On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 11:15:09 PM UTC-5, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > My Father's House
> >
> > This is my father's house, although
> > The man died thirteen years ago.
> > They said it would be quite all right
> > To take a drive to see it now.
> >
> > Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> > And built the whole thing (from a box),
> > Toiling after each full day's work.
> > I helped, though I was only six.
> >
> > Look, here's the back door I would use
> > And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> > To enter; there I'd leave my things
> > And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
> >
> > In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> > Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> > To be so many other places.
> > (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
> >
> > Outside, the garden that he grew
> > Where I would work the summers through,
> > While watching my friends run and play
> > Mysterious games I never knew.
> >
> > That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> > The one chair I was let to sit?
> > (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> > Which, the corner where boys were put?
> >
> > Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> > Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> > After the meal, to make no noise,
> > To read or play alone, and then
> >
> > Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> > Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> > Face and pyjama bottoms down
> > As for my father's belt I'd wait.
> >
> > Oh, if I were a millionaire
> > I'd buy my father's house, and there
> > I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> > Its flames would light up all the air.
> >
> > ~~
> > George J. Dance
> > from Logos and other logoi, 2021
> Excellent.

Quite right, my friend I.S.

Zod wrote:

> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 11:15:09 PM UTC-5, Ilya Shambat wrote:
>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>
>> > My Father's House
>> >
>> > This is my father's house, although
>> > The man died thirteen years ago.
>> > They said it would be quite all right
>> > To take a drive to see it now.
>> >
>> > Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
>> > And built the whole thing (from a box),
>> > Toiling after each full day's work.
>> > I helped, though I was only six.
>> >
>> > Look, here's the back door I would use
>> > And here's where I'd remove my shoes
>> > To enter; there I'd leave my things
>> > And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
>> >
>> > In this room I'd wash many a dish,
>> > Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
>> > To be so many other places.
>> > (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
>> >
>> > Outside, the garden that he grew
>> > Where I would work the summers through,
>> > While watching my friends run and play
>> > Mysterious games I never knew.
>> >
>> > That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
>> > The one chair I was let to sit?
>> > (For boys can be such filthy things.)
>> > Which, the corner where boys were put?
>> >
>> > Oh ... down that hall there is a room
>> > Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
>> > After the meal, to make no noise,
>> > To read or play alone, and then
>> >
>> > Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
>> > Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
>> > Face and pyjama bottoms down
>> > As for my father's belt I'd wait.
>> >
>> > Oh, if I were a millionaire
>> > I'd buy my father's house, and there
>> > I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
>> > Its flames would light up all the air.
>> >
>> > ~~
>> > George J. Dance
>> > from Logos and other logoi, 2021
>> Excellent.

> Quite right, my friend I.S.

Seconded.

:)

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:09:43 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:58:42 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 5:16:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > I said that I found George's poem disturbing. Not because it was a well written poem (as George, disingenuously, tried to claim), but because of the image it presented of a child who had been so brutalized that he dutifully submitted to cruel and abusive punishment on a regular basis.
> > > > Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I never said that you were disturbed because it was a *well-written* poem. This troll of yours at doesn't even make sense.
> > > Liar!
> > >
> > > Feb 1, 2023, 4:14:08 PM (11 days ago):
> > >
> > > MMP: Your poem isn't effective, because (as previously explained) you've written about a serious, and disturbing, subject in a style suited to light verse.
> > >
> > > GD: Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective".
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/U4PlbOd3DwAJ?hl=en
> > That's true enough. Too bad it has nothing to do with what that "disingenuous claim" you just falsely accused me of (that you were disturbed "because it was a well written poem".)
> Your reading comprehension skills have dropped considerably lower than our resident Donkey's, George.
>
> I had criticized your use of an AABC rhyme scheme as being inappropriate for a disturbing topic like child abuse.
As we can see, liar, your quote doesn't even mention rhyme scheme. But if you want to talk about that: no, the rhyme scheme is not AABC. It's AABA, but what I've called "dysfunctional AABA" - in most stanzas it fails to complete, and the 4th line is an off-rhyme. Only in the key S5 and ultimate (S9) stanzas is the rhyme perfect.

> Contextually, your response that your poem was "effective" must necessarily apply to your choice of having written the poem in the aforementioned rhyme scheme.

Once again, here's what I wrote: "Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective". A poem is meant to get a reaction from readers -- mine has, and that's why I'd call it effective.

> > We all know that you'd never call an 'adversary's ' poem *well-written*; your M.O. is the opposite: "When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."

> You are quoting a statement that I made about *you,* George. My statement describes your M.O. -- not mine.

Sure, that was part of a paranoid rant you made about me, but you were not describing my M.O. as an editor. When I was editing my magazine here, I excluded no one. You, OTOH, set up your "anthology" precisely so you could exclude poetntial adversaries. As I said, you were projecting.

Epistemically, there's nothing wrong with projecting when you have insufficient information. If you can't tell at all what someone thinks about something, say when you first meet, it's a good strategy to assume he thinks the same way you do. But when you're still doing it to someone you've talked to for almost 20 years, there's something else going on. What I'm reminded of is a quote I read last weekend: 'Historian Richard Hofstadter ...wrote that the paranoic's [sic] accounts of his enemies "are on many counts the projection of the self."'
https://reason.com/2023/02/25/the-big-myth-is-full-of-recycled-anti-capitalist-cheap-shots/

> I have consistently maintained that you are capable of writing well-crafted poetry, and have even gone so far as to publish several of your poems in "A Year of Sundays."

Those two points are explained by other parts of your quote: "You slurp the writings of your potential allies" and "When [X] is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry." At least until last fall, you still saw me as a potential ally: you still thought you'd eventually talk me over to your so-called good side.
> However, unlike you (who base your assessments upon who you see as "friend" or "foe"), I never pronounce *all* the poetry of a friend to be "excellent," when it is not. Your "Father's House" is a terrible poem (for the reasons I've already noted). Had you not been banned from "AYoS," I would not have included it in the year-end print volume.

First, you should not be including poems in AYoS that weren't submitted. In this case, for example, you dug up an old draft

> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
> > > > > I am not attacking George by pointing this out. Abuse is not the fault of the child.
> > > > No, you've attack[ed] me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all [...] of the[s]e alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults.
> > [Edited, since Michael had trouble understanding the original.]
> I don't see how anyone could fail to have difficulty following the "original" gibberish: "No, you've attacking me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all thie alleged incidents of the posting that I was mentally ill from all of thege alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults. ."
> > And, I should point out, you've also been attacking my family, accusing my father of child abuse and incest -- something you also like to do to your "adversaries" on the group and their family members.

> Bullshit.
>
> I said that your poem's imagery suggests incest. I stand by that assessment. The image of a little boy lying in bed with is pajama pants pulled down, and his naked bottom exposed, as he awaits a whipping from his father strongly suggests incestuous overtones.
>
> This doesn't mean that the narrator was sexually assaulted -- only that he associated his "punishment" with homosexual/incestuous sex acts.
No, it means only that one reader (you) associated that punishment with "homosexual/incestuous sex acts." There is nothing in the poem to indicate that the speaker does.

> It most certainly does not mean that your father performed any such acts (although the suggestion remains there as well).

It means only that you "suggested" it, just (as I pointed out, and you ignored) as you do for your other "adversaries" and their family members. You only stopped accusing my father of child molesting and incest, remember, because you got too busy accusing yet another aapc contributor of child molesting and incest. Your M.O. has clearly been established here, as well.

> > > I wasn't calling you mentally ill, George.
> > Now, that's not true, and since you know it, it's fair comment to point out that you're a liar. Here's your first very first comment on the subject (from before we even discovered you were talking about a poem):
> > Chimp: "> This Mensa man has some serious issues."
> > Monkey: "Paranoia with a resultant persecution complex."
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/W8bu7laNLQQ/m/dWv8bBeCBAAJ?hl=en
> > - and you've been spewing similar psychobabble about me since. That's a third part of your standard M.O.:

Not only do you like to call your adversaries illiterates, and child molesters, but you also like to call them mentally ill. Your denying that [is]as stupid a lie as the one you'd pretended I'd said.
> >
> "Serious issues" including "paranoia with a resultant persecution complex" are common neuroses -- not what one generally means by "mentally ill." In the common parlance, one who is "mentally ill" is fit to be shut up in an asylum. Everyone has their neuroses, yet remain functional members of society (The Donkey and his Stink excepted, of course).

To paraphrase JIm Steinman: I'll bet you say that about all your "adversaries".

> I would not, and more importantly, I *did not,* call you "mentally ill."

You're quibbling. "Paranoid personality disorder" is in DSM-V. But whether you're accusing an adversary of "mental illness," a "disorder", or (sometimes) "brain damage", it comes to the same thing: you constantly respond to disagreement with personal attacks on them of this sort, using psychobabble to label them as subhuman.

> That said, my diagnosis of paranoia with a resultant persecution complex stands (and is, in fact, supported by your above accusation).

When accused of making personal attacks on your many "adversaries", you double down with a personal attack on the accuser. Once again, your M.O. is perfectly clear.

> > > However, after reading the above slice of gibberish, I'm beginning to reconsider my findings.
> >
> > > > > I am simply discussing, along with my colleague, Dr. NancyGene, the psychological ramifications such an upbringing would have.
> > > > Sometimes the two of you claim to be doctors, but you have no credentials and haven't demonstrated any competence. If I believed in "armchair psychology,"" I'd say you and NastyGoon had a mutually-supportive shared delusion.
> > > >
> > > Armchair psychology doesn't require any credentials, George.
> > Michael - being a doctor requires having a doctorate (like Dr. Dalton, Dr. Procter, or others you've attacked here). The name for people like you and NastyGoon, who pretend to be doctors when they aren't is "quack".
> The American Society of Armchair Psychologists (ASAP) has conferred doctorates on both my colleague and myself in honor of our outstanding work in providing armchair psychoanalyses via the Usenet.
> > > What part of "armchair" are you failing to understand.
> > Unlike you, I'm quite aware of what the word actually means:
> > "1: remote from direct dealing with problems : theoretical rather than practical"
Dictionary definition, BTW, from your own preferred source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/armchair

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 8:53:27 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:09:43 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:58:42 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 5:16:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > > > > I said that I found George's poem disturbing. Not because it was a well written poem (as George, disingenuously, tried to claim), but because of the image it presented of a child who had been so brutalized that he dutifully submitted to cruel and abusive punishment on a regular basis.
> > > > > Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I never said that you were disturbed because it was a *well-written* poem. This troll of yours at doesn't even make sense.
> > > > Liar!
> > > >
> > > > Feb 1, 2023, 4:14:08 PM (11 days ago):
> > > >
> > > > MMP: Your poem isn't effective, because (as previously explained) you've written about a serious, and disturbing, subject in a style suited to light verse.
> > > >
> > > > GD: Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective".
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/U4PlbOd3DwAJ?hl=en
> > > That's true enough. Too bad it has nothing to do with what that "disingenuous claim" you just falsely accused me of (that you were disturbed "because it was a well written poem".)
> > Your reading comprehension skills have dropped considerably lower than our resident Donkey's, George.
> >
> > I had criticized your use of an AABC rhyme scheme as being inappropriate for a disturbing topic like child abuse.
> As we can see, liar, your quote doesn't even mention rhyme scheme. But if you want to talk about that: no, the rhyme scheme is not AABC. It's AABA, but what I've called "dysfunctional AABA" - in most stanzas it fails to complete, and the 4th line is an off-rhyme. Only in the key S5 and ultimate (S9) stanzas is the rhyme perfect.
> > Contextually, your response that your poem was "effective" must necessarily apply to your choice of having written the poem in the aforementioned rhyme scheme.
> Once again, here's what I wrote: "Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective". A poem is meant to get a reaction from readers -- mine has, and that's why I'd call it effective.
> > > We all know that you'd never call an 'adversary's ' poem *well-written*; your M.O. is the opposite: "When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."
>
> > You are quoting a statement that I made about *you,* George. My statement describes your M.O. -- not mine.
> Sure, that was part of a paranoid rant you made about me, but you were not describing my M.O. as an editor. When I was editing my magazine here, I excluded no one. You, OTOH, set up your "anthology" precisely so you could exclude poetntial adversaries. As I said, you were projecting.
>
> Epistemically, there's nothing wrong with projecting when you have insufficient information. If you can't tell at all what someone thinks about something, say when you first meet, it's a good strategy to assume he thinks the same way you do. But when you're still doing it to someone you've talked to for almost 20 years, there's something else going on. What I'm reminded of is a quote I read last weekend: 'Historian Richard Hofstadter ...wrote that the paranoic's [sic] accounts of his enemies "are on many counts the projection of the self."'
> https://reason.com/2023/02/25/the-big-myth-is-full-of-recycled-anti-capitalist-cheap-shots/
> > I have consistently maintained that you are capable of writing well-crafted poetry, and have even gone so far as to publish several of your poems in "A Year of Sundays."
> Those two points are explained by other parts of your quote: "You slurp the writings of your potential allies" and "When [X] is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry." At least until last fall, you still saw me as a potential ally: you still thought you'd eventually talk me over to your so-called good side.
> > However, unlike you (who base your assessments upon who you see as "friend" or "foe"), I never pronounce *all* the poetry of a friend to be "excellent," when it is not. Your "Father's House" is a terrible poem (for the reasons I've already noted). Had you not been banned from "AYoS," I would not have included it in the year-end print volume.
> First, you should not be including poems in AYoS that weren't submitted. In this case, for example, you dug up an old draft
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > I am not attacking George by pointing this out. Abuse is not the fault of the child.
> > > > > No, you've attack[ed] me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all [...] of the[s]e alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults.
> > > [Edited, since Michael had trouble understanding the original.]
> > I don't see how anyone could fail to have difficulty following the "original" gibberish: "No, you've attacking me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all thie alleged incidents of the posting that I was mentally ill from all of thege alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults. ."
> > > And, I should point out, you've also been attacking my family, accusing my father of child abuse and incest -- something you also like to do to your "adversaries" on the group and their family members.
>
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > I said that your poem's imagery suggests incest. I stand by that assessment. The image of a little boy lying in bed with is pajama pants pulled down, and his naked bottom exposed, as he awaits a whipping from his father strongly suggests incestuous overtones.
> >
> > This doesn't mean that the narrator was sexually assaulted -- only that he associated his "punishment" with homosexual/incestuous sex acts.
> No, it means only that one reader (you) associated that punishment with "homosexual/incestuous sex acts." There is nothing in the poem to indicate that the speaker does.
> > It most certainly does not mean that your father performed any such acts (although the suggestion remains there as well).
> It means only that you "suggested" it, just (as I pointed out, and you ignored) as you do for your other "adversaries" and their family members. You only stopped accusing my father of child molesting and incest, remember, because you got too busy accusing yet another aapc contributor of child molesting and incest. Your M.O. has clearly been established here, as well.
> > > > I wasn't calling you mentally ill, George.
> > > Now, that's not true, and since you know it, it's fair comment to point out that you're a liar. Here's your first very first comment on the subject (from before we even discovered you were talking about a poem):
> > > Chimp: "> This Mensa man has some serious issues."
> > > Monkey: "Paranoia with a resultant persecution complex."
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/W8bu7laNLQQ/m/dWv8bBeCBAAJ?hl=en
> > > - and you've been spewing similar psychobabble about me since. That's a third part of your standard M.O.:
> Not only do you like to call your adversaries illiterates, and child molesters, but you also like to call them mentally ill. Your denying that [is]as stupid a lie as the one you'd pretended I'd said.
> > >
> > "Serious issues" including "paranoia with a resultant persecution complex" are common neuroses -- not what one generally means by "mentally ill." In the common parlance, one who is "mentally ill" is fit to be shut up in an asylum. Everyone has their neuroses, yet remain functional members of society (The Donkey and his Stink excepted, of course).
> To paraphrase JIm Steinman: I'll bet you say that about all your "adversaries".
> > I would not, and more importantly, I *did not,* call you "mentally ill."
> You're quibbling. "Paranoid personality disorder" is in DSM-V. But whether you're accusing an adversary of "mental illness," a "disorder", or (sometimes) "brain damage", it comes to the same thing: you constantly respond to disagreement with personal attacks on them of this sort, using psychobabble to label them as subhuman.
> > That said, my diagnosis of paranoia with a resultant persecution complex stands (and is, in fact, supported by your above accusation).
> When accused of making personal attacks on your many "adversaries", you double down with a personal attack on the accuser. Once again, your M.O. is perfectly clear.
> > > > However, after reading the above slice of gibberish, I'm beginning to reconsider my findings.
> > >
> > > > > > I am simply discussing, along with my colleague, Dr. NancyGene, the psychological ramifications such an upbringing would have.
> > > > > Sometimes the two of you claim to be doctors, but you have no credentials and haven't demonstrated any competence. If I believed in "armchair psychology,"" I'd say you and NastyGoon had a mutually-supportive shared delusion.
> > > > >
> > > > Armchair psychology doesn't require any credentials, George.
> > > Michael - being a doctor requires having a doctorate (like Dr. Dalton, Dr. Procter, or others you've attacked here). The name for people like you and NastyGoon, who pretend to be doctors when they aren't is "quack".
> > The American Society of Armchair Psychologists (ASAP) has conferred doctorates on both my colleague and myself in honor of our outstanding work in providing armchair psychoanalyses via the Usenet.
> > > > What part of "armchair" are you failing to understand.
> > > Unlike you, I'm quite aware of what the word actually means:
> > > "1: remote from direct dealing with problems : theoretical rather than practical"
> Dictionary definition, BTW, from your own preferred source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/armchair
> > Are you denying that our analyses are theoretical? Are you claiming that they are of a practical nature?
> I'm pointing out that "armchair" does not mean "lacking credentials," in whole or in part. That you think it does, shows only that you were misunderstanding the word.
> > And, as far as your "awareness" is concerned, here is a definition of "armchair psychology" from "Mind Tools":
> >
> > "Armchair psychology is when someone without any relevant experience or qualifications gives you mental illness advice."
> > https://www.mindtools.com/blog/armchair-psychology-at-work/#:~:text=Armchair%20psychology%20is%20when%20someone,%22diagnoses%22%20can%20be%20damaging." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.mindtools.com/blog/armchair-psychology-at-work/#:~:text=Armchair%20psychology%20is%20when%20someone,%22diagnoses%22%20can%20be%20damaging.
> OMG! I find it impossible to believe you actually read that article. It's not about "armchair psychologists" but about unqualified amateurs "Playing Armchair Psychologist." It's an exact description of you and NastyGoon:
>
> "What is worrying is that people read a few articles on the internet about a mental disorder, and suddenly they are experts – especially on psychopathy, narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. They also use terms that they misunderstand to describe someone else's behavior, and in doing so participate in spreading incorrect information and ideas."
> https://www.mindtools.com/blog/armchair-psychology-at-work/
> > As per usual, humor remains a foreign concept to you.
> Once again, it sounds like you're using your "humor" defense to duck criticism of your lack of competence. You're ducking like a quack -- and as they say, if it ducks like a quack, it is a quack.
> > > Trying to win arguments by redefining words is yet another standard part of your troll M.O., of course.
> > I am neither redefining words, nor trying to win an argument (with my *correct* use of "armchair psychology"), George. I am using self-effacing humor -- partially to allow you (and any readers) to see that our analyses are offered in a light-hearted (if pointed) manner.
>
> > > > > > And, in spite of his denials, George is well aware of these ramifications, as he implies that his narrator is under psychological care, and has him express his desire to burn his father's house to the ground (which is certainly not the act of a sane man).
> > > > > That's not what the poem says. (1) The idea that "they" could be or include psychiatrists occurred to me too, on rereading my last revision; but it's certainly not implied. The narrator does have psychological issues -- he's written that way, as I've said before -- but he's rational enough to know he needed permission(s) to be in this house he doesn't own, and to have got them. (2) Similarly, he's sane enough to know that he can't burn down this house he doesn't own.
> > > > >
> > > > Possessing the desire to burn down his father's former house is indicative of a deeply troubled psyche.
> > > I think you mean "expressing". Yes, expressing the desire to burn a house down indicates a "troubled psyche"
> > Had I meant "expressing," I'd have said "expressing."
> >
> > IMHO, *possession* of such a violent, destructive *desire* (regardless of whether one expresses it) is indicative of a deeply troubled psyche.
> Then you're again substituting your own 'interpretation' for what's in the poem. In the poem, the speaker merely expresses it once; there's no sign (as in the Little Jim parodies, for example) that it's something he's wanted to do forever.
> > > (which is how the character was written.
> > > > > > Like Mr. Dance, you tend to see attacks and conspiracies where none, in fact, exist. In your case, it stems from your inability to comprehend anything written beyond the level of an "I Can Read!" book.
> > > > > Are you really so clueless as to think your second line sounds like anything but an attack? Or, in consequence, your denial that you're making any attacks as as anything but shameless lying? If so, I'd suggest again that you get some help to improve your communication skills.
> > > > >
> > > > Earth to George. I am addressing Will Donkey in the above-quoted passage.
> > > Did I say or imply you weren't? Of course not. So stop playing stupid, and focus on what you said to him. You attacked him twice. First, you called him a paranoid just "Like Mr. Dance." Second, you called him an illiterate. (Both parts of your standard troll M.O., as noted above). And hilariously, in between those two attacks, lied that "in fact" you haven't been attacking him at all.
> > >
> > I wasn't attacking the Donkey in the above passage. I was pointing out his actual reading level as evidenced by both his posts here, and his reaction to the posts of others.
> As I said, Michael Monkey, you look like a shameless liar. Do you wonder why Will has written you off as one?
> >
> > My observations are neither compliments nor attacks. They are statements of fact, the truth of which should be immediately recognized to everyone.
> They were quickly recognizable to me; not true at all, just poo a monkey would throw.
> > > In the past you've always attacked another group member in one thread while denying that you've been attacking them in different threads. Doing both in the same paragraph, as I said, makes you look like s shameless liar, who doesn't even care any longer whether anyone believes him or not.
> > >
> > 1) Attacking someone in a separate thread has *no bearing whatsoever* on my interaction with him in a current thread.
> Of course it does. If you can't remember what you were saying on other threads, and you probably can't given your tendency to re-imagine/embellish facts, that would explain your inconsistencies, but don't expect others to keep silent about them.
> > 2) As previously noted, neither you nor your Donkey were attacked in the above-mentioned passage. (I didn't even address him as "Donkey.")
> As previously noted, you made two personal attacks on him.
> > > > I am not referring to you.
> > > Not that I should believe you (see above :). But, assuming you're being honest this time , "Like Mr. Dance" must refer to my father. So are you saying that you and the other armchair quack are accusing him, too, of ""Paranoia with a resultant persecution complex."?
> > >
> > WTF? Is your name no longer "Dance?"
> > Are you no longer gender identifying as a "Mr.?"
> Yeah; but you just said you weren't referring to me:
> > > > I am not referring to you.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Contextually, "Like Mr. Dance, you tend to see attacks and conspiracies where none, in fact, exist" refers to my above-quoted analysis of your condition: "paranoia with a resultant persecution complex." My analysis of your father would be that he was overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy (inferiority complex) by physically and emotionally abusing his son.
> >
> So, after denying that "Mr. Dance" referred to me, you change position and tell me it did. I was right to not believe you earlier.
>
> > Five cents, please.
>
> Five cents? And you didn't even throw in a blowjob?

George Dance wrote:

> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:09:43 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:58:42 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 5:16:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > > > I said that I found George's poem disturbing. Not because it was a well written poem (as George, disingenuously, tried to claim), but because of the image it presented of a child who had been so brutalized that he dutifully submitted to cruel and abusive punishment on a regular basis.
>> > > > Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I never said that you were disturbed because it was a *well-written* poem. This troll of yours at doesn't even make sense.
>> > > Liar!
>> > >
>> > > Feb 1, 2023, 4:14:08 PM (11 days ago):
>> > >
>> > > MMP: Your poem isn't effective, because (as previously explained) you've written about a serious, and disturbing, subject in a style suited to light verse.
>> > >
>> > > GD: Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective".
>> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/U4PlbOd3DwAJ?hl=en
>> > That's true enough. Too bad it has nothing to do with what that "disingenuous claim" you just falsely accused me of (that you were disturbed "because it was a well written poem".)
>> Your reading comprehension skills have dropped considerably lower than our resident Donkey's, George.
>>
>> I had criticized your use of an AABC rhyme scheme as being inappropriate for a disturbing topic like child abuse.

> As we can see, liar, your quote doesn't even mention rhyme scheme. But if you want to talk about that: no, the rhyme scheme is not AABC. It's AABA, but what I've called "dysfunctional AABA" - in most stanzas it fails to complete, and the 4th line is an off-rhyme. Only in the key S5 and ultimate (S9) stanzas is the rhyme perfect.

>> Contextually, your response that your poem was "effective" must necessarily apply to your choice of having written the poem in the aforementioned rhyme scheme.

> Once again, here's what I wrote: "Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective". A poem is meant to get a reaction from readers -- mine has, and that's why I'd call it effective.

>> > We all know that you'd never call an 'adversary's ' poem *well-written*; your M.O. is the opposite: "When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."

>> You are quoting a statement that I made about *you,* George. My statement describes your M.O. -- not mine.

> Sure, that was part of a paranoid rant you made about me, but you were not describing my M.O. as an editor. When I was editing my magazine here, I excluded no one. You, OTOH, set up your "anthology" precisely so you could exclude poetntial adversaries. As I said, you were projecting.

> Epistemically, there's nothing wrong with projecting when you have insufficient information. If you can't tell at all what someone thinks about something, say when you first meet, it's a good strategy to assume he thinks the same way you do. But when you're still doing it to someone you've talked to for almost 20 years, there's something else going on. What I'm reminded of is a quote I read last weekend: 'Historian Richard Hofstadter ...wrote that the paranoic's [sic] accounts of his enemies "are on many counts the projection of the self."'
> https://reason.com/2023/02/25/the-big-myth-is-full-of-recycled-anti-capitalist-cheap-shots/

>> I have consistently maintained that you are capable of writing well-crafted poetry, and have even gone so far as to publish several of your poems in "A Year of Sundays."

> Those two points are explained by other parts of your quote: "You slurp the writings of your potential allies" and "When [X] is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry." At least until last fall, you still saw me as a potential ally: you still thought you'd eventually talk me over to your so-called good side.

>> However, unlike you (who base your assessments upon who you see as "friend" or "foe"), I never pronounce *all* the poetry of a friend to be "excellent," when it is not. Your "Father's House" is a terrible poem (for the reasons I've already noted). Had you not been banned from "AYoS," I would not have included it in the year-end print volume.

> First, you should not be including poems in AYoS that weren't submitted. In this case, for example, you dug up an old draft

>> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
>> > > > > I am not attacking George by pointing this out. Abuse is not the fault of the child.
>> > > > No, you've attack[ed] me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all [...] of the[s]e alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults.
>> > [Edited, since Michael had trouble understanding the original.]
>> I don't see how anyone could fail to have difficulty following the "original" gibberish: "No, you've attacking me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all thie alleged incidents of the posting that I was mentally ill from all of thege alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults. ."
>> > And, I should point out, you've also been attacking my family, accusing my father of child abuse and incest -- something you also like to do to your "adversaries" on the group and their family members.

>> Bullshit.
>>
>> I said that your poem's imagery suggests incest. I stand by that assessment. The image of a little boy lying in bed with is pajama pants pulled down, and his naked bottom exposed, as he awaits a whipping from his father strongly suggests incestuous overtones.
>>
>> This doesn't mean that the narrator was sexually assaulted -- only that he associated his "punishment" with homosexual/incestuous sex acts.

> No, it means only that one reader (you) associated that punishment with "homosexual/incestuous sex acts." There is nothing in the poem to indicate that the speaker does.

>> It most certainly does not mean that your father performed any such acts (although the suggestion remains there as well).

> It means only that you "suggested" it, just (as I pointed out, and you ignored) as you do for your other "adversaries" and their family members. You only stopped accusing my father of child molesting and incest, remember, because you got too busy accusing yet another aapc contributor of child molesting and incest. Your M.O. has clearly been established here, as well.

>> > > I wasn't calling you mentally ill, George.
>> > Now, that's not true, and since you know it, it's fair comment to point out that you're a liar. Here's your first very first comment on the subject (from before we even discovered you were talking about a poem):
>> > Chimp: "> This Mensa man has some serious issues."
>> > Monkey: "Paranoia with a resultant persecution complex."
>> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/W8bu7laNLQQ/m/dWv8bBeCBAAJ?hl=en
>> > - and you've been spewing similar psychobabble about me since. That's a third part of your standard M.O.:

> Not only do you like to call your adversaries illiterates, and child molesters, but you also like to call them mentally ill. Your denying that [is]as stupid a lie as the one you'd pretended I'd said.
>> >
>> "Serious issues" including "paranoia with a resultant persecution complex" are common neuroses -- not what one generally means by "mentally ill." In the common parlance, one who is "mentally ill" is fit to be shut up in an asylum. Everyone has their neuroses, yet remain functional members of society (The Donkey and his Stink excepted, of course).

> To paraphrase JIm Steinman: I'll bet you say that about all your "adversaries".

>> I would not, and more importantly, I *did not,* call you "mentally ill."

> You're quibbling. "Paranoid personality disorder" is in DSM-V. But whether you're accusing an adversary of "mental illness," a "disorder", or (sometimes) "brain damage", it comes to the same thing: you constantly respond to disagreement with personal attacks on them of this sort, using psychobabble to label them as subhuman.

>> That said, my diagnosis of paranoia with a resultant persecution complex stands (and is, in fact, supported by your above accusation).

> When accused of making personal attacks on your many "adversaries", you double down with a personal attack on the accuser. Once again, your M.O. is perfectly clear.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 8:53:27 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:09:43 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:58:42 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 5:16:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > I said that I found George's poem disturbing. Not because it was a well written poem (as George, disingenuously, tried to claim), but because of the image it presented of a child who had been so brutalized that he dutifully submitted to cruel and abusive punishment on a regular basis.
> > > > > Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I never said that you were disturbed because it was a *well-written* poem. This troll of yours at doesn't even make sense.
> > > > Liar!
> > > >
> > > > Feb 1, 2023, 4:14:08 PM (11 days ago):
> > > >
> > > > MMP: Your poem isn't effective, because (as previously explained) you've written about a serious, and disturbing, subject in a style suited to light verse.
> > > >
> > > > GD: Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective".
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/U4PlbOd3DwAJ?hl=en
> > > That's true enough. Too bad it has nothing to do with what that "disingenuous claim" you just falsely accused me of (that you were disturbed "because it was a well written poem".)
> > Your reading comprehension skills have dropped considerably lower than our resident Donkey's, George.
> >
> > I had criticized your use of an AABC rhyme scheme as being inappropriate for a disturbing topic like child abuse.
> As we can see, liar, your quote doesn't even mention rhyme scheme. But if you want to talk about that: no, the rhyme scheme is not AABC. It's AABA, but what I've called "dysfunctional AABA" - in most stanzas it fails to complete, and the 4th line is an off-rhyme. Only in the key S5 and ultimate (S9) stanzas is the rhyme perfect.
>

STANZA 3:

Look, here's the back door I would use
And here's where I'd remove my shoes
To enter; there I'd leave my things
And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.

"Use" and "shoes" are an off rhyme (a very off rhyme).

"Stairs" is not an off rhyme by any stretch of the imagination.

Your rhyme scheme is AABC.

> > Contextually, your response that your poem was "effective" must necessarily apply to your choice of having written the poem in the aforementioned rhyme scheme.
> Once again, here's what I wrote: "Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective". A poem is meant to get a reaction from readers -- mine has, and that's why I'd call it effective.
>

Repeating yourself is a waste of both of our time.

If your poem was "effective," it follows that its form, rhyme scheme, imagery, etc., were conducive to the message it was attempting to convey.

If, otoh, the form, rhyme scheme, etc., produced a reaction in the reader that ran counter to your intentions, then your poem was not effective.

In this case, the AABC rhyme scheme makes your poem read like light verse (humor). Since your poem is about child abuse, anger issues, and possibly mental illness, the rhyme scheme runs counter to the mood that such serious topics should create.

In short, your poem becomes laughably bad (camp).

> > > We all know that you'd never call an 'adversary's ' poem *well-written*; your M.O. is the opposite: "When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."
>
> > You are quoting a statement that I made about *you,* George. My statement describes your M.O. -- not mine.
> Sure, that was part of a paranoid rant you made about me, but you were not describing my M.O. as an editor. When I was editing my magazine here, I excluded no one. You, OTOH, set up your "anthology" precisely so you could exclude poetntial adversaries. As I said, you were projecting.
>

We had been discussing how you respond to other members, George. Not our respective editorial practices.

You call your perceived allies' poems "well-written," but not those of your perceived adversaries. Normally, this would be a matter of personal taste; however, when your "adversaries" are the best poets in the group, and your "allies" are drunken, illiterate pissbums, the insincerity of your praises becomes laughable.

Not to mention that you assign childish names to your "adversaries" and attempt to pass it off as wit.

Regarding my editorial practices: "AYoS" is open to *all* AAPC members. It only bans members who have *abused* their privileges when posting in it (or in its former incarnation as "The Sunday Sampler").

> Epistemically, there's nothing wrong with projecting when you have insufficient information. If you can't tell at all what someone thinks about something, say when you first meet, it's a good strategy to assume he thinks the same way you do. But when you're still doing it to someone you've talked to for almost 20 years, there's something else going on. What I'm reminded of is a quote I read last weekend: 'Historian Richard Hofstadter ...wrote that the paranoic's [sic] accounts of his enemies "are on many counts the projection of the self."'
> https://reason.com/2023/02/25/the-big-myth-is-full-of-recycled-anti-capitalist-cheap-shots/

You're seeing double, George.

Count your fingers again... I've only been here for 9 years.

> > I have consistently maintained that you are capable of writing well-crafted poetry, and have even gone so far as to publish several of your poems in "A Year of Sundays."
> Those two points are explained by other parts of your quote: "You slurp the writings of your potential allies" and "When [X] is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry." At least until last fall, you still saw me as a potential ally: you still thought you'd eventually talk me over to your so-called good side.
>

You're one who's projecting, George.

You used your membership in AYoS to post links to your blog, insulted the magazine, insulted my editorial judgements and policies, and constantly picked fights with all of your fellow members.

In short, you acted like a troll.

Publication in AYoS is a privilege, not a right. When you abuse your privileges, you lose them.

> > However, unlike you (who base your assessments upon who you see as "friend" or "foe"), I never pronounce *all* the poetry of a friend to be "excellent," when it is not. Your "Father's House" is a terrible poem (for the reasons I've already noted). Had you not been banned from AYoS, I would not have included it in the year-end print volume.
> First, you should not be including poems in AYoS that weren't submitted. In this case, for example, you dug up an old draft

What are you talking about, George?

I said that if you *had* submitted it to AYoS, it would not have been included in the year's best print volume. I was certainly *not* implying that I would wish to have it appear in AYoS (with or without your permission).

> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > I am not attacking George by pointing this out. Abuse is not the fault of the child.
> > > > > No, you've attack[ed] me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all [...] of the[s]e alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults.
> > > [Edited, since Michael had trouble understanding the original.]
> > I don't see how anyone could fail to have difficulty following the "original" gibberish: "No, you've attacking me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all thie alleged incidents of the posting that I was mentally ill from all of thege alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults. ."
> > > And, I should point out, you've also been attacking my family, accusing my father of child abuse and incest -- something you also like to do to your "adversaries" on the group and their family members.
>
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > I said that your poem's imagery suggests incest. I stand by that assessment. The image of a little boy lying in bed with is pajama pants pulled down, and his naked bottom exposed, as he awaits a whipping from his father strongly suggests incestuous overtones.
> >
> > This doesn't mean that the narrator was sexually assaulted -- only that he associated his "punishment" with homosexual/incestuous sex acts.
> No, it means only that one reader (you) associated that punishment with "homosexual/incestuous sex acts." There is nothing in the poem to indicate that the speaker does.
>

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:40:12 AM UTC-5, W-Dockery wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:09:43 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:58:42 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 5:16:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > > > > I said that I found George's poem disturbing. Not because it was a well written poem (as George, disingenuously, tried to claim), but because of the image it presented of a child who had been so brutalized that he dutifully submitted to cruel and abusive punishment on a regular basis.
> >> > > > Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I never said that you were disturbed because it was a *well-written* poem. This troll of yours at doesn't even make sense.
> >> > > Liar!
> >> > >
> >> > > Feb 1, 2023, 4:14:08 PM (11 days ago):
> >> > >
> >> > > MMP: Your poem isn't effective, because (as previously explained) you've written about a serious, and disturbing, subject in a style suited to light verse.
> >> > >
> >> > > GD: Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective".
> >> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/U4PlbOd3DwAJ?hl=en
> >> > That's true enough. Too bad it has nothing to do with what that "disingenuous claim" you just falsely accused me of (that you were disturbed "because it was a well written poem".)
> >> Your reading comprehension skills have dropped considerably lower than our resident Donkey's, George.
> >>
> >> I had criticized your use of an AABC rhyme scheme as being inappropriate for a disturbing topic like child abuse.
>
> > As we can see, liar, your quote doesn't even mention rhyme scheme. But if you want to talk about that: no, the rhyme scheme is not AABC. It's AABA, but what I've called "dysfunctional AABA" - in most stanzas it fails to complete, and the 4th line is an off-rhyme. Only in the key S5 and ultimate (S9) stanzas is the rhyme perfect.
>
> >> Contextually, your response that your poem was "effective" must necessarily apply to your choice of having written the poem in the aforementioned rhyme scheme.
>
> > Once again, here's what I wrote: "Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective". A poem is meant to get a reaction from readers -- mine has, and that's why I'd call it effective.
>
> >> > We all know that you'd never call an 'adversary's ' poem *well-written*; your M.O. is the opposite: "When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."
>
> >> You are quoting a statement that I made about *you,* George. My statement describes your M.O. -- not mine.
>
> > Sure, that was part of a paranoid rant you made about me, but you were not describing my M.O. as an editor. When I was editing my magazine here, I excluded no one. You, OTOH, set up your "anthology" precisely so you could exclude poetntial adversaries. As I said, you were projecting.
>
> > Epistemically, there's nothing wrong with projecting when you have insufficient information. If you can't tell at all what someone thinks about something, say when you first meet, it's a good strategy to assume he thinks the same way you do. But when you're still doing it to someone you've talked to for almost 20 years, there's something else going on. What I'm reminded of is a quote I read last weekend: 'Historian Richard Hofstadter ...wrote that the paranoic's [sic] accounts of his enemies "are on many counts the projection of the self."'
> > https://reason.com/2023/02/25/the-big-myth-is-full-of-recycled-anti-capitalist-cheap-shots/
>
> >> I have consistently maintained that you are capable of writing well-crafted poetry, and have even gone so far as to publish several of your poems in "A Year of Sundays."
>
> > Those two points are explained by other parts of your quote: "You slurp the writings of your potential allies" and "When [X] is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry." At least until last fall, you still saw me as a potential ally: you still thought you'd eventually talk me over to your so-called good side.
>
> >> However, unlike you (who base your assessments upon who you see as "friend" or "foe"), I never pronounce *all* the poetry of a friend to be "excellent," when it is not. Your "Father's House" is a terrible poem (for the reasons I've already noted). Had you not been banned from "AYoS," I would not have included it in the year-end print volume.
>
> > First, you should not be including poems in AYoS that weren't submitted.. In this case, for example, you dug up an old draft
>
> >> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
> >> > > > > I am not attacking George by pointing this out. Abuse is not the fault of the child.
> >> > > > No, you've attack[ed] me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all [...] of the[s]e alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults.
> >> > [Edited, since Michael had trouble understanding the original.]
> >> I don't see how anyone could fail to have difficulty following the "original" gibberish: "No, you've attacking me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all thie alleged incidents of the posting that I was mentally ill from all of thege alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults. ."
> >> > And, I should point out, you've also been attacking my family, accusing my father of child abuse and incest -- something you also like to do to your "adversaries" on the group and their family members.
>
> >> Bullshit.
> >>
> >> I said that your poem's imagery suggests incest. I stand by that assessment. The image of a little boy lying in bed with is pajama pants pulled down, and his naked bottom exposed, as he awaits a whipping from his father strongly suggests incestuous overtones.
> >>
> >> This doesn't mean that the narrator was sexually assaulted -- only that he associated his "punishment" with homosexual/incestuous sex acts.
>
> > No, it means only that one reader (you) associated that punishment with "homosexual/incestuous sex acts." There is nothing in the poem to indicate that the speaker does.
>
> >> It most certainly does not mean that your father performed any such acts (although the suggestion remains there as well).
>
> > It means only that you "suggested" it, just (as I pointed out, and you ignored) as you do for your other "adversaries" and their family members. You only stopped accusing my father of child molesting and incest, remember, because you got too busy accusing yet another aapc contributor of child molesting and incest. Your M.O. has clearly been established here, as well.
>
> >> > > I wasn't calling you mentally ill, George.
> >> > Now, that's not true, and since you know it, it's fair comment to point out that you're a liar. Here's your first very first comment on the subject (from before we even discovered you were talking about a poem):
> >> > Chimp: "> This Mensa man has some serious issues."
> >> > Monkey: "Paranoia with a resultant persecution complex."
> >> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/W8bu7laNLQQ/m/dWv8bBeCBAAJ?hl=en
> >> > - and you've been spewing similar psychobabble about me since. That's a third part of your standard M.O.:
>
> > Not only do you like to call your adversaries illiterates, and child molesters, but you also like to call them mentally ill. Your denying that [is]as stupid a lie as the one you'd pretended I'd said.
> >> >
> >> "Serious issues" including "paranoia with a resultant persecution complex" are common neuroses -- not what one generally means by "mentally ill." In the common parlance, one who is "mentally ill" is fit to be shut up in an asylum. Everyone has their neuroses, yet remain functional members of society (The Donkey and his Stink excepted, of course).
>
> > To paraphrase JIm Steinman: I'll bet you say that about all your "adversaries".
>
> >> I would not, and more importantly, I *did not,* call you "mentally ill.."
>
> > You're quibbling. "Paranoid personality disorder" is in DSM-V. But whether you're accusing an adversary of "mental illness," a "disorder", or (sometimes) "brain damage", it comes to the same thing: you constantly respond to disagreement with personal attacks on them of this sort, using psychobabble to label them as subhuman.
>
> >> That said, my diagnosis of paranoia with a resultant persecution complex stands (and is, in fact, supported by your above accusation).
>
> > When accused of making personal attacks on your many "adversaries", you double down with a personal attack on the accuser. Once again, your M.O. is perfectly clear.
>
> >> > > However, after reading the above slice of gibberish, I'm beginning to reconsider my findings.
> >> >
> >> > > > > I am simply discussing, along with my colleague, Dr. NancyGene, the psychological ramifications such an upbringing would have.
> >> > > > Sometimes the two of you claim to be doctors, but you have no credentials and haven't demonstrated any competence. If I believed in "armchair psychology,"" I'd say you and NastyGoon had a mutually-supportive shared delusion.
> >> > > >
> >> > > Armchair psychology doesn't require any credentials, George.
> >> > Michael - being a doctor requires having a doctorate (like Dr. Dalton, Dr. Procter, or others you've attacked here). The name for people like you and NastyGoon, who pretend to be doctors when they aren't is "quack".
> >> The American Society of Armchair Psychologists (ASAP) has conferred doctorates on both my colleague and myself in honor of our outstanding work in providing armchair psychoanalyses via the Usenet.
> >> > > What part of "armchair" are you failing to understand.
> >> > Unlike you, I'm quite aware of what the word actually means:
> >> > "1: remote from direct dealing with problems : theoretical rather than practical"
> > Dictionary definition, BTW, from your own preferred source: https://www..merriam-webster.com/dictionary/armchair
>
> >> Are you denying that our analyses are theoretical? Are you claiming that they are of a practical nature?
>
> > I'm pointing out that "armchair" does not mean "lacking credentials," in whole or in part. That you think it does, shows only that you were misunderstanding the word.
>
> >> And, as far as your "awareness" is concerned, here is a definition of "armchair psychology" from "Mind Tools":
> >>
> >> "Armchair psychology is when someone without any relevant experience or qualifications gives you mental illness advice."
> >> https://www.mindtools.com/blog/armchair-psychology-at-work/#:~:text=Armchair%20psychology%20is%20when%20someone,%22diagnoses%22%20can%20be%20damaging." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.mindtools.com/blog/armchair-psychology-at-work/#:~:text=Armchair%20psychology%20is%20when%20someone,%22diagnoses%22%20can%20be%20damaging.
>
> > OMG! I find it impossible to believe you actually read that article. It's not about "armchair psychologists" but about unqualified amateurs "Playing Armchair Psychologist." It's an exact description of you and NastyGoon:
>
> > "What is worrying is that people read a few articles on the internet about a mental disorder, and suddenly they are experts – especially on psychopathy, narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. They also use terms that they misunderstand to describe someone else's behavior, and in doing so participate in spreading incorrect information and ideas."
> > https://www.mindtools.com/blog/armchair-psychology-at-work/
>
> >> As per usual, humor remains a foreign concept to you.
>
> > Once again, it sounds like you're using your "humor" defense to duck criticism of your lack of competence. You're ducking like a quack -- and as they say, if it ducks like a quack, it is a quack.
>
> >> > Trying to win arguments by redefining words is yet another standard part of your troll M.O., of course.
> >> I am neither redefining words, nor trying to win an argument (with my *correct* use of "armchair psychology"), George. I am using self-effacing humor -- partially to allow you (and any readers) to see that our analyses are offered in a light-hearted (if pointed) manner.
>
> >> > > > > And, in spite of his denials, George is well aware of these ramifications, as he implies that his narrator is under psychological care, and has him express his desire to burn his father's house to the ground (which is certainly not the act of a sane man).
> >> > > > That's not what the poem says. (1) The idea that "they" could be or include psychiatrists occurred to me too, on rereading my last revision; but it's certainly not implied. The narrator does have psychological issues -- he's written that way, as I've said before -- but he's rational enough to know he needed permission(s) to be in this house he doesn't own, and to have got them. (2) Similarly, he's sane enough to know that he can't burn down this house he doesn't own.
> >> > > >
> >> > > Possessing the desire to burn down his father's former house is indicative of a deeply troubled psyche.
> >> > I think you mean "expressing". Yes, expressing the desire to burn a house down indicates a "troubled psyche"
> >> Had I meant "expressing," I'd have said "expressing."
> >>
> >> IMHO, *possession* of such a violent, destructive *desire* (regardless of whether one expresses it) is indicative of a deeply troubled psyche.
>
> > Then you're again substituting your own 'interpretation' for what's in the poem. In the poem, the speaker merely expresses it once; there's no sign (as in the Little Jim parodies, for example) that it's something he's wanted to do forever.
>
> >> > (which is how the character was written.
> >> > > > > Like Mr. Dance, you tend to see attacks and conspiracies where none, in fact, exist. In your case, it stems from your inability to comprehend anything written beyond the level of an "I Can Read!" book.
> >> > > > Are you really so clueless as to think your second line sounds like anything but an attack? Or, in consequence, your denial that you're making any attacks as as anything but shameless lying? If so, I'd suggest again that you get some help to improve your communication skills.
> >> > > >
> >> > > Earth to George. I am addressing Will Donkey in the above-quoted passage.
> >> > Did I say or imply you weren't? Of course not. So stop playing stupid, and focus on what you said to him. You attacked him twice. First, you called him a paranoid just "Like Mr. Dance." Second, you called him an illiterate. (Both parts of your standard troll M.O., as noted above). And hilariously, in between those two attacks, lied that "in fact" you haven't been attacking him at all.
> >> >
> >> I wasn't attacking the Donkey in the above passage. I was pointing out his actual reading level as evidenced by both his posts here, and his reaction to the posts of others.
>
> > As I said, Michael Monkey, you look like a shameless liar. Do you wonder why Will has written you off as one?
> >>
> >> My observations are neither compliments nor attacks. They are statements of fact, the truth of which should be immediately recognized to everyone..
>
> > They were quickly recognizable to me; not true at all, just poo a monkey would throw.
>
> >> > In the past you've always attacked another group member in one thread while denying that you've been attacking them in different threads. Doing both in the same paragraph, as I said, makes you look like s shameless liar, who doesn't even care any longer whether anyone believes him or not.
> >> >
> >> 1) Attacking someone in a separate thread has *no bearing whatsoever* on my interaction with him in a current thread.
>
> > Of course it does. If you can't remember what you were saying on other threads, and you probably can't given your tendency to re-imagine/embellish facts, that would explain your inconsistencies, but don't expect others to keep silent about them.
>
> >> 2) As previously noted, neither you nor your Donkey were attacked in the above-mentioned passage. (I didn't even address him as "Donkey.")
>
> > As previously noted, you made two personal attacks on him.
>
> >> > > I am not referring to you.
> >> > Not that I should believe you (see above :). But, assuming you're being honest this time , "Like Mr. Dance" must refer to my father. So are you saying that you and the other armchair quack are accusing him, too, of ""Paranoia with a resultant persecution complex."?
> >> >
> >> WTF? Is your name no longer "Dance?"
> >> Are you no longer gender identifying as a "Mr.?"
>
> > Yeah; but you just said you weren't referring to me:
>
> >> > > I am not referring to you.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >> Contextually, "Like Mr. Dance, you tend to see attacks and conspiracies where none, in fact, exist" refers to my above-quoted analysis of your condition: "paranoia with a resultant persecution complex." My analysis of your father would be that he was overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy (inferiority complex) by physically and emotionally abusing his son.
> >>
> > So, after denying that "Mr. Dance" referred to me, you change position and tell me it did. I was right to not believe you earlier.
> <Crickets>

George J. Dance wrote:
> Zod wrote:
> > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>
> >> My Father's House
> >>
> >> This is my father's house, although
> >> The man died thirteen years ago.
> >> They said it would be quite all right
> >> To take a drive to see it now.
> >>
> >> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> >> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> >> Toiling after each full day's work.
> >> I helped, though I was only six.
> >>
> >> Look, here's the back door I would use
> >> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> >> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> >> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
> >>
> >> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> >> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> >> To be so many other places.
> >> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
> >>
> >> Outside, the garden that he grew
> >> Where I would work the summers through,
> >> While watching my friends run and play
> >> Mysterious games I never knew.
> >>
> >> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> >> The one chair I was let to sit?
> >> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> >> Which, the corner where boys were put?
> >>
> >> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> >> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> >> After the meal, to make no noise,
> >> To read or play alone, and then
> >>
> >> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> >> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> >> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> >> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
> >>
> >> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> >> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> >> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> >> Its flames would light up all the air.
> >>
> >> ~~
> >> George J. Dance
> >> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
> >
> > Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!
> Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
> but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.
>
> The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
> one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
> complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
> speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
> is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
> over a decade makes that much clearer.
>
> As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.
> It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
> but I wanted to keep that hidden.

Back on track, one of the greatest poems of the year, top shelf...

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
> > Zod wrote:
> > > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>
> > >> My Father's House
> > >>
> > >> This is my father's house, although
> > >> The man died thirteen years ago.
> > >> They said it would be quite all right
> > >> To take a drive to see it now.
> > >>
> > >> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> > >> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> > >> Toiling after each full day's work.
> > >> I helped, though I was only six.
> > >>
> > >> Look, here's the back door I would use
> > >> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> > >> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> > >> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
> > >>
> > >> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> > >> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> > >> To be so many other places.
> > >> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
> > >>
> > >> Outside, the garden that he grew
> > >> Where I would work the summers through,
> > >> While watching my friends run and play
> > >> Mysterious games I never knew.
> > >>
> > >> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> > >> The one chair I was let to sit?
> > >> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> > >> Which, the corner where boys were put?
> > >>
> > >> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> > >> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> > >> After the meal, to make no noise,
> > >> To read or play alone, and then
> > >>
> > >> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> > >> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> > >> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> > >> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
> > >>
> > >> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> > >> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> > >> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> > >> Its flames would light up all the air.
> > >>
> > >> ~~
> > >> George J. Dance
> > >> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
> > >
> > > Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!
> > Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
> > but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.
> >
> > The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
> > one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
> > complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
> > speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
> > is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
> > over a decade makes that much clearer.
> >
> > As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> > plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> > house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.
> > It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> > was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
> > but I wanted to keep that hidden.
> Back on track, one of the greatest poems of the year, top shelf...

Are we desperate to deflect because of that little bit about your dead buddy's admission of multiple acts of statutory rape of minors? This Pickles that you sing praises of, sounds pretty vile to me...

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 4:16:48 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:40:12 AM UTC-5, W-Dockery wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:09:43 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:58:42 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> > >> > On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 5:16:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > > > > I said that I found George's poem disturbing. Not because it was a well written poem (as George, disingenuously, tried to claim), but because of the image it presented of a child who had been so brutalized that he dutifully submitted to cruel and abusive punishment on a regular basis.
> > >> > > > Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I never said that you were disturbed because it was a *well-written* poem. This troll of yours at doesn't even make sense.
> > >> > > Liar!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Feb 1, 2023, 4:14:08 PM (11 days ago):
> > >> > >
> > >> > > MMP: Your poem isn't effective, because (as previously explained) you've written about a serious, and disturbing, subject in a style suited to light verse.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > GD: Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective".
> > >> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/U4PlbOd3DwAJ?hl=en
> > >> > That's true enough. Too bad it has nothing to do with what that "disingenuous claim" you just falsely accused me of (that you were disturbed "because it was a well written poem".)
> > >> Your reading comprehension skills have dropped considerably lower than our resident Donkey's, George.
> > >>
> > >> I had criticized your use of an AABC rhyme scheme as being inappropriate for a disturbing topic like child abuse.
> >
> > > As we can see, liar, your quote doesn't even mention rhyme scheme. But if you want to talk about that: no, the rhyme scheme is not AABC. It's AABA, but what I've called "dysfunctional AABA" - in most stanzas it fails to complete, and the 4th line is an off-rhyme. Only in the key S5 and ultimate (S9) stanzas is the rhyme perfect.
> >
> > >> Contextually, your response that your poem was "effective" must necessarily apply to your choice of having written the poem in the aforementioned rhyme scheme.
> >
> > > Once again, here's what I wrote: "Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective". A poem is meant to get a reaction from readers -- mine has, and that's why I'd call it effective.
> >
> > >> > We all know that you'd never call an 'adversary's ' poem *well-written*; your M.O. is the opposite: "When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."
> >
> > >> You are quoting a statement that I made about *you,* George. My statement describes your M.O. -- not mine.
> >
> > > Sure, that was part of a paranoid rant you made about me, but you were not describing my M.O. as an editor. When I was editing my magazine here, I excluded no one. You, OTOH, set up your "anthology" precisely so you could exclude poetntial adversaries. As I said, you were projecting.
> >
> > > Epistemically, there's nothing wrong with projecting when you have insufficient information. If you can't tell at all what someone thinks about something, say when you first meet, it's a good strategy to assume he thinks the same way you do. But when you're still doing it to someone you've talked to for almost 20 years, there's something else going on. What I'm reminded of is a quote I read last weekend: 'Historian Richard Hofstadter ...wrote that the paranoic's [sic] accounts of his enemies "are on many counts the projection of the self."'
> > > https://reason.com/2023/02/25/the-big-myth-is-full-of-recycled-anti-capitalist-cheap-shots/
> >
> > >> I have consistently maintained that you are capable of writing well-crafted poetry, and have even gone so far as to publish several of your poems in "A Year of Sundays."
> >
> > > Those two points are explained by other parts of your quote: "You slurp the writings of your potential allies" and "When [X] is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry." At least until last fall, you still saw me as a potential ally: you still thought you'd eventually talk me over to your so-called good side.
> >
> > >> However, unlike you (who base your assessments upon who you see as "friend" or "foe"), I never pronounce *all* the poetry of a friend to be "excellent," when it is not. Your "Father's House" is a terrible poem (for the reasons I've already noted). Had you not been banned from "AYoS," I would not have included it in the year-end print volume.
> >
> > > First, you should not be including poems in AYoS that weren't submitted. In this case, for example, you dug up an old draft
> >
> > >> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
> > >> > > > > I am not attacking George by pointing this out. Abuse is not the fault of the child.
> > >> > > > No, you've attack[ed] me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all [...] of the[s]e alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults..
> > >> > [Edited, since Michael had trouble understanding the original.]
> > >> I don't see how anyone could fail to have difficulty following the "original" gibberish: "No, you've attacking me by calling me mentally ill, allegedly from all thie alleged incidents of the posting that I was mentally ill from all of thege alleged incidents of this so-called 'abuse' (including incidents not even in the poem), along with a bunch of other insults. ."
> > >> > And, I should point out, you've also been attacking my family, accusing my father of child abuse and incest -- something you also like to do to your "adversaries" on the group and their family members.
> >
> > >> Bullshit.
> > >>
> > >> I said that your poem's imagery suggests incest. I stand by that assessment. The image of a little boy lying in bed with is pajama pants pulled down, and his naked bottom exposed, as he awaits a whipping from his father strongly suggests incestuous overtones.
> > >>
> > >> This doesn't mean that the narrator was sexually assaulted -- only that he associated his "punishment" with homosexual/incestuous sex acts.
> >
> > > No, it means only that one reader (you) associated that punishment with "homosexual/incestuous sex acts." There is nothing in the poem to indicate that the speaker does.
> >
> > >> It most certainly does not mean that your father performed any such acts (although the suggestion remains there as well).
> >
> > > It means only that you "suggested" it, just (as I pointed out, and you ignored) as you do for your other "adversaries" and their family members. You only stopped accusing my father of child molesting and incest, remember, because you got too busy accusing yet another aapc contributor of child molesting and incest. Your M.O. has clearly been established here, as well.
> >
> > >> > > I wasn't calling you mentally ill, George.
> > >> > Now, that's not true, and since you know it, it's fair comment to point out that you're a liar. Here's your first very first comment on the subject (from before we even discovered you were talking about a poem):
> > >> > Chimp: "> This Mensa man has some serious issues."
> > >> > Monkey: "Paranoia with a resultant persecution complex."
> > >> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/W8bu7laNLQQ/m/dWv8bBeCBAAJ?hl=en
> > >> > - and you've been spewing similar psychobabble about me since. That's a third part of your standard M.O.:
> >
> > > Not only do you like to call your adversaries illiterates, and child molesters, but you also like to call them mentally ill. Your denying that [is]as stupid a lie as the one you'd pretended I'd said.
> > >> >
> > >> "Serious issues" including "paranoia with a resultant persecution complex" are common neuroses -- not what one generally means by "mentally ill.." In the common parlance, one who is "mentally ill" is fit to be shut up in an asylum. Everyone has their neuroses, yet remain functional members of society (The Donkey and his Stink excepted, of course).
> >
> > > To paraphrase JIm Steinman: I'll bet you say that about all your "adversaries".
> >
> > >> I would not, and more importantly, I *did not,* call you "mentally ill."
> >
> > > You're quibbling. "Paranoid personality disorder" is in DSM-V. But whether you're accusing an adversary of "mental illness," a "disorder", or (sometimes) "brain damage", it comes to the same thing: you constantly respond to disagreement with personal attacks on them of this sort, using psychobabble to label them as subhuman.
> >
> > >> That said, my diagnosis of paranoia with a resultant persecution complex stands (and is, in fact, supported by your above accusation).
> >
> > > When accused of making personal attacks on your many "adversaries", you double down with a personal attack on the accuser. Once again, your M.O. is perfectly clear.
> >
> > >> > > However, after reading the above slice of gibberish, I'm beginning to reconsider my findings.
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > I am simply discussing, along with my colleague, Dr. NancyGene, the psychological ramifications such an upbringing would have.
> > >> > > > Sometimes the two of you claim to be doctors, but you have no credentials and haven't demonstrated any competence. If I believed in "armchair psychology,"" I'd say you and NastyGoon had a mutually-supportive shared delusion.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > Armchair psychology doesn't require any credentials, George.
> > >> > Michael - being a doctor requires having a doctorate (like Dr. Dalton, Dr. Procter, or others you've attacked here). The name for people like you and NastyGoon, who pretend to be doctors when they aren't is "quack".
> > >> The American Society of Armchair Psychologists (ASAP) has conferred doctorates on both my colleague and myself in honor of our outstanding work in providing armchair psychoanalyses via the Usenet.
> > >> > > What part of "armchair" are you failing to understand.
> > >> > Unlike you, I'm quite aware of what the word actually means:
> > >> > "1: remote from direct dealing with problems : theoretical rather than practical"
> > > Dictionary definition, BTW, from your own preferred source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/armchair
> >
> > >> Are you denying that our analyses are theoretical? Are you claiming that they are of a practical nature?
> >
> > > I'm pointing out that "armchair" does not mean "lacking credentials," in whole or in part. That you think it does, shows only that you were misunderstanding the word.
> >
> > >> And, as far as your "awareness" is concerned, here is a definition of "armchair psychology" from "Mind Tools":
> > >>
> > >> "Armchair psychology is when someone without any relevant experience or qualifications gives you mental illness advice."
> > >> https://www.mindtools.com/blog/armchair-psychology-at-work/#:~:text=Armchair%20psychology%20is%20when%20someone,%22diagnoses%22%20can%20be%20damaging." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.mindtools.com/blog/armchair-psychology-at-work/#:~:text=Armchair%20psychology%20is%20when%20someone,%22diagnoses%22%20can%20be%20damaging.
> >
> > > OMG! I find it impossible to believe you actually read that article. It's not about "armchair psychologists" but about unqualified amateurs "Playing Armchair Psychologist." It's an exact description of you and NastyGoon:
> >
> > > "What is worrying is that people read a few articles on the internet about a mental disorder, and suddenly they are experts – especially on psychopathy, narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. They also use terms that they misunderstand to describe someone else's behavior, and in doing so participate in spreading incorrect information and ideas."
> > > https://www.mindtools.com/blog/armchair-psychology-at-work/
> >
> > >> As per usual, humor remains a foreign concept to you.
> >
> > > Once again, it sounds like you're using your "humor" defense to duck criticism of your lack of competence. You're ducking like a quack -- and as they say, if it ducks like a quack, it is a quack.
> >
> > >> > Trying to win arguments by redefining words is yet another standard part of your troll M.O., of course.
> > >> I am neither redefining words, nor trying to win an argument (with my *correct* use of "armchair psychology"), George. I am using self-effacing humor -- partially to allow you (and any readers) to see that our analyses are offered in a light-hearted (if pointed) manner.
> >
> > >> > > > > And, in spite of his denials, George is well aware of these ramifications, as he implies that his narrator is under psychological care, and has him express his desire to burn his father's house to the ground (which is certainly not the act of a sane man).
> > >> > > > That's not what the poem says. (1) The idea that "they" could be or include psychiatrists occurred to me too, on rereading my last revision; but it's certainly not implied. The narrator does have psychological issues -- he's written that way, as I've said before -- but he's rational enough to know he needed permission(s) to be in this house he doesn't own, and to have got them. (2) Similarly, he's sane enough to know that he can't burn down this house he doesn't own.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > Possessing the desire to burn down his father's former house is indicative of a deeply troubled psyche.
> > >> > I think you mean "expressing". Yes, expressing the desire to burn a house down indicates a "troubled psyche"
> > >> Had I meant "expressing," I'd have said "expressing."
> > >>
> > >> IMHO, *possession* of such a violent, destructive *desire* (regardless of whether one expresses it) is indicative of a deeply troubled psyche.
> >
> > > Then you're again substituting your own 'interpretation' for what's in the poem. In the poem, the speaker merely expresses it once; there's no sign (as in the Little Jim parodies, for example) that it's something he's wanted to do forever.
> >
> > >> > (which is how the character was written.
> > >> > > > > Like Mr. Dance, you tend to see attacks and conspiracies where none, in fact, exist. In your case, it stems from your inability to comprehend anything written beyond the level of an "I Can Read!" book.
> > >> > > > Are you really so clueless as to think your second line sounds like anything but an attack? Or, in consequence, your denial that you're making any attacks as as anything but shameless lying? If so, I'd suggest again that you get some help to improve your communication skills.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > Earth to George. I am addressing Will Donkey in the above-quoted passage.
> > >> > Did I say or imply you weren't? Of course not. So stop playing stupid, and focus on what you said to him. You attacked him twice. First, you called him a paranoid just "Like Mr. Dance." Second, you called him an illiterate. (Both parts of your standard troll M.O., as noted above). And hilariously, in between those two attacks, lied that "in fact" you haven't been attacking him at all.
> > >> >
> > >> I wasn't attacking the Donkey in the above passage. I was pointing out his actual reading level as evidenced by both his posts here, and his reaction to the posts of others.
> >
> > > As I said, Michael Monkey, you look like a shameless liar. Do you wonder why Will has written you off as one?
> > >>
> > >> My observations are neither compliments nor attacks. They are statements of fact, the truth of which should be immediately recognized to everyone.
> >
> > > They were quickly recognizable to me; not true at all, just poo a monkey would throw.
> >
> > >> > In the past you've always attacked another group member in one thread while denying that you've been attacking them in different threads. Doing both in the same paragraph, as I said, makes you look like s shameless liar, who doesn't even care any longer whether anyone believes him or not.
> > >> >
> > >> 1) Attacking someone in a separate thread has *no bearing whatsoever* on my interaction with him in a current thread.
> >
> > > Of course it does. If you can't remember what you were saying on other threads, and you probably can't given your tendency to re-imagine/embellish facts, that would explain your inconsistencies, but don't expect others to keep silent about them.
> >
> > >> 2) As previously noted, neither you nor your Donkey were attacked in the above-mentioned passage. (I didn't even address him as "Donkey.")
> >
> > > As previously noted, you made two personal attacks on him.
> >
> > >> > > I am not referring to you.
> > >> > Not that I should believe you (see above :). But, assuming you're being honest this time , "Like Mr. Dance" must refer to my father. So are you saying that you and the other armchair quack are accusing him, too, of ""Paranoia with a resultant persecution complex."?
> > >> >
> > >> WTF? Is your name no longer "Dance?"
> > >> Are you no longer gender identifying as a "Mr.?"
> >
> > > Yeah; but you just said you weren't referring to me:
> >
> > >> > > I am not referring to you.
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > >> Contextually, "Like Mr. Dance, you tend to see attacks and conspiracies where none, in fact, exist" refers to my above-quoted analysis of your condition: "paranoia with a resultant persecution complex." My analysis of your father would be that he was overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy (inferiority complex) by physically and emotionally abusing his son.
> > >>
> > > So, after denying that "Mr. Dance" referred to me, you change position and tell me it did. I was right to not believe you earlier.
> > <Crickets>
> I noticed.... ha ha....

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2023-2-26 4:02 p.m., Zod wrote:
>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>
>>> My Father's House
>>>
>>> This is my father's house, although
>>> The man died thirteen years ago.
>>> They said it would be quite all right
>>> To take a drive to see it now.
>>>
>>> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
>>> And built the whole thing (from a box),
>>> Toiling after each full day's work.
>>> I helped, though I was only six.
>>>
>>> Look, here's the back door I would use
>>> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
>>> To enter; there I'd leave my things
>>> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
>>>
>>> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
>>> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
>>> To be so many other places.
>>> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
>>>
>>> Outside, the garden that he grew
>>> Where I would work the summers through,
>>> While watching my friends run and play
>>> Mysterious games I never knew.
>>>
>>> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
>>> The one chair I was let to sit?
>>> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
>>> Which, the corner where boys were put?
>>>
>>> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
>>> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
>>> After the meal, to make no noise,
>>> To read or play alone, and then
>>>
>>> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
>>> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
>>> Face and pyjama bottoms down
>>> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
>>>
>>> Oh, if I were a millionaire
>>> I'd buy my father's house, and there
>>> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
>>> Its flames would light up all the air.
>>>
>>> ~~
>>> George J. Dance
>>> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
>>
>> Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!

> Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
> but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.

> The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
> one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
> complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
> speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
> is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
> over a decade makes that much clearer.

> As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.
> It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
> but I wanted to keep that hidden.

You should be proud, the poem is a stone cold classic...!

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-26 4:02 p.m., Zod wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:49:07 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>
>>> My Father's House
>>>
>>> This is my father's house, although
>>> The man died thirteen years ago.
>>> They said it would be quite all right
>>> To take a drive to see it now.
>>>
>>> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
>>> And built the whole thing (from a box),
>>> Toiling after each full day's work.
>>> I helped, though I was only six.
>>>
>>> Look, here's the back door I would use
>>> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
>>> To enter; there I'd leave my things
>>> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
>>>
>>> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
>>> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
>>> To be so many other places.
>>> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
>>>
>>> Outside, the garden that he grew
>>> Where I would work the summers through,
>>> While watching my friends run and play
>>> Mysterious games I never knew.
>>>
>>> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
>>> The one chair I was let to sit?
>>> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
>>> Which, the corner where boys were put?
>>>
>>> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
>>> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
>>> After the meal, to make no noise,
>>> To read or play alone, and then
>>>
>>> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
>>> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
>>> Face and pyjama bottoms down
>>> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
>>>
>>> Oh, if I were a millionaire
>>> I'd buy my father's house, and there
>>> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
>>> Its flames would light up all the air.
>>>
>>> ~~
>>> George J. Dance
>>> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
>>
>> Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!

> Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
> but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.

> The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
> one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
> complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
> speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
> is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
> over a decade makes that much clearer.

> As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.
> It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
> but I wanted to keep that hidden.

Well put, George.

:)

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-26 4:02 p.m., Zod wrote:
>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>>> My Father's House
>>>
>>> This is my father's house, although
>>> The man died thirteen years ago.
>>> They said it would be quite all right
>>> To take a drive to see it now.
>>>
>>> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
>>> And built the whole thing (from a box),
>>> Toiling after each full day's work.
>>> I helped, though I was only six.
>>>
>>> Look, here's the back door I would use
>>> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
>>> To enter; there I'd leave my things
>>> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
>>>
>>> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
>>> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
>>> To be so many other places.
>>> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
>>>
>>> Outside, the garden that he grew
>>> Where I would work the summers through,
>>> While watching my friends run and play
>>> Mysterious games I never knew.
>>>
>>> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
>>> The one chair I was let to sit?
>>> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
>>> Which, the corner where boys were put?
>>>
>>> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
>>> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
>>> After the meal, to make no noise,
>>> To read or play alone, and then
>>>
>>> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
>>> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
>>> Face and pyjama bottoms down
>>> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
>>>
>>> Oh, if I were a millionaire
>>> I'd buy my father's house, and there
>>> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
>>> Its flames would light up all the air.
>>>
>>> ~~
>>> George J. Dance
>>> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
>>
>> Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!

> Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
> but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.

> The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
> one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
> complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
> speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
> is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
> over a decade makes that much clearer.

> As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.
> It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
> but I wanted to keep that hidden.

Hello again G.D....!!

George J. Dance wrote:
>
> My Father's House

> This is my father's house, although
> The man died thirteen years ago.
> They said it would be quite all right
> To take a drive to see it now.

> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> Toiling after each full day's work.
> I helped, though I was only six.

> Look, here's the back door I would use
> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.

> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> To be so many other places.
> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)

> Outside, the garden that he grew
> Where I would work the summers through,
> While watching my friends run and play
> Mysterious games I never knew.

> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> The one chair I was let to sit?
> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> Which, the corner where boys were put?

> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> After the meal, to make no noise,
> To read or play alone, and then

> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> As for my father's belt I'd wait.

> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> Its flames would light up all the air.

> ~~
> George J. Dance
> from Logos and other logoi, 2021

Standing the test of time as Jim Senetto continues to rip this poem off... ha ha.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:01:09 AM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> > George J. Dance wrote:
> > > Zod wrote:
> > > > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> My Father's House
> > > >>
> > > >> This is my father's house, although
> > > >> The man died thirteen years ago.
> > > >> They said it would be quite all right
> > > >> To take a drive to see it now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> > > >> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> > > >> Toiling after each full day's work.
> > > >> I helped, though I was only six.
> > > >>
> > > >> Look, here's the back door I would use
> > > >> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> > > >> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> > > >> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
> > > >>
> > > >> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> > > >> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> > > >> To be so many other places.
> > > >> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
> > > >>
> > > >> Outside, the garden that he grew
> > > >> Where I would work the summers through,
> > > >> While watching my friends run and play
> > > >> Mysterious games I never knew.
> > > >>
> > > >> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> > > >> The one chair I was let to sit?
> > > >> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> > > >> Which, the corner where boys were put?
> > > >>
> > > >> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> > > >> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> > > >> After the meal, to make no noise,
> > > >> To read or play alone, and then
> > > >>
> > > >> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> > > >> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> > > >> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> > > >> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
> > > >>
> > > >> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> > > >> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> > > >> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> > > >> Its flames would light up all the air.
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~
> > > >> George J. Dance
> > > >> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
> > > >
> > > > Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!
> > > Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
> > > but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.
> > >
> > > The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
> > > one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
> > > complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
> > > speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
> > > is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
> > > over a decade makes that much clearer.
> > >
> > > As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> > > plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> > > house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.
> > > It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> > > was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
> > > but I wanted to keep that hidden.
> > Back on track, one of the greatest poems of the year, top shelf...

> Are we desperate to deflect because of that little bit about your dead buddy's admission of multiple acts of statutory rape of minors? This Pickles that you sing praises of, sounds pretty vile to me..

Zod obviously isn't; but you must be pretty desperate if you're recycling old lies about Stephan Pickering.

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:10:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:01:09 AM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> > > George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > Zod wrote:
> > > > > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My Father's House
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is my father's house, although
> > > > >> The man died thirteen years ago.
> > > > >> They said it would be quite all right
> > > > >> To take a drive to see it now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> > > > >> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> > > > >> Toiling after each full day's work.
> > > > >> I helped, though I was only six.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Look, here's the back door I would use
> > > > >> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> > > > >> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> > > > >> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> > > > >> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> > > > >> To be so many other places.
> > > > >> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Outside, the garden that he grew
> > > > >> Where I would work the summers through,
> > > > >> While watching my friends run and play
> > > > >> Mysterious games I never knew.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> > > > >> The one chair I was let to sit?
> > > > >> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> > > > >> Which, the corner where boys were put?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> > > > >> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> > > > >> After the meal, to make no noise,
> > > > >> To read or play alone, and then
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> > > > >> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> > > > >> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> > > > >> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> > > > >> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> > > > >> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> > > > >> Its flames would light up all the air.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ~~
> > > > >> George J. Dance
> > > > >> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
> > > > >
> > > > > Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!
> > > > Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
> > > > but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.
> > > >
> > > > The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
> > > > one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
> > > > complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
> > > > speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
> > > > is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
> > > > over a decade makes that much clearer.
> > > >
> > > > As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> > > > plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> > > > house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in..
> > > > It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> > > > was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
> > > > but I wanted to keep that hidden.
> > > Back on track, one of the greatest poems of the year, top shelf...
>
> > Are we desperate to deflect because of that little bit about your dead buddy's admission of multiple acts of statutory rape of minors? This Pickles that you sing praises of, sounds pretty vile to me..
> Zod obviously isn't; but you must be pretty desperate if you're recycling old lies about Stephan Pickering.

It has become obvious that Ash is one of the biggest hypocrites here.

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:10:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:01:09 AM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> > > George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > Zod wrote:
> > > > > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My Father's House
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is my father's house, although
> > > > >> The man died thirteen years ago.
> > > > >> They said it would be quite all right
> > > > >> To take a drive to see it now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> > > > >> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> > > > >> Toiling after each full day's work.
> > > > >> I helped, though I was only six.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Look, here's the back door I would use
> > > > >> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> > > > >> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> > > > >> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> > > > >> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> > > > >> To be so many other places.
> > > > >> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Outside, the garden that he grew
> > > > >> Where I would work the summers through,
> > > > >> While watching my friends run and play
> > > > >> Mysterious games I never knew.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> > > > >> The one chair I was let to sit?
> > > > >> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> > > > >> Which, the corner where boys were put?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> > > > >> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> > > > >> After the meal, to make no noise,
> > > > >> To read or play alone, and then
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> > > > >> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> > > > >> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> > > > >> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> > > > >> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> > > > >> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> > > > >> Its flames would light up all the air.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ~~
> > > > >> George J. Dance
> > > > >> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
> > > > >
> > > > > Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!
> > > > Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
> > > > but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.
> > > >
> > > > The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
> > > > one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
> > > > complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
> > > > speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
> > > > is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
> > > > over a decade makes that much clearer.
> > > >
> > > > As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> > > > plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> > > > house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in..
> > > > It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> > > > was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
> > > > but I wanted to keep that hidden.
> > > Back on track, one of the greatest poems of the year, top shelf...
>
> > Are we desperate to deflect because of that little bit about your dead buddy's admission of multiple acts of statutory rape of minors? This Pickles that you sing praises of, sounds pretty vile to me..
> Zod obviously isn't; but you must be pretty desperate if you're recycling old lies about Stephan Pickering.

1) Pickles claimed that he'd had sex with a 14-year old Jewish girl from South America... whose name he conveniently could no longer remember.
2) Pickles claimed that he married a different 14-year old Jewish girl from South America, in what was an arranged marriage (by her parents).

Now I don't believe either of Pickles' stories. His letters to Forry show that he was living in various California locations at the time he claimed to have been in Israel with his supposed 14-year old bride and their two children.

But if they are "old lies," they're lies straight from the Pickles' mouth.

The man was a pathological liar; however, the similarities between his two stories (above) makes one suspect that at some point the statutory rape of a 14-year old South American Jewish girl occurred.

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:18:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:10:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:01:09 AM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> > > > George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > Zod wrote:
> > > > > > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> My Father's House
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This is my father's house, although
> > > > > >> The man died thirteen years ago.
> > > > > >> They said it would be quite all right
> > > > > >> To take a drive to see it now.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> > > > > >> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> > > > > >> Toiling after each full day's work.
> > > > > >> I helped, though I was only six.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Look, here's the back door I would use
> > > > > >> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> > > > > >> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> > > > > >> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> > > > > >> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> > > > > >> To be so many other places.
> > > > > >> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Outside, the garden that he grew
> > > > > >> Where I would work the summers through,
> > > > > >> While watching my friends run and play
> > > > > >> Mysterious games I never knew.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> > > > > >> The one chair I was let to sit?
> > > > > >> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> > > > > >> Which, the corner where boys were put?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> > > > > >> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> > > > > >> After the meal, to make no noise,
> > > > > >> To read or play alone, and then
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> > > > > >> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> > > > > >> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> > > > > >> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> > > > > >> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> > > > > >> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> > > > > >> Its flames would light up all the air.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ~~
> > > > > >> George J. Dance
> > > > > >> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!
> > > > > Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
> > > > > but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.
> > > > >
> > > > > The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
> > > > > one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
> > > > > complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
> > > > > speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
> > > > > is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
> > > > > over a decade makes that much clearer.
> > > > >
> > > > > As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> > > > > plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> > > > > house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.
> > > > > It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> > > > > was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
> > > > > but I wanted to keep that hidden.
> > > > Back on track, one of the greatest poems of the year, top shelf...
> >
> > > Are we desperate to deflect because of that little bit about your dead buddy's admission of multiple acts of statutory rape of minors? This Pickles that you sing praises of, sounds pretty vile to me..
> > Zod obviously isn't; but you must be pretty desperate if you're recycling old lies about Stephan Pickering.
> 1) Pickles claimed that he'd had sex with a 14-year old

Which would make her a year older than Edgar Allan Poe's child bride.

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:49:07 PM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
>
> My Father's House
>
> This is my father's house, although
> The man died thirteen years ago.
> They said it would be quite all right
> To take a drive to see it now.
>
> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> Toiling after each full day's work.
> I helped, though I was only six.
>
> Look, here's the back door I would use
> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
>
> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> To be so many other places.
> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
>
> Outside, the garden that he grew
> Where I would work the summers through,
> While watching my friends run and play
> Mysterious games I never knew.
>
> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> The one chair I was let to sit?
> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> Which, the corner where boys were put?
>
> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> After the meal, to make no noise,
> To read or play alone, and then
>
> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
>
> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> Its flames would light up all the air.
>
> ~~
> George J. Dance
> from Logos and other logoi, 2021

Another read of a great fave from Mr. G.D.

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:10:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:01:09 AM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> > > George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > Zod wrote:
> > > > > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My Father's House
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is my father's house, although
> > > > >> The man died thirteen years ago.
> > > > >> They said it would be quite all right
> > > > >> To take a drive to see it now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> > > > >> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> > > > >> Toiling after each full day's work.
> > > > >> I helped, though I was only six.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Look, here's the back door I would use
> > > > >> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> > > > >> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> > > > >> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> > > > >> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> > > > >> To be so many other places.
> > > > >> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Outside, the garden that he grew
> > > > >> Where I would work the summers through,
> > > > >> While watching my friends run and play
> > > > >> Mysterious games I never knew.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> > > > >> The one chair I was let to sit?
> > > > >> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> > > > >> Which, the corner where boys were put?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> > > > >> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> > > > >> After the meal, to make no noise,
> > > > >> To read or play alone, and then
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> > > > >> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> > > > >> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> > > > >> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> > > > >> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> > > > >> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> > > > >> Its flames would light up all the air.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ~~
> > > > >> George J. Dance
> > > > >> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
> > > > >
> > > > > Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!
> > > > Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
> > > > but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.
> > > >
> > > > The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
> > > > one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
> > > > complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
> > > > speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
> > > > is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
> > > > over a decade makes that much clearer.
> > > >
> > > > As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> > > > plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> > > > house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in..
> > > > It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> > > > was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
> > > > but I wanted to keep that hidden.
> > > Back on track, one of the greatest poems of the year, top shelf...
>
> > Are we desperate to deflect because of that little bit about your dead buddy's admission of multiple acts of statutory rape of minors? This Pickles that you sing praises of, sounds pretty vile to me..
> Zod obviously isn't; but you must be pretty desperate if you're recycling old lies about Stephan Pickering.

Well put G,D.

General-Zod wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:
>>
>> My Father's House

>> This is my father's house, although
>> The man died thirteen years ago.
>> They said it would be quite all right
>> To take a drive to see it now.

>> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
>> And built the whole thing (from a box),
>> Toiling after each full day's work.
>> I helped, though I was only six.

>> Look, here's the back door I would use
>> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
>> To enter; there I'd leave my things
>> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.

>> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
>> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
>> To be so many other places.
>> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)

>> Outside, the garden that he grew
>> Where I would work the summers through,
>> While watching my friends run and play
>> Mysterious games I never knew.

>> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
>> The one chair I was let to sit?
>> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
>> Which, the corner where boys were put?

>> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
>> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
>> After the meal, to make no noise,
>> To read or play alone, and then

>> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
>> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
>> Face and pyjama bottoms down
>> As for my father's belt I'd wait.

>> Oh, if I were a millionaire
>> I'd buy my father's house, and there
>> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
>> Its flames would light up all the air.

>> ~~
>> George J. Dance
>> from Logos and other logoi, 2021

> Quite an excellent poem, G.D.

Again, agreed.

Zod wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:
>> Zod wrote:
>> > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My Father's House
>> >>
>> >> This is my father's house, although
>> >> The man died thirteen years ago.
>> >> They said it would be quite all right
>> >> To take a drive to see it now.
>> >>
>> >> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
>> >> And built the whole thing (from a box),
>> >> Toiling after each full day's work.
>> >> I helped, though I was only six.
>> >>
>> >> Look, here's the back door I would use
>> >> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
>> >> To enter; there I'd leave my things
>> >> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
>> >>
>> >> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
>> >> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
>> >> To be so many other places.
>> >> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
>> >>
>> >> Outside, the garden that he grew
>> >> Where I would work the summers through,
>> >> While watching my friends run and play
>> >> Mysterious games I never knew.
>> >>
>> >> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
>> >> The one chair I was let to sit?
>> >> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
>> >> Which, the corner where boys were put?
>> >>
>> >> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
>> >> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
>> >> After the meal, to make no noise,
>> >> To read or play alone, and then
>> >>
>> >> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
>> >> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
>> >> Face and pyjama bottoms down
>> >> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, if I were a millionaire
>> >> I'd buy my father's house, and there
>> >> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
>> >> Its flames would light up all the air.
>> >>
>> >> ~~
>> >> George J. Dance
>> >> from Logos and other logoi, 2021
>> >
>> > Read twice, outstanding work of poetry....!
>> Thanks, Zod. It's a poem I'm proud of. I wrote the first draft quickly,
>> but I spent several years tweaking it before it went into a book.
>>
>> The big revision here is the rewrite to L2. In the original discussion,
>> one of the people trying to cut it to shreds was a poet, and amongst her
>> complaints she had a criticism I thought valid: it's not clear that the
>> speaker is the child of the poem now grown up. And I think realizing tht
>> is essential to appreciating the thing. Having the father been dead for
>> over a decade makes that much clearer.
>>
>> As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
>> plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
>> house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.
>> It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
>> was under psychiatric care, ant "they" were the ones looking after him,
>> but I wanted to keep that hidden.

> The poem has sure shown to have continuing popularity with the readership...

For once they were obsessed with a poem.

🙂

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:49:07 PM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> My Father's House
>
> This is my father's house, although
> The man died thirteen years ago.
> They said it would be quite all right
> To take a drive to see it now.
>
> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> Toiling after each full day's work.
> I helped, though I was only six.
>
> Look, here's the back door I would use
> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
>
> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> To be so many other places.
> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
>
> Outside, the garden that he grew
> Where I would work the summers through,
> While watching my friends run and play
> Mysterious games I never knew.
>
> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> The one chair I was let to sit?
> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> Which, the corner where boys were put?
>
> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> After the meal, to make no noise,
> To read or play alone, and then
>
> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> As for my father's belt I'd wait.
>
> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> Its flames would light up all the air.
>
> ~~
> George J. Dance
> from Logos and other logoi, 2021

Bumped by a troll, worth another read.

MY FATHER'S HOUSE
AI Enhanced.

In my father's house, shadows cast a gloom,
Where nights turned to horrors in every bedroom.
Before slumber's call, a dread would arise,
As father's anger rained down from the skies.

Pajama pants pulled down, vulnerability exposed,
Awaiting a whipping, with leather belt imposed.
But let not blame rest upon dear father's hand,
For the fault lies within me, a boy deemed so grand.

Little boys, you see, are creatures most unclean,
Mischievous spirits unseen and yet not unseen.
Their missteps and follies with every breath,
Inviting punishments, a dance with their own death.

Maybe it was my mischief that fueled his rage,
Or the wayward paths I took at such tender age.
In father's eyes, discipline is the key,
To cleanse the filth that [was] little boys like me.

George J. Dance wrote:
>
> My Father's House

> This is my father's house, although
> The man died thirteen years ago.
> They said it would be quite all right
> To take a drive to see it now.

> Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
> And built the whole thing (from a box),
> Toiling after each full day's work.
> I helped, though I was only six.

> Look, here's the back door I would use
> And here's where I'd remove my shoes
> To enter; there I'd leave my things
> And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.

> In this room I'd wash many a dish,
> Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
> To be so many other places.
> (Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)

> Outside, the garden that he grew
> Where I would work the summers through,
> While watching my friends run and play
> Mysterious games I never knew.

> That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
> The one chair I was let to sit?
> (For boys can be such filthy things.)
> Which, the corner where boys were put?

> Oh ... down that hall there is a room
> Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
> After the meal, to make no noise,
> To read or play alone, and then

> Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
> Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
> Face and pyjama bottoms down
> As for my father's belt I'd wait.

> Oh, if I were a millionaire
> I'd buy my father's house, and there
> I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
> Its flames would light up all the air.

> ~~
> George J. Dance
> from Logos and other logoi, 2021

Once again, quite excellent..!