How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.

There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.

Joe Friday

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:07:42 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.
>
> There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.

Well, you've only been working on the story six years, ace reporter "Edward Rochester" -- I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it in another six or so.. At least you have a title -- so let's start with that. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 4:48:26 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:07:42 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.
> >
> > There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.
> Well, you've only been working on the story six years, ace reporter "Edward Rochester" -- I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it in another six or so. At least you have a title -- so let's start with that. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?

Good morning George. As well you know, your boy Dockery is well known for 'correcting the record'.

To date, your boy Dockery has not corrected the record of my claim that she ran away.

All the info you need is in the autobiography, written by your boy himself. Go read it.

If this is your attempt at 'tit for tate', or 'tate for tit', I have seen a photo of your wife and daughter and can say with certainty, they have never run anywhere except to the refrigerator.

To refresh: Dockery waited for his wife to return from work, expecting to both swallow a tab...she never showed up. Their child was left with her parents....some say she was kidnapped but that usually comes with a ransom demand. There was no demand (there was no money for such a demand).

The rest, as I've said, was written by your boy, Dockery.

If your boy Dockery would like to correct the record, he wrote, have at it.

To continue, the wife was located in a mental hospital, where the husband, Dockery, was not allowed to see her.

The family of the wife and the cops knew where she was, but didn't tell the husband, Dockery.

I say she ran away from Dockery, having no other choice.

Dockery told all this story himself and as i've said, has not corrected the record on my words 'ran away'.

If I don't get back to your next 'tat' or 'tit', I shall return after work and go on with this nugget you needed to start your day, group-wise.

J

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:35:46 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 4:48:26 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:07:42 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.
> > >
> > > There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.
> > Well, you've only been working on the story six years, ace reporter "Edward Rochester" -- I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it in another six or so. At least you have a title -- so let's start with that. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> Good morning George. As well you know, your boy Dockery is well known for 'correcting the record'.

He still calls it that, but he long ago gave up trying to correct every reiteration. Nowadays he just snips the incorrect parts.

> To date, your boy Dockery has not corrected the record of my claim that she ran away.
As you probably don't remember, he gave up chatting about his personal life on aapc as a New Year's resolution (in 2018, IIRC). In addition, he's given up reading these troll threads of yours.

> All the info you need is in the autobiography, written by your boy himself. Go read it.
I read it; it's published on my wiki. It tells a different story. That's why I asked to see your sources for the "ran away" claim; his wiki bio isn't one of them.

> If this is your attempt at 'tit for tate', or 'tate for tit', I have seen a photo of your wife and daughter and can say with certainty, they have never run anywhere except to the refrigerator.

No, that was an attempt to show that "Edward Rochester's" stories are full of shit. But, speaking of Tit for Tat, thanks for the reminder that you and your "colleagues" have published pictures online of not just me but my wife, my family, and my home. If you understand the rules of T4T (reciprocal justice), you'll realize what that gives me the right to do to you when I feel like it. Do you?

> To refresh: Dockery waited for his wife to return from work, expecting to both swallow a tab...she never showed up. Their child was left with her parents....some say she was kidnapped but that usually comes with a ransom demand. There was no demand (there was no money for such a demand).
Well, don't expect me to give you any details. The most I'll tell you is that she was detained and held against her will for some time, and when released she rejoined her husband.

> The rest, as I've said, was written by your boy, Dockery.
> If your boy Dockery would like to correct the record, he wrote, have at it.

Not only has he given up trying to correct you, but I think he no longer reads your trollthreads.

> To continue, the wife was located in a mental hospital, where the husband, Dockery, was not allowed to see her.

So you do have some details? She was committed for observation, and released as sane.

> The family of the wife and the cops knew where she was, but didn't tell the husband, Dockery.
His family wouldn't tell the husband that they'd committed his wife to a mental hospital? How odd. Yet they tried to bill his insurance company for it, which is how he found out.

> I say she ran away from Dockery, having no other choice.
If you're still saying that, after discovering that his wife had been involuntarily detained, then you're lying and spreading disinformation.

> Dockery told all this story himself and as i've said, has not corrected the record on my words 'ran away'.
Then let me correct it. Your "ran away" story is lies and disinformation.

> If I don't get back to your next 'tat' or 'tit', I shall return after work and go on with this nugget you needed to start your day, group-wise.

You can do what you want; it's your thread. But I'm done here. All I wanted was a thread to link to the next time(s) you repeat this story.

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:55:09 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:35:46 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 4:48:26 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:07:42 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.
> > > >
> > > > There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.
> > > Well, you've only been working on the story six years, ace reporter "Edward Rochester" -- I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it in another six or so. At least you have a title -- so let's start with that. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > Good morning George. As well you know, your boy Dockery is well known for 'correcting the record'.
> He still calls it that, but he long ago gave up trying to correct every reiteration. Nowadays he just snips the incorrect parts.

LOL! Nowadays he snips all but the first two or three words, then makes believe the post said something else.

> > To date, your boy Dockery has not corrected the record of my claim that she ran away.
> As you probably don't remember, he gave up chatting about his personal life on aapc as a New Year's resolution (in 2018, IIRC).
>

He may not chat about his life, but his "autobiographical" reminiscences are posted all over the internet.

> In addition, he's given up reading these troll threads of yours.

LOL! George, you're killing me! Will reads everything that's ever been posted here.

> > All the info you need is in the autobiography, written by your boy himself. Go read it.
> I read it; it's published on my wiki. It tells a different story. That's why I asked to see your sources for the "ran away" claim; his wiki bio isn't one of them.
>

Let's see...

1) Kathy was supposed to meet Will at the lumber yard to drop acid after her waitressing shift was over.
2) Kathy never showed up. In fact, she disappeared without a trace and Will spent several weeks(?)/months(?) searching for her.
3) During that time, the police asked him if a body found on the railroad tracks was his wife.
4) Kathy had gone from work to the home of a co-worker, and was planning to move to Texas with her co-worker and her co-worker's boyfriend, under an assumed name.
5) Eventually Kathy turned up in a mental institution.
6) Kathy's parents apparently knew of her whereabouts and didn't tell Will.

That sure sounds like she ran away to me.

> > If this is your attempt at 'tit for tate', or 'tate for tit', I have seen a photo of your wife and daughter and can say with certainty, they have never run anywhere except to the refrigerator.
> No, that was an attempt to show that "Edward Rochester's" stories are full of shit. But, speaking of Tit for Tat, thanks for the reminder that you and your "colleagues" have published pictures online of not just me but my wife, my family, and my home. If you understand the rules of T4T (reciprocal justice), you'll realize what that gives me the right to do to you when I feel like it. Do you?
>

Who has published pictures of you and your family, George? I never have. And I doubt that Jim, NancyGene, Ash or ME have.

> > To refresh: Dockery waited for his wife to return from work, expecting to both swallow a tab...she never showed up. Their child was left with her parents....some say she was kidnapped but that usually comes with a ransom demand. There was no demand (there was no money for such a demand).
> Well, don't expect me to give you any details. The most I'll tell you is that she was detained and held against her will for some time, and when released she rejoined her husband.
>

That is *not* what Will has written. He *may* have told you that in private conversations, but it is certainly *not* what he has written in his numerous "autobiographies."

> > The rest, as I've said, was written by your boy, Dockery.
> > If your boy Dockery would like to correct the record, he wrote, have at it.
> Not only has he given up trying to correct you, but I think he no longer reads your trollthreads.

Stop it, George! I can't be LMAO at work.

> > To continue, the wife was located in a mental hospital, where the husband, Dockery, was not allowed to see her.
> So you do have some details? She was committed for observation, and released as sane.

She had been living with a co-worker and her co-worker's boyfriend -- both of whom she was planning on moving to Texas with under an assumed name. It sounds like a do-it-yourself witness protection program.

She was committed to the mental hospital *after* her original plans fell through.,

> > The family of the wife and the cops knew where she was, but didn't tell the husband, Dockery.
> His family wouldn't tell the husband that they'd committed his wife to a mental hospital? How odd. Yet they tried to bill his insurance company for it, which is how he found out.
>

Yes, that is odd, George. Generally, a wife's family would call her husband the minute they learn of her location -- especially when they are caring for her child and (presumably) in close contact with the child's father.

> > I say she ran away from Dockery, having no other choice.
> If you're still saying that, after discovering that his wife had been involuntarily detained, then you're lying and spreading disinformation.
>

Will has never claimed (at least not in any of the sources I've read) that she had been involuntarily detained. Will has, otoh, said that she *voluntarily* went to a co-worker's home and was *voluntarily* planning to relocate to Texas with them under an assumed name.

> > Dockery told all this story himself and as i've said, has not corrected the record on my words 'ran away'.
> Then let me correct it. Your "ran away" story is lies and disinformation.

We have Will's story as told through his various online "autobiographies," and your story which is the only one that claims she had been detained and held against her will. Not that I would trust either of you for the time of day, but Will was there and you were not -- so I'm going to have to go with Will's version.

> > If I don't get back to your next 'tat' or 'tit', I shall return after work and go on with this nugget you needed to start your day, group-wise.
> You can do what you want; it's your thread. But I'm done here. All I wanted was a thread to link to the next time(s) you repeat this story.
>

IMHO: When a young mother leaves her child with her parents and plans to relocate to Texas under an assumed name, it sounds like she was doing so to escape an abusive husband. I'm guessing that Kathy showed up at work with a bunch of black and blue marks all over her body and her co-worker took her home to shield her from Will. Her parents didn't inform Will of her whereabouts because they wanted to protect her from Will.

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:55:09 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:35:46 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 4:48:26 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:07:42 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.
> > > >
> > > > There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.
> > > Well, you've only been working on the story six years, ace reporter "Edward Rochester" -- I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it in another six or so. At least you have a title -- so let's start with that. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > Good morning George. As well you know, your boy Dockery is well known for 'correcting the record'.
> He still calls it that, but he long ago gave up trying to correct every reiteration. Nowadays he just snips the incorrect parts.
> > To date, your boy Dockery has not corrected the record of my claim that she ran away.
> As you probably don't remember, he gave up chatting about his personal life on aapc as a New Year's resolution (in 2018, IIRC). In addition, he's given up reading these troll threads of yours.
> > All the info you need is in the autobiography, written by your boy himself. Go read it.
> I read it; it's published on my wiki. It tells a different story. That's why I asked to see your sources for the "ran away" claim; his wiki bio isn't one of them.
> > If this is your attempt at 'tit for tate', or 'tate for tit', I have seen a photo of your wife and daughter and can say with certainty, they have never run anywhere except to the refrigerator.
> No, that was an attempt to show that "Edward Rochester's" stories are full of shit. But, speaking of Tit for Tat, thanks for the reminder that you and your "colleagues" have published pictures online of not just me but my wife, my family, and my home. If you understand the rules of T4T (reciprocal justice), you'll realize what that gives me the right to do to you when I feel like it. Do you?
> > To refresh: Dockery waited for his wife to return from work, expecting to both swallow a tab...she never showed up. Their child was left with her parents....some say she was kidnapped but that usually comes with a ransom demand. There was no demand (there was no money for such a demand).
> Well, don't expect me to give you any details. The most I'll tell you is that she was detained and held against her will for some time, and when released she rejoined her husband.
> > The rest, as I've said, was written by your boy, Dockery.
> > If your boy Dockery would like to correct the record, he wrote, have at it.
> Not only has he given up trying to correct you, but I think he no longer reads your trollthreads.
> > To continue, the wife was located in a mental hospital, where the husband, Dockery, was not allowed to see her.
> So you do have some details? She was committed for observation, and released as sane.
> > The family of the wife and the cops knew where she was, but didn't tell the husband, Dockery.
> His family wouldn't tell the husband that they'd committed his wife to a mental hospital? How odd. Yet they tried to bill his insurance company for it, which is how he found out.
> > I say she ran away from Dockery, having no other choice.
> If you're still saying that, after discovering that his wife had been involuntarily detained, then you're lying and spreading disinformation.
> > Dockery told all this story himself and as i've said, has not corrected the record on my words 'ran away'.
> Then let me correct it. Your "ran away" story is lies and disinformation.
> > If I don't get back to your next 'tat' or 'tit', I shall return after work and go on with this nugget you needed to start your day, group-wise.
> You can do what you want; it's your thread. But I'm done here. All I wanted was a thread to link to the next time(s) you repeat this story.

Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror...I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.

You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.

If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.

You say she came back, and then there is the Tina story, where wife and child are in one room as he is being serviced in another (Tina disappeared as well.).

You have left out the Texas travel, but why bother.

I consider Dockery nothing more than a liar, a con artist and all around untalented oaf.

Dockery and his story of life is filled with nothing but bullshit.

You do not address the 'hello's' twenty times a day...

My opinion and the opinion of many for more than 20 years in various group....Dockery is a fuck up.

You say you're intelligent, how you cannot see what most see about that deep south boy, staggers my senile mind.

Thanks for listening.

J

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:51:46 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:55:09 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:35:46 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 4:48:26 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:07:42 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> > > > > How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.
> > > > Well, you've only been working on the story six years, ace reporter "Edward Rochester" -- I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it in another six or so. At least you have a title -- so let's start with that. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?

<snip for focus>

> He may not chat about his life, but his "autobiographical" reminiscences are posted all over the internet.

Possibly. But the only one I've read, the one on my wiki, tells a different story.

That's "Will Dockery: The Atlanta Years"
https://pennyspoetry.fandom.com/wiki/Will_Dockery:_The_Atlanta_Years
("the Bio")

> > > All the info you need is in the autobiography, written by your boy himself. Go read it.

> > I read it; it's published on my wiki. It tells a different story. That's why I asked to see your sources for the "ran away" claim; his wiki bio isn't one of them.
> >
> Let's see...

Are you claiming "summary" of your is from the Bio? If so, I'll have to correct it
> 1) Kathy was supposed to meet Will at the lumber yard to drop acid after her waitressing shift was over.

Wrong. According to the Bio, Kathy was "supposed" to meet Will at their home, across the street from her work.

> 2) Kathy never showed up. In fact, she disappeared without a trace and Will spent several weeks(?)/months(?) searching for her.

That's in the Bio.

> 3) During that time, the police asked him if a body found on the railroad tracks was his wife.

Also in the Bio; Will was asked to identify a body, but never got to. (It had already been identified.)

> 4) Kathy had gone from work to the home of a co-worker, and was planning to move to Texas with her co-worker and her co-worker's boyfriend, under an assumed name.

According to the bio, she *was* found at the home of Melody and Andy Hernandez. That's just hearsay (what Will was told later, but if you want we can stipulate it.

There's nothing in the Bio about her making plans to abandon her family and child and move to Texas, or to live "under an assumed name".

> 5) Eventually Kathy turned up in a mental institution.

According to the Bio, her sister -- who showed up at the Hernandez home with police that night and "rescued" her -- then checked her into a mental institution (presumably that night).

> 6) Kathy's parents apparently knew of her whereabouts and didn't tell Will.
>
> That sure sounds like she ran away to me.

Not to me. It sounds like her sister checked her into a mental institution, probably with her father's and grandmother's knowledge.

> > Well, don't expect me to give you any details. The most I'll tell you is that she was detained and held against her will for some time, and when released she rejoined her husband.
> >
> That is *not* what Will has written. He *may* have told you that in private conversations, but it is certainly *not* what he has written in his numerous "autobiographies."

That is exactly what Will wrote in the Bio. Kathy went to the Hernandez home and got "blanked out crazy," followed by her sister showing up with police, and checking her in to a mental institution (where she remained for a month or so).

> > > To continue, the wife was located in a mental hospital, where the husband, Dockery, was not allowed to see her.
> > So you do have some details? She was committed for observation, and released as sane.
> She had been living with a co-worker and her co-worker's boyfriend -- both of whom she was planning on moving to Texas with under an assumed name. It sounds like a do-it-yourself witness protection program.
According to what Will wrote in the Bio, your first claim is false -- Kathy was living with Will in the apartment they rented from her grandmother -- while your second isn't there at all. Both sound like something you or "Edward Rochester" simply made up.

> She was committed to the mental hospital *after* her original plans fell through.,

What "original plans" are you talking about? According to the Bio, "she was blanked out crazy, and was about to go to Texas with a Waitress friend." That isn't evidence of any planning.

> > > The family of the wife and the cops knew where she was, but didn't tell the husband, Dockery.
> > His family wouldn't tell the husband that they'd committed his wife to a mental hospital? How odd. Yet they tried to bill his insurance company for it, which is how he found out.
> >
> Yes, that is odd, George. Generally, a wife's family would call her husband the minute they learn of her location -- especially when they are caring for her child and (presumably) in close contact with the child's father.

Generall, of course; but i can understand their not telling him, having no idea how he'd react. How would you react if one day your wife disappeared, and your in-laws told you they'd put her in a mental institution? I doubt I'd take it all in good humor.

> > > I say she ran away from Dockery, having no other choice.
> > If you're still saying that, after discovering that his wife had been involuntarily detained, then you're lying and spreading disinformation.
> >
> Will has never claimed (at least not in any of the sources I've read) that she had been involuntarily detained.

He claimed, in the one source I've read (the Bio), that her sister committed her to a mental institution when she was "blanked out crazy." You should read it, as "Edward Rochester" advised; you're mentioned in it.

Will has, otoh, said that she *voluntarily* went to a co-worker's home and was *voluntarily* planning to relocate to Texas with them under an assumed name.

You do realize, of course, that if she was in fact "*voluntarily* planning to relocate to Texas," she was not *voluntarily* planning to go to a mental institution.

> > > Dockery told all this story himself and as i've said, has not corrected the record on my words 'ran away'.
> > Then let me correct it. Your "ran away" story is lies and disinformation.
> We have Will's story as told through his various online "autobiographies," and your story which is the only one that claims she had been detained and held against her will.

My story (actually, Will's from the Bio) is the only one I've seen. If you've seen a different story in other "autobiographies" then PP (oSTFU).

> Not that I would trust either of you for the time of day, but Will was there and you were not -- so I'm going to have to go with Will's version.

I'm going with the one he wrote on my wiki. He was there, as you say (and you and "Edward Rochester" were not).

> IMHO: When a young mother leaves her child with her parents and plans to relocate to Texas under an assumed name, it sounds like she was doing so to escape an abusive husband.

Well, that claim is key to your whole story. So let's see where you pulled it out of.

> I'm guessing that Kathy showed up at work with a bunch of black and blue marks all over her body and her co-worker took her home to shield her from Will. Her parents didn't inform Will of her whereabouts because they wanted to protect her from Will.

So you're claiming that her father and grandmother feared that Will might do something violent, for whatever reason. That alone would be reason enough not to tell him that they'd confined his wife to a mental institution behind his back. There's no reason to imagine "black and blue marks all over her body" (unless you're writing fiction and want to spice things up for a certain audience).

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.

I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.
> You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.
If you used some other story, then let's see it. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?

> If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.
Maybe, maybe not. Don't expect me to take your word for that.

> You say she came back

No, "Edward" -- I'm telling you what Will says, in the autobiography on my wiki that you advised me to read:
"Will Dockery: The Atlanta Years"

If you want to call it that account a "lie" now, that's fine. So what account are you relying on? In particular, on what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?

> , and then there is the Tina story, where wife and child are in one room as he is being serviced in another (Tina disappeared as well.).

Tina had 'disappeared' long before that, when Will and Kathy moved into their grandmother's rental property. So I won't ask you where you got that story from at this point; let's try to deal with one at a time, shall we?

> You have left out the Texas travel, but why bother.
No problem pasting in what the Bio says about that:

'When her sister found her she was blanked out crazy, and was about to go to Texas with a Waitress friend she used to work with, Melody, a blonde she worked with at the BBQ place who was married to a Mexican from Texas. I never got the whole story but I think the "kidnapping" was Melody and Andy Hernandez taking her to their house instead of home where I was waiting. I found out later they had a U-Haul packed to go back to Texas and were going to take Kathy with them, when Kathy's sister came up with the police and got her from them, and had her checked in the mental institution.'

> I consider Dockery nothing more than a liar, a con artist and all around untalented oaf.
>
> Dockery and his story of life is filled with nothing but bullshit.
>
> You do not address the 'hello's' twenty times a day...

> My opinion and the opinion of many for more than 20 years in various group...Dockery is a fuck up.
So you dislike Will. Do you think the fact you dislike someone gives you the right to spread lies about them?

> You say you're intelligent, how you cannot see what most see about that deep south boy, staggers my senile mind.

Why are you still pretending I've called you "senile" rather than mentally ill?
> Thanks for listening.

Good night, Jim.

Ping George Dance:

My responses to posts on this troll thread can be found at the thread "When The Mill Shut Down":

https://news.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=211698&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#211698

Just wanted to make sure you find them.

HTH and HAND.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 5:35:04 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:51:46 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:55:09 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:35:46 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 4:48:26 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 9:07:42 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
> > > > > > How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.
> > > > > Well, you've only been working on the story six years, ace reporter "Edward Rochester" -- I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it in another six or so. At least you have a title -- so let's start with that. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> <snip for focus>
> > He may not chat about his life, but his "autobiographical" reminiscences are posted all over the internet.
> Possibly. But the only one I've read, the one on my wiki, tells a different story.
>
> That's "Will Dockery: The Atlanta Years"
> https://pennyspoetry.fandom.com/wiki/Will_Dockery:_The_Atlanta_Years
> ("the Bio")
> > > > All the info you need is in the autobiography, written by your boy himself. Go read it.
>
> > > I read it; it's published on my wiki. It tells a different story. That's why I asked to see your sources for the "ran away" claim; his wiki bio isn't one of them.
> > >
> > Let's see...
> Are you claiming "summary" of your is from the Bio? If so, I'll have to correct it

My summary is from his bio and other sources/older versions.

> > 1) Kathy was supposed to meet Will at the lumber yard to drop acid after her waitressing shift was over.
> Wrong. According to the Bio, Kathy was "supposed" to meet Will at their home, across the street from her work.

According to the current version of his autobio. You'll note where he's added in statements by Jim and myself when we had discussed an earlier version.

In one version of his autobio, he had invited her join him at the lumber yard to drop acid and look at the pretty colors.

I've pointed out numerous examples in his current version that contradict other points in the same autobiography, so it's not even remotely a stretch to think that the "pretty colors" story was simply an older version.

> > 2) Kathy never showed up. In fact, she disappeared without a trace and Will spent several weeks(?)/months(?) searching for her.
> That's in the Bio.

Yes. First Will says it was "about a month," then he makes it over two months.

> > 3) During that time, the police asked him if a body found on the railroad tracks was his wife.
> Also in the Bio; Will was asked to identify a body, but never got to. (It had already been identified.)

That is in keeping with my statement that the police asked him to identify the body.

> > 4) Kathy had gone from work to the home of a co-worker, and was planning to move to Texas with her co-worker and her co-worker's boyfriend, under an assumed name.
> According to the bio, she *was* found at the home of Melody and Andy Hernandez. That's just hearsay (what Will was told later, but if you want we can stipulate it.
>
> There's nothing in the Bio about her making plans to abandon her family and child and move to Texas, or to live "under an assumed name".

Again, his autobio underwent extensive revisions after Jim and I had discussed it with Will.

> > 5) Eventually Kathy turned up in a mental institution.
> According to the Bio, her sister -- who showed up at the Hernandez home with police that night and "rescued" her -- then checked her into a mental institution (presumably that night).
>

My summary is focusing on Will's experience. Kathy's sister "rescued" her without Will's help or knowledge. As far as Will is concerned, she turned up in a mental institution.

> > 6) Kathy's parents apparently knew of her whereabouts and didn't tell Will.
> >
> > That sure sounds like she ran away to me.
> Not to me. It sounds like her sister checked her into a mental institution, probably with her father's and grandmother's knowledge.

So you're pretending that Mr. & Mrs. Hernandez kidnapped her, held her hostage for a month, but were never charged with any crime? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

> > > Well, don't expect me to give you any details. The most I'll tell you is that she was detained and held against her will for some time, and when released she rejoined her husband.
> > >
> > That is *not* what Will has written. He *may* have told you that in private conversations, but it is certainly *not* what he has written in his numerous "autobiographies."
> That is exactly what Will wrote in the Bio. Kathy went to the Hernandez home and got "blanked out crazy," followed by her sister showing up with police, and checking her in to a mental institution (where she remained for a month or so).
>

Why did she hole up at the Hernandez's home for a month? And why didn't her family members tell her husband that she'd been found for another month?

> > > > To continue, the wife was located in a mental hospital, where the husband, Dockery, was not allowed to see her.
> > > So you do have some details? She was committed for observation, and released as sane.
> > She had been living with a co-worker and her co-worker's boyfriend -- both of whom she was planning on moving to Texas with under an assumed name. It sounds like a do-it-yourself witness protection program.
> According to what Will wrote in the Bio, your first claim is false -- Kathy was living with Will in the apartment they rented from her grandmother -- while your second isn't there at all. Both sound like something you or "Edward Rochester" simply made up.
>

Again, I'm basing some of the information on the earlier versions of Will's story.

> > She was committed to the mental hospital *after* her original plans fell through.,
> What "original plans" are you talking about? According to the Bio, "she was blanked out crazy, and was about to go to Texas with a Waitress friend." That isn't evidence of any planning.
>

Will says she was "blanked out crazy" -- I don't.

I'm going by the earlier version because it makes more sense. Kathy went to the Hernandez's to escape from Will. They were planning to move to Texas, where she would live under an assumed name.

> > > > The family of the wife and the cops knew where she was, but didn't tell the husband, Dockery.
> > > His family wouldn't tell the husband that they'd committed his wife to a mental hospital? How odd. Yet they tried to bill his insurance company for it, which is how he found out.
> > >
> > Yes, that is odd, George. Generally, a wife's family would call her husband the minute they learn of her location -- especially when they are caring for her child and (presumably) in close contact with the child's father.
> Generall, of course; but i can understand their not telling him, having no idea how he'd react. How would you react if one day your wife disappeared, and your in-laws told you they'd put her in a mental institution? I doubt I'd take it all in good humor.
>

Unless you're confusing me with General Zod (in which case you have one "l" too many), "generally" should end with a "y."

Not knowing if one's wife is alive or dead is worse than knowing that she's been checked into the booby hatch. And one should think that Will would react much more angrily at their having left him in the dark.

> > > > I say she ran away from Dockery, having no other choice.
> > > If you're still saying that, after discovering that his wife had been involuntarily detained, then you're lying and spreading disinformation.
> > >
> > Will has never claimed (at least not in any of the sources I've read) that she had been involuntarily detained.
> He claimed, in the one source I've read (the Bio), that her sister committed her to a mental institution when she was "blanked out crazy." You should read it, as "Edward Rochester" advised; you're mentioned in it.
> Will has, otoh, said that she *voluntarily* went to a co-worker's home and was *voluntarily* planning to relocate to Texas with them under an assumed name.
> You do realize, of course, that if she was in fact "*voluntarily* planning to relocate to Texas," she was not *voluntarily* planning to go to a mental institution.

When her plan to relocate went south, she chose the nut house over chez Dockery.

> > > > Dockery told all this story himself and as i've said, has not corrected the record on my words 'ran away'.
> > > Then let me correct it. Your "ran away" story is lies and disinformation.
> > We have Will's story as told through his various online "autobiographies," and your story which is the only one that claims she had been detained and held against her will.
> My story (actually, Will's from the Bio) is the only one I've seen. If you've seen a different story in other "autobiographies" then PP (oSTFU).

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.

Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present. Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.

> > You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.
> If you used some other story, then let's see it. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?

Again, Will's autobio has undergone extensive revisions.

How do you explain her holing up at the Hernandez house for a month?

> > If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.
> Maybe, maybe not. Don't expect me to take your word for that.

It's unclear from Will's story whether he had insurance. The lumber yard had been contacted by "the mental hospital she was checked in up in Marietta, Georgia [which] wanted to get my insurance papers or whatever, to pay her bill!"

> > You say she came back
>
> No, "Edward" -- I'm telling you what Will says, in the autobiography on my wiki that you advised me to read:
> "Will Dockery: The Atlanta Years"
> If you want to call it that account a "lie" now, that's fine. So what account are you relying on? In particular, on what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > , and then there is the Tina story, where wife and child are in one room as he is being serviced in another (Tina disappeared as well.).
> Tina had 'disappeared' long before that, when Will and Kathy moved into their grandmother's rental property. So I won't ask you where you got that story from at this point; let's try to deal with one at a time, shall we?
>

The timeline is unlcear in Will's story, but it was certainly *not* what anyone would consider "long before that."

1) Kathy left Will in spring of 1981.
2) Will met Tina and she moved in with him. They weren't paying rent because the stove in their apartment didn't work.
3) Will and Tina planned on running off to Canada to avoid alimony and child support payments.
4) Kathy returned late in the summer of 1981 and moved in with Will and Tina.
5) Since Will was in the process of a "constructive eviction," he and Kathy moved into an apartment owned by her grandmother, and Tina left for parts unknown shortly thereafter.
6) Kathy then ran away/disappeared in early November of 1981.

Since Tina moved out in late September at the earliest, "long before that" would be a little over a month.

> > You have left out the Texas travel, but why bother.
> No problem pasting in what the Bio says about that:
>
> 'When her sister found her she was blanked out crazy, and was about to go to Texas with a Waitress friend she used to work with, Melody, a blonde she worked with at the BBQ place who was married to a Mexican from Texas. I never got the whole story but I think the "kidnapping" was Melody and Andy Hernandez taking her to their house instead of home where I was waiting. I found out later they had a U-Haul packed to go back to Texas and were going to take Kathy with them, when Kathy's sister came up with the police and got her from them, and had her checked in the mental institution.'
> > I consider Dockery nothing more than a liar, a con artist and all around untalented oaf.
> >
> > Dockery and his story of life is filled with nothing but bullshit.
> >
> > You do not address the 'hello's' twenty times a day...
>
> > My opinion and the opinion of many for more than 20 years in various group...Dockery is a fuck up.
> So you dislike Will. Do you think the fact you dislike someone gives you the right to spread lies about them?

Will has told numerous contradictory versions of this story (again, even the current version contradicts itself on several points). If anyone spread any lies about Will, it was Will himself.

> > You say you're intelligent, how you cannot see what most see about that deep south boy, staggers my senile mind.
> Why are you still pretending I've called you "senile" rather than mentally ill?

Jim didn't say you'd called him senile, George.

Ping George Dance:

My responses to posts on this troll thread can be found at the thread "When The Mill Shut Down":

https://news.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=211698&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#211698

Just wanted to make sure you find them.

And so it goes.

On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 21:07:42 UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.
>
> There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.
>
> Joe Friday

Michael Pendragon
18:15
to

> > Old shit still stinks.
> Not really that old.

Two-year old shit stinks even worse.

Sorry to bomb this thread, but I try not to feed will’s ego on his threads.

He’s busy today flooding the group with his stuff. But I’ve found that if you report his latest flood of old threads, google takes notice. It’s an old ploy, but it works if you report these threads as spam.
Just saying……

On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 21:01:47 UTC-4, ME wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 21:07:42 UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.
> >
> > There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.
> >
> > Joe Friday
> Michael Pendragon
> 18:15
> to
> 
> > > Old shit still stinks.
> > Not really that old.
>
> Two-year old shit stinks even worse.
>
>
>
> Sorry to bomb this thread, but I try not to feed will’s ego on his threads.
>
>
> He’s busy today flooding the group with his stuff. But I’ve found that if you report his latest flood of old threads, google takes notice. It’s an old ploy, but it works if you report these threads as spam.
> Just saying……

10 out of 60.

Wow….

On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 21:48:52 UTC-4, ME wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 21:01:47 UTC-4, ME wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 21:07:42 UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > How odd, the parents and the cops knew where she was but wouldn't tell the husband.
> > >
> > > There is more to the tale of the disappearing wife, then has been told.
> > >
> > > Joe Friday
> > Michael Pendragon
> > 18:15
> > to
> > 
> > > > Old shit still stinks.
> > > Not really that old.
> >
> > Two-year old shit stinks even worse.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to bomb this thread, but I try not to feed will’s ego on his threads.
> >
> >
> > He’s busy today flooding the group with his stuff. But I’ve found that if you report his latest flood of old threads, google takes notice. It’s an old ploy, but it works if you report these threads as spam.
> > Just saying……
> 10 out of 60.
>
> Wow….

It’s so nice not see that negative energy here!!!

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> > I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.

> Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present.
- "taking acid with your husband with a small child"
> Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.
"I see a young girl impregnated".
Whether that's what "Rochester" meant to write is irrelevant. What's important is that (1) Kathy was not taking LSD while "impregnated" and (2) she and will were not taking it "with a small child" present.
> > > You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.
> > If you used some other story, then let's see it. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> Again, Will's autobio has undergone extensive revisions.
Indeed, you claim to have numerous accounts. So let's see some.

> How do you explain her holing up at the Hernandez house for a month?

For example, let's see the account that says she was "at the Hernandez house for a month." From my reading of the Bio, I got the impression that Melody's "kidnapping" and Victoria's "rescue" happened the same night.

> > > If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.
> > Maybe, maybe not. Don't expect me to take your word for that.
> It's unclear from Will's story whether he had insurance. The lumber yard had been contacted by "the mental hospital she was checked in up in Marietta, Georgia [which] wanted to get my insurance papers or whatever, to pay her bill!"

That sounds like he had insurance through his work, meaning his company paid the premiums (and that his ability to make rent wouldn't be a factor).

> > > You say she came back
> >
> > No, "Edward" -- I'm telling you what Will says, in the autobiography on my wiki that you advised me to read:
> > "Will Dockery: The Atlanta Years"
> > If you want to call it that account a "lie" now, that's fine. So what account are you relying on? In particular, on what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > , and then there is the Tina story, where wife and child are in one room as he is being serviced in another (Tina disappeared as well.).
> > Tina had 'disappeared' long before that, when Will and Kathy moved into their grandmother's rental property. So I won't ask you where you got that story from at this point; let's try to deal with one at a time, shall we?
> >
> The timeline is unlcear in Will's story, but it was certainly *not* what anyone would consider "long before that."

Yes, all the dates are vague in Will's story
>
> 1) Kathy left Will in spring of 1981.

This isn't in the Bio. According to it, in spring of 1981 Will moved into "a small boarding house" and then to La Maison in mid-1981. He probably lived alone in the boarding house, but there's no details.

> 2) Will met Tina and she moved in with him. They weren't paying rent because the stove in their apartment didn't work.

That's sort of in the Bio: "'In the Summer of 1981 the constructive eviction happened, I was living with my wife Katherine, room mate named Tina, and my young son." That would be La Maison, where Will, Kathy, Clay, and Tina were all living.

> 3) Will and Tina planned on running off to Canada to avoid alimony and child support payments.

That's not in the Bio. Source?

> 4) Kathy returned late in the summer of 1981 and moved in with Will and Tina.

That's not in the Bio. Source?

> 5) Since Will was in the process of a "constructive eviction," he and Kathy moved into an apartment owned by her grandmother, and Tina left for parts unknown shortly thereafter.

That's mostly in the bio: "one afternoon my Brother Dave drove up from Columbus in his pick up truck, we loaded all our meager belongings and moved to 590 Sherwood Road, K's grandmother's house, with the apartment in back." There's no indication that Tina moved to Sherwood with them.

> 6) Kathy then ran away/disappeared in early November of 1981.

According to the Bio, that happened "in the early days of December 1981."

> Since Tina moved out in late September at the earliest, "long before that" would be a little over a month.

> > > You have left out the Texas travel, but why bother.
> > No problem pasting in what the Bio says about that:
> > 'When her sister found her she was blanked out crazy, and was about to go to Texas with a Waitress friend she used to work with, Melody, a blonde she worked with at the BBQ place who was married to a Mexican from Texas. I never got the whole story but I think the "kidnapping" was Melody and Andy Hernandez taking her to their house instead of home where I was waiting. I found out later they had a U-Haul packed to go back to Texas and were going to take Kathy with them, when Kathy's sister came up with the police and got her from them, and had her checked in the mental institution.'

> Will has told numerous contradictory versions of this story (again, even the current version contradicts itself on several points). If anyone spread any lies about Will, it was Will himself.

The Bio has inconsistencies and holes (chiefly around dates and times), as he's merely pasted in what he's said about it on Usenet -- mainly to you and "Rochester" when the two of you were writing your story in Dec. 2017. I think those can be cleared up easily, but with you two challenging what's in there (on the basis of these "numerous" other accounts that neither of you have produced) I won't be touching it at present.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
> > > > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> > > I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.
>
> > Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present.
> - "taking acid with your husband with a small child"
> > Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.
> "I see a young girl impregnated".
> Whether that's what "Rochester" meant to write is irrelevant. What's important is that (1) Kathy was not taking LSD while "impregnated" and (2) she and will were not taking it "with a small child" present.
> > > > You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.
> > > If you used some other story, then let's see it. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > Again, Will's autobio has undergone extensive revisions.
> Indeed, you claim to have numerous accounts. So let's see some.
> > How do you explain her holing up at the Hernandez house for a month?
> For example, let's see the account that says she was "at the Hernandez house for a month." From my reading of the Bio, I got the impression that Melody's "kidnapping" and Victoria's "rescue" happened the same night.
> > > > If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.
> > > Maybe, maybe not. Don't expect me to take your word for that.
> > It's unclear from Will's story whether he had insurance. The lumber yard had been contacted by "the mental hospital she was checked in up in Marietta, Georgia [which] wanted to get my insurance papers or whatever, to pay her bill!"
> That sounds like he had insurance through his work, meaning his company paid the premiums (and that his ability to make rent wouldn't be a factor).
> > > > You say she came back
> > >
> > > No, "Edward" -- I'm telling you what Will says, in the autobiography on my wiki that you advised me to read:
> > > "Will Dockery: The Atlanta Years"
> > > If you want to call it that account a "lie" now, that's fine. So what account are you relying on? In particular, on what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > > , and then there is the Tina story, where wife and child are in one room as he is being serviced in another (Tina disappeared as well.).
> > > Tina had 'disappeared' long before that, when Will and Kathy moved into their grandmother's rental property. So I won't ask you where you got that story from at this point; let's try to deal with one at a time, shall we?
> > >
> > The timeline is unlcear in Will's story, but it was certainly *not* what anyone would consider "long before that."
> Yes, all the dates are vague in Will's story
> >
> > 1) Kathy left Will in spring of 1981.
> This isn't in the Bio. According to it, in spring of 1981 Will moved into "a small boarding house" and then to La Maison in mid-1981. He probably lived alone in the boarding house, but there's no details.
> > 2) Will met Tina and she moved in with him. They weren't paying rent because the stove in their apartment didn't work.
> That's sort of in the Bio: "'In the Summer of 1981 the constructive eviction happened, I was living with my wife Katherine, room mate named Tina, and my young son." That would be La Maison, where Will, Kathy, Clay, and Tina were all living.
> > 3) Will and Tina planned on running off to Canada to avoid alimony and child support payments.
> That's not in the Bio. Source?
> > 4) Kathy returned late in the summer of 1981 and moved in with Will and Tina.
> That's not in the Bio. Source?
> > 5) Since Will was in the process of a "constructive eviction," he and Kathy moved into an apartment owned by her grandmother, and Tina left for parts unknown shortly thereafter.
> That's mostly in the bio: "one afternoon my Brother Dave drove up from Columbus in his pick up truck, we loaded all our meager belongings and moved to 590 Sherwood Road, K's grandmother's house, with the apartment in back." There's no indication that Tina moved to Sherwood with them.
> > 6) Kathy then ran away/disappeared in early November of 1981.
> According to the Bio, that happened "in the early days of December 1981."
> > Since Tina moved out in late September at the earliest, "long before that" would be a little over a month.
>
> > > > You have left out the Texas travel, but why bother.
> > > No problem pasting in what the Bio says about that:
> > > 'When her sister found her she was blanked out crazy, and was about to go to Texas with a Waitress friend she used to work with, Melody, a blonde she worked with at the BBQ place who was married to a Mexican from Texas. I never got the whole story but I think the "kidnapping" was Melody and Andy Hernandez taking her to their house instead of home where I was waiting. I found out later they had a U-Haul packed to go back to Texas and were going to take Kathy with them, when Kathy's sister came up with the police and got her from them, and had her checked in the mental institution.'
> > Will has told numerous contradictory versions of this story (again, even the current version contradicts itself on several points). If anyone spread any lies about Will, it was Will himself.
> The Bio has inconsistencies and holes (chiefly around dates and times), as he's merely pasted in what he's said about it on Usenet -- mainly to you and "Rochester" when the two of you were writing your story in Dec. 2017. I think those can be cleared up easily, but with you two challenging what's in there (on the basis of these "numerous" other accounts that neither of you have produced) I won't be touching it at present.

Ping George Dance:

My responses to posts on this troll thread can be found at the thread "When The Mill Shut Down":

https://news.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=211698&group=alt.arts..poetry.comments#211698

Since Nova BBS is having technical difficulties today, here's the Google Groups link:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/PK_RGoiHPl8

Just wanted to make sure you find them.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> > > I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.
>
> > Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present.
> - "taking acid with your husband with a small child"
> > Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.
> "I see a young girl impregnated".

He is referring to Will's impregnating Kathy when she was still in high school.

You're making the mistake of reading Jim's statement as referring to a single night. It's not. It's an overview of Will's relationship with her and Clay:

1) Will knocked up Kathy when she was still a minor.
2) She had to endure life with a husband who spend all of his time and money getting drunk and/or high.
3) It is not reasonable for a young mother to take acid with her husband.

> Whether that's what "Rochester" meant to write is irrelevant. What's important is that (1) Kathy was not taking LSD while "impregnated" and (2) she and will were not taking it "with a small child" present.
>

It is very relevant if you are questioning the validity of Jim's claims.

If, otoh, you are referring to *how* he said it, the passage could admittedly stand for a good deal of improvement.

> > > > You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.
> > > If you used some other story, then let's see it. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > Again, Will's autobio has undergone extensive revisions.
> Indeed, you claim to have numerous accounts. So let's see some.

I have never claimed to have any accounts, George.

I said that Will's story in its current form has undergone several revisions since it first appeared.

Since you don't seem to understand what "revision" means, allow me to explain: it means that Will has *replaced* the previous versions with the current version.

The previous versions, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exist.

However, Will's comments to Jim and myself (included in the current version) show that this latest version was written to address points that Jim and I raised regarding the previous versions.

> > How do you explain her holing up at the Hernandez house for a month?
> For example, let's see the account that says she was "at the Hernandez house for a month." From my reading of the Bio, I got the impression that Melody's "kidnapping" and Victoria's "rescue" happened the same night.
>

I take it that you don't bother reading Will's AAPC posts. Will recently clarified that he had been told that she had been at the Hernandez house for about a month, and in the mental institution for about the same period of time. He hinted that he suspects she might not have been at the Hernandez's the entire time, but that he has no way of knowing where else she might have been.

> > > > If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.
> > > Maybe, maybe not. Don't expect me to take your word for that.
> > It's unclear from Will's story whether he had insurance. The lumber yard had been contacted by "the mental hospital she was checked in up in Marietta, Georgia [which] wanted to get my insurance papers or whatever, to pay her bill!"
> That sounds like he had insurance through his work, meaning his company paid the premiums (and that his ability to make rent wouldn't be a factor).
>

He had insurance through his job at the lumber yard.

He claims that he made relatively good money... however, in his exchanges with Tina (included in his autobio), he says that they never paid any rent (to the landlord they stiffed with the "constructive eviction" scam), and that he could not afford to have paid any.

Since Tina was living with him at the time, I suspect that his exchanges with her are more truthful than his current autobiographical rendition.

> > > > You say she came back
> > >
> > > No, "Edward" -- I'm telling you what Will says, in the autobiography on my wiki that you advised me to read:
> > > "Will Dockery: The Atlanta Years"
> > > If you want to call it that account a "lie" now, that's fine. So what account are you relying on? In particular, on what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > > , and then there is the Tina story, where wife and child are in one room as he is being serviced in another (Tina disappeared as well.).
> > > Tina had 'disappeared' long before that, when Will and Kathy moved into their grandmother's rental property. So I won't ask you where you got that story from at this point; let's try to deal with one at a time, shall we?
> > >
> > The timeline is unlcear in Will's story, but it was certainly *not* what anyone would consider "long before that."
> Yes, all the dates are vague in Will's story
> >
> > 1) Kathy left Will in spring of 1981.
> This isn't in the Bio. According to it, in spring of 1981 Will moved into "a small boarding house" and then to La Maison in mid-1981. He probably lived alone in the boarding house, but there's no details.
>

I suggest that you review my current exchanges with Will on the topic (in this and other threads). Will has confirmed that Kathy left him in the spring of 1981 and that he and Tina began living together that summer.

> > 2) Will met Tina and she moved in with him. They weren't paying rent because the stove in their apartment didn't work.
> That's sort of in the Bio: "'In the Summer of 1981 the constructive eviction happened, I was living with my wife Katherine, room mate named Tina, and my young son." That would be La Maison, where Will, Kathy, Clay, and Tina were all living.
>

Again, it has been elaborated on by Will in our current discussions.

> > 3) Will and Tina planned on running off to Canada to avoid alimony and child support payments.
> That's not in the Bio. Source?

The source was Tina's FB page, which I do not have a link to. When Will found Tina on FB, they had several lengthy discussions wherein Tina was initially still angry with Will regarding his treatment of her (at La Maison). They eventually reconciled.

> > 4) Kathy returned late in the summer of 1981 and moved in with Will and Tina.
> That's not in the Bio. Source?

Again, that was discussed on Tina's FB page and confirmed by Will in our present discussion.

> > 5) Since Will was in the process of a "constructive eviction," he and Kathy moved into an apartment owned by her grandmother, and Tina left for parts unknown shortly thereafter.
> That's mostly in the bio: "one afternoon my Brother Dave drove up from Columbus in his pick up truck, we loaded all our meager belongings and moved to 590 Sherwood Road, K's grandmother's house, with the apartment in back." There's no indication that Tina moved to Sherwood with them.
>

That's because she didn't.

Kathy left Will in the spring of 1981. Will and Tina started living together that summer. They discussed running away to Canada (alimony and child support were not mentioned, but it was obvious from the context that they were attempting to escape the financial responsibility of supporting Kathy and Clay). Kathy returned in late September and reconciled with Will (who broke off his relationship with Tina). Will and Tina did not part on friendly terms (again, from Tina's FB discussions with him). Will and Kathy moved into an apartment owned by Kathy's grandmother and Tina was left to find a place on her own.

She and Will remained out of touch until reconciling on FB a few years ago.

> > 6) Kathy then ran away/disappeared in early November of 1981.
> According to the Bio, that happened "in the early days of December 1981."

The bio is garbled and lists both months at different times.

However, Will and I have discussed this as well, and Kathy left in early November (just after Halloween). She was gone from early November until sometime in January.

> > Since Tina moved out in late September at the earliest, "long before that" would be a little over a month.
>
> > > > You have left out the Texas travel, but why bother.
> > > No problem pasting in what the Bio says about that:
> > > 'When her sister found her she was blanked out crazy, and was about to go to Texas with a Waitress friend she used to work with, Melody, a blonde she worked with at the BBQ place who was married to a Mexican from Texas. I never got the whole story but I think the "kidnapping" was Melody and Andy Hernandez taking her to their house instead of home where I was waiting. I found out later they had a U-Haul packed to go back to Texas and were going to take Kathy with them, when Kathy's sister came up with the police and got her from them, and had her checked in the mental institution.'
> > Will has told numerous contradictory versions of this story (again, even the current version contradicts itself on several points). If anyone spread any lies about Will, it was Will himself.
> The Bio has inconsistencies and holes (chiefly around dates and times), as he's merely pasted in what he's said about it on Usenet -- mainly to you and "Rochester" when the two of you were writing your story in Dec. 2017. I think those can be cleared up easily, but with you two challenging what's in there (on the basis of these "numerous" other accounts that neither of you have produced) I won't be touching it at present.
>

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:23:25 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> > > > I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.
> >
> > > Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present.
> > - "taking acid with your husband with a small child"
> > > Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.
> > "I see a young girl impregnated".
> He is referring to Will's impregnating Kathy when she was still in high school.
>
> You're making the mistake of reading Jim's statement as referring to a single night. It's not. It's an overview of Will's relationship with her and Clay:
>
> 1) Will knocked up Kathy when she was still a minor.
> 2) She had to endure life with a husband who spend all of his time and money getting drunk and/or high.
> 3) It is not reasonable for a young mother to take acid with her husband.
> > Whether that's what "Rochester" meant to write is irrelevant. What's important is that (1) Kathy was not taking LSD while "impregnated" and (2) she and will were not taking it "with a small child" present.
> >
> It is very relevant if you are questioning the validity of Jim's claims.
> If, otoh, you are referring to *how* he said it, the passage could admittedly stand for a good deal of improvement.
> > > > > You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.
> > > > If you used some other story, then let's see it. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > Again, Will's autobio has undergone extensive revisions.
> > Indeed, you claim to have numerous accounts. So let's see some.
> I have never claimed to have any accounts, George.

You did work on this story of his with him; according to the Bio, both of you were interviewing him for details.

> I said that Will's story in its current form has undergone several revisions since it first appeared.
>
> Since you don't seem to understand what "revision" means, allow me to explain: it means that Will has *replaced* the previous versions with the current version.
>
> The previous versions, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exist.

So you claim to have seen previous versions, but you also claim they "no longer exist" -- meaning we'll just have to take your word for what they say.
> However, Will's comments to Jim and myself (included in the current version) show that this latest version was written to address points that Jim and I raised regarding the previous versions.

Presumably, since you two were interviewing about these "previous versions" on aapc, he'd posted those "previous versions" on aapc. What happened to them? Are you saying Will deleted them?

> > > How do you explain her holing up at the Hernandez house for a month?
> > For example, let's see the account that says she was "at the Hernandez house for a month." From my reading of the Bio, I got the impression that Melody's "kidnapping" and Victoria's "rescue" happened the same night.
> >
> I take it that you don't bother reading Will's AAPC posts. Will recently clarified that he had been told that she had been at the Hernandez house for about a month, and in the mental institution for about the same period of time.
> He hinted that he suspects she might not have been at the Hernandez's the entire time, but that he has no way of knowing where else she might have been.

I might have missed that post (which I'd like to read rather than take your word for). So, once again, let's see. As is, according to the Bio they'd planned to move to Mexico that weekend (they already had their stuff packed in a U-haul). I'm skeptical that they changed plans and decided to stay in Atlanta for another month.

> > > > > If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.
> > > > Maybe, maybe not. Don't expect me to take your word for that.
> > > It's unclear from Will's story whether he had insurance. The lumber yard had been contacted by "the mental hospital she was checked in up in Marietta, Georgia [which] wanted to get my insurance papers or whatever, to pay her bill!"
> > That sounds like he had insurance through his work, meaning his company paid the premiums (and that his ability to make rent wouldn't be a factor)..
> >
> He had insurance through his job at the lumber yard.
>
So much, then, for your boy "Rochester's" claim that he didn't.

> He claims that he made relatively good money... however, in his exchanges with Tina (included in his autobio), he says that they never paid any rent (to the landlord they stiffed with the "constructive eviction"
scam), and that he could not afford to have paid any.

There's nothing in the bio about him not being able to pay "any" rent. He was employed through the whole period. I'm sure money was tight, but again that has nothing to do with whether he had insurance.
> Since Tina was living with him at the time, I suspect that his exchanges with her are more truthful than his current autobiographical rendition.

If you're able to cite any such exchanges, I'll read them and take them into account.

> > > > > You say she came back
> > > >
> > > > No, "Edward" -- I'm telling you what Will says, in the autobiography on my wiki that you advised me to read:
> > > > "Will Dockery: The Atlanta Years"
> > > > If you want to call it that account a "lie" now, that's fine. So what account are you relying on? In particular, on what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > > > , and then there is the Tina story, where wife and child are in one room as he is being serviced in another (Tina disappeared as well.).
> > > > Tina had 'disappeared' long before that, when Will and Kathy moved into their grandmother's rental property. So I won't ask you where you got that story from at this point; let's try to deal with one at a time, shall we?
> > > >
> > > The timeline is unlcear in Will's story, but it was certainly *not* what anyone would consider "long before that."
> > Yes, all the dates are vague in Will's story
> > >
> > > 1) Kathy left Will in spring of 1981.
> > This isn't in the Bio. According to it, in spring of 1981 Will moved into "a small boarding house" and then to La Maison in mid-1981. He probably lived alone in the boarding house, but there's no details.
> >
> I suggest that you review my current exchanges with Will on the topic (in this and other threads). Will has confirmed that Kathy left him in the spring of 1981 and that he and Tina began living together that summer.

I'm not interested in what Will said about your account. I would like to see where you got that account in the first place.

> > > 2) Will met Tina and she moved in with him. They weren't paying rent because the stove in their apartment didn't work.
> > That's sort of in the Bio: "'In the Summer of 1981 the constructive eviction happened, I was living with my wife Katherine, room mate named Tina, and my young son." That would be La Maison, where Will, Kathy, Clay, and Tina were all living.
> >
> Again, it has been elaborated on by Will in our current discussions.

See above.
> > > 3) Will and Tina planned on running off to Canada to avoid alimony and child support payments.
> > That's not in the Bio. Source?
> The source was Tina's FB page, which I do not have a link to. When Will found Tina on FB, they had several lengthy discussions wherein Tina was initially still angry with Will regarding his treatment of her (at La Maison). They eventually reconciled.

I have a link, so I just sent her a friend request. We'll see.

> > > 4) Kathy returned late in the summer of 1981 and moved in with Will and Tina.
> > That's not in the Bio. Source?
> Again, that was discussed on Tina's FB page and confirmed by Will in our present discussion.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:23:25 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> > > > > I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.
> > >
> > > > Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present.
> > > - "taking acid with your husband with a small child"
> > > > Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.
> > > "I see a young girl impregnated".
> > He is referring to Will's impregnating Kathy when she was still in high school.
> >
> > You're making the mistake of reading Jim's statement as referring to a single night. It's not. It's an overview of Will's relationship with her and Clay:
> >
> > 1) Will knocked up Kathy when she was still a minor.
> > 2) She had to endure life with a husband who spend all of his time and money getting drunk and/or high.
> > 3) It is not reasonable for a young mother to take acid with her husband.
> > > Whether that's what "Rochester" meant to write is irrelevant. What's important is that (1) Kathy was not taking LSD while "impregnated" and (2) she and will were not taking it "with a small child" present.
> > >
> > It is very relevant if you are questioning the validity of Jim's claims..
> > If, otoh, you are referring to *how* he said it, the passage could admittedly stand for a good deal of improvement.
> > > > > > You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.
> > > > > If you used some other story, then let's see it. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > > Again, Will's autobio has undergone extensive revisions.
> > > Indeed, you claim to have numerous accounts. So let's see some.
> > I have never claimed to have any accounts, George.
> You did work on this story of his with him; according to the Bio, both of you were interviewing him for details.

We were not "interviewing" him, George. I considered Will a friend at that time and had pointed out numerous, unsavory passages that he should either clean up or delete.

> > I said that Will's story in its current form has undergone several revisions since it first appeared.
> >
> > Since you don't seem to understand what "revision" means, allow me to explain: it means that Will has *replaced* the previous versions with the current version.
> >
> > The previous versions, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exist.
> So you claim to have seen previous versions, but you also claim they "no longer exist" -- meaning we'll just have to take your word for what they say.
>

I'm sure you've seen them as well.

But, yes. Since Will followed my advice and revised his autobiography, the older versions no longer exist.

You are free to discount Jim's and my recollection of the contents; however, you should bear in mind that if the original story hadn't presented Will in an extremely unflattering light, I would not have urged him to revise it..

> > However, Will's comments to Jim and myself (included in the current version) show that this latest version was written to address points that Jim and I raised regarding the previous versions.
> Presumably, since you two were interviewing about these "previous versions" on aapc, he'd posted those "previous versions" on aapc. What happened to them? Are you saying Will deleted them?
>

Do you know how to revise a wiki page, George?

You delete a word/sentence/paragraph and type a new one in its place.

IOW: Yes, to all intents and purposes, Will deleted them.

> > > > How do you explain her holing up at the Hernandez house for a month?
> > > For example, let's see the account that says she was "at the Hernandez house for a month." From my reading of the Bio, I got the impression that Melody's "kidnapping" and Victoria's "rescue" happened the same night.
> > >
> > I take it that you don't bother reading Will's AAPC posts. Will recently clarified that he had been told that she had been at the Hernandez house for about a month, and in the mental institution for about the same period of time.
> > He hinted that he suspects she might not have been at the Hernandez's the entire time, but that he has no way of knowing where else she might have been.
> I might have missed that post (which I'd like to read rather than take your word for). So, once again, let's see. As is, according to the Bio they'd planned to move to Mexico that weekend (they already had their stuff packed in a U-haul). I'm skeptical that they changed plans and decided to stay in Atlanta for another month.
>

According to the bio, that was on the night that Kathy's sister found her there. This was approximately a month after she'd gone missing, and Kathy was supposed to have been going to Texas (not Mexico) with them.

> > > > > > If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.
> > > > > Maybe, maybe not. Don't expect me to take your word for that.
> > > > It's unclear from Will's story whether he had insurance. The lumber yard had been contacted by "the mental hospital she was checked in up in Marietta, Georgia [which] wanted to get my insurance papers or whatever, to pay her bill!"
> > > That sounds like he had insurance through his work, meaning his company paid the premiums (and that his ability to make rent wouldn't be a factor).
> > >
> > He had insurance through his job at the lumber yard.
> >
> So much, then, for your boy "Rochester's" claim that he didn't.

Jim clearly stated that it was a speculation on his part. He never made any such "claim."

> > He claims that he made relatively good money... however, in his exchanges with Tina (included in his autobio), he says that they never paid any rent (to the landlord they stiffed with the "constructive eviction"
> scam), and that he could not afford to have paid any.
> There's nothing in the bio about him not being able to pay "any" rent. He was employed through the whole period. I'm sure money was tight, but again that has nothing to do with whether he had insurance.
>

Money was *very* tight:

Tina: "Since they wouldn't fix it if I remember right the burners worked but the oven didn't we had to do everything on the top..."

Will: It was an excuse, but the rent was just too high at that place, for the money I made back then.

That was really what run me back down here, none of that rent I could afford... I did find a little apartment over near Little Five Points that was $200 a month but that was still a lot of money with only one job, and a little child. There must have been jobs in Atlanta, but I didn't know any of the right people.

The part of the story you probably don't know is we moved out of those La Maison Apartments, owing at least two months of rent (since none of us ever paid rent!) (which was like $365 a month utilities not included!) into her grandmother's house, and then right after Halloween she just vanished, like she was kidneapped.

[END QUOTE]

> > Since Tina was living with him at the time, I suspect that his exchanges with her are more truthful than his current autobiographical rendition.
> If you're able to cite any such exchanges, I'll read them and take them into account.

See above.

> > > > > > You say she came back
> > > > >
> > > > > No, "Edward" -- I'm telling you what Will says, in the autobiography on my wiki that you advised me to read:
> > > > > "Will Dockery: The Atlanta Years"
> > > > > If you want to call it that account a "lie" now, that's fine. So what account are you relying on? In particular, on what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > > > > , and then there is the Tina story, where wife and child are in one room as he is being serviced in another (Tina disappeared as well.).
> > > > > Tina had 'disappeared' long before that, when Will and Kathy moved into their grandmother's rental property. So I won't ask you where you got that story from at this point; let's try to deal with one at a time, shall we?
> > > > >
> > > > The timeline is unlcear in Will's story, but it was certainly *not* what anyone would consider "long before that."
> > > Yes, all the dates are vague in Will's story
> > > >
> > > > 1) Kathy left Will in spring of 1981.
> > > This isn't in the Bio. According to it, in spring of 1981 Will moved into "a small boarding house" and then to La Maison in mid-1981. He probably lived alone in the boarding house, but there's no details.
> > >
> > I suggest that you review my current exchanges with Will on the topic (in this and other threads). Will has confirmed that Kathy left him in the spring of 1981 and that he and Tina began living together that summer.
> I'm not interested in what Will said about your account. I would like to see where you got that account in the first place.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 11:38:49 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:23:25 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > > > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> > > > > > I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.
> > > >
> > > > > Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present.
> > > > - "taking acid with your husband with a small child"
> > > > > Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.
> > > > "I see a young girl impregnated".
> > > He is referring to Will's impregnating Kathy when she was still in high school.
> > >
> > > You're making the mistake of reading Jim's statement as referring to a single night. It's not. It's an overview of Will's relationship with her and Clay:
> > >
> > > 1) Will knocked up Kathy when she was still a minor.
> > > 2) She had to endure life with a husband who spend all of his time and money getting drunk and/or high.
> > > 3) It is not reasonable for a young mother to take acid with her husband.
> > > > Whether that's what "Rochester" meant to write is irrelevant. What's important is that (1) Kathy was not taking LSD while "impregnated" and (2) she and will were not taking it "with a small child" present.
> > > >
> > > It is very relevant if you are questioning the validity of Jim's claims.
> > > If, otoh, you are referring to *how* he said it, the passage could admittedly stand for a good deal of improvement.
> > > > > > > You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.
> > > > > > If you used some other story, then let's see it. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > > > Again, Will's autobio has undergone extensive revisions.
> > > > Indeed, you claim to have numerous accounts. So let's see some.
> > > I have never claimed to have any accounts, George.
> > You did work on this story of his with him; according to the Bio, both of you were interviewing him for details.
> We were not "interviewing" him, George. I considered Will a friend at that time and had pointed out numerous, unsavory passages that he should either clean up or delete.
> > > I said that Will's story in its current form has undergone several revisions since it first appeared.
> > >
> > > Since you don't seem to understand what "revision" means, allow me to explain: it means that Will has *replaced* the previous versions with the current version.
> > >
> > > The previous versions, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exist.
> > So you claim to have seen previous versions, but you also claim they "no longer exist" -- meaning we'll just have to take your word for what they say.
> >
> I'm sure you've seen them as well.
>
> But, yes. Since Will followed my advice and revised his autobiography, the older versions no longer exist.
>
> You are free to discount Jim's and my recollection of the contents; however, you should bear in mind that if the original story hadn't presented Will in an extremely unflattering light, I would not have urged him to revise it.
> > > However, Will's comments to Jim and myself (included in the current version) show that this latest version was written to address points that Jim and I raised regarding the previous versions.
> > Presumably, since you two were interviewing about these "previous versions" on aapc, he'd posted those "previous versions" on aapc. What happened to them? Are you saying Will deleted them?
> >
> Do you know how to revise a wiki page, George?

Better than you, apparently.
> You delete a word/sentence/paragraph and type a new one in its place.

And when you click "save" the wiki saves a new version of the file (which is displayed). Meanwhile, the older version, which was previously saved), is still there on the wiki, along with all the earlier versions.
> IOW: Yes, to all intents and purposes, Will deleted them.

Which means they're still on the wiki. All I needed to know.

> > > > > How do you explain her holing up at the Hernandez house for a month?
> > > > For example, let's see the account that says she was "at the Hernandez house for a month." From my reading of the Bio, I got the impression that Melody's "kidnapping" and Victoria's "rescue" happened the same night.
> > > >
> > > I take it that you don't bother reading Will's AAPC posts. Will recently clarified that he had been told that she had been at the Hernandez house for about a month, and in the mental institution for about the same period of time.
> > > He hinted that he suspects she might not have been at the Hernandez's the entire time, but that he has no way of knowing where else she might have been.
> > I might have missed that post (which I'd like to read rather than take your word for). So, once again, let's see. As is, according to the Bio they'd planned to move to Mexico that weekend (they already had their stuff packed in a U-haul). I'm skeptical that they changed plans and decided to stay in Atlanta for another month.
> >
> According to the bio, that was on the night that Kathy's sister found her there. This was approximately a month after she'd gone missing, and Kathy was supposed to have been going to Texas (not Mexico) with them.

The Bio doesn't say when her sister found her, as you know. I think that happened the same night. You're just repeating your earlier claim to support it; arguing in a circle.

> > > > > > > If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.
> > > > > > Maybe, maybe not. Don't expect me to take your word for that.
> > > > > It's unclear from Will's story whether he had insurance. The lumber yard had been contacted by "the mental hospital she was checked in up in Marietta, Georgia [which] wanted to get my insurance papers or whatever, to pay her bill!"
> > > > That sounds like he had insurance through his work, meaning his company paid the premiums (and that his ability to make rent wouldn't be a factor).
> > > >
> > > He had insurance through his job at the lumber yard.
> > >
> > So much, then, for your boy "Rochester's" claim that he didn't.
> Jim clearly stated that it was a speculation on his part. He never made any such "claim."

No, Michael. In fact, "Rochester" actually called Will a liar for saying that he had insurance. "If you believe Dockery had health insurance [...] that is his lie." When I called him on it, you then tried to back him up by saying it was "unclear" whether Will had insurance or not. Thank you for eventually admitting that "He had insurance through his job."

> Money was *very* tight:
>
> Tina: "Since they wouldn't fix it if I remember right the burners worked but the oven didn't we had to do everything on the top..."
>
> Will: It was an excuse, but the rent was just too high at that place, for the money I made back then.
>
> That was really what run me back down here, none of that rent I could afford... I did find a little apartment over near Little Five Points that was $200 a month but that was still a lot of money with only one job, and a little child. There must have been jobs in Atlanta, but I didn't know any of the right people.
>
> The part of the story you probably don't know is we moved out of those La Maison Apartments, owing at least two months of rent (since none of us ever paid rent!) (which was like $365 a month utilities not included!) into her grandmother's house, and then right after Halloween she just vanished, like she was kidneapped.
>
> [END QUOTE]

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:19:39 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 11:38:49 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:23:25 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > > > > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> > > > > > > I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present.
> > > > > - "taking acid with your husband with a small child"
> > > > > > Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.
> > > > > "I see a young girl impregnated".
> > > > He is referring to Will's impregnating Kathy when she was still in high school.
> > > >
> > > > You're making the mistake of reading Jim's statement as referring to a single night. It's not. It's an overview of Will's relationship with her and Clay:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Will knocked up Kathy when she was still a minor.
> > > > 2) She had to endure life with a husband who spend all of his time and money getting drunk and/or high.
> > > > 3) It is not reasonable for a young mother to take acid with her husband.
> > > > > Whether that's what "Rochester" meant to write is irrelevant. What's important is that (1) Kathy was not taking LSD while "impregnated" and (2) she and will were not taking it "with a small child" present.
> > > > >
> > > > It is very relevant if you are questioning the validity of Jim's claims.
> > > > If, otoh, you are referring to *how* he said it, the passage could admittedly stand for a good deal of improvement.
> > > > > > > > You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.
> > > > > > > If you used some other story, then let's see it. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > > > > Again, Will's autobio has undergone extensive revisions.
> > > > > Indeed, you claim to have numerous accounts. So let's see some.
> > > > I have never claimed to have any accounts, George.
> > > You did work on this story of his with him; according to the Bio, both of you were interviewing him for details.
> > We were not "interviewing" him, George. I considered Will a friend at that time and had pointed out numerous, unsavory passages that he should either clean up or delete.
> > > > I said that Will's story in its current form has undergone several revisions since it first appeared.
> > > >
> > > > Since you don't seem to understand what "revision" means, allow me to explain: it means that Will has *replaced* the previous versions with the current version.
> > > >
> > > > The previous versions, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exist..
> > > So you claim to have seen previous versions, but you also claim they "no longer exist" -- meaning we'll just have to take your word for what they say.
> > >
> > I'm sure you've seen them as well.
> >
> > But, yes. Since Will followed my advice and revised his autobiography, the older versions no longer exist.
> >
> > You are free to discount Jim's and my recollection of the contents; however, you should bear in mind that if the original story hadn't presented Will in an extremely unflattering light, I would not have urged him to revise it.
> > > > However, Will's comments to Jim and myself (included in the current version) show that this latest version was written to address points that Jim and I raised regarding the previous versions.
> > > Presumably, since you two were interviewing about these "previous versions" on aapc, he'd posted those "previous versions" on aapc. What happened to them? Are you saying Will deleted them?
> > >
> > Do you know how to revise a wiki page, George?
> Better than you, apparently.

Apparently not.

> > You delete a word/sentence/paragraph and type a new one in its place.
> And when you click "save" the wiki saves a new version of the file (which is displayed). Meanwhile, the older version, which was previously saved), is still there on the wiki, along with all the earlier versions.
>

The earliest version in the "history" is listed as: "Revision as of 19:25, 14 December 2019."

However, this "Revision" is just that -- a revision. This is confirmed by both its listing as such, and by its content:

[START QUOTE]

Michael Pedragon[sic]: "In the wiki bio, it seems like you were only living with T, and went straight from squatting in an apartment with her to squatting at a lumber yard alone..."

WE: Okay, that was off...

[END QUOTE]

It is clear that I am referring to an earlier version in the above (earlier than that which existed on 12/14/2019).

> > IOW: Yes, to all intents and purposes, Will deleted them.
> Which means they're still on the wiki. All I needed to know.

Wrong. See above.

> > > > > > How do you explain her holing up at the Hernandez house for a month?
> > > > > For example, let's see the account that says she was "at the Hernandez house for a month." From my reading of the Bio, I got the impression that Melody's "kidnapping" and Victoria's "rescue" happened the same night.
> > > > >
> > > > I take it that you don't bother reading Will's AAPC posts. Will recently clarified that he had been told that she had been at the Hernandez house for about a month, and in the mental institution for about the same period of time.
> > > > He hinted that he suspects she might not have been at the Hernandez's the entire time, but that he has no way of knowing where else she might have been.
> > > I might have missed that post (which I'd like to read rather than take your word for). So, once again, let's see. As is, according to the Bio they'd planned to move to Mexico that weekend (they already had their stuff packed in a U-haul). I'm skeptical that they changed plans and decided to stay in Atlanta for another month.
> > >
> > According to the bio, that was on the night that Kathy's sister found her there. This was approximately a month after she'd gone missing, and Kathy was supposed to have been going to Texas (not Mexico) with them.
> The Bio doesn't say when her sister found her, as you know. I think that happened the same night. You're just repeating your earlier claim to support it; arguing in a circle.
>

I have listed my reasons for dismissing your speculation in the "Day the Mill Shut Down" thread.

> > > > > > > > If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.
> > > > > > > Maybe, maybe not. Don't expect me to take your word for that.
> > > > > > It's unclear from Will's story whether he had insurance. The lumber yard had been contacted by "the mental hospital she was checked in up in Marietta, Georgia [which] wanted to get my insurance papers or whatever, to pay her bill!"
> > > > > That sounds like he had insurance through his work, meaning his company paid the premiums (and that his ability to make rent wouldn't be a factor).
> > > > >
> > > > He had insurance through his job at the lumber yard.
> > > >
> > > So much, then, for your boy "Rochester's" claim that he didn't.
> > Jim clearly stated that it was a speculation on his part. He never made any such "claim."
> No, Michael. In fact, "Rochester" actually called Will a liar for saying that he had insurance. "If you believe Dockery had health insurance [...] that is his lie." When I called him on it, you then tried to back him up by saying it was "unclear" whether Will had insurance or not. Thank you for eventually admitting that "He had insurance through his job."
>

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:35:46 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> To continue, the wife was located in a mental hospital, where the husband, Dockery, was not allowed to see her.
>
> The family of the wife and the cops knew where she was, but didn't tell the husband, Dockery.
>

Would YOU?
Donkey is a narcissist. I cannot see him lasting in a marriage, as he only cares of himself.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:31:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:19:39 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 11:38:49 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:23:25 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> > > > > > > > I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present.
> > > > > > - "taking acid with your husband with a small child"
> > > > > > > Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.
> > > > > > "I see a young girl impregnated".
> > > > > He is referring to Will's impregnating Kathy when she was still in high school.

We all know that Will "impregnated" his wife, Michael. The only reason your "colleague" threw it in here was to suggest (pretend) that Kathy was doing LSD (or in his account, being force-fed LSD by Will) while pregnant.

> > > > > You're making the mistake of reading Jim's statement as referring to a single night. It's not. It's an overview of Will's relationship with her and Clay:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Will knocked up Kathy when she was still a minor.

He "knocked up" his wife. My, my. Didn't you "knock up" your wife a few times?

> > > > > 2) She had to endure life with a husband who spend all of his time and money getting drunk and/or high.

Your story and your "colleague's") is that he spent no money on food or clothing for his family, but Will has *not* confirmed that.

> > > > > 3) It is not reasonable for a young mother to take acid with her husband.

It wouldn't be reasonable for a nursing mother to take LSD at all; that's only common sense, though scientifically erroneous. (Since LSD breaks down in water in 1/2 hour, it can't be transmitted via mother's milk.) Other than that, the only "reasonable" precaution to take in that respect is, as I said: Don't take LSD when caring for a child.

> > > > > > Whether that's what "Rochester" meant to write is irrelevant. What's important is that (1) Kathy was not taking LSD while "impregnated" and (2) she and will were not taking it "with a small child" present.
> > > > > >
> > > > > It is very relevant if you are questioning the validity of Jim's claims.
> > > > > If, otoh, you are referring to *how* he said it, the passage could admittedly stand for a good deal of improvement.

<snip>

On Sunday, 11 June 2023 at 06:18:40 UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:31:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:19:39 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 11:38:49 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:23:25 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> > > > > > > > > I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present.
> > > > > > > - "taking acid with your husband with a small child"
> > > > > > > > Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.
> > > > > > > "I see a young girl impregnated".
> > > > > > He is referring to Will's impregnating Kathy when she was still in high school.
> We all know that Will "impregnated" his wife, Michael. The only reason your "colleague" threw it in here was to suggest (pretend) that Kathy was doing LSD (or in his account, being force-fed LSD by Will) while pregnant.
> > > > > > You're making the mistake of reading Jim's statement as referring to a single night. It's not. It's an overview of Will's relationship with her and Clay:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Will knocked up Kathy when she was still a minor.
> He "knocked up" his wife. My, my. Didn't you "knock up" your wife a few times?
> > > > > > 2) She had to endure life with a husband who spend all of his time and money getting drunk and/or high.
> Your story and your "colleague's") is that he spent no money on food or clothing for his family, but Will has *not* confirmed that.
> > > > > > 3) It is not reasonable for a young mother to take acid with her husband.
> It wouldn't be reasonable for a nursing mother to take LSD at all; that's only common sense, though scientifically erroneous. (Since LSD breaks down in water in 1/2 hour, it can't be transmitted via mother's milk.) Other than that, the only "reasonable" precaution to take in that respect is, as I said: Don't take LSD when caring for a child.
> > > > > > > Whether that's what "Rochester" meant to write is irrelevant. What's important is that (1) Kathy was not taking LSD while "impregnated" and (2) she and will were not taking it "with a small child" present.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > It is very relevant if you are questioning the validity of Jim's claims.
> > > > > > If, otoh, you are referring to *how* he said it, the passage could admittedly stand for a good deal of improvement.
> <snip>

You’re really going to keep defending this worthless piece of shit??
You’re as pathetic as he is.