Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-28 3:41 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca
>> wrote:
>> >> On 2022-11-28 12:43 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> You said that your poem was "largely" autobiographical, and that the
>> >> boys in your household (one assumes you number yourselves among them)
>> >> were subjected to "corporal punishment."
>> >> No, you're trying to put words in my mouth yet again. I said that my
>> >> poem was largely based on my own experiences. I did not say it was
>> >> "autobiographical" at all. It isn't: it's a poem, not a biography.
>> >
>> > What's the difference between "largely autobiographical" and "largely
>> based on my own experiences"?
>> I'll t5y to explain the distinction and the difference, though I doubt
>> that you're capable of understanding it. Still, other readers may be.
>>
>> An "autobiographical" account

> BAZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

> I did not ask for you to explain the difference between an "autobiographical" account and an account "largely based on my own experiences."

> I asked for you to explain the difference between a "largely autobiographical" account and an account "largely based on my own experiences."

> Those were the words we'd used. Those are the words I want you to explain.

> < irrelevant "explanation" snipped >

>> > Answer: There is no difference. You're nitpicking again, in an
>> attempt to avoid the issue. IOW: Dance goes into his dance.
>> As I said, I don't think you're capable of understanding the distinction
>> between history or creative literature, or the difference.

> BAZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

> That was not my question, George. Please answer the questions I've asked -- not the made up "questions" you'd prefer.

>> >>> If the boy lying in bed with his pajama pants pulled down wasn't you,
>> >> just say so and be done with it.
>> >> You're too much. For a week you've been backing up the Chimp's troll
>> >> about my mental health (pure IKYABWAI) with this so-called true account
>> >> of my childhood you found -- which turned out to be no such thing, but a
>> >> stanza from one of my poems. Rather than just drop it, you're now trying
>> >> to get me to give you that true accound you don't have.

> Wrong. I'm asking you to confirm or deny the bare-assed incident(s).

> If you poem is "largely based on (your) on my own experiences," the greater portion of if must be autobiographical.

> If you say that the kid with his pajama pants down was based on some other kid you knew, I won't challenge it.

> But you have to say it in order for me to think that it is not one of the autobiographical recollections in your poem.

>> > AFAICS, the incident is based on your childhood experiences. Again,
>> we have your admission that the poem was "was largely based on my own
>> experiences," coupled with your claim that all of the boys in your
>> household were subjected to "corporal punishment."
>> >
>> > Unless you were a girl who underwent a sex-change in adulthood, you
>> were subjected to corporal punishment as a boy.
>> >
>> > Of course I can't know whether you've undergone a sex-change
>> operation, and you can argue on the basis of your unknown childhood
>> gender status till you're blue in the face -- but as the sex-change
>> scenario seems extremely unlikely, I'm going to accept the
>> bare-bottomed-boy stanza as "autobiographical."
>> Michael, Michael, Miehael; who are you arguing with? I've already said
>> that I was "subjected to corporal punishment as a boy."

> I'm aware that you've said it. I'm also aware that you're now attempting to deny it (albeit via inane semantics-driven arguments).

> Did you father deliver said punishment with a belt?

> Did he whip you through your pants, or did he have you pull them down?

> I realize that this is a painful subject for you, but since you've chosen to immortalize it in your poem, you have to face the inevitable questions that arise from it.

>> That's hardly
>> unique. If you now want to argue that everyone "subjected to corporal
>> punishment as a boy" is paranoiac and has a persecution complex, you go
>> right ahead, but that's not what you have been arguing up to now, and
>> you (should) know it.

> That is not what I want to argue, nor is it what I have argued.

> The home situation depicted in your poem went far above the usual levels of punishment/repression/rules/etc.

> Your "largely" autobiographical speaker was basically kept prisoner as a child laborer inside the house -- gazing longingly out the window watching other children enjoying the freedom to run and play that he would never know.

>> >> Plus, you're
>> >> pretending that if I give you that, you and the Chimp will never, ever
>> >> try to use it -- we'll all be "done with it."
>> >
>> > If by "the Chimp," you're childishly referring to Jim, you've
>> successfully driven off of AAPC. He'll soon be taking a permanent leave.
>> Are you still feigning ignorance of who "the Chimp" is? No, you're
>> admitting it, but just trying to pretend no one else knew. What a silly
>> boy you are!

> No, George. I'm refusing to refer to him by your childish names.

>> > As per myself, when did I ever say or imply that I was never going to
>> "use" it?
>> >
>> > A bare-assed boy dutifully awaiting punishment (a whipping) every
>> night is a key factor in your psychological profile. No self-respecting
>> armchair var. psychologist would dream of discounting it.
>> But a psychiatrist of any kind, whose primary interest is his patient's
>> history and not in writing creative literature, would use only what his
>> patient told him of that, and would resist the temptation to indulge in
>> creative literature by imaging and adding details to give his patient a
>> more compelling story.

> Not if his patient told him that his "creative literature" was "largely based on (his) own experiences."

>> And you, most assuredly, are not doing that.
>> Notice, for example, the one detail you just imagined in the above
>> paragraph that was not in the poem you were trying to use as a true
>> account (since you're incapable of imagining it as anything else).

> And what "detail" that?

> My assumption that it was a daily practice? Did you only get whipped on days with an "r" in their name?

>> >> Not gonna happen, MMPJR.
>> >
>> > IOW: My analysis has hit home and you're embarrassed by it.
>> You wouldn't find it a compelling story if it didn't include that you'd
>> embarrassed someone, now, would you?

> You're the one who posted your childhood recollections here, George. I'm assuming that if you're willing to write about them in a poem, you aren't embarrassed over them.

>> >>> For the past week or so, you've simply been trolling over my having
>> >> called it "autobiographical" instead of "largely autobiographical" in a
>> >> failed attempt to avoid the issue: whether the passage about the
>> >> bare-bottomed boy was autobiographical.
>> >> You're obviously the boy, and obviously a troll.
>> >>
>> >> Why do you lie so much, MIchael? I've been "trolling" you over your
>> >> having called my mental condition "Paranoia with a resultant persecution
>> >> complex", and misusing a poem of mine for your only evidence. You tried;
>> >> you failed: drop it and move on: try somewhere else when you can find
>> >> something better.
>> >
>> > How am I lying when you admit that "I've been "trolling" you..."
>> (immediately above).
>> It's amazing how you'd interpret "Why do you lie such much, Michael?" as
>> an admission that you've been telling the truth. It does make a better
>> story for you, though, so I'd say that supports my hypothesis.

> I've never made any such interpretation

The archives show differently, you lying little monkey.

HTH and HAND.