On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-5, Family Guy wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery 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 is an example of writing history. A poem
> > > "largely based on my own experiences" is an example of writing creative
> > > literature. History and creative literature are both forms of writing,
> > > but they are not the same. The purpose of writing history is to give an
> > > accurate account of the real facts, to give an account of events as they
> > > actually happened; one is limited to those actual facts. The purpose of
> > > creative literature is to write a compelling account. Creative
> > > literature can use real facts, but is not limited to them; it can also
> > > add and omit facts, change details of events, and even invent new
> > > events; one is *not* limited to the actual facts. That's the difference
> > > for a writer. The difference for a reader is: when you read someone's
> > > autobiography, you can assume that all the eeerything he's describing
> > > happened to him, or at least he thinks they did; but when you read a
> > > person's first-person story or poem, you cannot make any such assumption.
> > > > 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. That is
> > > reflected not only in your own inability to understand that a poem is a
> > > work of creative literature and not an autobiography, but also in your
> > > own attempts to give the history of aapc, which are usually more
> > > creative literature than history. It is not, as some have claimed, that
> > > you're a compulsive liar: you are simply incapable of telling the
> > > difference between history (what actually happened) and your own
> > > imaginative interpretations of what happened (creative literature). In
> > > plain language, you cannot tell the difference between reality and your
> > > own beliefs about it.
> > > >>> 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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." 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.
> > > >> 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!
> > > > 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. 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).
> > > >> 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?
> > > >>> 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.
> > If the above is what you refer to, Corey, I read and understood it.
> >
> > HTH and HAND.
> >
> > > <snip>
> Clearly you did not

Sure, I did.