps we need to make a Dockery typo and word misuse index...
>
> and a Sod necropost index!

Oh yeah, and a Dunce spin index!!