On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:22:51 PM UTC-5, Family Guy wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:16:47 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:06:45 AM UTC-5, rjbur...@gmail.com 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:
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> 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.
> > > Saying that one word equals another denies their subtle differences.
> > Context matters, I didn't deny that.
> IF context matters how come you never understand it?

Because he just desperately parrots things he sees others use because he's trolling so much, fighting with most everyone here, that he has exhausted his meager original thought repertoire!