On 2022-12-01 6:06 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:45:54 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:56:51 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:52:00 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 6:38:12 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com 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>
>>>>>>>>> You're inveterately anti-semantic, Will, and you've misunderstood every word that you've ever read.
>>>>>>>> I understand hyperbole, and your statement is a good example of that, Robert.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don’t understand nuance, and subtlety eludes you.
>>>>>> Not true.
>>>>> Again, the truth is self-evident.
>>>> No, not just because you say so.
>>>>
>>>> It is an opinion that you can't seem to explain.
>>>>
>>>> HTH and HAND.
>>
>>> You’re correct. The truth is the truth because it’s the truth, and
>>> not just because I say so. The self-evident, honest to goodness,
>>> obvious to everyone truth is that you don’t understand nuance
>> Can you give an example?
>>
>> I didn't think so.
>>
>> 🙂
>
> The whole paddling vs. beating debate is a great example.

Great example. You were given a dictionary definition, which you didn't
like and so decided to label as 'anti-semantic.'