On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 2:32:42 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
> Dockery:
>
> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
>
> Fascinating!

My entire post, for context;

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.

(Moved from the troll thread.)

Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>>
>> Dockery:
>>
>> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
>>
>> Fascinating!

> My entire post, for context;

> 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,"

Like I said, 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.

To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.

🙂

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >>
> >> Dockery:
> >>
> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
> >>
> >> Fascinating!
>
> > My entire post, for context;
>
> > 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,"
>
> Like I said, 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..
>
> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight..

Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim, you did not pay the money *back.*

It seems that Donkeys are incapable of retaining knowledge for more than a week at a stretch.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dockery:
>> >>
>> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
>> >>
>> >> Fascinating!
>>
>> > My entire post, for context;
>>
>> > 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,"
>>
>> Like I said, 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..
>>
>> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.

> Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim

The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.

I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.

That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.

HTH and HAND.

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dockery:
> >> >>
> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
> >> >>
> >> >> Fascinating!
> >>
> >> > My entire post, for context;
> >>
> >> > 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,"
> >>
> >> Like I said, 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..
> >>
> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
>
> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.

You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.

> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.

You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.

> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.

Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.

And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>
>> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dockery:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fascinating!
>> >>
>> >> > My entire post, for context;
>> >>
>> >> > 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,"
>> >>
>> >> Like I said, 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..
>> >>
>> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
>>
>> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
>> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.

> You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.

>> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.

> You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.

No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.

>> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.

> Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.

He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.

I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.

> And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.

So let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.

🙂

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dockery:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Fascinating!
> >> >>
> >> >> > My entire post, for context;
> >> >>
> >> >> > 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,"
> >> >>
> >> >> Like I said, 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..
> >> >>
> >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
> >>
> >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
> >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
>
> > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
>
> >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
>
> > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
> No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
> >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
>
> > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
> He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
>
> I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.

Do you understand what the prefix, "re-" means?

You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.

> > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
> So let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.

Since this is a writers' group, let's let it rest in proper English.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
>> >> >> >> Dockery:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Fascinating!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > My entire post, for context;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 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,"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Like I said, 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..
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
>> >>
>> >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
>> >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
>>
>> > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
>>
>> >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
>>
>> > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
>> No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
>> >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
>>
>> > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
>> He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
>>
>> I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.

> Do you understand

I do, you're the one who seems confused.

> You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.

I paid the money to the charity Jim Senetto decided on, so his money was paid back.

>> > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.

So, like I said, let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.

HTH and HAND.

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:07:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Dockery:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Fascinating!
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > My entire post, for context;
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > 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,"
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Like I said, 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..
> > >> >>
> > >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
> > >>
> > >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
> > >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
> >
> > > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
> >
> > >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
> >
> > > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
> > No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
> > >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> >
> > > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
> > He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
> >
> > I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.
> Do you understand what the prefix, "re-" means?
>
> You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
> > > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
> > So let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
We can send money to Jim Senetto if we want to. $20s and $100s, unmarked, Ten equal straps of 100 notes each.

> Since this is a writers' group, let's let it rest in proper English.
We wonder who will have the last word?

NancyGene wrote:

> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:07:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
>> > >> >> >> Dockery:
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Fascinating!
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> > My entire post, for context;
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> > 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,"
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Like I said, 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..
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
>> > >>
>> > >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
>> > >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
>> >
>> > > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
>> >
>> > >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
>> >
>> > > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
>> > No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
>> > >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
>> >
>> > > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
>> > He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
>> >
>> > I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.
>> Do you understand what the prefix, "re-" means?
>>
>> You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
>> > > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
>> > So let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> We can send money to Jim Senetto if we want to. $20s and $100s, unmarked, Ten equal straps of 100 notes each

Sure, have fun.

🙂

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:07:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Dockery:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Fascinating!
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > My entire post, for context;
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > 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,"
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Like I said, 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..
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
> > > >>
> > > >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
> > > >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
> > >
> > > > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
> > >
> > > >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
> > >
> > > > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
> > > No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
> > > >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> > >
> > > > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
> > > He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
> > >
> > > I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.
> > Do you understand what the prefix, "re-" means?
> >
> > You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
> > > > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
> > > So let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> We can send money to Jim Senetto if we want to. $20s and $100s, unmarked, Ten equal straps of 100 notes each.
> > Since this is a writers' group, let's let it rest in proper English.
> We wonder who will have the last word?
We just found out that Mr. Senetto wants us to send the money to charity. We are not refunding or returning it, loaning it or stipulating on its purpose.

NancyGene wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:07:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> > > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> > > >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> Dockery:
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> Fascinating!
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> > My entire post, for context;
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> > 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,"
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Like I said, 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..
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
>> > > >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
>> > >
>> > > > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
>> > >
>> > > >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
>> > >
>> > > > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
>> > > No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
>> > > >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
>> > >
>> > > > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
>> > > He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
>> > >
>> > > I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.
>> > Do you understand what the prefix, "re-" means?
>> >
>> > You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
>> > > > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
>> > > So let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
>> We can send money to Jim Senetto if we want to. $20s and $100s, unmarked, Ten equal straps of 100 notes each.
>
> We just found out that Mr. Senetto wants us to send the money to charity

That's great, y'all have fun.

🙂

NancyGene <nancygene.andjayme@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ef4165d3-072f-49d2-ac5c-94b71f057206n@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:07:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wro
> te:
>> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>
>> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrot
> e:
>> > > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery w
> rote:
>> > > >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> Dockery:
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but
>> > > >> >> >> rather
> a sort of loan."
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> Fascinating!
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> > My entire post, for context;
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> > 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, Edwa
> rd Rochester Esq. wrote:
>> > > >> >> >>> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:38 PM UTC-4, Ed
> ward 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 h
> is choice.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> Why do you stubbornly insist in misusing the words "paid
>> > > >> >> >> bac
> k,"
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Like I said, that's what it boiled down to in the end.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Jim Senetto supposedly donated money to Zod then whined
>> > > >> >> about i
> t for years.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> In order to try to stop Senetto's whining, I "paid back"
>> > > >> >> the mo
> ney Senetto had supposedly donated to Zod.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather
>> > > >> >> a so
> rt of loan..
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the
>> > > >> >> recor
> d straight.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
>> > > >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided
>> > > >> on.
>> > >
>> > > > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first
>> > > > received
> it from said charity.
>> > >
>> > > >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
>> > >
>> > > > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity
>> > > > as p
> er Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to
> make up for it.
>> > > No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
>> > > >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on
>> > > >> this
> , there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
>> > >
>> > > > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see
>> > > > how
> you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
>> > > He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
>> > >
>> > > I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed
>> > > the money lent Zod, as he requested.
>> > Do you understand what the prefix, "re-" means?
>> >
>> > You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
>> > > > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
>> > > So let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will
>> > > be
> no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
>> We can send money to Jim Senetto if we want to. $20s and $100s,
>> unmarked,
> Ten equal straps of 100 notes each.
>> > Since this is a writers' group, let's let it rest in proper
>> > English.
>> We wonder who will have the last word?
> We just found out that Mr. Senetto wants us to send the money to
> charity. We are not refunding or returning it, loaning it or
> stipulating on its purpose.

I iz confuzzled. 50 bucks went to Happy Homes Animal Rescue. It fed
hungry kitties who don't have the luxury of cheap steak dinners in
columbus.

--
"If the viewer doesn't read the language the film is in, that's why
subtitles are provided." - Will Dockery being his usual incoherent
self.

Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:

> NancyGene <nancygene.andjayme@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:ef4165d3-072f-49d2-ac5c-94b71f057206n@googlegroups.com:

>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:07:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wro
>> te:
>>> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>>
>>> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrot
>> e:
>>> > > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery w
>> rote:
>>> > > >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>>> > > >> >> >>
>>> > > >> >> >> Dockery:
>>> > > >> >> >>
>>> > > >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but
>>> > > >> >> >> rather
>> a sort of loan."
>>> > > >> >> >>
>>> > > >> >> >> Fascinating!
>>> > > >> >>
>>> > > >> >> > My entire post, for context;
>>> > > >> >>
>>> > > >> >> > 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, Edwa
>> rd Rochester Esq. wrote:
>>> > > >> >> >>> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:38 PM UTC-4, Ed
>> ward 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 h
>> is choice.
>>> > > >> >>
>>> > > >> >> >> Why do you stubbornly insist in misusing the words "paid
>>> > > >> >> >> bac
>> k,"
>>> > > >> >>
>>> > > >> >> Like I said, that's what it boiled down to in the end.
>>> > > >> >>
>>> > > >> >> Jim Senetto supposedly donated money to Zod then whined
>>> > > >> >> about i
>> t for years.
>>> > > >> >>
>>> > > >> >> In order to try to stop Senetto's whining, I "paid back"
>>> > > >> >> the mo
>> ney Senetto had supposedly donated to Zod.
>>> > > >> >>
>>> > > >> >> It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather
>>> > > >> >> a so
>> rt of loan..
>>> > > >> >>
>>> > > >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the
>>> > > >> >> recor
>> d straight.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
>>> > > >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided
>>> > > >> on.
>>> > >
>>> > > > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first
>>> > > > received
>> it from said charity.
>>> > >
>>> > > >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
>>> > >
>>> > > > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity
>>> > > > as p
>> er Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to
>> make up for it.
>>> > > No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
>>> > > >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on
>>> > > >> this
>> , there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
>>> > >
>>> > > > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see
>>> > > > how
>> you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
>>> > > He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed
>>> > > the money lent Zod, as he requested.
>>> > Do you understand what the prefix, "re-" means?
>>> >
>>> > You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
>>> > > > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
>>> > > So let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will
>>> > > be
>> no more money sent to Jim Senetto.

<Snipped for brevity>

> I iz confuzzled. 50 bucks went to Happy Homes Animal Rescue

A good cause.

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:12:08 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> >> Dockery:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Fascinating!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > My entire post, for context;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > 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,"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Like I said, 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..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
> >> >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
> >>
> >> > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
> >>
> >> >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
> >>
> >> > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
> >> No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
> >> >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> >>
> >> > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
> >> He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
> >>
> >> I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.
>
> > Do you understand
> I do, you're the one who seems confused.
> > You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
> I paid the money to the charity

Yes, you did.

> Jim Senetto decided on,

Yes, Jim decided on it, but as I've explained to you, you cannot act on his decision (which is a conscious choice known only to Jim at the time). In order for you to know where to send the money, you had to wait for Jim's instructions. You acted on his directions.

> so his money was paid back.

Wrong. The money was paid to the charity.

The animal shelter never had the money until you sent it to them, so you could not possibly have paid it *back* to them.

This is Basic English, Donkey. If you're having this much difficulty with Basic English, you really need to take a Basic English course. I'd found several *free* courses online when searching for you in the past. I suggest that you conduct your own search and sign up for one.

> >> > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
> So, like I said, let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.

The debt has been settled, Donkey. No one owes anyone any money.

(Technically, you owe some money to General Stink. The money had been sent to help him; but you used it to treat yourself to a steak dinner, then made him work to pay you off for the money you sent to the charity.)

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:12:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> >> >> Dockery:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Fascinating!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > My entire post, for context;
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > 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,"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Like I said, 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..
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
>> >> >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
>> >>
>> >> > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
>> >>
>> >> >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
>> >>
>> >> > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
>> >> No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
>> >> >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
>> >>
>> >> > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
>> >> He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
>> >>
>> >> I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.
>>
>> > Do you understand
>> I do, you're the one who seems confused.
>> > You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
>> I paid the money to the charity

> Yes, you did.

>> Jim Senetto decided on,

> Yes, Jim decided on it, but as I've explained to you, you cannot act on his decision (which is a conscious choice known only to Jim at the time). In order for you to know where to send the money, you had to wait for Jim's instructions. You acted on his directions.

>> so his money was paid back.

> Wrong. The money was paid to the charity.

> The animal shelter never had the money until you sent it to them, so you could not possibly have paid it *back* to them.

> This is Basic English, Donkey. If you're having this much difficulty with Basic English, you really need to take a Basic English course. I'd found several *free* courses online when searching for you in the past. I suggest that you conduct your own search and sign up for one.

>> >> > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
>> So, like I said, let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.

> The debt has been settled. No one owes anyone any money.

I never owed anyone any money to begin with, actually.

> you owe some money

No, I don't, I had nothing to do with that money.

> The money had been sent to help him; but you used it

That's a damned lie, Pendragon, but what else would I expect from a delusional little fuckwit monkey boy like you?

🙂

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:12:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> >>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Dockery:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Fascinating!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > My entire post, for context;
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > 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,"
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Like I said, 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..
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
> >> >> >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
> >> >>
> >> >> > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
> >> >>
> >> >> > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
> >> >> No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
> >> >> >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
> >> >> He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.
> >>
> >> > Do you understand
> >> I do, you're the one who seems confused.
> >> > You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
> >> I paid the money to the charity
>
> > Yes, you did.
>
> >> Jim Senetto decided on,
>
> > Yes, Jim decided on it, but as I've explained to you, you cannot act on his decision (which is a conscious choice known only to Jim at the time). In order for you to know where to send the money, you had to wait for Jim's instructions. You acted on his directions.
>
> >> so his money was paid back.
>
> > Wrong. The money was paid to the charity.
>
> > The animal shelter never had the money until you sent it to them, so you could not possibly have paid it *back* to them.
>
> > This is Basic English, Donkey. If you're having this much difficulty with Basic English, you really need to take a Basic English course. I'd found several *free* courses online when searching for you in the past. I suggest that you conduct your own search and sign up for one.
>
> >> >> > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
> >> So, like I said, let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> > The debt has been settled. No one owes anyone any money.
>
> I never owed anyone any money to begin with, actually.

In your sociopathic opinion.

> > you owe some money
>
> No, I don't, I had nothing to do with that money.
> > The money had been sent to help him; but you used it
> That's a damned lie, Pendragon, but what else would I expect from a delusional little fuckwit monkey boy like you?

Where's the lie, Donkey?

Oh... right... I neglected to mention that you treated DirtNap Dave to a steak dinner as well.

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:21:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:12:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> >>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> >> >> >> Dockery:
> > >> >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
> > >> >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> >> Fascinating!
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> > My entire post, for context;
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> > 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,"
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> Like I said, 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..
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
> > >> >> >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
> > >> >> No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
> > >> >> >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
> > >> >> He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.
> > >>
> > >> > Do you understand
> > >> I do, you're the one who seems confused.
> > >> > You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
> > >> I paid the money to the charity
> >
> > > Yes, you did.
> >
> > >> Jim Senetto decided on,
> >
> > > Yes, Jim decided on it, but as I've explained to you, you cannot act on his decision (which is a conscious choice known only to Jim at the time). In order for you to know where to send the money, you had to wait for Jim's instructions. You acted on his directions.
> >
> > >> so his money was paid back.
> >
> > > Wrong. The money was paid to the charity.
> >
> > > The animal shelter never had the money until you sent it to them, so you could not possibly have paid it *back* to them.
> >
> > > This is Basic English, Donkey. If you're having this much difficulty with Basic English, you really need to take a Basic English course. I'd found several *free* courses online when searching for you in the past. I suggest that you conduct your own search and sign up for one.
> >
> > >> >> > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
> > >> So, like I said, let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> > > The debt has been settled. No one owes anyone any money.
> >
> > I never owed anyone any money to begin with, actually.
> In your sociopathic opinion

No, that's a fact.

The money was sent to Zod and Zod spent the money as he pleased, as was his right.

> > > you owe some money
> >
> > No, I don't, I had nothing to do with that money.
> > > The money had been sent to help him; but you used it
> > That's a damned lie, Pendragon, but what else would I expect from a delusional little fuckwit monkey boy like you?
> Where's the lie

What you wrote, as usual.

HTH and HAND.

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:30:16 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:21:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:12:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >> >>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> >> >> Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> Dockery:
> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> Fascinating!
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> > My entire post, for context;
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> > 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,"
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> Like I said, 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..
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> To correct the lies and misrepresentations and to set the record straight.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> > Unless you gave the money *back* to Jim
> > > >> >> >> The money was returned, to the charity that Senetto decided on.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > You cannot *return* money to a charity, unless you'd first received it from said charity.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >> I gave the money back, and Zod refunded me.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > You're wrong on two counts: 1) you sent the money to a charity as per Jim's instructions; 2) you forced a homeless man to give you $50 to make up for it.
> > > >> >> No, Zod did some yard work to cover my expense.
> > > >> >> >> That's the end of the matter, after I've spent 100 dollars on this, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Since Zod is the one who ended up footing the bill, I don't see how you can possibly claim to have spent anything.
> > > >> >> He did, Zod did some yard work for me to cover my expense.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'm just stating for the record that Jim Senetto was reimbursed the money lent Zod, as he requested.
> > > >>
> > > >> > Do you understand
> > > >> I do, you're the one who seems confused.
> > > >> > You cannot re-imburse someone by giving his money to someone else.
> > > >> I paid the money to the charity
> > >
> > > > Yes, you did.
> > >
> > > >> Jim Senetto decided on,
> > >
> > > > Yes, Jim decided on it, but as I've explained to you, you cannot act on his decision (which is a conscious choice known only to Jim at the time). In order for you to know where to send the money, you had to wait for Jim's instructions. You acted on his directions.
> > >
> > > >> so his money was paid back.
> > >
> > > > Wrong. The money was paid to the charity.
> > >
> > > > The animal shelter never had the money until you sent it to them, so you could not possibly have paid it *back* to them.
> > >
> > > > This is Basic English, Donkey. If you're having this much difficulty with Basic English, you really need to take a Basic English course. I'd found several *free* courses online when searching for you in the past. I suggest that you conduct your own search and sign up for one.
> > >
> > > >> >> > And, FWIW, Jim has already agreed that the matter is settled.
> > > >> So, like I said, let's let it rest, then, and again, for the record, there will be no more money sent to Jim Senetto.
> > > > The debt has been settled. No one owes anyone any money.
> > >
> > > I never owed anyone any money to begin with, actually.
> > In your sociopathic opinion
> No, that's a fact.
>
> The money was sent to Zod and Zod spent the money as he pleased, as was his right.
> > > > you owe some money
> > >
> > > No, I don't, I had nothing to do with that money.
> > > > The money had been sent to help him; but you used it
> > > That's a damned lie, Pendragon, but what else would I expect from a delusional little fuckwit monkey boy like you?
> > Where's the lie
> What you wrote, as usual.

Here we go again:

1) You introduced General Stink to the group.
2) Approximately one week after his introduction, you posted that he was about to be evicted (implying that you were seeking help).
3) Jim offered to send you $50 for him.
4) You accepted.
5) After Jim confirmed that the money had been mailed, you told him that you didn't trust the General to spend it on anything other than booze, drugs and whores.
6) Jim then asked you to handle the money and to see that it was spent on items to help the General survive the winter (like camping supplies).
7) When the money arrived, you spent it on a steak dinner for three: The General, DirtNap Dave, and yourself.

Since you had been entrusted with spending the money on items to help the General to survive in his homeless state, your misuse of the funds means that you were legally responsible for returning the money to Jim.

Jim instructed you to send it to a charity instead, and the matter was resolved.

Which part are you claiming is a "damned lie"?

The damned lie is that you keep trying to put blame on me for how Zod spent the money.

If Senetto or anyone else sends someone money, that's it, they don't have the right to demand how the money is spent.

Senetto, control freak that he is, whined about the money for years so I returned his money so he'd supposedly quiet down about it.

Zod was free to spend the money as he pleased, and it was a positive thing that he spent the money on food.

I returned the money, paid to the charity of his choice, and now the matter is settled.

HTH and HAND.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 12:50:14 AM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> The damned lie is that you keep trying to put blame on me for how Zod spent the money.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "lie."

You're differing with me over who was accountable for the money -- but a difference of opinion does not constitute a lie (damned or otherwise).

> If Senetto or anyone else sends someone money, that's it, they don't have the right to demand how the money is spent.

Legally he does, if he *stipulates* how the money is to be spent beforehand.. The fact that he made such stipulations (while the money was in the mail) is documented here.

If I send you $10 to rent your shed for a night, and you accept my $10, you are responsible for providing me with the use of your shed.

You cannot claim that the money was a "gift," buy yourself two Buds, and tell me to sleep in the park.

When Jim sent the money, he had originally stated that it was to be used to tide over his landlord until his (apparently make-believe) VA check arrived. Once you'd explained that the landlord was fed up with the General, Jim told you to use it to by the General supplies for outdoor living in the winter.

IOW: Jim didn't say "I'm sending $50 as a gift. Spend it as you like." He said, "I'm sending you $50 to buy the General supplies."

This is no different than if I sent you $10 to rent your shed.

The money was sent to purchase supplies. It was not sent to treat you and your brother to steak dinners.

In short, you stole the $50. Yes, Donkey, you stole it. Jim could have taken you to court over it -- and won -- because your conversations with him wherein he *stipulated* how the money was to be spent are archived at AAPC.
> Senetto, control freak that he is, whined about the money for years so I returned his money so he'd supposedly quiet down about it.

Jim didn't whine about anything, Donkey. That's another lie on your part.

Jim could have taken you to court, but he chose not to.

And, for the 137th time, you did not *return* the money to him. Had you *returned* it, Jim would have it. "Return" means to "give back to." You paid the money to a charity at Jim's direction. You did not give Jim one red cent.

> Zod was free to spend the money as he pleased, and it was a positive thing that he spent the money on food.

Zod was free to spend it -- once you'd given it to him (assuming that you did give it to him).

You, however, had been instructed to use the money to purchase supplies for him -- or, more specifically, to use your influence to see that he spent it on supplies.

But let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that you'd given the General the money. Since you were under *legal obligation* to see that the money was spent on supplies, you were not free to treat *yourself* to a steak dinner on it -- with or without the General's blessing.

When the General invited you (assuming solely for the sake of argument that he did invite you), you were *under obligation* to turn him down. You were to have said "I'm sorry, but I think that money would be better spent on supplies for you."

However, greedy little glutton that you are, you smacked your lips, tied a bib around your neck and feasted on the funds sent to help your homeless friend.

But I don't believe that the General ever saw the money. Jim has posted a quote from you (which *may* have come from a personal email), wherein you say something to the effect of "Hey Zod, the check came in the mail today. Let's go get steak dinners!"

I don't believe that the General even knew that the money had been intended for him. I think you pretended that the money had been sent to you, and that you were the one inviting him to share in you windfall.

And I remain convinced that the reason a "maniac(al)" General attacked you and Dave with a metal pipe shortly after the incident was because he found out (probably by reading AAPC) that the money had been sent to him -- and that you and your Brother ate two thirds of it.

> I returned the money, paid to the charity of his choice, and now the matter is settled.

How can you "return" something to a charity, if the charity never had it to begin with?

You are using a very basic, and universally understood English word incorrectly.

You could not possibly have passed the 4th grade with such a limited understanding of language.

I'm aware that you had been left back at least twice (probably three times), but that's no excuse for you to continue writing and speaking like an illiterate moron for the next 55 years.

Take a remedial writing course already.

(Lies from Michael Pendragon snipped)

Again, the damned lie is that you keep trying to put blame on me for how Zod spent the money.

If Senetto or anyone else sends someone money, that's it, they don't have the right to demand how the money is spent.

Jim Senetto, control freak that he is, whined about the money for years so I returned his money so he'd supposedly quiet down about it.

Zod was free to spend the money as he pleased, and it was a positive thing that he spent the money on food.

I returned the money, paid to the charity of his choice, and now the matter is settled.

In other words, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?

🙂

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 2:51:32 AM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> (Lies from Michael Pendragon snipped)
>
> Again, the damned lie is that you keep trying to put blame on me for how Zod spent the money.
> If Senetto or anyone else sends someone money, that's it, they don't have the right to demand how the money is spent.

Legally, he does have that right.

If Jim says "Here is $50 to buy the General camping supplies, then you are legally obligated to use it for buying camping supplies.

> Jim Senetto, control freak that he is, whined about the money for years so I returned his money so he'd supposedly quiet down about it.

That is a lie. You never returned a cent to Jim.

> Zod was free to spend the money as he pleased, and it was a positive thing that he spent the money on food.

That is your opinion. Treating you and your brother to steak dinners was not the reason why the money had been sent. When Jim sent the money, he'd stipulated that it was to help the General survive the winter while homeless.. That serves as a contract between him and you (as the recipient of the money).

Since the General was (allegedly) given the money by you, he was under no obligation to Jim -- but you were. Even if you believed that the General's spending the money on a dinner was better than him blowing it on booze, drugs and whores, you should never have included yourself, or your brother, in the meal.

> I returned the money, paid to the charity of his choice, and now the matter is settled.

You did not return anything, Donkey. Learn how to speak basic English.

> In other words, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?

Why can't you learn how to use a commonly understood word like "returned" correctly?

Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
>> Dockery:
>>
>> "It really wasn't a gift or donation in the end, but rather a sort of loan."
>>
>> Fascinating!

> My entire post, for context;

> 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,"

Like I said, because that's what it boiled down to in the end.

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

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

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

And so it goes.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 2:51:32 AM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> (Lies from Michael Pendragon snipped)
>
> Again, the damned lie is that you keep trying to put blame on me for how Zod spent the money.
> If Senetto or anyone else sends someone money, that's it, they don't have the right to demand how the money is spent.
> Jim Senetto, control freak that he is, whined about the money for years so I returned his money so he'd supposedly quiet down about it.
> Zod was free to spend the money as he pleased, and it was a positive thing that he spent the money on food.
>
> I returned the money, paid to the charity of his choice, and now the matter is settled.
> In other words, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?

This bray has already been addressed above.