On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > George Dance wrote...
>
> > > > > >February
> > >
> > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> > >
> > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > >
> > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > >
> > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > > > perspective.
> > >
> > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > collage":
> > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> > happen
> > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> > ubiquity
> > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> > has
> > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> > quiet
> > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
> > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > explicitly.
> > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> > > each repeated three times.
> > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> > > villanelle.
> > >
> > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> > > they'd work together:
> > >
> > > Ever after
> > > They come,
> > > she says:
> > >
> > > “They come,”
> > > she says.
> > > Ever after,
> > >
> > > she says:
> > > “Ever after,
> > > They come.”
> > >
> > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
> > Not bad, not bad at all.
> > --
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
> > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> > Video by Doug Cole

Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > George Dance wrote...
> >
> > > > > > >February
> > > >
> > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> > > >
> > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > >
> > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > >
> > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > > > > perspective.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > collage":
> > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> > > happen
> > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> > > ubiquity
> > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> > > has
> > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> > > quiet
> > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
> > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > > explicitly.
> > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> > > > each repeated three times.
> > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> > > > villanelle.
> > > >
> > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> > > > they'd work together:
> > > >
> > > > Ever after
> > > > They come,
> > > > she says:
> > > >
> > > > “They come,”
> > > > she says.
> > > > Ever after,
> > > >
> > > > she says:
> > > > “Ever after,
> > > > They come.”
> > > >
> > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
> > > Not bad, not bad at all.
> > > --
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
> > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> > > Video by Doug Cole
> Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
>
> HTH and HAND.

I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines.

You didn't read the thread.
You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
You were caught.
You were corrected.
You made a colossal fool of yourself.
And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.

You can keep on braying about it, Donkey, but you'll never convince me (or anyone else who isn't one of your flunkies).

I'm done.

No, you obviously didn't get my comment, because the subtlety and sarcasm went over your head, Pendragon.

And, yes, we can end the discussion here, since I've made my point.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > George Dance wrote...
> > >
> > > > > > > >February
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > >
> > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > > > > > perspective.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > > collage":
> > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> > > > happen
> > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> > > > ubiquity
> > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> > > > has
> > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> > > > quiet
> > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
> > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > > > explicitly.
> > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> > > > > each repeated three times.
> > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> > > > > villanelle.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> > > > > they'd work together:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ever after
> > > > > They come,
> > > > > she says:
> > > > >
> > > > > “They come,”
> > > > > she says.
> > > > > Ever after,
> > > > >
> > > > > she says:
> > > > > “Ever after,
> > > > > They come.”
> > > > >
> > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
> > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
> > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> > > > Video by Doug Cole
> > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
> >
> > HTH and HAND.

> I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines.

That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
>
> You didn't read the thread.
> You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
> You were caught.
> You were corrected.
> You made a colossal fool of yourself.
> And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.

That's how your fellow troll 'understood' it

> You can keep on braying about it, Donkey, but you'll never convince me (or anyone else who isn't one of your flunkies).

Get over yourself, Michael. No one is interested in "convincing" you or any of the Monkey's flunkies. You have your stories, and you stick with them.

When NastyGoon opened the thread to troll it, they made three claims, none of which were true, but which you had to try to back up because your colleague said them:
(1) The poem was meaningless;
(2) I refused to listen to any criticism, and was mean to those who offered it.
(3) Will Dockery, yadda yadda (see above).

You've failed to prove (1) or (2) (you couldn't find any mean replies to anyone offering criticism, and even you two now understand what the poem means -- so you've simply doubled down on (3) to try and salvage a win of some kind in the thread. .
> I'm done.

A wise decision, since it looks like a standoff. I can't see how Will or I can prove what we were thinking at the time, and I don't think it's even possible for you or your troll "colleague" to prove what we were thinking.

George Dance wrote:

> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
>> > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > George Dance wrote...
>> > >
>> > > > > > > >February
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
>> > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
>> > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
>> > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
>> > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
>> > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
>> > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>> > > > > > perspective.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
>> > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
>> > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
>> > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
>> > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
>> > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
>> > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
>> > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
>> > > > collage":
>> > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
>> > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
>> > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
>> > > > happen
>> > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
>> > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
>> > > > ubiquity
>> > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
>> > > > has
>> > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
>> > > > quiet
>> > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
>> > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
>> > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
>> > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
>> > > > explicitly.
>> > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
>> > > > > each repeated three times.
>> > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
>> > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
>> > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
>> > > > > villanelle.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
>> > > > > they'd work together:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ever after
>> > > > > They come,
>> > > > > she says:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > “They come,”
>> > > > > she says.
>> > > > > Ever after,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > she says:
>> > > > > “Ever after,
>> > > > > They come.”
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
>> > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
>> > > > --
>> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
>> > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
>> > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
>> > > > Video by Doug Cole
>> > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
>> >
>> > HTH and HAND.

>> I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines.

> That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
> 'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
>>
>> You didn't read the thread.
>> You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
>> You were caught.
>> You were corrected.
>> You made a colossal fool of yourself.
>> And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.

> That's how your fellow troll 'understood' it

>> You can keep on braying about it, Donkey, but you'll never convince me (or anyone else who isn't one of your flunkies).

> Get over yourself, Michael. No one is interested in "convincing" you or any of the Monkey's flunkies. You have your stories, and you stick with them.

> When NastyGoon opened the thread to troll it, they made three claims, none of which were true, but which you had to try to back up because your colleague said them:
> (1) The poem was meaningless;
> (2) I refused to listen to any criticism, and was mean to those who offered it.
> (3) Will Dockery, yadda yadda (see above).

> You've failed to prove (1) or (2) (you couldn't find any mean replies to anyone offering criticism, and even you two now understand what the poem means -- so you've simply doubled down on (3) to try and salvage a win of some kind in the thread. .

>> I'm done.

> A wise decision, since it looks like a standoff. I can't see how Will or I can prove what we were thinking at the time, and I don't think it's even possible for you or your troll "colleague" to prove what we were thinking.

Exactly,, and good riddance.

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:26:48 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> > > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > George Dance wrote...
> > > >
> > > > > > > > >February
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > > > collage":
> > > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> > > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> > > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> > > > > happen
> > > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> > > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> > > > > ubiquity
> > > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> > > > > has
> > > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> > > > > quiet
> > > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
> > > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > > > > explicitly.
> > > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> > > > > > each repeated three times.
> > > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> > > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> > > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> > > > > > villanelle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> > > > > > they'd work together:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ever after
> > > > > > They come,
> > > > > > she says:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > “They come,”
> > > > > > she says.
> > > > > > Ever after,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > “Ever after,
> > > > > > They come.”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
> > > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
> > > > > --
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
> > > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> > > > > Video by Doug Cole
> > > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
> > >
> > > HTH and HAND.
>
> > I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines.
> That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
> 'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
> >

But you'd responded to the Donkey. Was the Donkey playing along with Karla and JR?

> > You didn't read the thread.
> > You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
> > You were caught.
> > You were corrected.
> > You made a colossal fool of yourself.
> > And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.
> That's how your fellow troll 'understood' it

That's how anyone would understand it.

The Donkey has admitted that he doesn't read the threads he responds to. This thread provides a perfect example of his response-without-reading technique.

> > You can keep on braying about it, Donkey, but you'll never convince me (or anyone else who isn't one of your flunkies).
> Get over yourself, Michael. No one is interested in "convincing" you or any of the Monkey's flunkies. You have your stories, and you stick with them..

Really? So why are you trying to convince me by restating your case (immediately below)?
> When NastyGoon opened the thread to troll it, they made three claims, none of which were true, but which you had to try to back up because your colleague said them:
> (1) The poem was meaningless;
> (2) I refused to listen to any criticism, and was mean to those who offered it.
> (3) Will Dockery, yadda yadda (see above).
>
> You've failed to prove (1) or (2) (you couldn't find any mean replies to anyone offering criticism, and even you two now understand what the poem means -- so you've simply doubled down on (3) to try and salvage a win of some kind in the thread. .
>

(1) Your poem was meaningless in its original form. As I have explained: (a) dreams are not unnoticed, (b) ocean waves are not dreams, (c) the curve of a cheek is not a dream. Since that was the entire content of your three-line poem, your entire poem was meaningless.
(2) You responded to Karla, JR, Barbara's Cat, et al., with petty, snippy, catty remarks. I wouldn't call them "mean" remarks -- just petty, catty, snippy, butt-hurt ones.
(3) Will Donkey responded without reading (as per his admitted m.o.) and made an ass of himself (as per his usual m.o.).

> > I'm done.
>
> A wise decision, since it looks like a standoff. I can't see how Will or I can prove what we were thinking at the time, and I don't think it's even possible for you or your troll "colleague" to prove what we were thinking.
>

I'm not interested in what you were thinking. I'm only interested in what you actually *wrote.*

Here's how anyone reading the thread would interpret it:

1) Will complimented "your" 9-line poem under the mistaken belief that you had been responsible for Karla and JR's additions.
2) You corrected him.
3) Will unsuccessfully attempted to wriggle out of an embarrassing situation by claiming that he was being sarcastic.

Here's what you're asking everyone to believe:

1) Will played along with Karla and JR's joke by commenting on how "your" additional lines shifted the poem's perspective.
2) You understood what Will was doing, but corrected him because you didn't want anyone thinking you'd actually written Karla and JR's lines (in spite of the fact that anyone reading the thread can clearly see that they'd written them).
3) Will then explained that since Karla and JR's additions were simply rearrangements of the lines in your poem, you had, in fact, written all 9 of the lines.

George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
>>> > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> > > > > George Dance wrote...
>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > >February
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
>>> > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
>>> > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
>>> > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
>>> > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
>>> > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
>>> > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>>> > > > > > perspective.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
>>> > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
>>> > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
>>> > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
>>> > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
>>> > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
>>> > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
>>> > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
>>> > > > collage":
>>> > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
>>> > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
>>> > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
>>> > > > happen
>>> > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
>>> > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
>>> > > > ubiquity
>>> > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
>>> > > > has
>>> > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
>>> > > > quiet
>>> > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
>>> > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
>>> > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
>>> > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
>>> > > > explicitly.
>>> > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
>>> > > > > each repeated three times.
>>> > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
>>> > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
>>> > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
>>> > > > > villanelle.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
>>> > > > > they'd work together:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Ever after
>>> > > > > They come,
>>> > > > > she says:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > “They come,”
>>> > > > > she says.
>>> > > > > Ever after,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > she says:
>>> > > > > “Ever after,
>>> > > > > They come.”
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
>>> > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
>>> > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
>>> > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
>>> > > > Video by Doug Cole
>>> > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
>>> >
>>> > HTH and HAND.

>>> I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines.

>> That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
>> 'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
>>>
>>> You didn't read the thread.
>>> You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
>>> You were caught.
>>> You were corrected.
>>> You made a colossal fool of yourself.
>>> And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.

>> That's how your fellow troll 'understood' it

>>> You can keep on braying about it, Donkey, but you'll never convince me (or anyone else who isn't one of your flunkies).

>> Get over yourself, Michael. No one is interested in "convincing" you or any of the Monkey's flunkies. You have your stories, and you stick with them.

>> When NastyGoon opened the thread to troll it, they made three claims, none of which were true, but which you had to try to back up because your colleague said them:
>> (1) The poem was meaningless;
>> (2) I refused to listen to any criticism, and was mean to those who offered it.
>> (3) Will Dockery, yadda yadda (see above).

>> You've failed to prove (1) or (2) (you couldn't find any mean replies to anyone offering criticism, and even you two now understand what the poem means -- so you've simply doubled down on (3) to try and salvage a win of some kind in the thread. .

>
>> I'm done.

>
> A wise decision, since it looks like a standoff. I can't see how Will or I can prove what we were thinking at the time, and I don't think it's even possible for you or your troll "colleague" to prove what we were thinking.

Like I said, exactly,, and good riddance.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 1:16:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:26:48 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> > > > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > George Dance wrote...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >February
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > > > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > > > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > > > > collage":
> > > > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> > > > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> > > > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> > > > > > happen
> > > > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> > > > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> > > > > > ubiquity
> > > > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> > > > > > quiet
> > > > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet...."
> > > > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > > > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > > > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > > > > > explicitly.
> > > > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> > > > > > > each repeated three times.
> > > > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> > > > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> > > > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> > > > > > > villanelle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> > > > > > > they'd work together:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ever after
> > > > > > > They come,
> > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > “They come,”
> > > > > > > she says.
> > > > > > > Ever after,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > “Ever after,
> > > > > > > They come.”
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
> > > > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
> > > > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > > > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> > > > > > Video by Doug Cole
> > > > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
> > > >
> > > > HTH and HAND.
> >
> > > I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines.

> > That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
> > 'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
> > >
> But you'd responded to the Donkey. Was the Donkey playing along with Karla and JR?

That's not what I'd said or thought. What gave you the idea that Will was "playing along" with the trolls?

> > > You didn't read the thread.
> > > You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
> > > You were caught.
> > > You were corrected.
> > > You made a colossal fool of yourself.
> > > And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.
> > That's how your fellow troll 'understood' it
> That's how anyone would understand it.
>
> The Donkey has admitted that he doesn't read the threads he responds to.

Cite?

> This thread provides a perfect example of his response-without-reading technique.

So far, the only of such a "technique" is the word of a Monkey.

> > > You can keep on braying about it, Donkey, but you'll never convince me (or anyone else who isn't one of your flunkies).
> > Get over yourself, Michael. No one is interested in "convincing" you or any of the Monkey's flunkies. You have your stories, and you stick with them.
> Really? So why are you trying to convince me by restating your case (immediately below)?
> > When NastyGoon opened the thread to troll it, they made three claims, none of which were true, but which you had to try to back up because your colleague said them:
> > (1) The poem was meaningless;
> > (2) I refused to listen to any criticism, and was mean to those who offered it.
> > (3) Will Dockery, yadda yadda (see above).
> >
> > You've failed to prove (1) or (2) (you couldn't find any mean replies to anyone offering criticism, and even you two now understand what the poem means) -- so you've simply doubled down on (3) to try and salvage a win of some kind in the thread. .
> >
> (1) Your poem was meaningless in its original form. As I have explained: (a) dreams are not unnoticed, (b) ocean waves are not dreams, (c) the curve of a cheek is not a dream. Since that was the entire content of your three-line poem, your entire poem was meaningless.

Michael: None of your statements -- (a) dreams are not unnoticed, (b) ocean waves are not dreams, (c) the curve of a cheek is not a dream -- would be are true if "dreams", "unnoticed," "ocean waves in winter," and "the curve of a cheek" were actually "meaning". Since you're arguing that they're all true, you're conceding that those words did have a meaning (even in the "original form" of the poem. Which makes your conclusion false.

(2) You responded to Karla, JR, Barbara's Cat, et al., with petty, snippy, catty remarks. I wouldn't call them "mean" remarks -- just petty, catty, snippy, butt-hurt ones.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:52:04 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 1:16:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:26:48 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > George Dance wrote...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >February
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > > > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > > > > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > > > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > > > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > > > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > > > > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > > > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > > > > > collage":
> > > > > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> > > > > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> > > > > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> > > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> > > > > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> > > > > > > ubiquity
> > > > > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> > > > > > > quiet
> > > > > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
> > > > > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > > > > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > > > > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > > > > > > explicitly.
> > > > > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> > > > > > > > each repeated three times.
> > > > > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> > > > > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> > > > > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> > > > > > > > villanelle.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> > > > > > > > they'd work together:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ever after
> > > > > > > > They come,
> > > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > “They come,”
> > > > > > > > she says.
> > > > > > > > Ever after,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > > “Ever after,
> > > > > > > > They come.”
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February.."> --
> > > > > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
> > > > > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > > > > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler..
> > > > > > > Video by Doug Cole
> > > > > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
> > > > >
> > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > >
> > > > I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines.
>
> > > That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
> > > 'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
> > > >
> > But you'd responded to the Donkey. Was the Donkey playing along with Karla and JR?
> That's not what I'd said or thought. What gave you the idea that Will was "playing along" with the trolls?

The Donkey wrote the following directly underneath the expanded 9-line poem: "Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
perspective."

There are only two possible ways of accounting for this:

1) He only read the latest post in the thread, and failed to understand that Karla and JR had contributed verses to your poem, or
2) he was playing along with their joke and pretending that their contributions improved it.

> > > > You didn't read the thread.
> > > > You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
> > > > You were caught.
> > > > You were corrected.
> > > > You made a colossal fool of yourself.
> > > > And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.
> > > That's how your fellow troll 'understood' it
> > That's how anyone would understand it.
> >
> > The Donkey has admitted that he doesn't read the threads he responds to..
> Cite?
> > This thread provides a perfect example of his response-without-reading technique.
> So far, the only of such a "technique" is the word of a Monkey.

I believe you had meant to include a "proof" in the above.

And, you're wrong again, George. We have the word of a Donkey:

PJR: Do you ever read the posts to which you reply?
WILL DOCKERY: Okay, good point.

> > > > You can keep on braying about it, Donkey, but you'll never convince me (or anyone else who isn't one of your flunkies).
> > > Get over yourself, Michael. No one is interested in "convincing" you or any of the Monkey's flunkies. You have your stories, and you stick with them.
> > Really? So why are you trying to convince me by restating your case (immediately below)?
> > > When NastyGoon opened the thread to troll it, they made three claims, none of which were true, but which you had to try to back up because your colleague said them:
> > > (1) The poem was meaningless;
> > > (2) I refused to listen to any criticism, and was mean to those who offered it.
> > > (3) Will Dockery, yadda yadda (see above).
> > >
> > > You've failed to prove (1) or (2) (you couldn't find any mean replies to anyone offering criticism, and even you two now understand what the poem means) -- so you've simply doubled down on (3) to try and salvage a win of some kind in the thread. .
> > >
> > (1) Your poem was meaningless in its original form. As I have explained: (a) dreams are not unnoticed, (b) ocean waves are not dreams, (c) the curve of a cheek is not a dream. Since that was the entire content of your three-line poem, your entire poem was meaningless.
> Michael: None of your statements -- (a) dreams are not unnoticed, (b) ocean waves are not dreams, (c) the curve of a cheek is not a dream -- would be are true if "dreams", "unnoticed," "ocean waves in winter," and "the curve of a cheek" were actually "meaning". Since you're arguing that they're all true, you're conceding that those words did have a meaning (even in the "original form" of the poem. Which makes your conclusion false.
> (2) You responded to Karla, JR, Barbara's Cat, et al., with petty, snippy, catty remarks. I wouldn't call them "mean" remarks -- just petty, catty, snippy, butt-hurt ones.
> Like you, those 3 were trolls, and didn't offer any criticism of the poem..

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 7:28:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:52:04 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 1:16:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:26:48 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > > George Dance wrote...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >February
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > > > > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > > > > > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > > > > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > > > > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > > > > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > > > > > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > > > > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > > > > > > collage":
> > > > > > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> > > > > > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> > > > > > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> > > > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> > > > > > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> > > > > > > > ubiquity
> > > > > > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> > > > > > > > quiet
> > > > > > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
> > > > > > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > > > > > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > > > > > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > > > > > > > explicitly.
> > > > > > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> > > > > > > > > each repeated three times.
> > > > > > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> > > > > > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> > > > > > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> > > > > > > > > villanelle.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> > > > > > > > > they'd work together:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ever after
> > > > > > > > > They come,
> > > > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > “They come,”
> > > > > > > > > she says.
> > > > > > > > > Ever after,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > > > “Ever after,
> > > > > > > > > They come.”
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
> > > > > > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
> > > > > > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > > > > > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> > > > > > > > Video by Doug Cole
> > > > > > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > >
> > > > > I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines.
> >
> > > > That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
> > > > 'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
> > > > >
> > > But you'd responded to the Donkey. Was the Donkey playing along with Karla and JR?
> > That's not what I'd said or thought. What gave you the idea that Will was "playing along" with the trolls?
> The Donkey wrote the following directly underneath the expanded 9-line poem: "Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> perspective."
>
> There are only two possible ways of accounting for this:
>
> 1) He only read the latest post in the thread, and failed to understand that Karla and JR had contributed verses to your poem, or
> 2) he was playing along with their joke and pretending that their contributions improved it.

- or there's the one I just told you.
3) > > > > 'he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine.

> > > > > You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
> > > > > You were caught.
> > > > > You were corrected.
> > > > > You made a colossal fool of yourself.
> > > > > And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.
> > > > That's how your fellow troll 'understood' it
> > > That's how anyone would understand it.
> > >
> > > The Donkey has admitted that he doesn't read the threads he responds to.
> > Cite?
> > > This thread provides a perfect example of his response-without-reading technique.
> > So far, the only of such a "technique" is the word of a Monkey.
> I believe you had meant to include a "proof" in the above.

Wrong again, Michael. I meant to write "evidence."

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:12:15 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 7:28:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:52:04 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 1:16:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:26:48 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > George Dance wrote...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >February
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > > > > > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > > > > > > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > > > > > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > > > > > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > > > > > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > > > > > > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > > > > > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > > > > > > > collage":
> > > > > > > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> > > > > > > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> > > > > > > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> > > > > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> > > > > > > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> > > > > > > > > ubiquity
> > > > > > > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> > > > > > > > > quiet
> > > > > > > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > > > > > > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > > > > > > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > > > > > > > > explicitly.
> > > > > > > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> > > > > > > > > > each repeated three times.
> > > > > > > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> > > > > > > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> > > > > > > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> > > > > > > > > > villanelle.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> > > > > > > > > > they'd work together:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ever after
> > > > > > > > > > They come,
> > > > > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > “They come,”
> > > > > > > > > > she says.
> > > > > > > > > > Ever after,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > > > > “Ever after,
> > > > > > > > > > They come.”
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
> > > > > > > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
> > > > > > > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > > > > > > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> > > > > > > > > Video by Doug Cole
> > > > > > > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines..
> > >
> > > > > That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
> > > > > 'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
> > > > > >
> > > > But you'd responded to the Donkey. Was the Donkey playing along with Karla and JR?
> > > That's not what I'd said or thought. What gave you the idea that Will was "playing along" with the trolls?
> > The Donkey wrote the following directly underneath the expanded 9-line poem: "Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > perspective."
> >
> > There are only two possible ways of accounting for this:
> >
> > 1) He only read the latest post in the thread, and failed to understand that Karla and JR had contributed verses to your poem, or
> > 2) he was playing along with their joke and pretending that their contributions improved it.
> - or there's the one I just told you.
> 3) > > > > 'he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine.

But they weren't pretending to have written yours, George. Here's what they posted along with their verses:

JR: "hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos. or a Mr. Potato Head. man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!"

KARLA: "And j r, your 'focused beams' reminded me of a certain poetess's Balancing Beam poem. Shame on you!"
Note how Karla identifies "focused beams" as JR's words -- not yours.

George Dance wrote:

> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 7:28:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:52:04 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 1:16:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:26:48 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > George Dance wrote...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >February
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
>> > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
>> > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
>> > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
>> > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>> > > > > > > > > > perspective.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
>> > > > > > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
>> > > > > > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
>> > > > > > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
>> > > > > > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
>> > > > > > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
>> > > > > > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
>> > > > > > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
>> > > > > > > > collage":
>> > > > > > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
>> > > > > > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
>> > > > > > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
>> > > > > > > > happen
>> > > > > > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
>> > > > > > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
>> > > > > > > > ubiquity
>> > > > > > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
>> > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
>> > > > > > > > quiet
>> > > > > > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
>> > > > > > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
>> > > > > > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
>> > > > > > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
>> > > > > > > > explicitly.
>> > > > > > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
>> > > > > > > > > each repeated three times.
>> > > > > > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
>> > > > > > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
>> > > > > > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
>> > > > > > > > > villanelle.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
>> > > > > > > > > they'd work together:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Ever after
>> > > > > > > > > They come,
>> > > > > > > > > she says:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > “They come,”
>> > > > > > > > > she says.
>> > > > > > > > > Ever after,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > she says:
>> > > > > > > > > “Ever after,
>> > > > > > > > > They come.”
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
>> > > > > > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
>> > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
>> > > > > > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
>> > > > > > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
>> > > > > > > > Video by Doug Cole
>> > > > > > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > HTH and HAND.
>> > > >
>> > > > > I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines.
>> >
>> > > > That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
>> > > > 'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
>> > > > >
>> > > But you'd responded to the Donkey. Was the Donkey playing along with Karla and JR?
>> > That's not what I'd said or thought. What gave you the idea that Will was "playing along" with the trolls?
>> The Donkey wrote the following directly underneath the expanded 9-line poem: "Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>> perspective."
>>
>> There are only two possible ways of accounting for this:
>>
>> 1) He only read the latest post in the thread, and failed to understand that Karla and JR had contributed verses to your poem, or
>> 2) he was playing along with their joke and pretending that their contributions improved it.

> - or there's the one I just told you.
> 3) > > > > 'he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine.

>> > > > > You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
>> > > > > You were caught.
>> > > > > You were corrected.
>> > > > > You made a colossal fool of yourself.
>> > > > > And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.
>> > > > That's how your fellow troll 'understood' it
>> > > That's how anyone would understand it.
>> > >
>> > > The Donkey has admitted that he doesn't read the threads he responds to.
>> > Cite?
>> > > This thread provides a perfect example of his response-without-reading technique.
>> > So far, the only of such a "technique" is the word of a Monkey.
>> I believe you had meant to include a "proof" in the above.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:12:15 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 7:28:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:52:04 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 1:16:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:26:48 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > George Dance wrote...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >February
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > > > > > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > > > > > > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > > > > > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > > > > > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > > > > > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > > > > > > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > > > > > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > > > > > > > collage":
> > > > > > > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> > > > > > > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> > > > > > > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> > > > > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> > > > > > > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> > > > > > > > > ubiquity
> > > > > > > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> > > > > > > > > quiet
> > > > > > > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > > > > > > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > > > > > > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > > > > > > > > explicitly.
> > > > > > > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> > > > > > > > > > each repeated three times.
> > > > > > > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> > > > > > > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> > > > > > > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> > > > > > > > > > villanelle.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> > > > > > > > > > they'd work together:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ever after
> > > > > > > > > > They come,
> > > > > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > “They come,”
> > > > > > > > > > she says.
> > > > > > > > > > Ever after,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > > > > “Ever after,
> > > > > > > > > > They come.”
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
> > > > > > > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
> > > > > > > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > > > > > > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> > > > > > > > > Video by Doug Cole
> > > > > > > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines..
> > >
> > > > > That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
> > > > > 'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
> > > > > >
> > > > But you'd responded to the Donkey. Was the Donkey playing along with Karla and JR?
> > > That's not what I'd said or thought. What gave you the idea that Will was "playing along" with the trolls?
> > The Donkey wrote the following directly underneath the expanded 9-line poem: "Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > perspective."
> >
> > There are only two possible ways of accounting for this:
> >
> > 1) He only read the latest post in the thread, and failed to understand that Karla and JR had contributed verses to your poem, or
> > 2) he was playing along with their joke and pretending that their contributions improved it.
> - or there's the one I just told you.
> 3) > > > > 'he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine.
> > > > > > You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
> > > > > > You were caught.
> > > > > > You were corrected.
> > > > > > You made a colossal fool of yourself.
> > > > > > And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.
> > > > > That's how your fellow troll 'understood' it
> > > > That's how anyone would understand it.
> > > >
> > > > The Donkey has admitted that he doesn't read the threads he responds to.
> > > Cite?
> > > > This thread provides a perfect example of his response-without-reading technique.
> > > So far, the only of such a "technique" is the word of a Monkey.
> > I believe you had meant to include a "proof" in the above.
> Wrong again, Michael. I meant to write "evidence."
> "> > So far, the only of such a "technique" is the word of a Monkey."
> > And, you're wrong again, George. We have the word of a Donkey:
>
> > PJR: Do you ever read the posts to which you reply?
> > WILL DOCKERY: Okay, good point.
> Sorry, Michael, but an edited , out-of-context "quote" supplied by a Monkey is still just "the word of a Monkey." If you can give a full cite, or a link so I can read the exchange for myself, you might have something more.
> > > > > > You can keep on braying about it, Donkey, but you'll never convince me (or anyone else who isn't one
> of your flunkies).
> > > > > Get over yourself, Michael. No one is interested in "convincing" you or any of the Monkey's flunkies. You have your stories, and you stick with them.
> > > > Really? So why are you trying to convince me by restating your case (immediately below)?
> You keep stating your buffoon's case. So I'm continuing to rebut it.
> > > > > When NastyGoon opened the thread to troll it, they made three claims, none of which were true, but which you had to try to back up because your colleague said them:
> > > > > (1) The poem was meaningless;
> > > > > (2) I refused to listen to any criticism, and was mean to those who offered it.
> > > > > (3) Will Dockery, yadda yadda (see above).
> > > > >
> > > > > You've failed to prove (1) or (2) (you couldn't find any mean replies to anyone offering criticism, and even you two now understand what the poem means) -- so you've simply doubled down on (3) to try and salvage a win of some kind in the thread. .
> > > > >
> > > > (1) Your poem was meaningless in its original form. As I have explained: (a) dreams are not unnoticed, (b) ocean waves are not dreams, (c) the curve of a cheek is not a dream. Since that was the entire content of your three-line poem, your entire poem was meaningless.
> > > Michael: None of your statements -- (a) dreams are not unnoticed, (b) ocean waves are not dreams, (c) the curve of a cheek is not a dream -- would be unless "dreams", "unnoticed," "ocean waves in winter," and "the curve of a cheek" actually had a meaning. Since you're arguing that they're all true, you're conceding that those words did have a meaning (even in the "original form" of the poem). Which makes your conclusion false.
> > > > (2) You responded to Karla, JR, Barbara's Cat, et al., with petty, snippy, catty remarks. I wouldn't call them "mean" remarks -- just petty, catty, snippy, butt-hurt ones.
> > > Like you, those 3 were trolls, and didn't offer any criticism of the poem.
>
> > Mocking a poem is a form or criticism. It's a rather crude form of criticism (one step up from blowing a raspberry at it), but it provides an evaluation of the poem nonetheless.
> Noted; you're defending trolling (not just theirs, but your own) by calling it "mockery" and insisting that it's a "form or criticism" [sic] too. I'll archive that.
> > > > (3) Will Donkey responded without reading (as per his admitted m.o.) and made an ass of himself (as per his usual m.o.).
> > > > > > I'm done.
> > > > >
> > > > > A wise decision, since it looks like a standoff. I can't see how Will or I can prove what we were thinking at the time, and I don't think it's even possible for you or your troll "colleague" to prove what we were thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > I'm not interested in what you were thinking. I'm only interested in what you actually *wrote.*
> > >
> > > > Here's how anyone reading the thread would interpret it:
>
> > > Correction: this is how your buffoon "colleague" interpreted, and how you say you 'interpreted' it.
> > My colleague is more intelligent than you, better educated than you, better read than you, and a much better writer than you. I trust her interpretation -- and I certainly trust my own.
> I'm sure that if they were reading the thread they'd appreciate your leg-hump. Rest assured that it has no other value than that to anyone.
> >
> > But go ahead, George. If your post to Will wasn't an example of your correcting him ("Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines."), please be so good as to tell us what you think it means.
> Once again, Michael, I already told you that:
> > > > > I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
> I understand you're simply trying to waste my time, but try not to be so blatant about it.
> > > > 1) Will complimented "your" 9-line poem under the mistaken belief that you had been responsible for Karla and JR's additions.
> > > > 2) You corrected him.
> > > > 3) Will unsuccessfully attempted to wriggle out of an embarrassing situation by claiming that he was being sarcastic.
> > > >
> > > > Here's what you're asking everyone to believe:
> > > You're wrong again. I'm telling you how the people involved in the conversation "interpreted" it.
> > You cannot know how Karla, JR, Barbara's Cat, or anyone else involved in the conversation interpreted it. You can only speak for yourself (and most likely for your Donkey).
> Monkey: Will and I were the only two involved in this part of the conversation.
> <quote>
> > > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > George Dance wrote...
> </q>
> > > > 1) Will played along with Karla and JR's joke by commenting on how "your" additional lines shifted the poem's perspective.
> > > Michael, I've already corrected your claim that "Will played along with Karla and JR's joke". I told you:
> > > "That's not what I'd said or thought. What gave you the idea that Will was "playing along" with the trolls?
> > > Since you're repeating that, I think it's fair to add it to your list of lies. (The rest of your sentence was correct.)
> > EARTH TO GEORGE:
> >
> > 1) You've "already corrected" my claim in this, your latest post. My repeating it (in a post made prior to this one) has no bearing on your current response.
>
> > 2) You haven't actually corrected anyone. All you've done is to deny that you thought Will was playing along with the trolls. You have yet to tell us what you think Will's statement (that he liked how the repetition of the lines shifted the perspective) meant.
> No, Michael, you're lying again. In fact, I told you that as well:
> As noted above, he was either playing along with the trolls or (most likely) had only read the post he was responding to, and had no idea that Karla and JR had each contributed a verse.
> > > > 2) You understood what Will was doing, but corrected him because you didn't want anyone thinking you'd actually written Karla and JR's lines (in spite of the fact that anyone reading the thread can clearly see that they'd written them).
> > >
> > > > 3) Will then explained that since Karla and JR's additions were simply rearrangements of the lines in your poem, you had, in fact, written all 9 of the lines.
> > > >
> > > The last part is not true" What Will in fact said was "you wrote all three lines [...] all three would be
> > > > > > > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > > > > > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best."
> > How is that not what I said, George?
> WILL: ""you wrote all three lines"
> MM: "Will then explained that .. you had, in fact, written all 9 of the lines."
>
> How are they different? Well, here's a clue for you: "three" and "nine" do not mean the same thing.
> >
> > Try rereading it a little more carefully.
> Nope; "you wrote three lines" and "you wrote all 9 lines' still don't look the same.
> > > > I rest my case.
> > >
> > > So you keep saying. But I expect that you'll be back.
> > Since you have taken the time to respond to each of my points, I am responding to yours out of courtesy.
> >
> > "Courtesy" is a good word for you to learn the meaning of -- and a much better system to employ in a Usenet group than Tit for Tat.
> As you're using it, the Monkey meaning of "courtesy" seems to be: Keep repeating the same bullshit over and over, hoping to get in the last word for the win. I'll add that to the lexicon.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:12:15 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 7:28:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:52:04 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 1:16:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 10:26:48 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > George Dance wrote...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >February
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > > > > > > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > > > > > > > > Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > > > > > > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > > > > > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > > > > > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > > > > > > > > In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > > > > > > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > > > > > > > collage":
> > > > > > > > > "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> > > > > > > > > "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> > > > > > > > > plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> > > > > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > > > because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> > > > > > > > > because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> > > > > > > > > ubiquity
> > > > > > > > > of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> > > > > > > > > quiet
> > > > > > > > > and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > > > > > > > > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > > > > > > > > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > > > > > > > > explicitly.
> > > > > > > > > > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> > > > > > > > > > each repeated three times.
> > > > > > > > > Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> > > > > > > > > > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> > > > > > > > > > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> > > > > > > > > > villanelle.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> > > > > > > > > > they'd work together:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ever after
> > > > > > > > > > They come,
> > > > > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > “They come,”
> > > > > > > > > > she says.
> > > > > > > > > > Ever after,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > she says:
> > > > > > > > > > “Ever after,
> > > > > > > > > > They come.”
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --
> > > > > > > > > Not bad, not bad at all.
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
> > > > > > > > > Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > > > > > > > > "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> > > > > > > > > Video by Doug Cole
> > > > > > > Again, see my post above, only a delusional fuckwit monkey like you could misunderstand it, Pendragon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I understood it exactly as George Dance understood it when he felt the need to explain to you that he'd only written the first three lines..
> > >
> > > > > That's interesting. Once again, here's how I understood it:
> > > > > 'As I've explained to you more than once, he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine. I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
> > > > > >
> > > > But you'd responded to the Donkey. Was the Donkey playing along with Karla and JR?
> > > That's not what I'd said or thought. What gave you the idea that Will was "playing along" with the trolls?
> > The Donkey wrote the following directly underneath the expanded 9-line poem: "Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > perspective."
> >
> > There are only two possible ways of accounting for this:
> >
> > 1) He only read the latest post in the thread, and failed to understand that Karla and JR had contributed verses to your poem, or
> > 2) he was playing along with their joke and pretending that their contributions improved it.
> - or there's the one I just told you.
> 3) > > > > 'he was pretending I wrote psycho sherman's and Karla's "poem" because Karla was pretending psycho sherman had written mine.
> > > > > > You mistook Karla and JR's reworked version of the poem as George's original.
> > > > > > You were caught.
> > > > > > You were corrected.
> > > > > > You made a colossal fool of yourself.
> > > > > > And you've been trying to pretend that it was sarcasm ever since.
> > > > > That's how your fellow troll 'understood' it
> > > > That's how anyone would understand it.
> > > >
> > > > The Donkey has admitted that he doesn't read the threads he responds to.
> > > Cite?
> > > > This thread provides a perfect example of his response-without-reading technique.
> > > So far, the only of such a "technique" is the word of a Monkey.
> > I believe you had meant to include a "proof" in the above.
> Wrong again, Michael. I meant to write "evidence."
> "> > So far, the only of such a "technique" is the word of a Monkey."
> > And, you're wrong again, George. We have the word of a Donkey:
>
> > PJR: Do you ever read the posts to which you reply?
> > WILL DOCKERY: Okay, good point.
> Sorry, Michael, but an edited , out-of-context "quote" supplied by a Monkey is still just "the word of a Monkey." If you can give a full cite, or a link so I can read the exchange for myself, you might have something more.
> > > > > > You can keep on braying about it, Donkey, but you'll never convince me (or anyone else who isn't one
> of your flunkies).
> > > > > Get over yourself, Michael. No one is interested in "convincing" you or any of the Monkey's flunkies. You have your stories, and you stick with them.
> > > > Really? So why are you trying to convince me by restating your case (immediately below)?
> You keep stating your buffoon's case. So I'm continuing to rebut it.
> > > > > When NastyGoon opened the thread to troll it, they made three claims, none of which were true, but which you had to try to back up because your colleague said them:
> > > > > (1) The poem was meaningless;
> > > > > (2) I refused to listen to any criticism, and was mean to those who offered it.
> > > > > (3) Will Dockery, yadda yadda (see above).
> > > > >
> > > > > You've failed to prove (1) or (2) (you couldn't find any mean replies to anyone offering criticism, and even you two now understand what the poem means) -- so you've simply doubled down on (3) to try and salvage a win of some kind in the thread. .
> > > > >
> > > > (1) Your poem was meaningless in its original form. As I have explained: (a) dreams are not unnoticed, (b) ocean waves are not dreams, (c) the curve of a cheek is not a dream. Since that was the entire content of your three-line poem, your entire poem was meaningless.
> > > Michael: None of your statements -- (a) dreams are not unnoticed, (b) ocean waves are not dreams, (c) the curve of a cheek is not a dream -- would be unless "dreams", "unnoticed," "ocean waves in winter," and "the curve of a cheek" actually had a meaning. Since you're arguing that they're all true, you're conceding that those words did have a meaning (even in the "original form" of the poem). Which makes your conclusion false.
> > > > (2) You responded to Karla, JR, Barbara's Cat, et al., with petty, snippy, catty remarks. I wouldn't call them "mean" remarks -- just petty, catty, snippy, butt-hurt ones.
> > > Like you, those 3 were trolls, and didn't offer any criticism of the poem.
>
> > Mocking a poem is a form or criticism. It's a rather crude form of criticism (one step up from blowing a raspberry at it), but it provides an evaluation of the poem nonetheless.
> Noted; you're defending trolling (not just theirs, but your own) by calling it "mockery" and insisting that it's a "form or criticism" [sic] too. I'll archive that.
> > > > (3) Will Donkey responded without reading (as per his admitted m.o.) and made an ass of himself (as per his usual m.o.).
> > > > > > I'm done.
> > > > >
> > > > > A wise decision, since it looks like a standoff. I can't see how Will or I can prove what we were thinking at the time, and I don't think it's even possible for you or your troll "colleague" to prove what we were thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > I'm not interested in what you were thinking. I'm only interested in what you actually *wrote.*
> > >
> > > > Here's how anyone reading the thread would interpret it:
>
> > > Correction: this is how your buffoon "colleague" interpreted, and how you say you 'interpreted' it.
> > My colleague is more intelligent than you, better educated than you, better read than you, and a much better writer than you. I trust her interpretation -- and I certainly trust my own.
> I'm sure that if they were reading the thread they'd appreciate your leg-hump. Rest assured that it has no other value than that to anyone.
> >
> > But go ahead, George. If your post to Will wasn't an example of your correcting him ("Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines."), please be so good as to tell us what you think it means.
> Once again, Michael, I already told you that:
> > > > > I didn't play along because I didn't want anyone thinking I was responsible for either troll's "poetry".'
> I understand you're simply trying to waste my time, but try not to be so blatant about it.
> > > > 1) Will complimented "your" 9-line poem under the mistaken belief that you had been responsible for Karla and JR's additions.
> > > > 2) You corrected him.
> > > > 3) Will unsuccessfully attempted to wriggle out of an embarrassing situation by claiming that he was being sarcastic.
> > > >
> > > > Here's what you're asking everyone to believe:
> > > You're wrong again. I'm telling you how the people involved in the conversation "interpreted" it.
> > You cannot know how Karla, JR, Barbara's Cat, or anyone else involved in the conversation interpreted it. You can only speak for yourself (and most likely for your Donkey).
> Monkey: Will and I were the only two involved in this part of the conversation.
> <quote>
> > > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:36:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > George Dance wrote...
> </q>
> > > > 1) Will played along with Karla and JR's joke by commenting on how "your" additional lines shifted the poem's perspective.
> > > Michael, I've already corrected your claim that "Will played along with Karla and JR's joke". I told you:
> > > "That's not what I'd said or thought. What gave you the idea that Will was "playing along" with the trolls?
> > > Since you're repeating that, I think it's fair to add it to your list of lies. (The rest of your sentence was correct.)
> > EARTH TO GEORGE:
> >
> > 1) You've "already corrected" my claim in this, your latest post. My repeating it (in a post made prior to this one) has no bearing on your current response.
>
> > 2) You haven't actually corrected anyone. All you've done is to deny that you thought Will was playing along with the trolls. You have yet to tell us what you think Will's statement (that he liked how the repetition of the lines shifted the perspective) meant.
> No, Michael, you're lying again. In fact, I told you that as well:
> As noted above, he was either playing along with the trolls or (most likely) had only read the post he was responding to, and had no idea that Karla and JR had each contributed a verse.
> > > > 2) You understood what Will was doing, but corrected him because you didn't want anyone thinking you'd actually written Karla and JR's lines (in spite of the fact that anyone reading the thread can clearly see that they'd written them).
> > >
> > > > 3) Will then explained that since Karla and JR's additions were simply rearrangements of the lines in your poem, you had, in fact, written all 9 of the lines.
> > > >
> > > The last part is not true" What Will in fact said was "you wrote all three lines [...] all three would be
> > > > > > > > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > > > > > > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best."
> > How is that not what I said, George?
> WILL: ""you wrote all three lines"
> MM: "Will then explained that .. you had, in fact, written all 9 of the lines."
>
> How are they different? Well, here's a clue for you: "three" and "nine" do not mean the same thing.
> >
> > Try rereading it a little more carefully.
> Nope; "you wrote three lines" and "you wrote all 9 lines' still don't look the same.
> > > > I rest my case.
> > >
> > > So you keep saying. But I expect that you'll be back.
> > Since you have taken the time to respond to each of my points, I am responding to yours out of courtesy.
> >
> > "Courtesy" is a good word for you to learn the meaning of -- and a much better system to employ in a Usenet group than Tit for Tat.
> As you're using it, the Monkey meaning of "courtesy" seems to be: Keep repeating the same bullshit over and over, hoping to get in the last word for the win. I'll add that to the lexicon.