George Dance wrote:

> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:24:51 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:35:06 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
>> > On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > > > This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.
>> > > > It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).
>> George Dance, we replied to your initial post in this thread. Also "thread" = "example." We did not snip anything from the thread, since we did not reply to the whole thread.

> If your there's an "example" in the thread, then show it. You haven't shown any.

>> Additionally, if you want everyone to start including all comments in replies, please tell that to Will Dockery and George Sulzbach, who employ xxxx and truncate people's replies.

> Strawman. You don't have to include everything in the thread, just the parts you're talking about.

>> > I didn't say I was failing to understand any of that. I said I was surprised that NG claimed to have found a "good example" of something, but decided to snip it rather than let us read it for ourselves.
>> The example is the thread and your replies in the thread. You and others were free to read the thread.

> Anyone who does read the thread will know what really happened. Unfortunately, most won't, but will simply take your word for what happened.

>> > > > > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
>> > > > The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
>> > > Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as profound?
>> > Let's see.
>> > Profound = 1
>> > a : having intellectual depth and insight
>> > b: difficult to fathom or understand
>> >
>> > I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you and your "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?
>> Because you posted it. You must have thought it said something (resonated) that was worth sharing with others.

> That is not what "profound" means. Of course I thought the poem was worth sharing; but that doesn't mean I thought it was "profound". You just made that up yourself, probably because you think (or want to pretend) that you can read minds.

>> While we are talking about the poem, how can dreams be unnoticed? They can be unremembered, they can be remembered, they can be pleasant or scary, but unnoticed?

> To notice something is to take notice of it, to pay attention to it. I often have dreams that I don't pay any attention to; YMMV.

> In any case, that's moot as of today, since the poem no longer refers to "dreams."

>> > > Generally, when a poet writes such a short poem, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others.
>> > Duh! Generally, when someone posts anything here, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others. Is that what you thought "profound" means?
>> What you wrote is not deep or profound.

> No one suggested that it was, but you. You might have thought that you read my mind, or that your "figured it out" (to use your phrase), but you didn't. It's just another strawman you've come up with.

>> It is meaningless.

> Finally, you're criticizing the poem.

> For profound:
>> "Do not stand at my grave and weep
>> I am not there. I do not sleep.
>> I am a thousand winds that blow.
>> I am the diamond glints on snow.
>> I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
>> I am the gentle autumn rain.
>> [...]"

> It's interesting to see what you consider "profound".

>> > What a silly question. Do you post only the poems of yours that you think are intellectually deep or hard to understand? Or do you not know what "profound" means?
>> Maybe people would want to hesitate at posting something that is not their best?

> If that's what you do, then you don't understand the group you're on. aapc is a venue for people to post poems that they think could be better -- IOW, that are not their best -- and get feedback in the hope of improving them..

>> > No, Will's point was that they were mine, and I could add them if I wanted. Maybe that wasn't clear in his first comment, but he clarified it in his second:
>> No, he called it "nice work." Will thought that all of the lines were yours.

> All of the lines were mine, in jr sherman's Tinker-Toy poem and in Karla's. If they'd tried to pass them off as their own poetry, they'd have been plagiarizing. Of course, they weren't trying to write poetry; they were just trying to troll.

>> > 'Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
>> > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
>> > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
>> > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
>> >
>> > 'In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
>> > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
>> > collage".'

Here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> No, Will was trying to cover for his mistake.

> Now you're trying to pretend to read Will's mind as well.

>> No one said that they wrote the original three lines.

> Will wasn't commenting on the "original three lines." He was commenting on the "repetitions in the "Tinker-Toy" poem, and saying those were my lines as well (which they were, at least at the beginning).

Exactly, see above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> > I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.
>> No one claimed that Will criticized your poem. Will would NEVER do that, because he lacks words.

> That's what I said: he didn't criticize my poem -- he criticized sherman's "Tinker-Toy" thing.

>> > Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.
>> That was the comment that you deleted.

> I doubt it.

>> > It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".

>> If we call someone illiterate, it is for a good reason. Your colleagues have demonstrated that they are illiterate and incapable of understanding concepts in literature.

> IOW; if you call someone an illiterate, and are challenged, you just repeat yourself.
> ..
>> The posters early in this thread made some good points about your poem, George Dance.

> One person (Manwolf) made a good point. Another person loved the poem, and another called it shit or whatever. As I said, those were the only three comments on the poem (which anyone who actually reads the thread can see).

>> In fact, you should listen to all of the criticisms of all of your poems..

> Of course I listen to them all. That doesn't mean I'm going to follow them all.

>> Your poems and your writing would improve.

> You mean, whomever I was "listening to" might like them better.

....