On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:37:59 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq.. wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:38 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
> > Friends will be friends:
> >
> > 1. Fifty donated to Zod and his homeless plight.

Later paid back in full to Jim Senetto and the charity of his choice.

> > 2. W. Dockery suggests dinner for three.

Again, that was Zod's idea.

> > 3. David Dockery, gets a pass, considering.
> >
> > 5. Zod get 1/3 of what was sent.
> Will Dockery
> unread,
> 10:29 PM (3 minutes ago)
> to
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:38 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >
> > Friends will be friends:
> >
> > 1. Fifty donated to [Zod] and his homeless plight.

> > 2. W. Dockery suggests dinner for three.
> Not at all, Zod wanted to do that. ( I saw the message you sent to Sulzbach, about the steak dinners.)

The steak dinners were his idea, probably because of all the help David and I have given him over the years, and still do, actually.

> > 3. David Dockery, gets a pass, considering.
> >
> > 5. Zod get 1/3 of what was sent.
> And you were paid back in full, to the charity of your choice.
>
> after the bullshit daughter money order

That was your paranoid imagination, Senetto.

(Moved from the troll thread.)

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:47:43 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:37:59 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:38 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >
> > > Friends will be friends:
> > >
> > > 1. Fifty donated to Zod and his homeless plight.
> Later paid back in full to Jim Senetto and the charity of his choice.

Why do you stubbornly insist in misusing the words "paid back," Donkey?

Do you feel pride in waving your ignorance like a flag?

FYI: This time you've compounded your mistake by claiming to have paid out twice.

Why not just have the words "One Dumbass Motherfucker" tattooed on your forehead and be done with it?

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:47:43 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:37:59 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:38 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
>> > > Friends will be friends:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Fifty donated to Zod and his homeless plight.
>> Later paid back in full to Jim Senetto and the charity of his choice.

> Why do you stubbornly insist in misusing the words "paid back,"

Because that's what it boiled down to in the end.

Jim Senetto supposedly donated money to Zod then whined about it for years.

In order to try to stop Senetto's whining, I "paid back" the money Senetto had supposedly donated to Zod.

It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 2:27:13 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:47:43 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:37:59 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:38 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >
> >> > > Friends will be friends:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Fifty donated to Zod and his homeless plight.
> >> Later paid back in full to Jim Senetto and the charity of his choice.
>
> > Why do you stubbornly insist in misusing the words "paid back,"
> Because that's what it boiled down to in the end.
>
> Jim Senetto supposedly donated money to Zod then whined about it for years.
>
> In order to try to stop Senetto's whining, I "paid back" the money Senetto had supposedly donated to Zod.
>
> It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan..

Nothing can "boil down to" something that it isn't, Donkey.

What you mean to say is that it *felt* that way to you.

But just because something feels a certain way, doesn't mean that it is.

We have different words for different things, and if you want to stop looking like a functionally illiterate oaf, you'll need to start using words correctly.

It felt like you paid Jim back the $50. But you actually paid the $50 to an animal shelter at Jim's direction.

You cannot say that you paid Jim back just because it felt like you did.

What you can say is that you settled your debt to Jim's satisfaction.

Both statements amount to the same thing -- that you paid out money you owed. But one statement is correct and one statement is not.

Words matter.

I called it as I saw it, Pendragon, and what I saw was Senetto gave Zod some (not much) money which Zod spent as he pleased.

Senetto, being a control freak, didn't like how Zod spent the money so began whining about it and whined for years about it.

Finally, to get Senetto to stop whining, I returned the money to Senetto, or rather sent it to the charity of his choice.

Thus, the matter was settled.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:06:25 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> I called it as I saw it, Pendragon, and what I saw was Senetto gave Zod some (not much) money which Zod spent as he pleased.
>
> Senetto, being a control freak, didn't like how Zod spent the money so began whining about it and whined for years about it.
>
> Finally, to get Senetto to stop whining, I returned the money to Senetto, or rather sent it to the charity of his choice.
>
> Thus, the matter was settled.

Your use of "rather" in "Finally, to get Senetto to stop whining, I returned the money to Senetto, or rather sent it to the charity of his choice," means that you did *not* return the money to Jim.

What you're literally saying is "I returned the money to Jim... no, wait... I didn't return the money to Jim. I sent it to a charity of his choice."

Apart from making you sound befuddled, there is no reason for claiming that you returned the money to Jim and immediately retracting it.

The *correct* way to say it is "I sent the money to a charity of his choice.."

"I sent the money to a charity of his choice" says it all. It says that you paid the money to a charity and that Jim was satisfied with that resolution.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:06:25 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> I called it as I saw it, Pendragon, and what I saw was Senetto gave Zod some (not much) money which Zod spent as he pleased.
>
> Senetto, being a control freak, didn't like how Zod spent the money so began whining about it and whined for years about it.
>
> Finally, to get Senetto to stop whining, I returned the money to Senetto, or rather sent it to the charity

"I called it as I saw it, Pendragon, and what I saw was Senetto gave Zod some (not much) money which Zod spent as he please."

Considering Sulzbach was a stranger, fifty was more than enough, you ignorant cunt.

I'm sure you spent more on booze and drugs...

Miss your brother's check?

Keep whining about it forever, Senetto, you were paid back, the matter is settled, as we agreed.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:51:25 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Keep whining about it forever, Senetto, you were paid back, the matter is settled, as we agreed.

Damn, but you're one dumbass motherfucker!

You didn't pay Jim anything. You donated the money to an animal shelter.

I've explained this to you at least a dozen times now.

The inability to learn beyond a certain level is generally classified as mental retardation.

Are you retarded, Will?

The idea was to pay Senetto back the money he sent Zod.

Since rather than having the money sent to him he chose a charity for me to send it to.

For all intents and purposes I paid Senetto back the money he sent Zod.

It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, Pendragon.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> The idea was to pay Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
>
> Since rather than having the money sent to him he chose a charity for me to send it to.
>
> For all intents and purposes I paid Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
>
> It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, Pendragon.
>
> HTH and HAND.

Forget it Michael, the man is stuck on stupid.

Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> The idea was to pay Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
>>
>> Since rather than having the money sent to him he chose a charity for me to send it to.
>>
>> For all intents and purposes I paid Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
>>
>> It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, Pendragon.
>>
>> HTH and HAND.

> Forget it Michael

As if you could ever stop whining about it, Senetto.

🙂

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> The idea was to pay Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
>
> Since rather than having the money sent to him he chose a charity for me to send it to.
>
> For all intents and purposes I paid Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
>
> It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, Pendragon.

As Jim said, you're stuck in stupid.

To all intents and purposes (note the correct use of "To"), you paid off your debt by sending the money to a charity of Jim's choice.

You did not pay Jim a cent.

NOTE TO DONKEY: There is no correct way for you to use the words "repaid," "returned," "refunded," of "paid back," when describing what transpired between Jim and yourself. They are the *wrong* words. They do not mean what you obviously think they mean.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > The idea was to pay Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
> >
> > Since rather than having the money sent to him he chose a charity for me to send it to.
> >
> > For all intents and purposes I paid Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
> >
> > It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, Pendragon.
> As Jim said, you're stuck in stupid.
>
> To all intents and purposes (note the correct use of "To"), you paid off your debt by sending the money to a charity of Jim's choice.
>
> You did not pay Jim a cent.
>
> NOTE TO DONKEY: There is no correct way for you to use the words "repaid," "returned," "refunded," of "paid back," when describing what transpired between Jim and yourself. They are the *wrong* words. They do not mean what you obviously think they mean.

All his words are udder bile, the price you pay for eating cow pies.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > The idea was to pay Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
> >
> > Since rather than having the money sent to him he chose a charity for me to send it to.
> >
> > For all intents and purposes I paid Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
> >
> > It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, Pendragon.
> As Jim said

You mean as Jim Senetto whined.

HTH and HAND.ville

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 9:32:00 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > The idea was to pay Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
> > >
> > > Since rather than having the money sent to him he chose a charity for me to send it to.
> > >
> > > For all intents and purposes I paid Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
> > >
> > > It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, Pendragon.
> > As Jim said
> You mean as Jim Senetto whined.
>
> HTH and HAND.ville

Dockery, you're a walking void..

On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 21:36:35 UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 9:32:00 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > > The idea was to pay Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
> > > >
> > > > Since rather than having the money sent to him he chose a charity for me to send it to.
> > > >
> > > > For all intents and purposes I paid Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
> > > >
> > > > It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, Pendragon.
> > > As Jim said
> > You mean as Jim Senetto whined.
> >
> > HTH and HAND.ville
> Dockery, you're a walking void..

will is a dead beat. He’s been a dead beat all of his life. 65 years. That’s all he will ever be. A fucking dead beat.

That is will dockery = dead beat.

Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 9:32:00 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> > > The idea was to pay Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
>> > >
>> > > Since rather than having the money sent to him he chose a charity for me to send it to.
>> > >
>> > > For all intents and purposes I paid Senetto back the money he sent Zod.
>> > >
>> > > It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, Pendragon.
>> > As Jim said
>> You mean as Jim Senetto whined.
>>
>> HTH and HAND.ville

> Dockery, you're

Your greatest obsession?

We know.

🙂

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> As Jim said, you're stuck in stupid.
Wow! The monkey and the chimp are saying the *same thing*! Stop the fricking presses.

> To all intents and purposes (note the correct use of "To"), you paid off your debt by sending the money to a charity of Jim's choice.

Both of Will's payments of $50 were made at your chimp's direction, because the Chimp had decided it was his money again and Will didn't feel like arguing with him.
> You did not pay Jim a cent.

Your objection -- that he didn't physically give or send the money to Jim -- is just petty nitpicking on your part:
like telling me that I don't pay sales tax "to" the government because I actually pay it to the retailer.

> NOTE TO DONKEY: There is no correct way for you to use the words "repaid," "returned," "refunded," of "paid back," when describing what transpired between Jim and yourself. They are the *wrong* words. They do not mean what you obviously think they mean.

The money clearly became the chimp's again when he told Will what to do with it and Will complied. If you think those words don't describe what actually happened, use your monkey brain and come with a word that does; I'm sure Will will be happy to use it instead.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > As Jim said, you're stuck in stupid.
> Wow! The monkey and the chimp are saying the *same thing*! Stop the fricking presses.
> > To all intents and purposes (note the correct use of "To"), you paid off your debt by sending the money to a charity of Jim's choice.
> Both of Will's payments of $50 were made at your chimp's direction, because the Chimp had decided it was his money again and Will didn't feel like arguing with him.
> > You did not pay Jim a cent.
> Your objection -- that he didn't physically give or send the money to Jim -- is just petty nitpicking on your part:
> like telling me that I don't pay sales tax "to" the government because I actually pay it to the retailer.

No, George, it isn't.

My objection is not that he didn't physically send or give the money to Jim -- it's that the words he chose to describe what happened *stated* that he did.

Words matter.

It is hardly picking a nit to insist that words be used correctly in a writers' group.

> > NOTE TO DONKEY: There is no correct way for you to use the words "repaid," "returned," "refunded," of "paid back," when describing what transpired between Jim and yourself. They are the *wrong* words. They do not mean what you obviously think they mean.
> The money clearly became the chimp's again when he told Will what to do with it and Will complied. If you think those words don't describe what actually happened, use your monkey brain and come with a word that does; I'm sure Will will be happy to use it instead.
>

In that case, it became Jim's because Jim "had decided it was his money again" -- in which case Will did not pay it back. Do you understand the difference between Jim's reclaiming ownership of the money and Will's *paying the money back* to him?

And why would you use dunce logic to defend Will's misuse of several words and phrases -- especially when he had finally seemed to understand them? Do you want him to continue writing like an illiterate for the rest of his life?

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:53:25 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > As Jim said, you're stuck in stupid.
> > Wow! The monkey and the chimp are saying the *same thing*! Stop the fricking presses.
> > > To all intents and purposes (note the correct use of "To"), you paid off your debt by sending the money to a charity of Jim's choice.
> > Both of Will's payments of $50 were made at your chimp's direction, because the Chimp had decided it was his money again and Will didn't feel like arguing with him.
> > > You did not pay Jim a cent.
> > Your objection -- that he didn't physically give or send the money to Jim -- is just petty nitpicking on your part:
> > like telling me that I don't pay sales tax "to" the government because I actually pay it to the retailer.
> No, George, it isn't.
>
> My objection is not that he didn't physically send or give the money to Jim -- it's that the words he chose to describe what happened *stated* that he did.
>
> Words matter.
So find the right word. The Chimp gave $50 to Will, and then the Chimp decided it was his money and he'd decide how it should be spent -- no different from the government deciding I owe them money for the right to buy things, and that I should give it to the retailer. Granted that I'm not paying it to the government, what word would you use instead?

> It is hardly picking a nit to insist that words be used correctly in a writers' group.

If your complaint were really about his use of an "correct word then you'd have told him what you consider the "correct word". It sound like you're simply picking a nit to try to pretend the Chimp was the one victimized here.

> > > NOTE TO DONKEY: There is no correct way for you to use the words "repaid," "returned," "refunded," of "paid back," when describing what transpired between Jim and yourself. They are the *wrong* words. They do not mean what you obviously think they mean.
> > The money clearly became the chimp's again when he told Will what to do with it and Will complied. If you think those words don't describe what actually happened, use your monkey brain and come with a word that does; I'm sure Will will be happy to use it instead.
> >
> In that case, it became Jim's because Jim "had decided it was his money again"

No, Michael; people cannot just unlilaterally decide that things they've given away are theirs again. It became the Chimpl's money, not because he had decided it was his again, but because Will agreed to that.

-- in which case Will did not pay it back.

So you admit it's correct to say that the Chimp got back ownership of the money -- but you insist it's incorrect to say that the Chimp got back the money.

> Do you understand the difference between Jim's reclaiming ownership of the money and Will's *paying the money back* to him?

Yes, Michael -- as I explained in the sales tax example. By the same Monkeylogic, I do not pay sales tax to the government.
> And why would you use dunce logic to defend Will's misuse of several words and phrases -- especially when he had finally seemed to understand them? Do you want him to continue writing like an illiterate for the rest of his life?

It seems as though you do, since you're refusing to say what "literate" word he should use instead. It looks like you're having too much fun calling him an "illiterate."

George Dance wrote:

> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> As Jim said, you're stuck in stupid.

> Wow! The monkey and the chimp are saying the *same thing*! Stop the fricking presses.

>> To all intents and purposes (note the correct use of "To"), you paid off your debt by sending the money to a charity of Jim's choice.

> Both of Will's payments of $50 were made at your chimp's direction, because the Chimp had decided it was his money again and Will didn't feel like arguing with him.

>> You did not pay Jim a cent.

> Your objection -- that he didn't physically give or send the money to Jim -- is just petty nitpicking on your part:
> like telling me that I don't pay sales tax "to" the government because I actually pay it to the retailer.

>> NOTE TO DONKEY: There is no correct way for you to use the words "repaid," "returned," "refunded," of "paid back," when describing what transpired between Jim and yourself. They are the *wrong* words. They do not mean what you obviously think they mean.

> The money clearly became the chimp's again when he told Will what to do with it and Will complied. If you think those words don't describe what actually happened, use your monkey brain and come with a word that does; I'm sure Will will be happy to use it instead.

Remember, I was paying Senetto money that he'd given to Zod, and then wanted a refund of, which Zod would then pay me back later. I never actually owed any money to Senetto, I wanted to settle the matter, which was to return the money and forget about it.

Yet here we are, years later, with Jim Senetto still obsessed over it.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 2:02:51 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:53:25 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > > As Jim said, you're stuck in stupid.
> > > Wow! The monkey and the chimp are saying the *same thing*! Stop the fricking presses.
> > > > To all intents and purposes (note the correct use of "To"), you paid off your debt by sending the money to a charity of Jim's choice.
> > > Both of Will's payments of $50 were made at your chimp's direction, because the Chimp had decided it was his money again and Will didn't feel like arguing with him.
> > > > You did not pay Jim a cent.
> > > Your objection -- that he didn't physically give or send the money to Jim -- is just petty nitpicking on your part:
> > > like telling me that I don't pay sales tax "to" the government because I actually pay it to the retailer.
> > No, George, it isn't.
> >
> > My objection is not that he didn't physically send or give the money to Jim -- it's that the words he chose to describe what happened *stated* that he did.
> >
> > Words matter.
> So find the right word. The Chimp gave $50 to Will, and then the Chimp decided it was his money and he'd decide how it should be spent -- no different from the government deciding I owe them money for the right to buy things, and that I should give it to the retailer. Granted that I'm not paying it to the government, what word would you use instead?
>

Your analogy is flawed (as per usual), George. The retailer is functioning as a middle man, and will pass your money on to the government.

The $50 was never returned to Jim, so you cannot say that he had been "paid back," or that the money had been "returned," or even "refunded" to him.

Will and I have already been over this, numerous times, and have agreed that the money was sent, as Jim directed, to a charity of Jim's choice.

> > It is hardly picking a nit to insist that words be used correctly in a writers' group.
> If your complaint were really about his use of an "correct word then you'd have told him what you consider the "correct word". It sound like you're simply picking a nit to try to pretend the Chimp was the one victimized here.
>

The use of a correct word has nothing to do with establishing the victim.

I remain convinced that the steak dinner was a con job -- perhaps an unintentional con job, but a con job all the same.

At best, it was a selfish, and inconsiderate (both to Jim and Stinky George) act for Will to treat himself to a steak dinner with money intended to help George.

> > > > NOTE TO DONKEY: There is no correct way for you to use the words "repaid," "returned," "refunded," of "paid back," when describing what transpired between Jim and yourself. They are the *wrong* words. They do not mean what you obviously think they mean.
> > > The money clearly became the chimp's again when he told Will what to do with it and Will complied. If you think those words don't describe what actually happened, use your monkey brain and come with a word that does; I'm sure Will will be happy to use it instead.
> > >
> > In that case, it became Jim's because Jim "had decided it was his money again"
> No, Michael; people cannot just unlilaterally decide that things they've given away are theirs again. It became the Chimpl's money, not because he had decided it was his again, but because Will agreed to that.
>

Don't look at me. You're the one who made up this approach to it. AFAICS, you're attempting to establish ownership of money that is not in one's physical possession (much as a bank account, or stocks and bonds). If Will agreed *with Jim* that Jim's claim to ownership of the money was valid, then he would be legally compelled to use it as Jim directed.

In any case, he did not "return" the money to Jim. He gave the money to a third party at Jim's direction.

The matter was settled (amicably, one assumes, to both parties).

But to say that the money was "returned to Jim" is inaccurate. Words matter.

> -- in which case Will did not pay it back.
> So you admit it's correct to say that the Chimp got back ownership of the money -- but you insist it's incorrect to say that the Chimp got back the money.

He got the power to dispense with the money as he saw fit. He did not get the money back.

> > Do you understand the difference between Jim's reclaiming ownership of the money and Will's *paying the money back* to him?
> Yes, Michael -- as I explained in the sales tax example. By the same Monkeylogic, I do not pay sales tax to the government.

As explained, you do. The sales tax you pay to the merchant is forwarded to the government.

> > And why would you use dunce logic to defend Will's misuse of several words and phrases -- especially when he had finally seemed to understand them? Do you want him to continue writing like an illiterate for the rest of his life?
> It seems as though you do, since you're refusing to say what "literate" word he should use instead. It looks like you're having too much fun calling him an "illiterate."

I suggest that you scroll up and read over my exchanges with Will.

Here is a sample from a post made by me in this thread on May 6:

So close! The third line should read "So the money was paid and the matter was settled."

As you can see, I have corrected his statement for him.

George Dance wrote:

> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:53:25 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> > > As Jim said, you're stuck in stupid.
>> > Wow! The monkey and the chimp are saying the *same thing*! Stop the fricking presses.
>> > > To all intents and purposes (note the correct use of "To"), you paid off your debt by sending the money to a charity of Jim's choice.
>> > Both of Will's payments of $50 were made at your chimp's direction, because the Chimp had decided it was his money again and Will didn't feel like arguing with him.
>> > > You did not pay Jim a cent.
>> > Your objection -- that he didn't physically give or send the money to Jim -- is just petty nitpicking on your part:
>> > like telling me that I don't pay sales tax "to" the government because I actually pay it to the retailer.
>> No, George, it isn't.
>>
>> My objection is not that he didn't physically send or give the money to Jim -- it's that the words he chose to describe what happened *stated* that he did.
>>
>> Words matter.

> So find the right word. The Chimp gave $50 to Will, and then the Chimp decided it was his money and he'd decide how it should be spent -- no different from the government deciding I owe them money for the right to buy things, and that I should give it to the retailer. Granted that I'm not paying it to the government, what word would you use instead?

>> It is hardly picking a nit to insist that words be used correctly in a writers' group.

> If your complaint were really about his use of an "correct word then you'd have told him what you consider the "correct word". It sound like you're simply picking a nit to try to pretend the Chimp was the one victimized here.

>> > > NOTE TO DONKEY: There is no correct way for you to use the words "repaid," "returned," "refunded," of "paid back," when describing what transpired between Jim and yourself. They are the *wrong* words. They do not mean what you obviously think they mean.
>> > The money clearly became the chimp's again when he told Will what to do with it and Will complied. If you think those words don't describe what actually happened, use your monkey brain and come with a word that does; I'm sure Will will be happy to use it instead.
>> >
>> In that case, it became Jim's because Jim "had decided it was his money again"

> No, Michael; people cannot just unlilaterally decide that things they've given away are theirs again. It became the Chimpl's money, not because he had decided it was his again, but because Will agreed to that.

And the money can't really be called a gift because Senetto wanted it paid back.

> -- in which case Will did not pay it back.

> So you admit it's correct to say that the Chimp got back ownership of the money -- but you insist it's incorrect to say that the Chimp got back the money.

>> Do you understand the difference between Jim's reclaiming ownership of the money and Will's *paying the money back* to him?

> Yes, Michael -- as I explained in the sales tax example. By the same Monkeylogic, I do not pay sales tax to the government.

>> And why would you use dunce logic to defend Will's misuse of several words and phrases -- especially when he had finally seemed to understand them? Do you want him to continue writing like an illiterate for the rest of his life?

> It seems as though you do, since you're refusing to say what "literate" word he should use instead. It looks like you're having too much fun calling him an "illiterate."

...

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 2:02:51 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:53:25 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:45:43 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:15:33 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > > As Jim said, you're stuck in stupid.
> > > Wow! The monkey and the chimp are saying the *same thing*! Stop the fricking presses.
> > > > To all intents and purposes (note the correct use of "To"), you paid off your debt by sending the money to a charity of Jim's choice.
> > > Both of Will's payments of $50 were made at your chimp's direction, because the Chimp had decided it was his money again and Will didn't feel like arguing with him.
> > > > You did not pay Jim a cent.
> > > Your objection -- that he didn't physically give or send the money to Jim -- is just petty nitpicking on your part:
> > > like telling me that I don't pay sales tax "to" the government because I actually pay it to the retailer.
> > No, George, it isn't.
> >
> > My objection is not that he didn't physically send or give the money to Jim -- it's that the words he chose to describe what happened *stated* that he did.
> >
> > Words matter.
> So find the right word. The Chimp gave $50 to Will, and then the Chimp decided it was his money and he'd decide how it should be spent -- no different from the government deciding I owe them money for the right to buy things, and that I should give it to the retailer. Granted that I'm not paying it to the government, what word would you use instead?
> > It is hardly picking a nit to insist that words be used correctly in a writers' group.
> If your complaint were really about his use of an "correct word then you'd have told him what you consider the "correct word". It sound like you're simply picking a nit to try to pretend the Chimp was the one victimized here.
> > > > NOTE TO DONKEY: There is no correct way for you to use the words "repaid," "returned," "refunded," of "paid back," when describing what transpired between Jim and yourself. They are the *wrong* words. They do not mean what you obviously think they mean.
> > > The money clearly became the chimp's again when he told Will what to do with it and Will complied. If you think those words don't describe what actually happened, use your monkey brain and come with a word that does; I'm sure Will will be happy to use it instead.
> > >
> > In that case, it became Jim's because Jim "had decided it was his money again"
> No, Michael; people cannot just unlilaterally decide that things they've given away are theirs again. It became the Chimpl's money, not because he had decided it was his again, but because Will agreed to that.
> -- in which case Will did not pay it back.
> So you admit it's correct to say that the Chimp got back ownership of the money -- but you insist it's incorrect to say that the Chimp got back the money.
> > Do you understand the difference between Jim's reclaiming ownership of the money and Will's *paying the money back* to him?
> Yes, Michael -- as I explained in the sales tax example. By the same Monkeylogic, I do not pay sales tax to the government.
> > And why would you use dunce logic to defend Will's misuse of several words and phrases -- especially when he had finally seemed to understand them? Do you want him to continue writing like an illiterate for the rest of his life?
> It seems as though you do, since you're refusing to say what "literate" word he should use instead. It looks like you're having too much fun calling him an "illiterate."

Pendragon has show his real agenda here, which is to turn this into another attack thread.

And so it goes.