Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 3:37:25 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> 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:
>> > > > George Dance 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?
>> I'm not the one having the problem with context, Dink.
>>
>> Try to keep up.

> having a problem with context

Not at all, you little shit eating monkey.

:)