On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:22:32 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:44:44 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-11-06 3:23 p.m., Zod wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 10:10:14 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>> On 2022-11-05 4:27 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >>>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 2:41:24 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > >>>>> On 2022-11-05 1:14 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 12:31:30 AM UTC-4,
> > >>>>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 2022-11-04 4:12 p.m., W-Dockery wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 1:43:34 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 2022-11-04 12:58 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Friday, November 4,
> > >>>>>>>>>> 2022 at 12:52:07 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >
> > >>>>>>>>>> I’m not attacking you, George. >>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack. >>> I’m making fun of you.
> > >>>>>>>>>> See? >> So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal
> > >>>>>>>>>> with the >> facts. No surprise there. > > Your facts aren’t factual.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I’m sorry you perceive > me as a smug asshole.
> > >>>>>>>>>> That's unfortunate. Learning how others perceive your behavior can be
> > >>>>>>>>>> an opportunity to change, not just to feel sorry for yourself.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We could be having fun.
> > >>>>>>>>>> So let's have fun.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Why do you think you come across as a smug asshole?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You previously perceived me as a homophobe and anti-Semite
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I missed that, can you post a link to that thread?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Years ago, when Corey was writing and posting "poetry" about my having
> > >>>>>>> gay sex with you and a Jew, I told him that posting that stuff made him
> > >>>>>>> look homophobic and antisemitic. That seemed to have the right effect
> > >>>>>>> because, even if he's kept writing that shit, he hasn't posted any more
> > >>>>>>> of it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Actually, you never told me that.
> > >>>>> Actually, I fucking well did. You may have forgotten, but that's no
> > >>>>> reason to make up false stories.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> <quote>
> > >>>>> George Dance
> > >>>>> 12/9/17
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> I think he was being facetious, George.
> > >>>>>> This isn't worth saving for posterity
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Au contraire, old chap. It speaks volumes about the author - tells us
> > >>>>> he's a homophobe and an anti-Semite - and, who knows, that might some
> > >>>>> day be of interest to someone.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> , and
> > >>>>>> it certainly isn't an excellent work.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> To put it mildly. But Col. Burke, Lord Penis, and the like will love it;
> > >>>>> so at least you've found an audience.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> It took
> > >>>>>> all of five minutes to write
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Par for the course.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> , just for fun.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Whatever floats your boat. If you have fun imagining me and Will as
> > >>>>> big-nosed Jews who have gay sex, go for it. I'll do my best to help
> > >>>>> archive it.
> > >>>>> </q>
> > >>>>>> You went outside the group,
> > >>>>>> and posted that to a friend’s blog
> > >>>>> No, that's not true either. You've posted all the comments from that
> > >>>>> blog here, your "friend's" as well as mine, so you should know that.
> > >>>>>> as well as your own,
> > >>>>> I told you I was going to help promote your poem on my wiki.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> <quote>
> > >>>>> George Dance
> > >>>>> 12/9/17
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:33:28 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Actually, I'm having fun imagining
> > >>>>>> what motivates you to write stuff
> > >>>>>> like that this early in the morning.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'm very surprised you think I'm an
> > >>>>>> anti-Semitic homophobe, George.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> People can read your poem about the huge-nosed Jews being fags and judge
> > >>>>> for themselves, anti-Semitic homophobe. That's why it's now archived on
> > >>>>> the web, and linked on my wiki article on you.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'll also be adding a quote from me, which I'd better get written, so I
> > >>>>> can quote it - I'll also have to post it in a new thread, so it will be
> > >>>>> easier to link).
> > >>>>> </q>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I don't remember your response, and you deleted it; you probably
> > >>>>> threatened to sue me, but I don't remember and don't care.
> > >>>>>> because
> > >>>>>> that’s the type of person everyone knows you are, George..
> > >>>>> I do have a low tolerance for racism and homophobia (among other
> > >>>>> things), and especially for people who consider that stuff "fun".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To be specific, we’ve never spoken.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm aware of that. Why are you telling me things I already know? To
> > >>> pretend I don't know them?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> You never told me anything.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I just quoted what I'd told you. Why are you ignoring that?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> You got upset at something I posted here in fun, and responded.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> So you saw my response, and all you got from it was the idea that you'd
> > >>> managed to "upset" me. It sounds to me like you just didn't bother to
> > >>> read it.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> I’m sorry that you were upset by my writing about you. My bad.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Are you really sorry because you think you upset me? (It doesn't sound
> > >>> that way; it sounds like you're rather proud of it.) Or are you sorry
> > >>> that I perceived you as an anti-semite and a homophobe?
> > >>
> > >> Good day G.D.
> > >>
> > >> You ask Pastor Corey questions but you know good and well that he never answers questions...
> >
> > > Of course; that's one reason I've said it's impossible to discuss
> > > anything with him.
> >
> > > But I am sure that my second answer is the correct one: he's sorry he
> > > wrote the poem because it might affect his reputation, or even his
> > > income. (Remember, he got that email-order "ordination" so he could make
> > > money presiding over same-sex marriages.)
> >
> > > IOW, he's feeling sorry for himself.
> >
> > >>
> > >> Just saying....
> >
> > > Thanks for just saying. I think we should talk more often.
> > Yes, next time Zod is visiting, we should try another three way telephone "conference call".
> As you Dunce dupes always whine, take the personal business to email!

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:46:34 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 10:10:14 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-05 4:27 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 2:41:24 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> >> On 2022-11-05 1:14 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> >>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 12:31:30 AM UTC-4,
> >> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> >>>> On 2022-11-04 4:12 p.m., W-Dockery wrote:
> >> >>>>> Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 1:43:34 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On 2022-11-04 12:58 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >> >>> On Friday, November 4,
> >> >>>>>>> 2022 at 12:52:07 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> I’m not attacking you, George. >>
> >> >>>>>>> Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack. >>> I’m making fun of you.
> >> >>>>>>> See? >> So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal
> >> >>>>>>> with the >> facts. No surprise there. > > Your facts aren’t factual.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I’m sorry you perceive > me as a smug asshole.
> >> >>>>>>> That's unfortunate. Learning how others perceive your behavior can be
> >> >>>>>>> an opportunity to change, not just to feel sorry for yourself.
> >> >>>>>>>> We could be having fun.
> >> >>>>>>> So let's have fun.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Why do you think you come across as a smug asshole?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> You previously perceived me as a homophobe and anti-Semite
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I missed that, can you post a link to that thread?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Years ago, when Corey was writing and posting "poetry" about my having
> >> >>>> gay sex with you and a Jew, I told him that posting that stuff made him
> >> >>>> look homophobic and antisemitic. That seemed to have the right effect
> >> >>>> because, even if he's kept writing that shit, he hasn't posted any more
> >> >>>> of it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Actually, you never told me that.
> >> >> Actually, I fucking well did. You may have forgotten, but that's no
> >> >> reason to make up false stories.
> >> >>
> >> >> <quote>
> >> >> George Dance
> >> >> 12/9/17
> >> >> to
> >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail..com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> I think he was being facetious, George.
> >> >>> This isn't worth saving for posterity
> >> >>
> >> >> Au contraire, old chap. It speaks volumes about the author - tells us
> >> >> he's a homophobe and an anti-Semite - and, who knows, that might some
> >> >> day be of interest to someone.
> >> >>
> >> >> , and
> >> >>> it certainly isn't an excellent work.
> >> >>
> >> >> To put it mildly. But Col. Burke, Lord Penis, and the like will love it;
> >> >> so at least you've found an audience.
> >> >>
> >> >>> It took
> >> >>> all of five minutes to write
> >> >>
> >> >> Par for the course.
> >> >>
> >> >>> , just for fun.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Whatever floats your boat. If you have fun imagining me and Will as
> >> >> big-nosed Jews who have gay sex, go for it. I'll do my best to help
> >> >> archive it.
> >> >> </q>
> >> >>> You went outside the group,
> >> >>> and posted that to a friend’s blog
> >> >> No, that's not true either. You've posted all the comments from that
> >> >> blog here, your "friend's" as well as mine, so you should know that..
> >> >>> as well as your own,
> >> >> I told you I was going to help promote your poem on my wiki.
> >> >>
> >> >> <quote>
> >> >> George Dance
> >> >> 12/9/17
> >> >> to
> >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:33:28 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail..com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> Actually, I'm having fun imagining
> >> >>> what motivates you to write stuff
> >> >>> like that this early in the morning.
> >> >>
> >> >>> I'm very surprised you think I'm an
> >> >>> anti-Semitic homophobe, George.
> >> >>
> >> >> People can read your poem about the huge-nosed Jews being fags and judge
> >> >> for themselves, anti-Semitic homophobe. That's why it's now archived on
> >> >> the web, and linked on my wiki article on you.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll also be adding a quote from me, which I'd better get written, so I
> >> >> can quote it - I'll also have to post it in a new thread, so it will be
> >> >> easier to link).
> >> >> </q>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't remember your response, and you deleted it; you probably
> >> >> threatened to sue me, but I don't remember and don't care.
> >> >>> because
> >> >>> that’s the type of person everyone knows you are, George.
> >> >> I do have a low tolerance for racism and homophobia (among other
> >> >> things), and especially for people who consider that stuff "fun".
> >> >
> >> > To be specific, we’ve never spoken.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm aware of that. Why are you telling me things I already know? To
> >> pretend I don't know them?
> >>
> >>
> >> > You never told me anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> I just quoted what I'd told you. Why are you ignoring that?
> >>
> >>
> >> > You got upset at something I posted here in fun, and responded.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you saw my response, and all you got from it was the idea that you'd
> >> managed to "upset" me. It sounds to me like you just didn't bother to
> >> read it.
> >>
> >>
> >> > I’m sorry that you were upset by my writing about you. My bad.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you really sorry because you think you upset me? (It doesn't sound
> >> that way; it sounds like you're rather proud of it.) Or are you sorry
> >> that I perceived you as an anti-semite and a homophobe?
>
> > I’m sorry that I don’t enjoy reading you more than I do.. My bad entirely.
>
> > Plonk.
> "Skip and ignore", a good idea for both sides.

You should practice what you preach and try it some time. And I'm not talking about your skipping and deleting (seemingly your definition of ignoring) actual poetry.
Like you deleting my poem from a conversation between HC and me that you horned in on. Why did you delete a poem that had nothing to do with you or a post in response to you? You say you're here for the poetry and all for record keeping...

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:46:34 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 10:10:14 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-05 4:27 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 2:41:24 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > >> >> On 2022-11-05 1:14 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> >>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 12:31:30 AM UTC-4,
> > >> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> >>>> On 2022-11-04 4:12 p.m., W-Dockery wrote:
> > >> >>>>> Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 1:43:34 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>> On 2022-11-04 12:58 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >> >>> On Friday, November 4,
> > >> >>>>>>> 2022 at 12:52:07 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>> I’m not attacking you, George. >>
> > >> >>>>>>> Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack. >>> I’m making fun of you.
> > >> >>>>>>> See? >> So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal
> > >> >>>>>>> with the >> facts. No surprise there. > > Your facts aren’t factual.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> I’m sorry you perceive > me as a smug asshole.
> > >> >>>>>>> That's unfortunate. Learning how others perceive your behavior can be
> > >> >>>>>>> an opportunity to change, not just to feel sorry for yourself.
> > >> >>>>>>>> We could be having fun.
> > >> >>>>>>> So let's have fun.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Why do you think you come across as a smug asshole?
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> You previously perceived me as a homophobe and anti-Semite
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> I missed that, can you post a link to that thread?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Years ago, when Corey was writing and posting "poetry" about my having
> > >> >>>> gay sex with you and a Jew, I told him that posting that stuff made him
> > >> >>>> look homophobic and antisemitic. That seemed to have the right effect
> > >> >>>> because, even if he's kept writing that shit, he hasn't posted any more
> > >> >>>> of it.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Actually, you never told me that.
> > >> >> Actually, I fucking well did. You may have forgotten, but that's no
> > >> >> reason to make up false stories.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> <quote>
> > >> >> George Dance
> > >> >> 12/9/17
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>> I think he was being facetious, George.
> > >> >>> This isn't worth saving for posterity
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Au contraire, old chap. It speaks volumes about the author - tells us
> > >> >> he's a homophobe and an anti-Semite - and, who knows, that might some
> > >> >> day be of interest to someone.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> , and
> > >> >>> it certainly isn't an excellent work.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> To put it mildly. But Col. Burke, Lord Penis, and the like will love it;
> > >> >> so at least you've found an audience.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> It took
> > >> >>> all of five minutes to write
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Par for the course.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> , just for fun.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Whatever floats your boat. If you have fun imagining me and Will as
> > >> >> big-nosed Jews who have gay sex, go for it. I'll do my best to help
> > >> >> archive it.
> > >> >> </q>
> > >> >>> You went outside the group,
> > >> >>> and posted that to a friend’s blog
> > >> >> No, that's not true either. You've posted all the comments from that
> > >> >> blog here, your "friend's" as well as mine, so you should know that.
> > >> >>> as well as your own,
> > >> >> I told you I was going to help promote your poem on my wiki.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> <quote>
> > >> >> George Dance
> > >> >> 12/9/17
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:33:28 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>> Actually, I'm having fun imagining
> > >> >>> what motivates you to write stuff
> > >> >>> like that this early in the morning.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> I'm very surprised you think I'm an
> > >> >>> anti-Semitic homophobe, George.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> People can read your poem about the huge-nosed Jews being fags and judge
> > >> >> for themselves, anti-Semitic homophobe. That's why it's now archived on
> > >> >> the web, and linked on my wiki article on you.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'll also be adding a quote from me, which I'd better get written, so I
> > >> >> can quote it - I'll also have to post it in a new thread, so it will be
> > >> >> easier to link).
> > >> >> </q>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I don't remember your response, and you deleted it; you probably
> > >> >> threatened to sue me, but I don't remember and don't care.
> > >> >>> because
> > >> >>> that’s the type of person everyone knows you are, George..
> > >> >> I do have a low tolerance for racism and homophobia (among other
> > >> >> things), and especially for people who consider that stuff "fun".
> > >> >
> > >> > To be specific, we’ve never spoken.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I'm aware of that. Why are you telling me things I already know? To
> > >> pretend I don't know them?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > You never told me anything.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I just quoted what I'd told you. Why are you ignoring that?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > You got upset at something I posted here in fun, and responded.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So you saw my response, and all you got from it was the idea that you'd
> > >> managed to "upset" me. It sounds to me like you just didn't bother to
> > >> read it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > I’m sorry that you were upset by my writing about you. My bad.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Are you really sorry because you think you upset me? (It doesn't sound
> > >> that way; it sounds like you're rather proud of it.) Or are you sorry
> > >> that I perceived you as an anti-semite and a homophobe?
> >
> > > I’m sorry that I don’t enjoy reading you more than I do. My bad entirely.
> >
> > > Plonk.
> > "Skip and ignore", a good idea for both sides.
> You should practice what you preach and try it some time. And I'm not talking about your skipping and deleting (seemingly your definition of ignoring) actual poetry.
> Like you deleting my poem from a conversation between HC and me that you horned in on. Why did you delete a poem that had nothing to do with you or a post in response to you? You say you're here for the poetry and all for record keeping...

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:36:16 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:46:34 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 10:10:14 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> On 2022-11-05 4:27 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > >> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 2:41:24 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> >> On 2022-11-05 1:14 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > >> >>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 12:31:30 AM UTC-4,
> > > >> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> >>>> On 2022-11-04 4:12 p.m., W-Dockery wrote:
> > > >> >>>>> Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 1:43:34 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>> On 2022-11-04 12:58 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > >> >>> On Friday, November 4,
> > > >> >>>>>>> 2022 at 12:52:07 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>> I’m not attacking you, George. >>
> > > >> >>>>>>> Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack. >>> I’m making fun of you.
> > > >> >>>>>>> See? >> So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal
> > > >> >>>>>>> with the >> facts. No surprise there. > > Your facts aren’t factual.
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> I’m sorry you perceive > me as a smug asshole.
> > > >> >>>>>>> That's unfortunate. Learning how others perceive your behavior can be
> > > >> >>>>>>> an opportunity to change, not just to feel sorry for yourself.
> > > >> >>>>>>>> We could be having fun.
> > > >> >>>>>>> So let's have fun.
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>> Why do you think you come across as a smug asshole?
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> You previously perceived me as a homophobe and anti-Semite
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> I missed that, can you post a link to that thread?
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> Years ago, when Corey was writing and posting "poetry" about my having
> > > >> >>>> gay sex with you and a Jew, I told him that posting that stuff made him
> > > >> >>>> look homophobic and antisemitic. That seemed to have the right effect
> > > >> >>>> because, even if he's kept writing that shit, he hasn't posted any more
> > > >> >>>> of it.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Actually, you never told me that.
> > > >> >> Actually, I fucking well did. You may have forgotten, but that's no
> > > >> >> reason to make up false stories.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> <quote>
> > > >> >> George Dance
> > > >> >> 12/9/17
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>> I think he was being facetious, George.
> > > >> >>> This isn't worth saving for posterity
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Au contraire, old chap. It speaks volumes about the author - tells us
> > > >> >> he's a homophobe and an anti-Semite - and, who knows, that might some
> > > >> >> day be of interest to someone.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> , and
> > > >> >>> it certainly isn't an excellent work.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> To put it mildly. But Col. Burke, Lord Penis, and the like will love it;
> > > >> >> so at least you've found an audience.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> It took
> > > >> >>> all of five minutes to write
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Par for the course.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> , just for fun.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Whatever floats your boat. If you have fun imagining me and Will as
> > > >> >> big-nosed Jews who have gay sex, go for it. I'll do my best to help
> > > >> >> archive it.
> > > >> >> </q>
> > > >> >>> You went outside the group,
> > > >> >>> and posted that to a friend’s blog
> > > >> >> No, that's not true either. You've posted all the comments from that
> > > >> >> blog here, your "friend's" as well as mine, so you should know that.
> > > >> >>> as well as your own,
> > > >> >> I told you I was going to help promote your poem on my wiki.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> <quote>
> > > >> >> George Dance
> > > >> >> 12/9/17
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:33:28 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>> Actually, I'm having fun imagining
> > > >> >>> what motivates you to write stuff
> > > >> >>> like that this early in the morning.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> I'm very surprised you think I'm an
> > > >> >>> anti-Semitic homophobe, George.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> People can read your poem about the huge-nosed Jews being fags and judge
> > > >> >> for themselves, anti-Semitic homophobe. That's why it's now archived on
> > > >> >> the web, and linked on my wiki article on you.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'll also be adding a quote from me, which I'd better get written, so I
> > > >> >> can quote it - I'll also have to post it in a new thread, so it will be
> > > >> >> easier to link).
> > > >> >> </q>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I don't remember your response, and you deleted it; you probably
> > > >> >> threatened to sue me, but I don't remember and don't care.
> > > >> >>> because
> > > >> >>> that’s the type of person everyone knows you are, George.
> > > >> >> I do have a low tolerance for racism and homophobia (among other
> > > >> >> things), and especially for people who consider that stuff "fun".
> > > >> >
> > > >> > To be specific, we’ve never spoken.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm aware of that. Why are you telling me things I already know? To
> > > >> pretend I don't know them?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > You never told me anything.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I just quoted what I'd told you. Why are you ignoring that?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > You got upset at something I posted here in fun, and responded.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> So you saw my response, and all you got from it was the idea that you'd
> > > >> managed to "upset" me. It sounds to me like you just didn't bother to
> > > >> read it.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > I’m sorry that you were upset by my writing about you. My bad.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Are you really sorry because you think you upset me? (It doesn't sound
> > > >> that way; it sounds like you're rather proud of it.) Or are you sorry
> > > >> that I perceived you as an anti-semite and a homophobe?
> > >
> > > > I’m sorry that I don’t enjoy reading you more than I do. My bad entirely.
> > >
> > > > Plonk.
> > > "Skip and ignore", a good idea for both sides.
> > You should practice what you preach and try it some time. And I'm not talking about your skipping and deleting (seemingly your definition of ignoring) actual poetry.
> > Like you deleting my poem from a conversation between HC and me that you horned in on. Why did you delete a poem that had nothing to do with you or a post in response to you? You say you're here for the poetry and all for record keeping...
> Sorry, I didn't know that your gibberish was a poem, Ash.

Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:36:16 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:46:34 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > > > George Dance wrote:
>> > > >> On 2022-11-05 4:27 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> I’m not attacking you, George. >>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack. >>> I’m making fun of you.
>> > > >> >>>>>>> See? >> So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal
>> > > >> >>>>>>> with the >> facts. No surprise there. > > Your facts aren’t factual.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> I’m sorry you perceive > me as a smug asshole.
>> > > >> >>>>>>> That's unfortunate. Learning how others perceive your behavior can be
>> > > >> >>>>>>> an opportunity to change, not just to feel sorry for yourself.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> We could be having fun.
>> > > >> >>>>>>> So let's have fun.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> Why do you think you come across as a smug asshole?
>> > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>> You previously perceived me as a homophobe and anti-Semite
>> > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>> I missed that, can you post a link to that thread?
>> > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> >>>> Years ago, when Corey was writing and posting "poetry" about my having
>> > > >> >>>> gay sex with you and a Jew, I told him that posting that stuff made him
>> > > >> >>>> look homophobic and antisemitic. That seemed to have the right effect
>> > > >> >>>> because, even if he's kept writing that shit, he hasn't posted any more
>> > > >> >>>> of it.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> Actually, you never told me that.
>> > > >> >> Actually, I fucking well did. You may have forgotten, but that's no
>> > > >> >> reason to make up false stories.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> <quote>
>> > > >> >> George Dance
>> > > >> >> 12/9/17
>> > > >> >> to
>> > > >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >>> I think he was being facetious, George.
>> > > >> >>> This isn't worth saving for posterity
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Au contraire, old chap. It speaks volumes about the author - tells us
>> > > >> >> he's a homophobe and an anti-Semite - and, who knows, that might some
>> > > >> >> day be of interest to someone.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> , and
>> > > >> >>> it certainly isn't an excellent work.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> To put it mildly. But Col. Burke, Lord Penis, and the like will love it;
>> > > >> >> so at least you've found an audience.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>> It took
>> > > >> >>> all of five minutes to write
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Par for the course.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>> , just for fun.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Whatever floats your boat. If you have fun imagining me and Will as
>> > > >> >> big-nosed Jews who have gay sex, go for it. I'll do my best to help
>> > > >> >> archive it.
>> > > >> >> </q>
>> > > >> >>> You went outside the group,
>> > > >> >>> and posted that to a friend’s blog
>> > > >> >> No, that's not true either. You've posted all the comments from that
>> > > >> >> blog here, your "friend's" as well as mine, so you should know that.
>> > > >> >>> as well as your own,
>> > > >> >> I told you I was going to help promote your poem on my wiki.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> <quote>
>> > > >> >> George Dance
>> > > >> >> 12/9/17
>> > > >> >> to
>> > > >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:33:28 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >>> Actually, I'm having fun imagining
>> > > >> >>> what motivates you to write stuff
>> > > >> >>> like that this early in the morning.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>> I'm very surprised you think I'm an
>> > > >> >>> anti-Semitic homophobe, George.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> People can read your poem about the huge-nosed Jews being fags and judge
>> > > >> >> for themselves, anti-Semitic homophobe. That's why it's now archived on
>> > > >> >> the web, and linked on my wiki article on you.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> I'll also be adding a quote from me, which I'd better get written, so I
>> > > >> >> can quote it - I'll also have to post it in a new thread, so it will be
>> > > >> >> easier to link).
>> > > >> >> </q>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> I don't remember your response, and you deleted it; you probably
>> > > >> >> threatened to sue me, but I don't remember and don't care.
>> > > >> >>> because
>> > > >> >>> that’s the type of person everyone knows you are, George.
>> > > >> >> I do have a low tolerance for racism and homophobia (among other
>> > > >> >> things), and especially for people who consider that stuff "fun".
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > To be specific, we’ve never spoken.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I'm aware of that. Why are you telling me things I already know? To
>> > > >> pretend I don't know them?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > You never told me anything.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I just quoted what I'd told you. Why are you ignoring that?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > You got upset at something I posted here in fun, and responded.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> So you saw my response, and all you got from it was the idea that you'd
>> > > >> managed to "upset" me. It sounds to me like you just didn't bother to
>> > > >> read it.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > I’m sorry that you were upset by my writing about you. My bad.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Are you really sorry because you think you upset me? (It doesn't sound
>> > > >> that way; it sounds like you're rather proud of it.) Or are you sorry
>> > > >> that I perceived you as an anti-semite and a homophobe?
>> > >
>> > > > I’m sorry that I don’t enjoy reading you more than I do. My bad entirely.
>> > >
>> > > > Plonk.
>> > > "Skip and ignore", a good idea for both sides.
>> > You should practice what you preach and try it some time. And I'm not talking about your skipping and deleting (seemingly your definition of ignoring) actual poetry.
>> > Like you deleting my poem from a conversation between HC and me that you horned in on. Why did you delete a poem that had nothing to do with you or a post in response to you? You say you're here for the poetry and all for record keeping...
>> Sorry, I didn't know that your gibberish was a poem, Ash.

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:36:16 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:46:34 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 10:10:14 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> On 2022-11-05 4:27 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > >> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 2:41:24 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> >> On 2022-11-05 1:14 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> I’m not attacking you, George. >>
> > > >> >>>>>>> Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack. >>> I’m making fun of you.
> > > >> >>>>>>> See? >> So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal
> > > >> >>>>>>> with the >> facts. No surprise there. > > Your facts aren’t factual.
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> I’m sorry you perceive > me as a smug asshole.
> > > >> >>>>>>> That's unfortunate. Learning how others perceive your behavior can be
> > > >> >>>>>>> an opportunity to change, not just to feel sorry for yourself.
> > > >> >>>>>>>> We could be having fun.
> > > >> >>>>>>> So let's have fun.
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>> Why do you think you come across as a smug asshole?
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> You previously perceived me as a homophobe and anti-Semite
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> I missed that, can you post a link to that thread?
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> Years ago, when Corey was writing and posting "poetry" about my having
> > > >> >>>> gay sex with you and a Jew, I told him that posting that stuff made him
> > > >> >>>> look homophobic and antisemitic. That seemed to have the right effect
> > > >> >>>> because, even if he's kept writing that shit, he hasn't posted any more
> > > >> >>>> of it.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Actually, you never told me that.
> > > >> >> Actually, I fucking well did. You may have forgotten, but that's no
> > > >> >> reason to make up false stories.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> <quote>
> > > >> >> George Dance
> > > >> >> 12/9/17
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>> I think he was being facetious, George.
> > > >> >>> This isn't worth saving for posterity
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Au contraire, old chap. It speaks volumes about the author - tells us
> > > >> >> he's a homophobe and an anti-Semite - and, who knows, that might some
> > > >> >> day be of interest to someone.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> , and
> > > >> >>> it certainly isn't an excellent work.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> To put it mildly. But Col. Burke, Lord Penis, and the like will love it;
> > > >> >> so at least you've found an audience.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> It took
> > > >> >>> all of five minutes to write
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Par for the course.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> , just for fun.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Whatever floats your boat. If you have fun imagining me and Will as
> > > >> >> big-nosed Jews who have gay sex, go for it. I'll do my best to help
> > > >> >> archive it.
> > > >> >> </q>
> > > >> >>> You went outside the group,
> > > >> >>> and posted that to a friend’s blog
> > > >> >> No, that's not true either. You've posted all the comments from that
> > > >> >> blog here, your "friend's" as well as mine, so you should know that.
> > > >> >>> as well as your own,
> > > >> >> I told you I was going to help promote your poem on my wiki.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> <quote>
> > > >> >> George Dance
> > > >> >> 12/9/17
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:33:28 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>> Actually, I'm having fun imagining
> > > >> >>> what motivates you to write stuff
> > > >> >>> like that this early in the morning.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> I'm very surprised you think I'm an
> > > >> >>> anti-Semitic homophobe, George.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> People can read your poem about the huge-nosed Jews being fags and judge
> > > >> >> for themselves, anti-Semitic homophobe. That's why it's now archived on
> > > >> >> the web, and linked on my wiki article on you.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'll also be adding a quote from me, which I'd better get written, so I
> > > >> >> can quote it - I'll also have to post it in a new thread, so it will be
> > > >> >> easier to link).
> > > >> >> </q>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I don't remember your response, and you deleted it; you probably
> > > >> >> threatened to sue me, but I don't remember and don't care.
> > > >> >>> because
> > > >> >>> that’s the type of person everyone knows you are, George.
> > > >> >> I do have a low tolerance for racism and homophobia (among other
> > > >> >> things), and especially for people who consider that stuff "fun".
> > > >> >
> > > >> > To be specific, we’ve never spoken.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm aware of that. Why are you telling me things I already know? To
> > > >> pretend I don't know them?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > You never told me anything.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I just quoted what I'd told you. Why are you ignoring that?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > You got upset at something I posted here in fun, and responded.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> So you saw my response, and all you got from it was the idea that you'd
> > > >> managed to "upset" me. It sounds to me like you just didn't bother to
> > > >> read it.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > I’m sorry that you were upset by my writing about you. My bad.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Are you really sorry because you think you upset me? (It doesn't sound
> > > >> that way; it sounds like you're rather proud of it.) Or are you sorry
> > > >> that I perceived you as an anti-semite and a homophobe?
> > >
> > > > I’m sorry that I don’t enjoy reading you more than I do. My bad entirely.
> > >
> > > > Plonk.
> > > "Skip and ignore", a good idea for both sides.
> > You should practice what you preach and try it some time. And I'm not talking about your skipping and deleting (seemingly your definition of ignoring) actual poetry.
> > Like you deleting my poem from a conversation between HC and me that you horned in on. Why did you delete a poem that had nothing to do with you or a post in response to you? You say you're here for the poetry and all for record keeping...
> Sorry, I didn't know that your gibberish was a poem, Ash.
>
> My bad.

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 3:22:01 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:36:16 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:46:34 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > >> On 2022-11-05 4:27 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> I’m not attacking you, George. >>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack. >>> I’m making fun of you.
> > > > >> >>>>>>> See? >> So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal
> > > > >> >>>>>>> with the >> facts. No surprise there. > > Your facts aren’t factual.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> I’m sorry you perceive > me as a smug asshole.
> > > > >> >>>>>>> That's unfortunate. Learning how others perceive your behavior can be
> > > > >> >>>>>>> an opportunity to change, not just to feel sorry for yourself.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> We could be having fun.
> > > > >> >>>>>>> So let's have fun.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> Why do you think you come across as a smug asshole?
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> You previously perceived me as a homophobe and anti-Semite
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> I missed that, can you post a link to that thread?
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> Years ago, when Corey was writing and posting "poetry" about my having
> > > > >> >>>> gay sex with you and a Jew, I told him that posting that stuff made him
> > > > >> >>>> look homophobic and antisemitic. That seemed to have the right effect
> > > > >> >>>> because, even if he's kept writing that shit, he hasn't posted any more
> > > > >> >>>> of it.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Actually, you never told me that.
> > > > >> >> Actually, I fucking well did. You may have forgotten, but that's no
> > > > >> >> reason to make up false stories.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> <quote>
> > > > >> >> George Dance
> > > > >> >> 12/9/17
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> I think he was being facetious, George.
> > > > >> >>> This isn't worth saving for posterity
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Au contraire, old chap. It speaks volumes about the author - tells us
> > > > >> >> he's a homophobe and an anti-Semite - and, who knows, that might some
> > > > >> >> day be of interest to someone.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> , and
> > > > >> >>> it certainly isn't an excellent work.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> To put it mildly. But Col. Burke, Lord Penis, and the like will love it;
> > > > >> >> so at least you've found an audience.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> It took
> > > > >> >>> all of five minutes to write
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Par for the course.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> , just for fun.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Whatever floats your boat. If you have fun imagining me and Will as
> > > > >> >> big-nosed Jews who have gay sex, go for it. I'll do my best to help
> > > > >> >> archive it.
> > > > >> >> </q>
> > > > >> >>> You went outside the group,
> > > > >> >>> and posted that to a friend’s blog
> > > > >> >> No, that's not true either. You've posted all the comments from that
> > > > >> >> blog here, your "friend's" as well as mine, so you should know that.
> > > > >> >>> as well as your own,
> > > > >> >> I told you I was going to help promote your poem on my wiki.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> <quote>
> > > > >> >> George Dance
> > > > >> >> 12/9/17
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:33:28 AM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> Actually, I'm having fun imagining
> > > > >> >>> what motivates you to write stuff
> > > > >> >>> like that this early in the morning.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> I'm very surprised you think I'm an
> > > > >> >>> anti-Semitic homophobe, George.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> People can read your poem about the huge-nosed Jews being fags and judge
> > > > >> >> for themselves, anti-Semitic homophobe. That's why it's now archived on
> > > > >> >> the web, and linked on my wiki article on you.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I'll also be adding a quote from me, which I'd better get written, so I
> > > > >> >> can quote it - I'll also have to post it in a new thread, so it will be
> > > > >> >> easier to link).
> > > > >> >> </q>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I don't remember your response, and you deleted it; you probably
> > > > >> >> threatened to sue me, but I don't remember and don't care.
> > > > >> >>> because
> > > > >> >>> that’s the type of person everyone knows you are, George.
> > > > >> >> I do have a low tolerance for racism and homophobia (among other
> > > > >> >> things), and especially for people who consider that stuff "fun".

<snipped for brevity>

> Ash should stick to something he "knows all about", such as comic books....
>
> Ha ha.

Yeah, right.

;)

On 2022-11-04 8:30 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
wrote:
>> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
>> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
>>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
>>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.

>>> You're lying
>>>> again, NastyGene.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.

BTW, why did you post-edit my comment? Here's what I wrote:
<quote>
>>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>>>>> right there.
</q>

>>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
>>>> just bitchiness.
>>>>>
>>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
>>>> Let's see.
>>>
>>> I didn't call you a name, George.
>>>

Deflection. You made an ad hom attack on me, whether you choose to call
it name-calling
or not.

>>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
>>>
>> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
>> "pettiness."
>
> Exactly.

So you were just making a petty accusation, rather than discuss whether
your online "friend" was lying or not. Are you incapable of discussing
that topic?

> Those are descriptions of your perceived behavior -- not names.

So you decided to start whining about my "behavior" rather than discuss
whether your
online friend was lying or not; possibly so I'd miss your post-edit

> I didn't, for example, address you a "George Bitch" or "Petty Dunce."
>

> As I often tell your Donkey: words matter. Learn what they mean and
use them correctly.

Tell you what: to try to end this deflection of yours, I'll rephrase my
previous statement:

You just made a petty accusation, most likely to divert attention (ie,
to deflect) from your post-edit.

Now, shall we go back to the topic under discussion?

>>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
>>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>>>>>> right there.
>>>>>
>>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.

>>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
>>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
>>>> failed, so let's try that.
>>>
>>> Deflection noted.
>> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
>> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
>> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
>> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
>
> Yes 'deflection.'

You used the wrong word, and I corrected you. What's wrong with you? Don't
you think that you should learn what words mean and how to use them
corretly?

Anyway, let's try to get back to the topic. Let's see if you can answer
some questions.

We agree that PPP is an "information repository" -- meaning that it
contains information. Correct?
Much if not all of that is knowledge (true, justified, and believed).
Correct?
So it contains knowledge. Correct?

Let's see if your answers will get us anywhere.

> The topic of discussion (at this place in the thread) was regarding
whether an inanimate blog (or wiki) could have knowledge of anything.

That's equivocal. To say that a wiki "could Have knowledge" could mean:
(1) The wiki could contain knowledge (ie, some of the information on it
could be knowledge); or
(2) The wiki could know the information on it.

(1) is what we're discussing -- a "knowledge repository" would be a
place where knowledge is stored or contained -- while (2) is an obvious
strawman.

> As in the above "name-calling" exchange, you used the word
"knowledge" incorrectly, and are attempting to deflect attention from
your obviously embarrassing error.

Correction: you keep saying that I used that I used the word
incorrectly. Making up stories about what I'm "attempting" just sounds
like more ad hom, and more deflection, on your part. I think you're just
trying to back up a member of your "gang."

> And even that topic was the result of another deflection on your part
(as an attempt to divert attention from your bitchy behavior regarding
NancyGene).

No, it was an attempt to get back to the topic. Your only defence of
NG's claim ("there's no knowledge repository") so far has been that PPP
isn't one, because it doesn't contain any knowledge. I think you're the one
using the word "knowledge" incorrectly, just as you've been using "blog"
incorrectly.

>>>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
>>>>>
>>>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only
way it
>>>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
>>>
>>> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
>> knowledge through words?
>>>

Only if it's still knowledge after it's out of their mind in the form of
spoken or written words.

> I never said that the words weren't in their minds, George.

If they've spoken them or written them down, those words are not in
their minds.
That's true whether you "say" it or not.

> You're projecting.

It sounds like you're using yet another word incorrectly.

> The knowledge regarding HWL's poem was in neither of our minds.

Speak for yourself. If you want to say you didn't know it, fine; but
I've known about it at least since June.

> But our lack of knowledge on a given subject has no bearing on the
knowledge of sentient beings in general.

Not true. It's an example.

> This is an example of the second type of "strawman" argument you're
fond of: falsely claiming that someone made an easily disproved
statement, and immediately proceeding to disprove it.

So you're saying you don't think that knowledge exists *only* in minds,
and that's the "strawman" you're claiming?
Then you agree that some knowledge exists outside minds.

>>>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with
justification and
>>>> (3) true. It doesn't matter [where] it's 'stored'.
>>>
>>> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.

>> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
>> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
>
> First:
>
> They could not believe it if it had not first been communicated to them.

Obviously; they had to hear or read the propositions, in the form of
words, in order to believe them.

> If it had been communicated to them, they therefore possess a
knowledge of it.

> If they possess a knowledge of it, it is stored in their brain.

If someone believes something, of course there's a belief in his mind.
And if he tells someone
else, or writes it down, it's still his belief, correct?

> Second:
> Information is recorded, and stored, in books. The inanimate books
do not possess any knowledge of said information.

Of course; who said a book could know things? That sounds like your
strawman (2) I just warned about.

But they contain the information, and (insofar as that information is
knowledge) they contain that knowledge.

> Third:
>
> Words possess neither knowledge nor information.

You previously said that people can communicate knowledge in the form of
words. How do you think that can happen, if their words and sentences
don't contain any information.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-04 8:30 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> >>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> >>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> >>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.

> >>> You're lying
> >>>> again, NastyGene.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.

> BTW, why did you post-edit my comment? Here's what I wrote:
> <quote>
> >>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> >>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>>> right there.
> </q>

> >>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> >>>> just bitchiness.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
> >>>> Let's see.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't call you a name, George.
> >>>

> Deflection. You made an ad hom attack on me, whether you choose to call
> it name-calling
> or not.

> >>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> >> "pettiness."
> >
> > Exactly.

> So you were just making a petty accusation, rather than discuss whether
> your online "friend" was lying or not. Are you incapable of discussing
> that topic?

> > Those are descriptions of your perceived behavior -- not names.

> So you decided to start whining about my "behavior" rather than discuss
> whether your
> online friend was lying or not; possibly so I'd miss your post-edit

> > I didn't, for example, address you a "George Bitch" or "Petty Dunce."
> >

> > As I often tell your Donkey: words matter. Learn what they mean and
> use them correctly.

> Tell you what: to try to end this deflection of yours, I'll rephrase my
> previous statement:

> You just made a petty accusation, most likely to divert attention (ie,
> to deflect) from your post-edit.

> Now, shall we go back to the topic under discussion?

> >>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>>>> right there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.

> >>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> >>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> >>>> failed, so let's try that.
> >>>
> >>> Deflection noted.
> >> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> >> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> >> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> >> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> >
> > Yes 'deflection.'

> You used the wrong word, and I corrected you. What's wrong with you? Don't
> you think that you should learn what words mean and how to use them
> corretly?

> Anyway, let's try to get back to the topic. Let's see if you can answer
> some questions.

> We agree that PPP is an "information repository" -- meaning that it
> contains information. Correct?
> Much if not all of that is knowledge (true, justified, and believed).
> Correct?
> So it contains knowledge. Correct?

> Let's see if your answers will get us anywhere.

> > The topic of discussion (at this place in the thread) was regarding
> whether an inanimate blog (or wiki) could have knowledge of anything.

> That's equivocal. To say that a wiki "could Have knowledge" could mean:
> (1) The wiki could contain knowledge (ie, some of the information on it
> could be knowledge); or
> (2) The wiki could know the information on it.

> (1) is what we're discussing -- a "knowledge repository" would be a
> place where knowledge is stored or contained -- while (2) is an obvious
> strawman.

> > As in the above "name-calling" exchange, you used the word
> "knowledge" incorrectly, and are attempting to deflect attention from
> your obviously embarrassing error.

> Correction: you keep saying that I used that I used the word
> incorrectly. Making up stories about what I'm "attempting" just sounds
> like more ad hom, and more deflection, on your part. I think you're just
> trying to back up a member of your "gang."

> > And even that topic was the result of another deflection on your part
> (as an attempt to divert attention from your bitchy behavior regarding
> NancyGene).

> No, it was an attempt to get back to the topic. Your only defence of
> NG's claim ("there's no knowledge repository") so far has been that PPP
> isn't one, because it doesn't contain any knowledge. I think you're the one
> using the word "knowledge" incorrectly, just as you've been using "blog"
> incorrectly.

> >>>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only
> way it
> >>>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> >>>
> >>> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> >> knowledge through words?
> >>>

> Only if it's still knowledge after it's out of their mind in the form of
> spoken or written words.

> > I never said that the words weren't in their minds, George.

> If they've spoken them or written them down, those words are not in
> their minds.
> That's true whether you "say" it or not.

> > You're projecting.

> It sounds like you're using yet another word incorrectly.

> > The knowledge regarding HWL's poem was in neither of our minds.

> Speak for yourself. If you want to say you didn't know it, fine; but
> I've known about it at least since June.

> > But our lack of knowledge on a given subject has no bearing on the
> knowledge of sentient beings in general.

> Not true. It's an example.

> > This is an example of the second type of "strawman" argument you're
> fond of: falsely claiming that someone made an easily disproved
> statement, and immediately proceeding to disprove it.

> So you're saying you don't think that knowledge exists *only* in minds,
> and that's the "strawman" you're claiming?
> Then you agree that some knowledge exists outside minds.

> >>>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with
> justification and
> >>>> (3) true. It doesn't matter [where] it's 'stored'.
> >>>
> >>> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.

> >> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> >> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> >
> > First:
> >
> > They could not believe it if it had not first been communicated to them.

> Obviously; they had to hear or read the propositions, in the form of
> words, in order to believe them.

> > If it had been communicated to them, they therefore possess a
> knowledge of it.

> > If they possess a knowledge of it, it is stored in their brain.

Did someone just say something?

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:24:12 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 8:30 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> >>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> >>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> >>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
>
> >>> You're lying
> >>>> again, NastyGene.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
>
> BTW, why did you post-edit my comment? Here's what I wrote:
> <quote>
> >>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> >>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>>> right there.
> </q>
>
> >>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> >>>> just bitchiness.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG..
> >>>> Let's see.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't call you a name, George.
> >>>
>
> Deflection. You made an ad hom attack on me, whether you choose to call
> it name-calling
> or not.

It isn't deflection, George.

You'd falsely accused me of "name-calling," when nothing of the sort occurred.

Nor did I "attack" you, as you are now attempting to claim (immediately above).

I said that *your accusation* of NancyGene was just bitchiness on your part..

Finally, my alleged "attack" on your post was *not* an example of ad hominem, in that I was commenting on the pettiness of your post, and not on you as an individual.

Dance debunked.

> >>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> >> "pettiness."
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> So you were just making a petty accusation, rather than discuss whether
> your online "friend" was lying or not. Are you incapable of discussing
> that topic?

Jesus fuck, George, wtf's your problem?

You are the one who made a petty accusation against NancyGene. I merely pointed it out as such.

As to your question, I have already discussed it with you. To wit: "Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response."

> > Those are descriptions of your perceived behavior -- not names.
>
>
> So you decided to start whining about my "behavior" rather than discuss
> whether your
> online friend was lying or not; possibly so I'd miss your post-edit

1) I discussed NancyGene's post (see my above response).
2) Accusing me of "whining" is a) a false accusation, b) an actual example of an ad hominem attack, and c) a further example of your bitchiness.
3) I have no idea what "post-edit" you are referring to.

> > I didn't, for example, address you a "George Bitch" or "Petty Dunce."
> >
>
> > As I often tell your Donkey: words matter. Learn what they mean and
> use them correctly.
>
> Tell you what: to try to end this deflection of yours, I'll rephrase my
> previous statement:
>
> You just made a petty accusation, most likely to divert attention (ie,
> to deflect) from your post-edit.

Jesus fuck, George, wtf's your problem?

You made a petty (and bitchy) accusation against NancyGene.

I pointed out the nature of your comment.

What's so difficult for you to understand?

> Now, shall we go back to the topic under discussion?

I suppose. However, after suffering through your unwarranted hissyfit, you're going to have to refresh my memory as to what (if anything) we were discussing.

> >>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>>>> right there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
>
> >>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> >>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> >>>> failed, so let's try that.
> >>>
> >>> Deflection noted.
> >> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> >> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> >> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> >> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> >
> > Yes 'deflection.'
>
> You used the wrong word, and I corrected you. What's wrong with you? Don't
> you think that you should learn what words mean and how to use them
> corretly?

I have no interest in Penny's Plagiarisms, George. What form of media each part of Penny's exists in is of no matter to me, and not worth my time to bother learning.

Whether you were referring to you blog or your wiki makes no difference. Neither one of them is sentient, and neither one of them, therefore, is capable of possessing knowledge.
> Anyway, let's try to get back to the topic. Let's see if you can answer
> some questions.
>
> We agree that PPP is an "information repository" -- meaning that it
> contains information. Correct?

That is my contention. AFAIK, you claim that it possesses knowledge of this information it contains.

> Much if not all of that is knowledge (true, justified, and believed).
> Correct?

Incorrect.

Neither your wiki nor your blog is capable of belief, therefore neither your wiki nor your blog can have any knowledge of its content.

> So it contains knowledge. Correct?

Incorrect.

(see above)

Sadly, you don't understand the actual meaning of the definition you posted to back up your claim (and that, in the face of the proper definition from Merriam-Webster!)

> Let's see if your answers will get us anywhere.
>
> > The topic of discussion (at this place in the thread) was regarding
> whether an inanimate blog (or wiki) could have knowledge of anything.
>
> That's equivocal. To say that a wiki "could Have knowledge" could mean:
> (1) The wiki could contain knowledge (ie, some of the information on it
> could be knowledge); or
> (2) The wiki could know the information on it.

That *was* contextual, George (as you should be well aware), and can only have been referring to the second.

> (1) is what we're discussing -- a "knowledge repository" would be a
> place where knowledge is stored or contained -- while (2) is an obvious
> strawman.

1) is not what we're discussing. It is not a "knowledge repository." It is an information repository.

You do not understand the finer shades of meaning in these words and are proving yourself to be as dense as a Donkey regarding them.

As I've repeatedly informed the Donkey, a thesaurus is not your friend. "Knowledge" entails awareness. Knowledge comprises information. The two are not interchangeable terms.

Dunce debunked.

> > As in the above "name-calling" exchange, you used the word
> "knowledge" incorrectly, and are attempting to deflect attention from
> your obviously embarrassing error.
>
> Correction: you keep saying that I used that I used the word
> incorrectly.

I have shown that you are by posting the actual definition courtesy of Merriam-Webster.

> Making up stories about what I'm "attempting" just sounds
> like more ad hom, and more deflection, on your part. I think you're just
> trying to back up a member of your "gang."

Counter-accusation is a well known, and oft-practiced, troll technique used for purposes of deflection.

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:24:12 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-04 8:30 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo..ca
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> > >>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> > >>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> > >>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >
> > >>> You're lying
> > >>>> again, NastyGene.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> >
> > BTW, why did you post-edit my comment? Here's what I wrote:
> > <quote>
> > >>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> > >>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>>> right there.
> > </q>
> >
> > >>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> > >>>> just bitchiness.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
> > >>>> Let's see.
> > >>>
> > >>> I didn't call you a name, George.
> > >>>
> >
> > Deflection. You made an ad hom attack on me, whether you choose to call
> > it name-calling
> > or not.
> It isn't deflection, George.
>
> You'd falsely accused me of "name-calling," when nothing of the sort occurred.
>
> Nor did I "attack" you, as you are now attempting to claim (immediately above).
>
> I said that *your accusation* of NancyGene was just bitchiness on your part.
>
> Finally, my alleged "attack" on your post was *not* an example of ad hominem, in that I was commenting on the pettiness of your post, and not on you as an individual.
>
> Dance debunked.
> > >>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
> > >>>
> > >> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> > >> "pettiness."
> > >
> > > Exactly.
> >
> > So you were just making a petty accusation, rather than discuss whether
> > your online "friend" was lying or not. Are you incapable of discussing
> > that topic?
> Jesus fuck, George, wtf's your problem?
>
> You are the one who made a petty accusation against NancyGene. I merely pointed it out as such.
>
> As to your question, I have already discussed it with you. To wit: "Wrong.. She's basing her statement on your lack of response."
> > > Those are descriptions of your perceived behavior -- not names.
> >
> >
> > So you decided to start whining about my "behavior" rather than discuss
> > whether your
> > online friend was lying or not; possibly so I'd miss your post-edit
> 1) I discussed NancyGene's post (see my above response).
> 2) Accusing me of "whining" is a) a false accusation, b) an actual example of an ad hominem attack, and c) a further example of your bitchiness.
> 3) I have no idea what "post-edit" you are referring to.
> > > I didn't, for example, address you a "George Bitch" or "Petty Dunce."
> > >
> >
> > > As I often tell your Donkey: words matter. Learn what they mean and
> > use them correctly.
> >
> > Tell you what: to try to end this deflection of yours, I'll rephrase my
> > previous statement:
> >
> > You just made a petty accusation, most likely to divert attention (ie,
> > to deflect) from your post-edit.
> Jesus fuck, George, wtf's your problem?
>
> You made a petty (and bitchy) accusation against NancyGene.
>
> I pointed out the nature of your comment.
>
> What's so difficult for you to understand?
> > Now, shall we go back to the topic under discussion?
> I suppose. However, after suffering through your unwarranted hissyfit, you're going to have to refresh my memory as to what (if anything) we were discussing.
> > >>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>>>> right there.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> >
> > >>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> > >>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> > >>>> failed, so let's try that.
> > >>>
> > >>> Deflection noted.
> > >> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> > >> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> > >> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> > >> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> > >
> > > Yes 'deflection.'
> >
> > You used the wrong word, and I corrected you. What's wrong with you? Don't
> > you think that you should learn what words mean and how to use them
> > corretly?
> I have no interest in Penny's Plagiarisms, George. What form of media each part of Penny's exists in is of no matter to me, and not worth my time to bother learning.
>
> Whether you were referring to you blog or your wiki makes no difference. Neither one of them is sentient, and neither one of them, therefore, is capable of possessing knowledge.
> > Anyway, let's try to get back to the topic. Let's see if you can answer
> > some questions.
> >
> > We agree that PPP is an "information repository" -- meaning that it
> > contains information. Correct?
> That is my contention. AFAIK, you claim that it possesses knowledge of this information it contains.
> > Much if not all of that is knowledge (true, justified, and believed).
> > Correct?
> Incorrect.
>
> Neither your wiki nor your blog is capable of belief, therefore neither your wiki nor your blog can have any knowledge of its content.
> > So it contains knowledge. Correct?
> Incorrect.
>
> (see above)
>
> Sadly, you don't understand the actual meaning of the definition you posted to back up your claim (and that, in the face of the proper definition from Merriam-Webster!)
> > Let's see if your answers will get us anywhere.
> >
> > > The topic of discussion (at this place in the thread) was regarding
> > whether an inanimate blog (or wiki) could have knowledge of anything.
> >
> > That's equivocal. To say that a wiki "could Have knowledge" could mean:
> > (1) The wiki could contain knowledge (ie, some of the information on it
> > could be knowledge); or
> > (2) The wiki could know the information on it.
> That *was* contextual, George (as you should be well aware), and can only have been referring to the second.
> > (1) is what we're discussing -- a "knowledge repository" would be a
> > place where knowledge is stored or contained -- while (2) is an obvious
> > strawman.
> 1) is not what we're discussing. It is not a "knowledge repository." It is an information repository.
>
> You do not understand the finer shades of meaning in these words and are proving yourself to be as dense as a Donkey regarding them.
>
> As I've repeatedly informed the Donkey, a thesaurus is not your friend. "Knowledge" entails awareness. Knowledge comprises information. The two are not interchangeable terms.
>
> Dunce debunked.
> > > As in the above "name-calling" exchange, you used the word
> > "knowledge" incorrectly, and are attempting to deflect attention from
> > your obviously embarrassing error.
> >
> > Correction: you keep saying that I used that I used the word
> > incorrectly.
> I have shown that you are by posting the actual definition courtesy of Merriam-Webster.
> > Making up stories about what I'm "attempting" just sounds
> > like more ad hom, and more deflection, on your part. I think you're just
> > trying to back up a member of your "gang."
> Counter-accusation is a well known, and oft-practiced, troll technique used for purposes of deflection.
>
> You repeatedly reveal yourself to be a by-the-numbers variety of troll.
> > > And even that topic was the result of another deflection on your part
> > (as an attempt to divert attention from your bitchy behavior regarding
> > NancyGene).
> >
> > No, it was an attempt to get back to the topic. Your only defence of
> > NG's claim ("there's no knowledge repository") so far has been that PPP
> > isn't one, because it doesn't contain any knowledge. I think you're the one
> > using the word "knowledge" incorrectly, just as you've been using "blog"
> > incorrectly.
> If you think that I am using it incorrectly, please explain how Merriam-Webster got it wrong.
>
> You cannot rewrite the dictionary to suit your ignorance any more than the Donkey and his Stink can -- although you all repeatedly attempt to do so.
>
> But don't take my word for it. Here again is the *actual* definition.
>
> Refute!
>
> knowledge
> noun
> knowl·​edge ˈnä-lij
> 1
> a
> (1)
> : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
> (2)
> : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> b
> (1)
> : the fact or condition of being aware of something
> (2)
> : the range of one's information or understanding
> answered to the best of my knowledge
> c
> : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION
> d
> : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> a person of unusual knowledge
> 2
> a
> : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
> b
> archaic : a branch of learning
> 3
> archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> 4
> obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> > >>>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only
> > way it
> > >>>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> > >>>
> > >>> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> > >> knowledge through words?
> > >>>
> >
> > Only if it's still knowledge after it's out of their mind in the form of
> > spoken or written words.
> No, George, it isn't.
>
> That is a misuse, and misunderstanding of the word.
>
> (See the definition, above.)
> > > I never said that the words weren't in their minds, George.
> >
> > If they've spoken them or written them down, those words are not in
> > their minds.
> > That's true whether you "say" it or not.
> If I've spoken them or written them down they are information that reflects my knowledge.
>
> They are not knowledge in and of themselves.
> > > You're projecting.
> >
> > It sounds like you're using yet another word incorrectly.
> It sounds like you're flailing.
> > > The knowledge regarding HWL's poem was in neither of our minds.
> >
> > Speak for yourself. If you want to say you didn't know it, fine; but
> > I've known about it at least since June.
> If you had to look up any portion of it, any knowledge you may have once possessed was no longer present at the time.
> > > But our lack of knowledge on a given subject has no bearing on the
> > knowledge of sentient beings in general.
> >
> > Not true. It's an example.
> It is not an example, George. It is a truism.
>
> To possess knowledge, one must have sentience.
>
> That prerequisite is implicit in the definition of "knowledge."
> > > This is an example of the second type of "strawman" argument you're
> > fond of: falsely claiming that someone made an easily disproved
> > statement, and immediately proceeding to disprove it.
> >
> >
> > So you're saying you don't think that knowledge exists *only* in minds,
> > and that's the "strawman" you're claiming?
> I'm saying that each time you attempt to tell me what I'm saying, you are doing so to set up a strawman argument.
>
> Stop asking me what I'm saying (and, in doing so, rewriting it to suit your needs).
>
> Quote me directly and address my words as I said them.
> > Then you agree that some knowledge exists outside minds.
> I do not.
>
> You are agreeing with your strawman's words, not mine.
>
> Dance debunked.
> > >>>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with
> > justification and
> > >>>> (3) true. It doesn't matter [where] it's 'stored'.
> > >>>
> > >>> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
> >
> > >> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> > >> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> > >
> > > First:
> > >
> > > They could not believe it if it had not first been communicated to them.
> >
> > Obviously; they had to hear or read the propositions, in the form of
> > words, in order to believe them.
> Words are tools used to communicate ideas.
>
> The words are not the ideas themselves (as you keep insisting is the case).
> > > If it had been communicated to them, they therefore possess a
> > knowledge of it.
> >
> > > If they possess a knowledge of it, it is stored in their brain.
> >
> > If someone believes something, of course there's a belief in his mind.
> > And if he tells someone
> > else, or writes it down, it's still his belief, correct?
> No, George. We have no means of determining whether he still believes it at a later date. Nor can we be certain that he believes it at the time.
>
> The best that we can do is to assume that he is being honest and that he believed what he was saying at the time.
> > > Second:
> > > Information is recorded, and stored, in books. The inanimate books
> > do not possess any knowledge of said information.
> >
> > Of course; who said a book could know things? That sounds like your
> > strawman (2) I just warned about.
> You said it, George.
>
> That is, you said that your wiki could know such things. And your wiki is, to-all-intents-and-purposes an electronic form of a book.
> > But they contain the information, and (insofar as that information is
> > knowledge) they contain that knowledge.
> Except that information is *not* knowledge.
>
> Again, I refer you to the actual definition of the word.
>
> You are tiresomely repeating the same error, while ignoring the *evidence* (Merriam-Webster's definition) to the contrary.
>
> In short, sir, you are playing the part of a... dunce.
> > > Third:
> > >
> > > Words possess neither knowledge nor information.
> >
> > You previously said that people can communicate knowledge in the form of
> > words. How do you think that can happen, if their words and sentences
> > don't contain any information.
> The words do not *possess* it. Please stop changing my words to suit your needs.
>
> Words do not possess anything apart from their definitions.
>
> Words are tools through which information is communicated. They are not repositories. They are just words.
>
> Your wiki is a repository that uses words to store its information.
>
> Your wiki possesses the information. The words themselves do not.
>
> Dance debunked.
> > > They are tools with which knowledge and information are passed on
> > from one sentient being to the next.
> > >
> >
> > In order for that to work, the words have to contain that 'knowledge and
> > information'; which they do, in the form of statements or propositions.
> Do you understand the difference between a group of words and the thoughts that they express?
>
> (Rhetorical question alert: as you obviously do not.)
> > >>> Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> > >> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> > >> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> > >> homs.
> > >
> > > If it diverts from the actual topic being discussed... yes, I'm going
> > to call it what it is.
> >
> > Everything we're saying in this second so-called "deflection" is on
> > topic. You're defending NG's claim that PPP is not a "knowledge
> > repository" by arguing there can't be any knowledge in written sources
> > like PPP, and I'm supporting my own case by arguing that there can be
> > and sometimes is.
> You're confuse, George.
>
> I claimed that Penny's Plagiarisms is not a repository of knowledge. NancyGene said that there was no knowledge repository in the "gang of three."
>
> And, again, *by definition,* there is no knowledge existing in written sources. These sources can communicate knowledge, but they cannot contain it within themselves.
>
> Yours is a common misunderstanding of the word, but it is a misunderstanding nonetheless.
>
> I have reposted the actual definition above.
>
> If you wish to challenge that definition, go right ahead.
>
> But until you have successfully managed to disprove Merriam-Webster, your misuse of the word "knowledge" shall continue to be viewed, and treated, as such.
> > > Let's face it, George; you really put your foot in it this time. < I
> > would advise you to bow out as gracefully as you still can... but, true
> > to your surname, you prefer to keep on dancing.
> >
> > And there you go again. I'd advise you to try to keep your mind on what
> > we're discussing,
> > rather than whine about me, if you expect your defense of your online
> > friend to be taken seriously.
> There's the false, ad hominem accusation again.
>
> Resorting to troll tactics is an admission of defeat.
> > >>> , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> > >>>
> > >>>> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> > >>>> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> > >>>
> > >>> Nope. You're not done.
> > >>>
> > >>> Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> > >>>
> > >>> Definition of knowledge
> > >>> 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
> > >> gained through experience or association
> > >>> (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> > >>> b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> > >>> (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> > >>> answered to the best of my knowledge
> > >>> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
> > >> through reasoning : COGNITION
> > >>> d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> > >>> a person of unusual knowledge
> > >>> 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
> > >> principles acquired by humankind
> > >>> barchaic : a branch of learning
> > >>> 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> > >>> 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> > >>>
> > >>> As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
> > >> and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> > >> Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
> > >> know it.
> > >
> >
> > > And your wiki does not possess this ability.
> >
> > And there's the strawman (2) that I warned about (2). I never said the
> > wiki knows things. I have said that information in the wiki (such as the
> > information about "On Lowell Pound") is justified, true, and believed
> > (ie, knowledge).
> Yes, George, you did.
>
> You may not have intended to say that, but because you'd misused the word "knowledge," that is exactly what you said.
>
> Likewise, your insistence on misusing the same word means that you are continuing to say it.
> >
> > Please drop that strawman and concentrate on what I've actually said.
> That is precisely what I am doing.
>
> You're pulling a Donkey and saying, "concentrate on what I actually meant to say" as opposed to what you actually said.
> > >> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> > >> (epistemologists) use.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, George, but I don't know any epistemologists; nor have I
> > any understanding of how they supposedly define things.
> > >
> > > Merriam-Webster is arguable the most reputable (and certainly the
> > best known) source of English definitions, and I insist that as writers
> > we stick with them.
> >
> > I'm not attacking the M-W definition. "Awareness" and "understanding"
> > are necessary for knowledge (because they're necessary for belief). But
> > they're not sufficient. having "awareness" or "understanding" of a
> > proposition is not sufficient to "know" it. Knowledge, awareness, and
> > understanding, are not the same thing. People who say they "know"
> > something to mean they're "aware" of it, that they've heard or read it,
> > are wrong and are misusing the language.
> Yawn. What has that to do with anything we are discussing.
>
> All three words not only imply, but necessitate, that one have sentience.
>
> Your inanimate wiki cannot have knowledge, understanding, or awareness of its contents.
> > Merriam-Webster is a popular dictionary, which tracks usages (all
> > usages, including technically incorrect ones). It's not the best
> > authority when discussing a technical subject; it's certainly not the
> > ultimate authority.
> If you think yourself a greater authority, you are free to prove M-W wrong.
> > >> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> > >> (3) justified.
> > >
> > > And even your epistemologists' definition presupposes sentience -- as
> > one must be sentient in order to have belief!
> > >
> >
> > Sigh -- once again; if I have a belief and write it down, it doesn't
> > stop being my belief.
> I have not even so much as implied that it would.
>
> I am saying that your belief remains in your mind. Your written words are merely tools be which you'd expressed your belief -- your words do not possess the capacity to believe anything.
>
> Nor do they contain your belief within them. They express it. That it all..
>
> Dance debunked.
> > >>> Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> > >> does not possess knowledge.
> > >>
> > >> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> > >> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
> > >> That's what we're discussing.
> > >
> > > I see we've pulled out Strawman #2 again.
> >
> > > No, George, I'm not saying that -- or anything remotely resembling that.
> >
> > OK; so you're not saying that PPP does not contain any knowledge. Do you
> > agree, then, that it does contain knowledge?
> Jesus fuck, George, wtf's your problem?
>
> I have consistently been saying the contrary.
> > > I'm saying that PPP does not possess any knowledge.
> >
> > And now you're saying that PPP does not contain any knowledge -- what
> > you just called a "strawman".
> You seem to have misunderstood me entirely.
>
> Go back and reread my statement however many times are required until you understand that I have never said your blog or your wiki or your words have ever contained any knowledge.
> > > What PPP possesses is information. One can read the information on
> > PPP and increase his knowledge as a result.
> >
> > Well, maybe we're getting somewhere: we've agreed that the justified,
> > true beliefs a writer has before he writes them down are 'knowledge'; right?
> No, George, we have not agreed.
>
> The writer's beliefs do not necessarily need to be justified or true. Nor does knowledge necessarily need to be correct. Scientific understanding is continually being revised and our understanding of the universe is continually changing as a result. One's knowledge reflect's one's understanding at a given time -- it may be based on incorrect information, but it is still knowledge.
>
> Secondly, I emphatically disagree that one's beliefs are knowledge (as you state above). Beliefs stem from knowledge. They are not interchangeable words.
>
> For example: I have a knowledge of the Bible, in that I have read, and studied, it. I do not believe that the information expressed in the Bible is true. My beliefs run counter to the beliefs expressed by the authors of the Bible.
> > and that that they're also they're also knowledge after a reader reads
> > and learns them - right?
> No, George. I do not.
> > You just think that, for some reason, they stopped being knowledge in
> > between.
> No George, I do not think that they stopped being knowledge.
>
> A writer expresses his knowledge with words. A reader gains that writer's knowledge through the medium of the writer's words.
>
> The words are tools used as a conduit for knowledge. At no time do the words ever possess any knowledge.
> > > Again, words matter. Learn what they mean and use them correctly.
> >
> > Yes, Michael. You do realize that applies to you as well as to me.
> I have provided you with the Merriam-Webster definition.
>
> You have refused to accept their definition (apparently on the grounds that you're such an advanced expert on the subject of knowledge that their definition is rendered inadequate).
>
> Your inability to refute their definition, however, shows that you are nothing more than a blowfish, puffing itself up to appear more imposing than it actually is.
>
> Dance debunked.
> > >> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> > >> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> > >> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17,
> > 1820.[7]
> > >>
> > >> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
> > - Proposition LP (for "Longfellow' Proposition" or "Lowell Pond").
> >
> > >
> > > Is it believed by Penny's Pages or by George Dance?
> >
> >
> > "Is it believed by Penny's Pages ..." There's your Strawman again.
> > Please stop doing that.
> That is not a strawman, George. You have repeatedly insisted that Penny's Plagiarisms possesses knowledge.
>
> Until you have successfully refuted M-W's definition of knowledge, I refuse to accept your claim that knowledge can exist in non-sentient form.
> > By me, and by a lot of other people too; even, if NG is to be believed,
> > by the writers of "Jeopardy". So it's believed.
> I wasn't asking if it was true, George. I was asking if you think your wiki believes it.
> > > If George Dance believes it, it is knowledge.
> >
> > So, since I just told you I believe it, that proposition on the wiki is
> > knowledge. Therefore the wiki contains knowledge. (Not just that one
> > proposition, of course, but one counterexample is enough.)
> And I've told you three dozen times that you are using the word incorrectly.
>
> Do you think that if you misuse a word a sufficient number of times, others will come to accept your misuse of it?
> > > If you're arguing that Penny's Pages believes it, it (your argument)
> > is nonsense.
> >
> > Which is why I've repeatedly told you that, no, I'm not arguing that;
> > it's just a strawman argument you've latched on to.
> No, George. It isn't a strawman. It's a matter of the accepted definition of a word vs your bull-headed misuse of it.
> > >>> Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> > >> you further?
> > >>>
> > >> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> > >> you go right ahead.
> > >
> > > It gives me no pleasure to embarrass you, George.
> > >
> > > Quite the reverse.
> > >
> >
> > Then drop that line of personal attack, and try to discuss the topic
> > instead.
> What personal attack?
>
> You are refusing to accept Merriam-Webster's definition of a word; and refusing to refute their definition (other than claiming some unspecified level of expertise on your part that supposedly exempts you adhering to their authority).
> > > I have spent the past five years in a vain attempt to convince my
> > friends at AAPC that you are an intelligent and reasonable human being.
> > When you embarrass yourself by putting forth such Donkey-level nonsense,
> > you embarrass me in the process.
> >
> > Is this tantrum of yours what you all "getting back to the topic"? It is
> > not the topic, you know.
> You're calling my statement a "tantrum" is yet another variation on the troll tactic mentioned above.
> > >>>> NG lied about that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> > >>>> searched Google for the answer.
> > >>>> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> > >>>> except for Google.
> > >>>
> > >>> You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> > >> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> > >> of creating "strawman" arguments.
> > >> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> > >> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> > >> called it a 'deflection'?
> > >
> > > Yes, George, I did.
> > >
> > > Did you even read my statement before you took it upon yourself to
> > break it into two unrelated pieces?
> >
> > Of course I did. You made two claims -- that I didn't know the answer,
> > and that I could have learned it from searcnhing my wiki -- and I dealt
> > with both in turn.
> No, George, I most assuredly did not make two claims. I made one claim.
>
> You took it upon yourself to edit my statement into two claims -- thereby altering its meaning.
> > >>> Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your [wiki] for
> > >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> > >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> > >> you already are."
> >
> > >> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> > >> incorrect description of PPP.
> > >
> > > That is not identical to what you quoted. You changed the meaning of
> > my statement from "Looking up information has nothing to do with your
> > knowledge" to an accusation that you'd cheated (looked up) the answer.
> >
> > No. "You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer" implies
> > (wrongly) that I didn't know it, not that I "cheated," but I let that pass.
> Jesus fuck, George, wtf's your problem?
>
> I was not accusing you of searching your wiki. Nor was I even hinting that you had searched your wiki.
>
> I was making a *general* statement regarding knowledge. The "you" in question was hypothetical.
>
> "One could have searched one's wiki, or the internet, or any other source of information, but the results of such a search would have no bearing upon one's store of knowledge prior to that search."
> > >You misstated NG's rule -- no Googling or using Wikipedia -- so I
> > corrected you. If you
> > don't like being corrected, don't misstate things.
> >
> > >>> As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> > >> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> > >> answer.
> > >>
> > >> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> > >> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling" or using Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > And, again, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I had said.
> > >
> >
> > It has everything to do with what you said. You misstated NG's rule, and
> > you were corrected.
> I wasn't talking about NG's rule, George.
>
> I was talking about possessed knowledge vs the acquisition of additional knowledge.
> > >> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> > >> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> >
> > Of course it does. Both those who 'cheated' (looked up the answer after
> > NG asked the question) and 'studied' (looked up the answer before NG
> > asked the question) would have more knowledge than they'd had before
> > they looked it up. The only difference iw that those who 'cheated'
> > would not have known the answer at the time NG asked the question, while
> > whose who 'studied' would have.
> Jesus fuck, George, wtf's your problem?
>
> I am not accusing you of cheating.
>
> I am not even talking about, or referring to, you in any way, shape or form (including metaphorical).
> > >> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> > >> Pond" unless they already knew it?
> > >
> > > Strawman #2 makes raises his head for the third time.
> >
> > If you can't explain what you think are "strawman" #1 and #2" and why
> > you think so, I'm going to have to dismiss it as handwaving. So far the
> > only strawman I'm aware of that one of yours that I have identified.
> Scroll up, George. Both strawmen were explained in detail.
> > > No, George, I said nothing of the sort.
> > >
> > > You can increase your knowledge by looking up answers.
> >
> > Great. So obviously "pulling information from an outside source" does
> > have a "bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess."
> Bingo!
> > >> Not from PPP, not from the sources
> > >> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
> > >
> > > Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
> >
> > My biggest problem is that you can't seem to make up your mind what
> > you're saying. One minute you're saying there's no knowledge on PPP --
> > meaning no one can increase their knowledge by reading it.
> You aren't making any sense, George.
>
> PPP contains words. Words are tools for the transmission of knowledge.
>
> One can obtain knowledge through the medium of written words.
>
> However, this does not magically endow the words with any knowledge of their own.
>
> They are inanimate tools. Nothing more.
> > The next
> > you're saying that people can increase their knowledge by reading PPP --
> > meaning there is knowledge there.
> Wrong again.
>
> It means that there is information there.
>
> One increases one's knowledge by acquiring information.
>
> That information, however, is not knowledge.
>
> Again, I caution you that the thesaurus is not your friend. Synonyms have similar meanings. This similarity, however, does not make them interchangeable terms.
> > And then when I address either of your
> > claims, you call that one a "strawman". So I address your other claim,
> > and you call that one a "strawman". I think you're just handwaving.
> The point is that you haven't addressed my claims. You've rewritten my claims to say something which they previous did not -- and addressed the new meaning that you'd created.
> > >>>> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> > >>>> remembered it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> >
> > >> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> > >> remembered that I knew it.
> > >
> > > Again, I am forced to ask: Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
> >
> > Say whatever you feel like. But you're not helping your argument by
> > saying things like that, you know.
> When faced with your oh-so-touchy egos bristling at imagined slights, there is nothing else one can say.
> > snip
> >
> > >>>>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> > >>>> knowledgeable than you already are.
> > >> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.
> > >
> > > There is nothing dishonest in my claim, George.
> > >
> > > You chopped my statement into two parts -- thereby altering the
> > meaning of both.
> >
> > I can't see any change in meaning at all. You were claiming that someone
> > who looks up an answer (student or cheat) isn't "any more, or less,
> > knowledgeable" than before he looked it up. Now that you've said the
> > opposite: "
> No, George, I am not saying anything about cheating, nor am I saying that he hasn't gained knowledge as a consequence.
>
> And I'm getting tired of repeating myself to a brick.
> > >>>> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> > >> knowledge. But, once
> > >>>> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> > >>>
> > >>> And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> > >> observation would not apply.
> > >>>
> > >> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> > >> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > The meaning of my statement is not contained in either half, but in
> > its entirety.
> >
> > Well, let's look at your statement "in its entirety".
> >
> > <quote>
> > >> "You could have searched your blog for
> > >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> > >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> > >> you already are."
> > </quote>
> >
> > It still reads to me as if you're saying "Looking up information has
> > nothing to do with your knowledge", and -- Looky, looky! -- that's
> > exactly what you claimed you were saying. So where's this third
> > 'strawman' you're whining about?
> I'm saying that looking up information has no bearing on the knowledge you possess *prior to looking it up*.
>
> IOW: If you knew the answer prior to having looked it up, the results of your search would only have confirmed your answer.
>
> If the results return information that you could not have expressed without having made the search, then you had no previous knowledge of said information.
> > > When you post-edited it into two pieces, you changed the meaning of it.
> > >
> >
> > No; your claim was that "Looking up information has nothing to do with
> > your knowledge" -- that's your own paraphrase. I responded to that by
> > saying that, no, looking up information can incrase your knowledge.
> > Where's the mysterious meaning change?
> My statement was made in context to NancyGene's Jeopardy question.
>
> Your knowledge at the time of NG's question is not affected by your resorting to a wiki search to answer it.
>
> Your knowledge may increase as a result of your search -- but this does not change the knowledge you possessed at the time in which NG's question had been posed.
>
> The "mysterious change" is that I was not referring to the increase of knowledge (the act of learning).
>
> In separating my statement, you made it apply to the act of learning, and addressed it in that capacity.
>
> You have not addressed my actual statement which is that the sum total of knowledge you possess at any given moment cannot be affected (within the context of that moment) regardless of what you do at any subsequent time.
> > > You then "refuted" each piece of the post-edited statement -- neither
> > of which even remotely reflected my statement in its truncated form.
> > >
> >
> > No, I refuted your claim that "Looking up information has nothing to do
> > with your knowledge", which as you noted is what your 'statement as a
> > whole' meant.
> See above.
> > > And, yes -- I believe that it was done both knowingly and dishonestly..
> >
> > Once again I believe that you've decided to ignore what I've said to
> > launch another attack on me -- once again, to deflect from the topic at
> > hand.
> Poor little George.
>
> I have not ignored any of your statements. From them I can only draw one of three possible conclusions:
>
> 1) you are as dense as a brick,
> 2) you are pretending to be as dense as a brick,
> 3) you are so dense as to make a brick seem intelligent by comparison.
>
> Rather than insult you, I have chosen the least ignominious of the above conclusions: #2. You are knowingly and dishonestly pretending to misunderstand each of my statements in order to set up false (strawman) propositions which you can then proceed to refute.
> > >> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> > >> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> > >> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> > >> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
> > >
> > > How does your answer apply to my unedited question?
> >
> > Your statement (not "question," BTW) claimed, in your own words, that
> > "Looking up information has nothing to do with your knowledge" -- ie,
> > one can't acquire knowledge by looking it up. I just gave you a
> > counterexample. I did know the answer to the Longfellow question from
> > looking it up: looking it up increased my knowledge.
> I'm done, George.
>
> You're stubbornly repeating the same mistakes, based on your misunderstanding of the meaning of "knowledge."
>
> And you keep on rewriting my statements to mean something other than what they actually say.
>
> When you're able to refute Merriam-Webster, we'll continue.

Ash Wurthing wrote:
>
> Did someone just say something?

Michael Pendragon has been whining to George Dance all day, yes.

HTH and HAND.

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:24:12 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 8:30 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> >>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> >>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> >>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
>
> >>> You're lying
> >>>> again, NastyGene.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
>
> BTW, why did you post-edit my comment? Here's what I wrote:
> <quote>
> >>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> >>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>>> right there.
> </q>
>
> >>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> >>>> just bitchiness.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG..
> >>>> Let's see.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't call you a name, George.
> >>>
>
> Deflection. You made an ad hom attack on me, whether you choose to call
> it name-calling
> or not.
>
> >>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> >> "pettiness."
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> So you were just making a petty accusation, rather than discuss whether
> your online "friend" was lying or not. Are you incapable of discussing
> that topic?
>
>
> > Those are descriptions of your perceived behavior -- not names.
>
>
> So you decided to start whining about my "behavior" rather than discuss
> whether your
> online friend was lying or not; possibly so I'd miss your post-edit
>
> > I didn't, for example, address you a "George Bitch" or "Petty Dunce."
> >
>
> > As I often tell your Donkey: words matter. Learn what they mean and
> use them correctly.
>
> Tell you what: to try to end this deflection of yours, I'll rephrase my
> previous statement:
>
> You just made a petty accusation, most likely to divert attention (ie,
> to deflect) from your post-edit.
>
> Now, shall we go back to the topic under discussion?
> >>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>>>> right there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
>
> >>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> >>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> >>>> failed, so let's try that.
> >>>
> >>> Deflection noted.
> >> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> >> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> >> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> >> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> >
> > Yes 'deflection.'
>
> You used the wrong word, and I corrected you. What's wrong with you? Don't
> you think that you should learn what words mean and how to use them
> corretly?
>
> Anyway, let's try to get back to the topic. Let's see if you can answer
> some questions.
>
> We agree that PPP is an "information repository" -- meaning that it
> contains information. Correct?
> Much if not all of that is knowledge (true, justified, and believed).
> Correct?
> So it contains knowledge. Correct?
>
> Let's see if your answers will get us anywhere.
>
> > The topic of discussion (at this place in the thread) was regarding
> whether an inanimate blog (or wiki) could have knowledge of anything.
>
> That's equivocal. To say that a wiki "could Have knowledge" could mean:
> (1) The wiki could contain knowledge (ie, some of the information on it
> could be knowledge); or
> (2) The wiki could know the information on it.
>
> (1) is what we're discussing -- a "knowledge repository" would be a
> place where knowledge is stored or contained -- while (2) is an obvious
> strawman.
>
> > As in the above "name-calling" exchange, you used the word
> "knowledge" incorrectly, and are attempting to deflect attention from
> your obviously embarrassing error.
>
> Correction: you keep saying that I used that I used the word
> incorrectly. Making up stories about what I'm "attempting" just sounds
> like more ad hom, and more deflection, on your part. I think you're just
> trying to back up a member of your "gang."
>
> > And even that topic was the result of another deflection on your part
> (as an attempt to divert attention from your bitchy behavior regarding
> NancyGene).
>
> No, it was an attempt to get back to the topic. Your only defence of
> NG's claim ("there's no knowledge repository") so far has been that PPP
> isn't one, because it doesn't contain any knowledge. I think you're the one
> using the word "knowledge" incorrectly, just as you've been using "blog"
> incorrectly.
>
> >>>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only
> way it
> >>>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> >>>
> >>> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> >> knowledge through words?
> >>>
>
> Only if it's still knowledge after it's out of their mind in the form of
> spoken or written words.
>
> > I never said that the words weren't in their minds, George.
>
> If they've spoken them or written them down, those words are not in
> their minds.
> That's true whether you "say" it or not.
>
> > You're projecting.
>
> It sounds like you're using yet another word incorrectly.
>
> > The knowledge regarding HWL's poem was in neither of our minds.
>
> Speak for yourself. If you want to say you didn't know it, fine; but
> I've known about it at least since June.
>
> > But our lack of knowledge on a given subject has no bearing on the
> knowledge of sentient beings in general.
>
> Not true. It's an example.
>
> > This is an example of the second type of "strawman" argument you're
> fond of: falsely claiming that someone made an easily disproved
> statement, and immediately proceeding to disprove it.
>
>
> So you're saying you don't think that knowledge exists *only* in minds,
> and that's the "strawman" you're claiming?
> Then you agree that some knowledge exists outside minds.
>
> >>>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with
> justification and
> >>>> (3) true. It doesn't matter [where] it's 'stored'.
> >>>
> >>> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
>
> >> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> >> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> >
> > First:
> >
> > They could not believe it if it had not first been communicated to them..
>
> Obviously; they had to hear or read the propositions, in the form of
> words, in order to believe them.
>
> > If it had been communicated to them, they therefore possess a
> knowledge of it.
>
> > If they possess a knowledge of it, it is stored in their brain.
>
> If someone believes something, of course there's a belief in his mind.
> And if he tells someone
> else, or writes it down, it's still his belief, correct?
>
> > Second:
> > Information is recorded, and stored, in books. The inanimate books
> do not possess any knowledge of said information.
>
> Of course; who said a book could know things? That sounds like your
> strawman (2) I just warned about.
>
> But they contain the information, and (insofar as that information is
> knowledge) they contain that knowledge.
>
> > Third:
> >
> > Words possess neither knowledge nor information.
>
> You previously said that people can communicate knowledge in the form of
> words. How do you think that can happen, if their words and sentences
> don't contain any information.
>
> > They are tools with which knowledge and information are passed on
> from one sentient being to the next.
> >
>
> In order for that to work, the words have to contain that 'knowledge and
> information'; which they do, in the form of statements or propositions.
>
>
> >>> Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> >> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> >> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> >> homs.
> >
> > If it diverts from the actual topic being discussed... yes, I'm going
> to call it what it is.
>
> Everything we're saying in this second so-called "deflection" is on
> topic. You're defending NG's claim that PPP is not a "knowledge
> repository" by arguing there can't be any knowledge in written sources
> like PPP, and I'm supporting my own case by arguing that there can be
> and sometimes is.
>
> > Let's face it, George; you really put your foot in it this time. < I
> would advise you to bow out as gracefully as you still can... but, true
> to your surname, you prefer to keep on dancing.
>
> And there you go again. I'd advise you to try to keep your mind on what
> we're discussing,
> rather than whine about me, if you expect your defense of your online
> friend to be taken seriously.
>
> >>> , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> >>>
> >>>> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> >>>> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> >>>
> >>> Nope. You're not done.
> >>>
> >>> Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> >>>
> >>> Definition of knowledge
> >>> 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
> >> gained through experience or association
> >>> (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> >>> b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> >>> (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> >>> answered to the best of my knowledge
> >>> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
> >> through reasoning : COGNITION
> >>> d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> >>> a person of unusual knowledge
> >>> 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
> >> principles acquired by humankind
> >>> barchaic : a branch of learning
> >>> 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> >>> 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> >>>
> >>> As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
> >> and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> >> Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
> >> know it.
> >
>
> > And your wiki does not possess this ability.
>
> And there's the strawman (2) that I warned about (2). I never said the
> wiki knows things. I have said that information in the wiki (such as the
> information about "On Lowell Pound") is justified, true, and believed
> (ie, knowledge).
>
> Please drop that strawman and concentrate on what I've actually said.
>
> >> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> >> (epistemologists) use.
> >
> > I'm sorry, George, but I don't know any epistemologists; nor have I
> any understanding of how they supposedly define things.
> >
> > Merriam-Webster is arguable the most reputable (and certainly the
> best known) source of English definitions, and I insist that as writers
> we stick with them.
>
> I'm not attacking the M-W definition. "Awareness" and "understanding"
> are necessary for knowledge (because they're necessary for belief). But
> they're not sufficient. having "awareness" or "understanding" of a
> proposition is not sufficient to "know" it. Knowledge, awareness, and
> understanding, are not the same thing. People who say they "know"
> something to mean they're "aware" of it, that they've heard or read it,
> are wrong and are misusing the language.
>
> Merriam-Webster is a popular dictionary, which tracks usages (all
> usages, including technically incorrect ones). It's not the best
> authority when discussing a technical subject; it's certainly not the
> ultimate authority.
>
> >> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> >> (3) justified.
> >
> > And even your epistemologists' definition presupposes sentience -- as
> one must be sentient in order to have belief!
> >
>
> Sigh -- once again; if I have a belief and write it down, it doesn't
> stop being my belief.
>
>
> >>> Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> >> does not possess knowledge.
> >>
> >> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> >> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire..
> >> That's what we're discussing.
> >
> > I see we've pulled out Strawman #2 again.
>
> > No, George, I'm not saying that -- or anything remotely resembling that..
>
> OK; so you're not saying that PPP does not contain any knowledge. Do you
> agree, then, that it does contain knowledge?
>
> > I'm saying that PPP does not possess any knowledge.
>
> And now you're saying that PPP does not contain any knowledge -- what
> you just called a "strawman".
>
>
> > What PPP possesses is information. One can read the information on
> PPP and increase his knowledge as a result.
>
> Well, maybe we're getting somewhere: we've agreed that the justified,
> true beliefs a writer has before he writes them down are 'knowledge'; right?
> and that that they're also they're also knowledge after a reader reads
> and learns them - right?
>
> You just think that, for some reason, they stopped being knowledge in
> between.
>
> > Again, words matter. Learn what they mean and use them correctly.
>
> Yes, Michael. You do realize that applies to you as well as to me.
>
> >> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> >> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> >> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17,
> 1820.[7]
> >>
> >> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
> - Proposition LP (for "Longfellow' Proposition" or "Lowell Pond").
>
> >
> > Is it believed by Penny's Pages or by George Dance?
>
>
> "Is it believed by Penny's Pages ..." There's your Strawman again.
> Please stop doing that.
>
> By me, and by a lot of other people too; even, if NG is to be believed,
> by the writers of "Jeopardy". So it's believed.
>
> > If George Dance believes it, it is knowledge.
>
> So, since I just told you I believe it, that proposition on the wiki is
> knowledge. Therefore the wiki contains knowledge. (Not just that one
> proposition, of course, but one counterexample is enough.)
>
>
> > If you're arguing that Penny's Pages believes it, it (your argument)
> is nonsense.
>
> Which is why I've repeatedly told you that, no, I'm not arguing that;
> it's just a strawman argument you've latched on to.
>
> >>> Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> >> you further?
> >>>
> >> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> >> you go right ahead.
> >
> > It gives me no pleasure to embarrass you, George.
> >
> > Quite the reverse.
> >
>
> Then drop that line of personal attack, and try to discuss the topic
> instead.
>
> > I have spent the past five years in a vain attempt to convince my
> friends at AAPC that you are an intelligent and reasonable human being.
> When you embarrass yourself by putting forth such Donkey-level nonsense,
> you embarrass me in the process.
>
> Is this tantrum of yours what you all "getting back to the topic"? It is
> not the topic, you know.
>
> >>>> NG lied about that.
> >>>>
> >>>>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> >>>> searched Google for the answer.
> >>>> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> >>>> except for Google.
> >>>
> >>> You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> >> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> >> of creating "strawman" arguments.
> >> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> >> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> >> called it a 'deflection'?
> >
> > Yes, George, I did.
> >
> > Did you even read my statement before you took it upon yourself to
> break it into two unrelated pieces?
>
> Of course I did. You made two claims -- that I didn't know the answer,
> and that I could have learned it from searcnhing my wiki -- and I dealt
> with both in turn.
>
> >>> Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your [wiki] for
> >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> >> you already are."
>
> >> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> >> incorrect description of PPP.
> >
> > That is not identical to what you quoted. You changed the meaning of
> my statement from "Looking up information has nothing to do with your
> knowledge" to an accusation that you'd cheated (looked up) the answer.
>
> No. "You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer" implies
> (wrongly) that I didn't know it, not that I "cheated," but I let that pass.
>
> >You misstated NG's rule -- no Googling or using Wikipedia -- so I
> corrected you. If you
> don't like being corrected, don't misstate things.
>
> >>> As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> >> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> >> answer.
> >>
> >> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> >> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling" or using Wikipedia.
> >
> > And, again, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I had said.
> >
>
> It has everything to do with what you said. You misstated NG's rule, and
> you were corrected.
>
> >> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> >> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
>
> Of course it does. Both those who 'cheated' (looked up the answer after
> NG asked the question) and 'studied' (looked up the answer before NG
> asked the question) would have more knowledge than they'd had before
> they looked it up. The only difference iw that those who 'cheated'
> would not have known the answer at the time NG asked the question, while
> whose who 'studied' would have.
>
> >> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> >> Pond" unless they already knew it?
> >
> > Strawman #2 makes raises his head for the third time.
>
> If you can't explain what you think are "strawman" #1 and #2" and why
> you think so, I'm going to have to dismiss it as handwaving. So far the
> only strawman I'm aware of that one of yours that I have identified.
>
> > No, George, I said nothing of the sort.
> >
> > You can increase your knowledge by looking up answers.
>
> Great. So obviously "pulling information from an outside source" does
> have a "bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess."
>
> >> Not from PPP, not from the sources
> >> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
> >
> > Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
>
> My biggest problem is that you can't seem to make up your mind what
> you're saying. One minute you're saying there's no knowledge on PPP --
> meaning no one can increase their knowledge by reading it. The next
> you're saying that people can increase their knowledge by reading PPP --
> meaning there is knowledge there. And then when I address either of your
> claims, you call that one a "strawman". So I address your other claim,
> and you call that one a "strawman". I think you're just handwaving.
>
> >>>> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> >>>> remembered it.
> >>>
> >>> Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
>
> >> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> >> remembered that I knew it.
> >
> > Again, I am forced to ask: Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
>
> Say whatever you feel like. But you're not helping your argument by
> saying things like that, you know.
>
> snip
>
> >>>>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> >>>> knowledgeable than you already are.
> >> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.
> >
> > There is nothing dishonest in my claim, George.
> >
> > You chopped my statement into two parts -- thereby altering the
> meaning of both.
>
> I can't see any change in meaning at all. You were claiming that someone
> who looks up an answer (student or cheat) isn't "any more, or less,
> knowledgeable" than before he looked it up. Now that you've said the
> opposite: "
>
> >>>> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> >> knowledge. But, once
> >>>> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> >>>
> >>> And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> >> observation would not apply.
> >>>
> >> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> >> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > The meaning of my statement is not contained in either half, but in
> its entirety.
>
> Well, let's look at your statement "in its entirety".
>
> <quote>
> >> "You could have searched your blog for
> >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> >> you already are."
> </quote>
>
> It still reads to me as if you're saying "Looking up information has
> nothing to do with your knowledge", and -- Looky, looky! -- that's
> exactly what you claimed you were saying. So where's this third
> 'strawman' you're whining about?
> >
> > When you post-edited it into two pieces, you changed the meaning of it.
> >
>
> No; your claim was that "Looking up information has nothing to do with
> your knowledge" -- that's your own paraphrase. I responded to that by
> saying that, no, looking up information can incrase your knowledge.
> Where's the mysterious meaning change?
>
>
> > You then "refuted" each piece of the post-edited statement -- neither
> of which even remotely reflected my statement in its truncated form.
> >
>
> No, I refuted your claim that "Looking up information has nothing to do
> with your knowledge", which as you noted is what your 'statement as a
> whole' meant.
>
> > And, yes -- I believe that it was done both knowingly and dishonestly.
>
> Once again I believe that you've decided to ignore what I've said to
> launch another attack on me -- once again, to deflect from the topic at
> hand.
>
> >> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> >> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> >> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> >> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
> >
> > How does your answer apply to my unedited question?
>
> Your statement (not "question," BTW) claimed, in your own words, that
> "Looking up information has nothing to do with your knowledge" -- ie,
> one can't acquire knowledge by looking it up. I just gave you a
> counterexample. I did know the answer to the Longfellow question from
> looking it up: looking it up increased my knowledge.
>
> > If you knew the answer three days previously, looking it up would not
> have had any impact on your knowledge at the time it was asked.
> >
> > Conversely, if you hadn't known the answer three days previously,
> looking it up would not have had any impact on your knowledge at the
> time it was asked.
>
> That is not what you you've been arguing. Once again, here's your
> statement:
> >> "You could have searched your blog for
> >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> >> you already are."
>
> That - and your own paraphrase: ""Looking up information has nothing to
> do with your knowledge". That's what I responded to.
>
> Since you're now saying the opposite - "You can increase your knowledge
> by looking up answers." - we can talk that as your new position.
>
> > Either way, your knowledge has *nothing* to do with any information
> garnered from an outside source.
>
> That contradicts your new position. If you can increase your knowledge
> by looking up answers, obviously your knowledge has something to do with
> the "outside source" where you looked up thpse answers.
>
> >>> I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
> >> for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
> >> done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
> >> than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
> >> knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
> >> has access to.
>
> >> But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the answer. As
> >> did you, at least after you looked it up.
> >
> > Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
> >
> > No one is challenging your precious claim to knowledge.
>
> Jesus fuck, yourself, Michael. You claimed that "looking it up" didn't
> increase my knowledge. Of course it did.
> >>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>
> >>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> >> knew
> >>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> >> Donkey."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> >>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's all.
> >>>>>
> >>>> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> >>>> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the
> same day.
> >>>
> >>> The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> >> correct response.
> >>>
> >>> And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> >> "gang's" lack of response.
> >>
> >> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> >> want to quibble about when they did that.
> >
> > Strawman #2 puts in a fourth appearance.
> >
> > No, George, I did not say any such thing.
>
> > Is it too much to ask that you actually address one of my statements
> *as written*?
> >
>
> You first claimed that NC hadn't attacked me at all:
>
> >>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> >>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's all.
>
> Then, when I pointed out that wasn't true -- that I'd joined the thread
> after NG began attacking me -- your only defence was that they'd begun
> attacking me "after Cujo provided the correct response" (admitting that
> they attacking me in the same thread you'd just denied just they'd
> attacked me in). then you tried to justify their attacks by noting I
> hadn't posted in the thread: "NancyGene's observation was based upon
> said "gang's" lack of response." Launching attacks in a thread on people
> who aren't posting in that thread is a paradigm example of trolling.
>
> > When you rephrase a statement, changing its meaning in the process,
> you are no longer addressing what was said. This makes your answer a
> waste of both of our time.
> >
>
> > Just stop it.
>
> Stop it yourself. I've been dealing with all your statements -- even
> your cuntiest ones -- as written. The only strawman in evidence is the
> one you constructed -- that books and wikis can know things -- and keep
> attacking.
>
> >> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> >> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> >> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.
> >
> > I never said that NancyGene was trolling you, George.
>
> Launching attacks in a thread on people who aren't even participating in
> it is a paradigm example of trolling. It's a fact that that's what NG
> was doing, and it remains a fact wheter you "say" it or not.
>
>
> > I said that your lack of response led NancyGene to believe that you
> did not know the answer
>
> Which as I pointed out is simple argument from ignorance. I'd call NG
> ignorant and illogical for that remark,
> but not a liar. But as we both know, it wasn't what I said they were
> lying about.
>
> > (and based on your unwarranted protestation to the contrary, above, I
> strongly suspect that she is right).
>
> It certainly hasn't been unwarranted. You claimed that I didn't know the
> answer (and also said that you hadn't claimed that didn't know the
> answer. One more time: I'll repeat that I knew it, and (what's more
> important, since it's on topic) that I'd read it on my "knowledge
> repository" (NG's term).

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 5:22:25 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >
> > Did someone just say something?
> Michael Pendragon has been whining to George Dance all day, yes.

And Mockery has been trolling everyone all day, and night and as he always proudly proclaims, his shit slinging show must go on!
You so funny and such cheap entertainment because it's become bad comedy watching you doing your ass clown routine all day and night!

Will Dockery wrote:

> Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>
>> Did someone just say something?

> Michael Pendragon has been whining to George Dance all day, yes.

> HTH and HAND.

Ha ha... that's about Voodoo Boy's only talent....

On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 at 17:24:35 UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:24:12 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-04 8:30 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> > >>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> > >>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> > >>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> >
> > >>> You're lying
> > >>>> again, NastyGene.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> >
> > BTW, why did you post-edit my comment? Here's what I wrote:
> > <quote>
> > >>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> > >>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>>> right there.
> > </q>
> >
> > >>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> > >>>> just bitchiness.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
> > >>>> Let's see.
> > >>>
> > >>> I didn't call you a name, George.
> > >>>
> >
> > Deflection. You made an ad hom attack on me, whether you choose to call
> > it name-calling
> > or not.
> >
> > >>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
> > >>>
> > >> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> > >> "pettiness."
> > >
> > > Exactly.
> >
> > So you were just making a petty accusation, rather than discuss whether
> > your online "friend" was lying or not. Are you incapable of discussing
> > that topic?
> >
> >
> > > Those are descriptions of your perceived behavior -- not names.
> >
> >
> > So you decided to start whining about my "behavior" rather than discuss
> > whether your
> > online friend was lying or not; possibly so I'd miss your post-edit
> >
> > > I didn't, for example, address you a "George Bitch" or "Petty Dunce."
> > >
> >
> > > As I often tell your Donkey: words matter. Learn what they mean and
> > use them correctly.
> >
> > Tell you what: to try to end this deflection of yours, I'll rephrase my
> > previous statement:
> >
> > You just made a petty accusation, most likely to divert attention (ie,
> > to deflect) from your post-edit.
> >
> > Now, shall we go back to the topic under discussion?
> > >>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>>>> right there.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> >
> > >>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> > >>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> > >>>> failed, so let's try that.
> > >>>
> > >>> Deflection noted.
> > >> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> > >> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> > >> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> > >> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> > >
> > > Yes 'deflection.'
> >
> > You used the wrong word, and I corrected you. What's wrong with you? Don't
> > you think that you should learn what words mean and how to use them
> > corretly?
> >
> > Anyway, let's try to get back to the topic. Let's see if you can answer
> > some questions.
> >
> > We agree that PPP is an "information repository" -- meaning that it
> > contains information. Correct?
> > Much if not all of that is knowledge (true, justified, and believed).
> > Correct?
> > So it contains knowledge. Correct?
> >
> > Let's see if your answers will get us anywhere.
> >
> > > The topic of discussion (at this place in the thread) was regarding
> > whether an inanimate blog (or wiki) could have knowledge of anything.
> >
> > That's equivocal. To say that a wiki "could Have knowledge" could mean:
> > (1) The wiki could contain knowledge (ie, some of the information on it
> > could be knowledge); or
> > (2) The wiki could know the information on it.
> >
> > (1) is what we're discussing -- a "knowledge repository" would be a
> > place where knowledge is stored or contained -- while (2) is an obvious
> > strawman.
> >
> > > As in the above "name-calling" exchange, you used the word
> > "knowledge" incorrectly, and are attempting to deflect attention from
> > your obviously embarrassing error.
> >
> > Correction: you keep saying that I used that I used the word
> > incorrectly. Making up stories about what I'm "attempting" just sounds
> > like more ad hom, and more deflection, on your part. I think you're just
> > trying to back up a member of your "gang."
> >
> > > And even that topic was the result of another deflection on your part
> > (as an attempt to divert attention from your bitchy behavior regarding
> > NancyGene).
> >
> > No, it was an attempt to get back to the topic. Your only defence of
> > NG's claim ("there's no knowledge repository") so far has been that PPP
> > isn't one, because it doesn't contain any knowledge. I think you're the one
> > using the word "knowledge" incorrectly, just as you've been using "blog"
> > incorrectly.
> >
> > >>>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only
> > way it
> > >>>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> > >>>
> > >>> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> > >> knowledge through words?
> > >>>
> >
> > Only if it's still knowledge after it's out of their mind in the form of
> > spoken or written words.
> >
> > > I never said that the words weren't in their minds, George.
> >
> > If they've spoken them or written them down, those words are not in
> > their minds.
> > That's true whether you "say" it or not.
> >
> > > You're projecting.
> >
> > It sounds like you're using yet another word incorrectly.
> >
> > > The knowledge regarding HWL's poem was in neither of our minds.
> >
> > Speak for yourself. If you want to say you didn't know it, fine; but
> > I've known about it at least since June.
> >
> > > But our lack of knowledge on a given subject has no bearing on the
> > knowledge of sentient beings in general.
> >
> > Not true. It's an example.
> >
> > > This is an example of the second type of "strawman" argument you're
> > fond of: falsely claiming that someone made an easily disproved
> > statement, and immediately proceeding to disprove it.
> >
> >
> > So you're saying you don't think that knowledge exists *only* in minds,
> > and that's the "strawman" you're claiming?
> > Then you agree that some knowledge exists outside minds.
> >
> > >>>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with
> > justification and
> > >>>> (3) true. It doesn't matter [where] it's 'stored'.
> > >>>
> > >>> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
> >
> > >> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> > >> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> > >
> > > First:
> > >
> > > They could not believe it if it had not first been communicated to them.
> >
> > Obviously; they had to hear or read the propositions, in the form of
> > words, in order to believe them.
> >
> > > If it had been communicated to them, they therefore possess a
> > knowledge of it.
> >
> > > If they possess a knowledge of it, it is stored in their brain.
> >
> > If someone believes something, of course there's a belief in his mind.
> > And if he tells someone
> > else, or writes it down, it's still his belief, correct?
> >
> > > Second:
> > > Information is recorded, and stored, in books. The inanimate books
> > do not possess any knowledge of said information.
> >
> > Of course; who said a book could know things? That sounds like your
> > strawman (2) I just warned about.
> >
> > But they contain the information, and (insofar as that information is
> > knowledge) they contain that knowledge.
> >
> > > Third:
> > >
> > > Words possess neither knowledge nor information.
> >
> > You previously said that people can communicate knowledge in the form of
> > words. How do you think that can happen, if their words and sentences
> > don't contain any information.
> >
> > > They are tools with which knowledge and information are passed on
> > from one sentient being to the next.
> > >
> >
> > In order for that to work, the words have to contain that 'knowledge and
> > information'; which they do, in the form of statements or propositions.
> >
> >
> > >>> Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> > >> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> > >> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> > >> homs.
> > >
> > > If it diverts from the actual topic being discussed... yes, I'm going
> > to call it what it is.
> >
> > Everything we're saying in this second so-called "deflection" is on
> > topic. You're defending NG's claim that PPP is not a "knowledge
> > repository" by arguing there can't be any knowledge in written sources
> > like PPP, and I'm supporting my own case by arguing that there can be
> > and sometimes is.
> >
> > > Let's face it, George; you really put your foot in it this time. < I
> > would advise you to bow out as gracefully as you still can... but, true
> > to your surname, you prefer to keep on dancing.
> >
> > And there you go again. I'd advise you to try to keep your mind on what
> > we're discussing,
> > rather than whine about me, if you expect your defense of your online
> > friend to be taken seriously.
> >
> > >>> , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> > >>>
> > >>>> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> > >>>> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> > >>>
> > >>> Nope. You're not done.
> > >>>
> > >>> Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> > >>>
> > >>> Definition of knowledge
> > >>> 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
> > >> gained through experience or association
> > >>> (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> > >>> b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> > >>> (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> > >>> answered to the best of my knowledge
> > >>> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
> > >> through reasoning : COGNITION
> > >>> d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> > >>> a person of unusual knowledge
> > >>> 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
> > >> principles acquired by humankind
> > >>> barchaic : a branch of learning
> > >>> 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> > >>> 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> > >>>
> > >>> As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
> > >> and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> > >> Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
> > >> know it.
> > >
> >
> > > And your wiki does not possess this ability.
> >
> > And there's the strawman (2) that I warned about (2). I never said the
> > wiki knows things. I have said that information in the wiki (such as the
> > information about "On Lowell Pound") is justified, true, and believed
> > (ie, knowledge).
> >
> > Please drop that strawman and concentrate on what I've actually said.
> >
> > >> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> > >> (epistemologists) use.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, George, but I don't know any epistemologists; nor have I
> > any understanding of how they supposedly define things.
> > >
> > > Merriam-Webster is arguable the most reputable (and certainly the
> > best known) source of English definitions, and I insist that as writers
> > we stick with them.
> >
> > I'm not attacking the M-W definition. "Awareness" and "understanding"
> > are necessary for knowledge (because they're necessary for belief). But
> > they're not sufficient. having "awareness" or "understanding" of a
> > proposition is not sufficient to "know" it. Knowledge, awareness, and
> > understanding, are not the same thing. People who say they "know"
> > something to mean they're "aware" of it, that they've heard or read it,
> > are wrong and are misusing the language.
> >
> > Merriam-Webster is a popular dictionary, which tracks usages (all
> > usages, including technically incorrect ones). It's not the best
> > authority when discussing a technical subject; it's certainly not the
> > ultimate authority.
> >
> > >> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> > >> (3) justified.
> > >
> > > And even your epistemologists' definition presupposes sentience -- as
> > one must be sentient in order to have belief!
> > >
> >
> > Sigh -- once again; if I have a belief and write it down, it doesn't
> > stop being my belief.
> >
> >
> > >>> Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> > >> does not possess knowledge.
> > >>
> > >> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> > >> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
> > >> That's what we're discussing.
> > >
> > > I see we've pulled out Strawman #2 again.
> >
> > > No, George, I'm not saying that -- or anything remotely resembling that.
> >
> > OK; so you're not saying that PPP does not contain any knowledge. Do you
> > agree, then, that it does contain knowledge?
> >
> > > I'm saying that PPP does not possess any knowledge.
> >
> > And now you're saying that PPP does not contain any knowledge -- what
> > you just called a "strawman".
> >
> >
> > > What PPP possesses is information. One can read the information on
> > PPP and increase his knowledge as a result.
> >
> > Well, maybe we're getting somewhere: we've agreed that the justified,
> > true beliefs a writer has before he writes them down are 'knowledge'; right?
> > and that that they're also they're also knowledge after a reader reads
> > and learns them - right?
> >
> > You just think that, for some reason, they stopped being knowledge in
> > between.
> >
> > > Again, words matter. Learn what they mean and use them correctly.
> >
> > Yes, Michael. You do realize that applies to you as well as to me.
> >
> > >> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> > >> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> > >> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17,
> > 1820.[7]
> > >>
> > >> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
> > - Proposition LP (for "Longfellow' Proposition" or "Lowell Pond").
> >
> > >
> > > Is it believed by Penny's Pages or by George Dance?
> >
> >
> > "Is it believed by Penny's Pages ..." There's your Strawman again.
> > Please stop doing that.
> >
> > By me, and by a lot of other people too; even, if NG is to be believed,
> > by the writers of "Jeopardy". So it's believed.
> >
> > > If George Dance believes it, it is knowledge.
> >
> > So, since I just told you I believe it, that proposition on the wiki is
> > knowledge. Therefore the wiki contains knowledge. (Not just that one
> > proposition, of course, but one counterexample is enough.)
> >
> >
> > > If you're arguing that Penny's Pages believes it, it (your argument)
> > is nonsense.
> >
> > Which is why I've repeatedly told you that, no, I'm not arguing that;
> > it's just a strawman argument you've latched on to.
> >
> > >>> Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> > >> you further?
> > >>>
> > >> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> > >> you go right ahead.
> > >
> > > It gives me no pleasure to embarrass you, George.
> > >
> > > Quite the reverse.
> > >
> >
> > Then drop that line of personal attack, and try to discuss the topic
> > instead.
> >
> > > I have spent the past five years in a vain attempt to convince my
> > friends at AAPC that you are an intelligent and reasonable human being.
> > When you embarrass yourself by putting forth such Donkey-level nonsense,
> > you embarrass me in the process.
> >
> > Is this tantrum of yours what you all "getting back to the topic"? It is
> > not the topic, you know.
> >
> > >>>> NG lied about that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> > >>>> searched Google for the answer.
> > >>>> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> > >>>> except for Google.
> > >>>
> > >>> You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> > >> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> > >> of creating "strawman" arguments.
> > >> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> > >> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> > >> called it a 'deflection'?
> > >
> > > Yes, George, I did.
> > >
> > > Did you even read my statement before you took it upon yourself to
> > break it into two unrelated pieces?
> >
> > Of course I did. You made two claims -- that I didn't know the answer,
> > and that I could have learned it from searcnhing my wiki -- and I dealt
> > with both in turn.
> >
> > >>> Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your [wiki] for
> > >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> > >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> > >> you already are."
> >
> > >> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> > >> incorrect description of PPP.
> > >
> > > That is not identical to what you quoted. You changed the meaning of
> > my statement from "Looking up information has nothing to do with your
> > knowledge" to an accusation that you'd cheated (looked up) the answer.
> >
> > No. "You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer" implies
> > (wrongly) that I didn't know it, not that I "cheated," but I let that pass.
> >
> > >You misstated NG's rule -- no Googling or using Wikipedia -- so I
> > corrected you. If you
> > don't like being corrected, don't misstate things.
> >
> > >>> As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> > >> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> > >> answer.
> > >>
> > >> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> > >> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling" or using Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > And, again, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I had said.
> > >
> >
> > It has everything to do with what you said. You misstated NG's rule, and
> > you were corrected.
> >
> > >> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> > >> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> >
> > Of course it does. Both those who 'cheated' (looked up the answer after
> > NG asked the question) and 'studied' (looked up the answer before NG
> > asked the question) would have more knowledge than they'd had before
> > they looked it up. The only difference iw that those who 'cheated'
> > would not have known the answer at the time NG asked the question, while
> > whose who 'studied' would have.
> >
> > >> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> > >> Pond" unless they already knew it?
> > >
> > > Strawman #2 makes raises his head for the third time.
> >
> > If you can't explain what you think are "strawman" #1 and #2" and why
> > you think so, I'm going to have to dismiss it as handwaving. So far the
> > only strawman I'm aware of that one of yours that I have identified.
> >
> > > No, George, I said nothing of the sort.
> > >
> > > You can increase your knowledge by looking up answers.
> >
> > Great. So obviously "pulling information from an outside source" does
> > have a "bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess."
> >
> > >> Not from PPP, not from the sources
> > >> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
> > >
> > > Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
> >
> > My biggest problem is that you can't seem to make up your mind what
> > you're saying. One minute you're saying there's no knowledge on PPP --
> > meaning no one can increase their knowledge by reading it. The next
> > you're saying that people can increase their knowledge by reading PPP --
> > meaning there is knowledge there. And then when I address either of your
> > claims, you call that one a "strawman". So I address your other claim,
> > and you call that one a "strawman". I think you're just handwaving.
> >
> > >>>> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> > >>>> remembered it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> >
> > >> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> > >> remembered that I knew it.
> > >
> > > Again, I am forced to ask: Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
> >
> > Say whatever you feel like. But you're not helping your argument by
> > saying things like that, you know.
> >
> > snip
> >
> > >>>>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> > >>>> knowledgeable than you already are.
> > >> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.
> > >
> > > There is nothing dishonest in my claim, George.
> > >
> > > You chopped my statement into two parts -- thereby altering the
> > meaning of both.
> >
> > I can't see any change in meaning at all. You were claiming that someone
> > who looks up an answer (student or cheat) isn't "any more, or less,
> > knowledgeable" than before he looked it up. Now that you've said the
> > opposite: "
> >
> > >>>> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> > >> knowledge. But, once
> > >>>> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> > >>>
> > >>> And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> > >> observation would not apply.
> > >>>
> > >> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> > >> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > The meaning of my statement is not contained in either half, but in
> > its entirety.
> >
> > Well, let's look at your statement "in its entirety".
> >
> > <quote>
> > >> "You could have searched your blog for
> > >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> > >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> > >> you already are."
> > </quote>
> >
> > It still reads to me as if you're saying "Looking up information has
> > nothing to do with your knowledge", and -- Looky, looky! -- that's
> > exactly what you claimed you were saying. So where's this third
> > 'strawman' you're whining about?
> > >
> > > When you post-edited it into two pieces, you changed the meaning of it.
> > >
> >
> > No; your claim was that "Looking up information has nothing to do with
> > your knowledge" -- that's your own paraphrase. I responded to that by
> > saying that, no, looking up information can incrase your knowledge.
> > Where's the mysterious meaning change?
> >
> >
> > > You then "refuted" each piece of the post-edited statement -- neither
> > of which even remotely reflected my statement in its truncated form.
> > >
> >
> > No, I refuted your claim that "Looking up information has nothing to do
> > with your knowledge", which as you noted is what your 'statement as a
> > whole' meant.
> >
> > > And, yes -- I believe that it was done both knowingly and dishonestly..
> >
> > Once again I believe that you've decided to ignore what I've said to
> > launch another attack on me -- once again, to deflect from the topic at
> > hand.
> >
> > >> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> > >> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> > >> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> > >> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
> > >
> > > How does your answer apply to my unedited question?
> >
> > Your statement (not "question," BTW) claimed, in your own words, that
> > "Looking up information has nothing to do with your knowledge" -- ie,
> > one can't acquire knowledge by looking it up. I just gave you a
> > counterexample. I did know the answer to the Longfellow question from
> > looking it up: looking it up increased my knowledge.
> >
> > > If you knew the answer three days previously, looking it up would not
> > have had any impact on your knowledge at the time it was asked.
> > >
> > > Conversely, if you hadn't known the answer three days previously,
> > looking it up would not have had any impact on your knowledge at the
> > time it was asked.
> >
> > That is not what you you've been arguing. Once again, here's your
> > statement:
> > >> "You could have searched your blog for
> > >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> > >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> > >> you already are."
> >
> > That - and your own paraphrase: ""Looking up information has nothing to
> > do with your knowledge". That's what I responded to.
> >
> > Since you're now saying the opposite - "You can increase your knowledge
> > by looking up answers." - we can talk that as your new position.
> >
> > > Either way, your knowledge has *nothing* to do with any information
> > garnered from an outside source.
> >
> > That contradicts your new position. If you can increase your knowledge
> > by looking up answers, obviously your knowledge has something to do with
> > the "outside source" where you looked up thpse answers.
> >
> > >>> I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
> > >> for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
> > >> done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
> > >> than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
> > >> knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
> > >> has access to.
> >
> > >> But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the answer. As
> > >> did you, at least after you looked it up.
> > >
> > > Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
> > >
> > > No one is challenging your precious claim to knowledge.
> >
> > Jesus fuck, yourself, Michael. You claimed that "looking it up" didn't
> > increase my knowledge. Of course it did.
> > >>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> > >>
> > >>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> > >> knew
> > >>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> > >> Donkey."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> > >>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That's all.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> > >>>> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the
> > same day.
> > >>>
> > >>> The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> > >> correct response.
> > >>>
> > >>> And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> > >> "gang's" lack of response.
> > >>
> > >> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> > >> want to quibble about when they did that.
> > >
> > > Strawman #2 puts in a fourth appearance.
> > >
> > > No, George, I did not say any such thing.
> >
> > > Is it too much to ask that you actually address one of my statements
> > *as written*?
> > >
> >
> > You first claimed that NC hadn't attacked me at all:
> >
> > >>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> > >>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That's all.
> >
> > Then, when I pointed out that wasn't true -- that I'd joined the thread
> > after NG began attacking me -- your only defence was that they'd begun
> > attacking me "after Cujo provided the correct response" (admitting that
> > they attacking me in the same thread you'd just denied just they'd
> > attacked me in). then you tried to justify their attacks by noting I
> > hadn't posted in the thread: "NancyGene's observation was based upon
> > said "gang's" lack of response." Launching attacks in a thread on people
> > who aren't posting in that thread is a paradigm example of trolling.
> >
> > > When you rephrase a statement, changing its meaning in the process,
> > you are no longer addressing what was said. This makes your answer a
> > waste of both of our time.
> > >
> >
> > > Just stop it.
> >
> > Stop it yourself. I've been dealing with all your statements -- even
> > your cuntiest ones -- as written. The only strawman in evidence is the
> > one you constructed -- that books and wikis can know things -- and keep
> > attacking.
> >
> > >> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> > >> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> > >> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.
> > >
> > > I never said that NancyGene was trolling you, George.
> >
> > Launching attacks in a thread on people who aren't even participating in
> > it is a paradigm example of trolling. It's a fact that that's what NG
> > was doing, and it remains a fact wheter you "say" it or not.
> >
> >
> > > I said that your lack of response led NancyGene to believe that you
> > did not know the answer
> >
> > Which as I pointed out is simple argument from ignorance. I'd call NG
> > ignorant and illogical for that remark,
> > but not a liar. But as we both know, it wasn't what I said they were
> > lying about.
> >
> > > (and based on your unwarranted protestation to the contrary, above, I
> > strongly suspect that she is right).
> >
> > It certainly hasn't been unwarranted. You claimed that I didn't know the
> > answer (and also said that you hadn't claimed that didn't know the
> > answer. One more time: I'll repeat that I knew it, and (what's more
> > important, since it's on topic) that I'd read it on my "knowledge
> > repository" (NG's term).
> You nailed it, G.D.

General-Zod wrote:

> Will Dockery wrote:

>> Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>
>>> Did someone just say something?

>> Michael Pendragon has been whining to George Dance all day, yes.

>> HTH and HAND.

> Ha ha... that's about Voodoo Boy's only talent....

He sure does get plenty of practice.

🙂

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 8:39:22 PM UTC-5, ME wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 at 17:24:35 UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:24:12 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On 2022-11-04 8:30 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> > > >>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> > > >>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> > > >>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> > >
> > > >>> You're lying
> > > >>>> again, NastyGene.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> > >
> > > BTW, why did you post-edit my comment? Here's what I wrote:
> > > <quote>
> > > >>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> > > >>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > > >>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > > >>>>> right there.
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > >>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> > > >>>> just bitchiness.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
> > > >>>> Let's see.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I didn't call you a name, George.
> > > >>>
> > >
> > > Deflection. You made an ad hom attack on me, whether you choose to call
> > > it name-calling
> > > or not.
> > >
> > > >>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
> > > >>>
> > > >> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> > > >> "pettiness."
> > > >
> > > > Exactly.
> > >
> > > So you were just making a petty accusation, rather than discuss whether
> > > your online "friend" was lying or not. Are you incapable of discussing
> > > that topic?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Those are descriptions of your perceived behavior -- not names.
> > >
> > >
> > > So you decided to start whining about my "behavior" rather than discuss
> > > whether your
> > > online friend was lying or not; possibly so I'd miss your post-edit
> > >
> > > > I didn't, for example, address you a "George Bitch" or "Petty Dunce.."
> > > >
> > >
> > > > As I often tell your Donkey: words matter. Learn what they mean and
> > > use them correctly.
> > >
> > > Tell you what: to try to end this deflection of yours, I'll rephrase my
> > > previous statement:
> > >
> > > You just made a petty accusation, most likely to divert attention (ie,
> > > to deflect) from your post-edit.
> > >
> > > Now, shall we go back to the topic under discussion?
> > > >>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > > >>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > > >>>>>> right there.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> > >
> > > >>>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> > > >>>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> > > >>>> failed, so let's try that.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Deflection noted.
> > > >> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> > > >> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> > > >> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> > > >> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.
> > > >
> > > > Yes 'deflection.'
> > >
> > > You used the wrong word, and I corrected you. What's wrong with you? Don't
> > > you think that you should learn what words mean and how to use them
> > > corretly?
> > >
> > > Anyway, let's try to get back to the topic. Let's see if you can answer
> > > some questions.
> > >
> > > We agree that PPP is an "information repository" -- meaning that it
> > > contains information. Correct?
> > > Much if not all of that is knowledge (true, justified, and believed).
> > > Correct?
> > > So it contains knowledge. Correct?
> > >
> > > Let's see if your answers will get us anywhere.
> > >
> > > > The topic of discussion (at this place in the thread) was regarding
> > > whether an inanimate blog (or wiki) could have knowledge of anything.
> > >
> > > That's equivocal. To say that a wiki "could Have knowledge" could mean:
> > > (1) The wiki could contain knowledge (ie, some of the information on it
> > > could be knowledge); or
> > > (2) The wiki could know the information on it.
> > >
> > > (1) is what we're discussing -- a "knowledge repository" would be a
> > > place where knowledge is stored or contained -- while (2) is an obvious
> > > strawman.
> > >
> > > > As in the above "name-calling" exchange, you used the word
> > > "knowledge" incorrectly, and are attempting to deflect attention from
> > > your obviously embarrassing error.
> > >
> > > Correction: you keep saying that I used that I used the word
> > > incorrectly. Making up stories about what I'm "attempting" just sounds
> > > like more ad hom, and more deflection, on your part. I think you're just
> > > trying to back up a member of your "gang."
> > >
> > > > And even that topic was the result of another deflection on your part
> > > (as an attempt to divert attention from your bitchy behavior regarding
> > > NancyGene).
> > >
> > > No, it was an attempt to get back to the topic. Your only defence of
> > > NG's claim ("there's no knowledge repository") so far has been that PPP
> > > isn't one, because it doesn't contain any knowledge. I think you're the one
> > > using the word "knowledge" incorrectly, just as you've been using "blog"
> > > incorrectly.
> > >
> > > >>>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only
> > > way it
> > > >>>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> > > >> knowledge through words?
> > > >>>
> > >
> > > Only if it's still knowledge after it's out of their mind in the form of
> > > spoken or written words.
> > >
> > > > I never said that the words weren't in their minds, George.
> > >
> > > If they've spoken them or written them down, those words are not in
> > > their minds.
> > > That's true whether you "say" it or not.
> > >
> > > > You're projecting.
> > >
> > > It sounds like you're using yet another word incorrectly.
> > >
> > > > The knowledge regarding HWL's poem was in neither of our minds.
> > >
> > > Speak for yourself. If you want to say you didn't know it, fine; but
> > > I've known about it at least since June.
> > >
> > > > But our lack of knowledge on a given subject has no bearing on the
> > > knowledge of sentient beings in general.
> > >
> > > Not true. It's an example.
> > >
> > > > This is an example of the second type of "strawman" argument you're
> > > fond of: falsely claiming that someone made an easily disproved
> > > statement, and immediately proceeding to disprove it.
> > >
> > >
> > > So you're saying you don't think that knowledge exists *only* in minds,
> > > and that's the "strawman" you're claiming?
> > > Then you agree that some knowledge exists outside minds.
> > >
> > > >>>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with
> > > justification and
> > > >>>> (3) true. It doesn't matter [where] it's 'stored'.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
> > >
> > > >> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> > > >> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.
> > > >
> > > > First:
> > > >
> > > > They could not believe it if it had not first been communicated to them.
> > >
> > > Obviously; they had to hear or read the propositions, in the form of
> > > words, in order to believe them.
> > >
> > > > If it had been communicated to them, they therefore possess a
> > > knowledge of it.
> > >
> > > > If they possess a knowledge of it, it is stored in their brain.
> > >
> > > If someone believes something, of course there's a belief in his mind..
> > > And if he tells someone
> > > else, or writes it down, it's still his belief, correct?
> > >
> > > > Second:
> > > > Information is recorded, and stored, in books. The inanimate books
> > > do not possess any knowledge of said information.
> > >
> > > Of course; who said a book could know things? That sounds like your
> > > strawman (2) I just warned about.
> > >
> > > But they contain the information, and (insofar as that information is
> > > knowledge) they contain that knowledge.
> > >
> > > > Third:
> > > >
> > > > Words possess neither knowledge nor information.
> > >
> > > You previously said that people can communicate knowledge in the form of
> > > words. How do you think that can happen, if their words and sentences
> > > don't contain any information.
> > >
> > > > They are tools with which knowledge and information are passed on
> > > from one sentient being to the next.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In order for that to work, the words have to contain that 'knowledge and
> > > information'; which they do, in the form of statements or propositions.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> > > >> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> > > >> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> > > >> homs.
> > > >
> > > > If it diverts from the actual topic being discussed... yes, I'm going
> > > to call it what it is.
> > >
> > > Everything we're saying in this second so-called "deflection" is on
> > > topic. You're defending NG's claim that PPP is not a "knowledge
> > > repository" by arguing there can't be any knowledge in written sources
> > > like PPP, and I'm supporting my own case by arguing that there can be
> > > and sometimes is.
> > >
> > > > Let's face it, George; you really put your foot in it this time. < I
> > > would advise you to bow out as gracefully as you still can... but, true
> > > to your surname, you prefer to keep on dancing.
> > >
> > > And there you go again. I'd advise you to try to keep your mind on what
> > > we're discussing,
> > > rather than whine about me, if you expect your defense of your online
> > > friend to be taken seriously.
> > >
> > > >>> , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> > > >>>> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Nope. You're not done.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Definition of knowledge
> > > >>> 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
> > > >> gained through experience or association
> > > >>> (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> > > >>> b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> > > >>> (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> > > >>> answered to the best of my knowledge
> > > >>> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
> > > >> through reasoning : COGNITION
> > > >>> d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> > > >>> a person of unusual knowledge
> > > >>> 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
> > > >> principles acquired by humankind
> > > >>> barchaic : a branch of learning
> > > >>> 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> > > >>> 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
> > > >> and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.
> > > >> Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
> > > >> know it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > And your wiki does not possess this ability.
> > >
> > > And there's the strawman (2) that I warned about (2). I never said the
> > > wiki knows things. I have said that information in the wiki (such as the
> > > information about "On Lowell Pound") is justified, true, and believed
> > > (ie, knowledge).
> > >
> > > Please drop that strawman and concentrate on what I've actually said.
> > >
> > > >> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> > > >> (epistemologists) use.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry, George, but I don't know any epistemologists; nor have I
> > > any understanding of how they supposedly define things.
> > > >
> > > > Merriam-Webster is arguable the most reputable (and certainly the
> > > best known) source of English definitions, and I insist that as writers
> > > we stick with them.
> > >
> > > I'm not attacking the M-W definition. "Awareness" and "understanding"
> > > are necessary for knowledge (because they're necessary for belief). But
> > > they're not sufficient. having "awareness" or "understanding" of a
> > > proposition is not sufficient to "know" it. Knowledge, awareness, and
> > > understanding, are not the same thing. People who say they "know"
> > > something to mean they're "aware" of it, that they've heard or read it,
> > > are wrong and are misusing the language.
> > >
> > > Merriam-Webster is a popular dictionary, which tracks usages (all
> > > usages, including technically incorrect ones). It's not the best
> > > authority when discussing a technical subject; it's certainly not the
> > > ultimate authority.
> > >
> > > >> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> > > >> (3) justified.
> > > >
> > > > And even your epistemologists' definition presupposes sentience -- as
> > > one must be sentient in order to have belief!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sigh -- once again; if I have a belief and write it down, it doesn't
> > > stop being my belief.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> > > >> does not possess knowledge.
> > > >>
> > > >> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> > > >> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
> > > >> That's what we're discussing.
> > > >
> > > > I see we've pulled out Strawman #2 again.
> > >
> > > > No, George, I'm not saying that -- or anything remotely resembling that.
> > >
> > > OK; so you're not saying that PPP does not contain any knowledge. Do you
> > > agree, then, that it does contain knowledge?
> > >
> > > > I'm saying that PPP does not possess any knowledge.
> > >
> > > And now you're saying that PPP does not contain any knowledge -- what
> > > you just called a "strawman".
> > >
> > >
> > > > What PPP possesses is information. One can read the information on
> > > PPP and increase his knowledge as a result.
> > >
> > > Well, maybe we're getting somewhere: we've agreed that the justified,
> > > true beliefs a writer has before he writes them down are 'knowledge'; right?
> > > and that that they're also they're also knowledge after a reader reads
> > > and learns them - right?
> > >
> > > You just think that, for some reason, they stopped being knowledge in
> > > between.
> > >
> > > > Again, words matter. Learn what they mean and use them correctly.
> > >
> > > Yes, Michael. You do realize that applies to you as well as to me.
> > >
> > > >> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> > > >> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> > > >> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17,
> > > 1820.[7]
> > > >>
> > > >> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.
> > > - Proposition LP (for "Longfellow' Proposition" or "Lowell Pond").
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Is it believed by Penny's Pages or by George Dance?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Is it believed by Penny's Pages ..." There's your Strawman again.
> > > Please stop doing that.
> > >
> > > By me, and by a lot of other people too; even, if NG is to be believed,
> > > by the writers of "Jeopardy". So it's believed.
> > >
> > > > If George Dance believes it, it is knowledge.
> > >
> > > So, since I just told you I believe it, that proposition on the wiki is
> > > knowledge. Therefore the wiki contains knowledge. (Not just that one
> > > proposition, of course, but one counterexample is enough.)
> > >
> > >
> > > > If you're arguing that Penny's Pages believes it, it (your argument)
> > > is nonsense.
> > >
> > > Which is why I've repeatedly told you that, no, I'm not arguing that;
> > > it's just a strawman argument you've latched on to.
> > >
> > > >>> Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> > > >> you further?
> > > >>>
> > > >> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> > > >> you go right ahead.
> > > >
> > > > It gives me no pleasure to embarrass you, George.
> > > >
> > > > Quite the reverse.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then drop that line of personal attack, and try to discuss the topic
> > > instead.
> > >
> > > > I have spent the past five years in a vain attempt to convince my
> > > friends at AAPC that you are an intelligent and reasonable human being.
> > > When you embarrass yourself by putting forth such Donkey-level nonsense,
> > > you embarrass me in the process.
> > >
> > > Is this tantrum of yours what you all "getting back to the topic"? It is
> > > not the topic, you know.
> > >
> > > >>>> NG lied about that.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> > > >>>> searched Google for the answer.
> > > >>>> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> > > >>>> except for Google.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> > > >> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> > > >> of creating "strawman" arguments.
> > > >> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> > > >> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> > > >> called it a 'deflection'?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, George, I did.
> > > >
> > > > Did you even read my statement before you took it upon yourself to
> > > break it into two unrelated pieces?
> > >
> > > Of course I did. You made two claims -- that I didn't know the answer,
> > > and that I could have learned it from searcnhing my wiki -- and I dealt
> > > with both in turn.
> > >
> > > >>> Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your [wiki] for
> > > >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> > > >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> > > >> you already are."
> > >
> > > >> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> > > >> incorrect description of PPP.
> > > >
> > > > That is not identical to what you quoted. You changed the meaning of
> > > my statement from "Looking up information has nothing to do with your
> > > knowledge" to an accusation that you'd cheated (looked up) the answer..
> > >
> > > No. "You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer" implies
> > > (wrongly) that I didn't know it, not that I "cheated," but I let that pass.
> > >
> > > >You misstated NG's rule -- no Googling or using Wikipedia -- so I
> > > corrected you. If you
> > > don't like being corrected, don't misstate things.
> > >
> > > >>> As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> > > >> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> > > >> answer.
> > > >>
> > > >> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> > > >> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling" or using Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > And, again, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I had said.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It has everything to do with what you said. You misstated NG's rule, and
> > > you were corrected.
> > >
> > > >> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> > > >> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> > >
> > > Of course it does. Both those who 'cheated' (looked up the answer after
> > > NG asked the question) and 'studied' (looked up the answer before NG
> > > asked the question) would have more knowledge than they'd had before
> > > they looked it up. The only difference iw that those who 'cheated'
> > > would not have known the answer at the time NG asked the question, while
> > > whose who 'studied' would have.
> > >
> > > >> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> > > >> Pond" unless they already knew it?
> > > >
> > > > Strawman #2 makes raises his head for the third time.
> > >
> > > If you can't explain what you think are "strawman" #1 and #2" and why
> > > you think so, I'm going to have to dismiss it as handwaving. So far the
> > > only strawman I'm aware of that one of yours that I have identified.
> > >
> > > > No, George, I said nothing of the sort.
> > > >
> > > > You can increase your knowledge by looking up answers.
> > >
> > > Great. So obviously "pulling information from an outside source" does
> > > have a "bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess."
> > >
> > > >> Not from PPP, not from the sources
> > > >> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.
> > > >
> > > > Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
> > >
> > > My biggest problem is that you can't seem to make up your mind what
> > > you're saying. One minute you're saying there's no knowledge on PPP --
> > > meaning no one can increase their knowledge by reading it. The next
> > > you're saying that people can increase their knowledge by reading PPP --
> > > meaning there is knowledge there. And then when I address either of your
> > > claims, you call that one a "strawman". So I address your other claim,
> > > and you call that one a "strawman". I think you're just handwaving.
> > >
> > > >>>> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> > > >>>> remembered it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> > >
> > > >> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> > > >> remembered that I knew it.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I am forced to ask: Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
> > >
> > > Say whatever you feel like. But you're not helping your argument by
> > > saying things like that, you know.
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > >>>>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> > > >>>> knowledgeable than you already are.
> > > >> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing dishonest in my claim, George.
> > > >
> > > > You chopped my statement into two parts -- thereby altering the
> > > meaning of both.
> > >
> > > I can't see any change in meaning at all. You were claiming that someone
> > > who looks up an answer (student or cheat) isn't "any more, or less,
> > > knowledgeable" than before he looked it up. Now that you've said the
> > > opposite: "
> > >
> > > >>>> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> > > >> knowledge. But, once
> > > >>>> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> > > >> observation would not apply.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> > > >> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong.
> > > >
> > > > The meaning of my statement is not contained in either half, but in
> > > its entirety.
> > >
> > > Well, let's look at your statement "in its entirety".
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > >> "You could have searched your blog for
> > > >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> > > >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> > > >> you already are."
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > It still reads to me as if you're saying "Looking up information has
> > > nothing to do with your knowledge", and -- Looky, looky! -- that's
> > > exactly what you claimed you were saying. So where's this third
> > > 'strawman' you're whining about?
> > > >
> > > > When you post-edited it into two pieces, you changed the meaning of it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No; your claim was that "Looking up information has nothing to do with
> > > your knowledge" -- that's your own paraphrase. I responded to that by
> > > saying that, no, looking up information can incrase your knowledge.
> > > Where's the mysterious meaning change?
> > >
> > >
> > > > You then "refuted" each piece of the post-edited statement -- neither
> > > of which even remotely reflected my statement in its truncated form.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, I refuted your claim that "Looking up information has nothing to do
> > > with your knowledge", which as you noted is what your 'statement as a
> > > whole' meant.
> > >
> > > > And, yes -- I believe that it was done both knowingly and dishonestly.
> > >
> > > Once again I believe that you've decided to ignore what I've said to
> > > launch another attack on me -- once again, to deflect from the topic at
> > > hand.
> > >
> > > >> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> > > >> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> > > >> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> > > >> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").
> > > >
> > > > How does your answer apply to my unedited question?
> > >
> > > Your statement (not "question," BTW) claimed, in your own words, that
> > > "Looking up information has nothing to do with your knowledge" -- ie,
> > > one can't acquire knowledge by looking it up. I just gave you a
> > > counterexample. I did know the answer to the Longfellow question from
> > > looking it up: looking it up increased my knowledge.
> > >
> > > > If you knew the answer three days previously, looking it up would not
> > > have had any impact on your knowledge at the time it was asked.
> > > >
> > > > Conversely, if you hadn't known the answer three days previously,
> > > looking it up would not have had any impact on your knowledge at the
> > > time it was asked.
> > >
> > > That is not what you you've been arguing. Once again, here's your
> > > statement:
> > > >> "You could have searched your blog for
> > > >> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> > > >> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> > > >> you already are."
> > >
> > > That - and your own paraphrase: ""Looking up information has nothing to
> > > do with your knowledge". That's what I responded to.
> > >
> > > Since you're now saying the opposite - "You can increase your knowledge
> > > by looking up answers." - we can talk that as your new position.
> > >
> > > > Either way, your knowledge has *nothing* to do with any information
> > > garnered from an outside source.
> > >
> > > That contradicts your new position. If you can increase your knowledge
> > > by looking up answers, obviously your knowledge has something to do with
> > > the "outside source" where you looked up thpse answers.
> > >
> > > >>> I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
> > > >> for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
> > > >> done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
> > > >> than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
> > > >> knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
> > > >> has access to.
> > >
> > > >> But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the answer. As
> > > >> did you, at least after you looked it up.
> > > >
> > > > Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?
> > > >
> > > > No one is challenging your precious claim to knowledge.
> > >
> > > Jesus fuck, yourself, Michael. You claimed that "looking it up" didn't
> > > increase my knowledge. Of course it did.
> > > >>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance..
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> > > >> knew
> > > >>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> > > >> Donkey."
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> > > >>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> That's all.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> > > >>>> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the
> > > same day.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> > > >> correct response.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> > > >> "gang's" lack of response.
> > > >>
> > > >> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> > > >> want to quibble about when they did that.
> > > >
> > > > Strawman #2 puts in a fourth appearance.
> > > >
> > > > No, George, I did not say any such thing.
> > >
> > > > Is it too much to ask that you actually address one of my statements
> > > *as written*?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You first claimed that NC hadn't attacked me at all:
> > >
> > > >>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> > > >>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> That's all.
> > >
> > > Then, when I pointed out that wasn't true -- that I'd joined the thread
> > > after NG began attacking me -- your only defence was that they'd begun
> > > attacking me "after Cujo provided the correct response" (admitting that
> > > they attacking me in the same thread you'd just denied just they'd
> > > attacked me in). then you tried to justify their attacks by noting I
> > > hadn't posted in the thread: "NancyGene's observation was based upon
> > > said "gang's" lack of response." Launching attacks in a thread on people
> > > who aren't posting in that thread is a paradigm example of trolling.
> > >
> > > > When you rephrase a statement, changing its meaning in the process,
> > > you are no longer addressing what was said. This makes your answer a
> > > waste of both of our time.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Just stop it.
> > >
> > > Stop it yourself. I've been dealing with all your statements -- even
> > > your cuntiest ones -- as written. The only strawman in evidence is the
> > > one you constructed -- that books and wikis can know things -- and keep
> > > attacking.
> > >
> > > >> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> > > >> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> > > >> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.
> > > >
> > > > I never said that NancyGene was trolling you, George.
> > >
> > > Launching attacks in a thread on people who aren't even participating in
> > > it is a paradigm example of trolling. It's a fact that that's what NG
> > > was doing, and it remains a fact wheter you "say" it or not.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I said that your lack of response led NancyGene to believe that you
> > > did not know the answer
> > >
> > > Which as I pointed out is simple argument from ignorance. I'd call NG
> > > ignorant and illogical for that remark,
> > > but not a liar. But as we both know, it wasn't what I said they were
> > > lying about.
> > >
> > > > (and based on your unwarranted protestation to the contrary, above, I
> > > strongly suspect that she is right).
> > >
> > > It certainly hasn't been unwarranted. You claimed that I didn't know the
> > > answer (and also said that you hadn't claimed that didn't know the
> > > answer. One more time: I'll repeat that I knew it, and (what's more
> > > important, since it's on topic) that I'd read it on my "knowledge
> > > repository" (NG's term).
> > You nailed it, G.D.
> No, he didn’t