On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:23:25 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:57:49 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > > Good morning, George...you got back before I left, so my last response is this...you have left out, LSD...now you might think that isn't such a horror..I see a young girl impregnated by this guy..trying to live life while enduring his drinking and drugging...if you believe that taking acid with your husband with a small child, is reasonable, I have to disagree.
> > > > > I wouldn't advise a pregnant woman, or anyone caring for a child, to take LSD. But they weren't doing that; their child had gone to the grandmother's for the weekend.
> > >
> > > > Jim isn't saying that Clay would have been present.
> > > - "taking acid with your husband with a small child"
> > > > Nor was Kathy pregnant at the time.
> > > "I see a young girl impregnated".
> > He is referring to Will's impregnating Kathy when she was still in high school.
> >
> > You're making the mistake of reading Jim's statement as referring to a single night. It's not. It's an overview of Will's relationship with her and Clay:
> >
> > 1) Will knocked up Kathy when she was still a minor.
> > 2) She had to endure life with a husband who spend all of his time and money getting drunk and/or high.
> > 3) It is not reasonable for a young mother to take acid with her husband.
> > > Whether that's what "Rochester" meant to write is irrelevant. What's important is that (1) Kathy was not taking LSD while "impregnated" and (2) she and will were not taking it "with a small child" present.
> > >
> > It is very relevant if you are questioning the validity of Jim's claims..
> > If, otoh, you are referring to *how* he said it, the passage could admittedly stand for a good deal of improvement.
> > > > > > You have left out other parts of the story he told...the story he told is cleaned up for your Wiki.
> > > > > If you used some other story, then let's see it. On what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > > Again, Will's autobio has undergone extensive revisions.
> > > Indeed, you claim to have numerous accounts. So let's see some.
> > I have never claimed to have any accounts, George.
> You did work on this story of his with him; according to the Bio, both of you were interviewing him for details.

We were not "interviewing" him, George. I considered Will a friend at that time and had pointed out numerous, unsavory passages that he should either clean up or delete.

> > I said that Will's story in its current form has undergone several revisions since it first appeared.
> >
> > Since you don't seem to understand what "revision" means, allow me to explain: it means that Will has *replaced* the previous versions with the current version.
> >
> > The previous versions, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exist.
> So you claim to have seen previous versions, but you also claim they "no longer exist" -- meaning we'll just have to take your word for what they say.
>

I'm sure you've seen them as well.

But, yes. Since Will followed my advice and revised his autobiography, the older versions no longer exist.

You are free to discount Jim's and my recollection of the contents; however, you should bear in mind that if the original story hadn't presented Will in an extremely unflattering light, I would not have urged him to revise it..

> > However, Will's comments to Jim and myself (included in the current version) show that this latest version was written to address points that Jim and I raised regarding the previous versions.
> Presumably, since you two were interviewing about these "previous versions" on aapc, he'd posted those "previous versions" on aapc. What happened to them? Are you saying Will deleted them?
>

Do you know how to revise a wiki page, George?

You delete a word/sentence/paragraph and type a new one in its place.

IOW: Yes, to all intents and purposes, Will deleted them.

> > > > How do you explain her holing up at the Hernandez house for a month?
> > > For example, let's see the account that says she was "at the Hernandez house for a month." From my reading of the Bio, I got the impression that Melody's "kidnapping" and Victoria's "rescue" happened the same night.
> > >
> > I take it that you don't bother reading Will's AAPC posts. Will recently clarified that he had been told that she had been at the Hernandez house for about a month, and in the mental institution for about the same period of time.
> > He hinted that he suspects she might not have been at the Hernandez's the entire time, but that he has no way of knowing where else she might have been.
> I might have missed that post (which I'd like to read rather than take your word for). So, once again, let's see. As is, according to the Bio they'd planned to move to Mexico that weekend (they already had their stuff packed in a U-haul). I'm skeptical that they changed plans and decided to stay in Atlanta for another month.
>

According to the bio, that was on the night that Kathy's sister found her there. This was approximately a month after she'd gone missing, and Kathy was supposed to have been going to Texas (not Mexico) with them.

> > > > > > If you believe Dockery had health insurance after being bounced out of places to live, well that is his lie.
> > > > > Maybe, maybe not. Don't expect me to take your word for that.
> > > > It's unclear from Will's story whether he had insurance. The lumber yard had been contacted by "the mental hospital she was checked in up in Marietta, Georgia [which] wanted to get my insurance papers or whatever, to pay her bill!"
> > > That sounds like he had insurance through his work, meaning his company paid the premiums (and that his ability to make rent wouldn't be a factor).
> > >
> > He had insurance through his job at the lumber yard.
> >
> So much, then, for your boy "Rochester's" claim that he didn't.

Jim clearly stated that it was a speculation on his part. He never made any such "claim."

> > He claims that he made relatively good money... however, in his exchanges with Tina (included in his autobio), he says that they never paid any rent (to the landlord they stiffed with the "constructive eviction"
> scam), and that he could not afford to have paid any.
> There's nothing in the bio about him not being able to pay "any" rent. He was employed through the whole period. I'm sure money was tight, but again that has nothing to do with whether he had insurance.
>

Money was *very* tight:

Tina: "Since they wouldn't fix it if I remember right the burners worked but the oven didn't we had to do everything on the top..."

Will: It was an excuse, but the rent was just too high at that place, for the money I made back then.

That was really what run me back down here, none of that rent I could afford... I did find a little apartment over near Little Five Points that was $200 a month but that was still a lot of money with only one job, and a little child. There must have been jobs in Atlanta, but I didn't know any of the right people.

The part of the story you probably don't know is we moved out of those La Maison Apartments, owing at least two months of rent (since none of us ever paid rent!) (which was like $365 a month utilities not included!) into her grandmother's house, and then right after Halloween she just vanished, like she was kidneapped.

[END QUOTE]

> > Since Tina was living with him at the time, I suspect that his exchanges with her are more truthful than his current autobiographical rendition.
> If you're able to cite any such exchanges, I'll read them and take them into account.

See above.

> > > > > > You say she came back
> > > > >
> > > > > No, "Edward" -- I'm telling you what Will says, in the autobiography on my wiki that you advised me to read:
> > > > > "Will Dockery: The Atlanta Years"
> > > > > If you want to call it that account a "lie" now, that's fine. So what account are you relying on? In particular, on what do you base your claim that his wife "ran away"?
> > > > > > , and then there is the Tina story, where wife and child are in one room as he is being serviced in another (Tina disappeared as well.).
> > > > > Tina had 'disappeared' long before that, when Will and Kathy moved into their grandmother's rental property. So I won't ask you where you got that story from at this point; let's try to deal with one at a time, shall we?
> > > > >
> > > > The timeline is unlcear in Will's story, but it was certainly *not* what anyone would consider "long before that."
> > > Yes, all the dates are vague in Will's story
> > > >
> > > > 1) Kathy left Will in spring of 1981.
> > > This isn't in the Bio. According to it, in spring of 1981 Will moved into "a small boarding house" and then to La Maison in mid-1981. He probably lived alone in the boarding house, but there's no details.
> > >
> > I suggest that you review my current exchanges with Will on the topic (in this and other threads). Will has confirmed that Kathy left him in the spring of 1981 and that he and Tina began living together that summer.
> I'm not interested in what Will said about your account. I would like to see where you got that account in the first place.

Who knows? Who cares? Why bother?

Will has already confirmed it.

Kathy's dead, I've never spoken to Tina, so I obviously got if from Will.

> > > > 2) Will met Tina and she moved in with him. They weren't paying rent because the stove in their apartment didn't work.
> > > That's sort of in the Bio: "'In the Summer of 1981 the constructive eviction happened, I was living with my wife Katherine, room mate named Tina, and my young son." That would be La Maison, where Will, Kathy, Clay, and Tina were all living.
> > >
> > Again, it has been elaborated on by Will in our current discussions.
> See above.
> > > > 3) Will and Tina planned on running off to Canada to avoid alimony and child support payments.
> > > That's not in the Bio. Source?
> > The source was Tina's FB page, which I do not have a link to. When Will found Tina on FB, they had several lengthy discussions wherein Tina was initially still angry with Will regarding his treatment of her (at La Maison).. They eventually reconciled.
> I have a link, so I just sent her a friend request. We'll see.

Assuming that the discussion is still there.

> > > > 4) Kathy returned late in the summer of 1981 and moved in with Will and Tina.
> > > That's not in the Bio. Source?
> > Again, that was discussed on Tina's FB page and confirmed by Will in our present discussion.
>
> > > > 5) Since Will was in the process of a "constructive eviction," he and Kathy moved into an apartment owned by her grandmother, and Tina left for parts unknown shortly thereafter.
> > > That's mostly in the bio: "one afternoon my Brother Dave drove up from Columbus in his pick up truck, we loaded all our meager belongings and moved to 590 Sherwood Road, K's grandmother's house, with the apartment in back." There's no indication that Tina moved to Sherwood with them.
> > >
> > That's because she didn't.
> So she didn't leave "shortly thereafter." Will and Kathy moved out, and Tina left either then or before then.

She left La Maison shortly thereafter. She did not move to Sherwood with them.

> > Kathy left Will in the spring of 1981. Will and Tina started living together that summer. They discussed running away to Canada (alimony and child support were not mentioned, but it was obvious from the context that they were attempting to escape the financial responsibility of supporting Kathy and Clay). Kathy returned in late September and reconciled with Will (who broke off his relationship with Tina). Will and Tina did not part on friendly terms (again, from Tina's FB discussions with him). Will and Kathy moved into an apartment owned by Kathy's grandmother and Tina was left to find a place on her own.
> >
> > She and Will remained out of touch until reconciling on FB a few years ago.
> > > > 6) Kathy then ran away/disappeared in early November of 1981.
> > > According to the Bio, that happened "in the early days of December 1981."
> > The bio is garbled and lists both months at different times.
> It says "around November", "late fall," and "in the early days of December" at various points.

It also says: "and then right after Halloween she just vanished, like she was kidneapped."

"Right after Halloween" would be in the first few days of November.

> > However, Will and I have discussed this as well, and Kathy left in early November (just after Halloween). She was gone from early November until sometime in January.
>
> > > > Since Tina moved out in late September at the earliest, "long before that" would be a little over a month.
> > >
> > > > > > You have left out the Texas travel, but why bother.
> > > > > No problem pasting in what the Bio says about that:
> > > > > 'When her sister found her she was blanked out crazy, and was about to go to Texas with a Waitress friend she used to work with, Melody, a blonde she worked with at the BBQ place who was married to a Mexican from Texas. I never got the whole story but I think the "kidnapping" was Melody and Andy Hernandez taking her to their house instead of home where I was waiting. I found out later they had a U-Haul packed to go back to Texas and were going to take Kathy with them, when Kathy's sister came up with the police and got her from them, and had her checked in the mental institution.'
> > > > Will has told numerous contradictory versions of this story (again, even the current version contradicts itself on several points). If anyone spread any lies about Will, it was Will himself.
> > > The Bio has inconsistencies and holes (chiefly around dates and times), as he's merely pasted in what he's said about it on Usenet -- mainly to you and "Rochester" when the two of you were writing your story in Dec. 2017. I think those can be cleared up easily, but with you two challenging what's in there (on the basis of these "numerous" other accounts that neither of you have produced) I won't be touching it at present.
> > >
> > I had originally told Will that his story painted him in a highly unflattering light; pointed out several things in particular which he later took my advice and removed; and suggested ways for him to approach the story from a less trashy angle.
>
> > The "numerous accounts" refer to the older versions of his autobio -- in a rare instance of his following our advice, he has since rewritten. This means that the former accounts no longer exist (except possibly in portions discussed on AAPC).
> The "former accounts" would have ceased to exist only if he had deleted them. Since you can't give me anything, I'll have to ask him about that, and your other claims about what he's since told you.
>

Again, I have to ask: Do you understand how a wiki page works?

When you revise it, you *replace* the old text with new text.

Will didn't delete the older versions -- he *revised* them.

Do you understand what a *revision* is?