Here's Jack! / by Rob Evans
George Dance
---------------
A red flower by any other name:
The Green Man, the Risen Man,
Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
Until she appears - young,
not strong, not knowing spring,
the Corn King, has found her.
Winter.
She's thirteen. She drops,
in an alley, a mewling thing
and runs for mercy to the rain.
Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
Red Jack - what's in a name?
They are all the same.
- Rob Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have never written a poem about killing young girls."- Rob Evans,
Feb. 24, 2008
Rob
<bf6c3d34-9b80-433c...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> writes
>Here's Jack!
>---------------
>
>A red flower by any other name:
>The Green Man, the Risen Man,
>Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
>
>Until she appears - young,
>not strong, not knowing spring,
>the Corn King, has found her.
>
>Winter.
>
>She's thirteen. She drops,
>in an alley, a mewling thing
>and runs for mercy to the rain.
>
>Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
>Red Jack - what's in a name?
>They are all the same.
>
moron, please point out the part where the girl is killed.
I know that you will try - even though your stumbling Duckrish Dance
will require word definitions from a language-less dimension.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
When I see a swine
I reach for 45-calibre pearls.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
George Dance
> In message
> <bf6c3d34-9b80-433c-a5fc-6be9fe9e0...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> writes
>
> >Here's Jack!
> >---------------
>
> >A red flower by any other name:
> >The Green Man, the Risen Man,
> >Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
>
> >Until she appears - young,
> >not strong, not knowing spring,
> >the Corn King, has found her.
>
> >Winter.
>
> >She's thirteen. She drops,
> >in an alley, a mewling thing
> >and runs for mercy to the rain.
>
> >Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
> >Red Jack - what's in a name?
> >They are all the same.
>
> Thank you, George - right on cue. Now, you complete uncomprehending
> moron, please point out the part where the girl is killed.
>
At the beginning of S5, where your hero becomes "Ripper" and "Red
Jack."
"Jack the Ripper is the most popular name given to the perpetrator of
the Whitechapel killings that occurred in the autumn of 1888. Though
the nicknames Red Jack and Leather Apron were also attached to the
unknown assailant, Jack the Ripper was the name adopted by the press
and Scotland Yard, notably because of the lurid series of letters
concerning the murders signed with that name. Despite some
disagreement about the actual number of Ripper victims, five women
indisputably claim the celebrity of comprising the canon."
- http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS
Rik Roots
> On Feb 25, 11:18 am, Rob <r...@mla001.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <bf6c3d34-9b80-433c-a5fc-6be9fe9e0...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> writes
>>> Here's Jack!
>>> ---------------
>>> A red flower by any other name:
>>> The Green Man, the Risen Man,
>>> Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
>>> Until she appears - young,
>>> not strong, not knowing spring,
>>> the Corn King, has found her.
>>> Winter.
>>> She's thirteen. She drops,
>>> in an alley, a mewling thing
>>> and runs for mercy to the rain.
>>> Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
>>> Red Jack - what's in a name?
>>> They are all the same.
>> Thank you, George - right on cue. Now, you complete uncomprehending
>> moron, please point out the part where the girl is killed.
>>
> At the beginning of S5, where your hero becomes "Ripper" and "Red
> Jack."
>
?
No, seriously: ?
Rik, knee deep.
ps Rob: why is Sunny George posting your poem? What have you done to
make him throw his toys out of his pram this time?
George Dance
"Jack the Ripper is the most popular name given to the perpetrator of
the Whitechapel killings that occurred in the autumn of 1888. Though
the nicknames Red Jack and Leather Apron were also attached to the
unknown assailant, Jack the Ripper was the name adopted by the press
and Scotland Yard, notably because of the lurid series of letters
concerning the murders signed with that name. Despite some
disagreement about the actual number of Ripper victims, five women
indisputably claim the celebrity of comprising the canon."
> No, seriously: ?
>
> Rik, knee deep.
>
> ps Rob: why is Sunny George posting your poem?
He asked me to.
Rik Roots
>> George Dance wrote:
>> ?
>>
Irrelevant to the question: *where* *in* *the* *poem* does the girl get
killed?
Seekers of insight, etc.
Rik, knee deep.
Aratzio
Roots <r...@nowayhosay.org> got double secret probation for writing:
<George Mode>
You didn't quote someone else "up thread" so therefore you are
defending the killing of babies and cute little kittens.
</George Mode>
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Aratzio - Usenet ruiner #2
George Dance
>
> <George Mode>
> You didn't quote someone else "up thread" so therefore you are
> defending the killing of babies and cute little kittens.
> </George Mode>
>
What are you doing off of alt.usenet.kooks, Ratboy? Day pass?
Aratzio
rec.arts.poems, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> got double
secret probation for writing:
>On Feb 25, 6:28 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Oi, Georgie gonna fwame me. Wun away, Wun away.
So, clot, will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
<insert response here>
George Dance
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:49:44 -0800 (PST), in the land of
> secret probation for writing:
>
> >On Feb 25, 6:28 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> <George Mode>
> >> You didn't quote someone else "up thread" so therefore you are
> >> defending the killing of babies and cute little kittens.
> >> </George Mode>
>
> >What are you doing off of alt.usenet.kooks, Ratboy? Day pass?
>
> Oi, Georgie gonna fwame me. Wun away, Wun away.
>
I just want you properly introduced on a new group.
> So, clot, will you be getting around to answering Rik's question?
Reread. Rik didn't ask a question. What he did was say that my answer
to Rob's question (which he quoted) was irrelevant to that question.
George Dance
[I missed this bit]
> will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
> are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
> to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
>
> <insert response here>
I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
Aratzio
rec.arts.poems, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> got double
secret probation for writing:
>On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:49:44 -0800 (PST), in the land of
>> rec.arts.poems, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> got double
>> secret probation for writing:
>>
>> >On Feb 25, 6:28 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> <George Mode>
>> >> You didn't quote someone else "up thread" so therefore you are
>> >> defending the killing of babies and cute little kittens.
>> >> </George Mode>
>>
>> >What are you doing off of alt.usenet.kooks, Ratboy? Day pass?
>>
>> Oi, Georgie gonna fwame me. Wun away, Wun away.
>>
>
>I just want you properly introduced on a new group.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
George, I've been round these poetry groups for years. Anyone but a
n00b knows that, n00b.
>
>
>> So, clot, will you be getting around to answering Rik's question?
>
>
>Reread. Rik didn't ask a question. What he did was say that my answer
>to Rob's question (which he quoted) was irrelevant to that question.
>
So you are going to ignore ROb's question that Rik pointed out in his
restatement of the same question.
Keep weaselling. You still are running from the question.
Face it nitwit, you made another accusation you cannot back-up with
anything but weasel and waffle.
Aratzio
>On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA*SNORK*HAAAAHAAAA
Which explains how you can't figure out the pedo-fantasy is not a
poem.
Aratzio
>On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Using the official George method of analysis: You want to kill women.
George Dance
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:14:47 -0800 (PST), in the land of
> secret probation for writing:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> >[I missed this bit]
>
> >> will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
> >> are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
> >> to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
>
> >> <insert response here>
>
> >I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
> >only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
> >also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
> >in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA*SNORK*HAAAAHAAAA
>
> Which explains how you can't figure out the pedo-fantasy is not a
> poem.
>
Rob's "pedo-fantasy" is actually a very good poem - the above lines
are particularly well-written - and the fact that you can't see that
for yourself indicates only that you have no idea how to recognize or
read a poem.
George Dance
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:14:47 -0800 (PST), in the land of
> secret probation for writing:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> >[I missed this bit]
>
> >> will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
> >> are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
> >> to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
>
> >> <insert response here>
>
> >I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
> >only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
> >also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
> >in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
>
> Using the official George method of analysis: You want to kill women.
>
That's called a 'non sequitur,' but for you I'll dumb it down and call
it a "stupid comment."
Now go back to the kook group, for God's sake; you really don't know
what you're doing here.
Barbara's Cat
> George "No Battle Too Ridiculous" Dance quacked:
>
> > Aratzio wrote:
> >
> >> George "Kill Rob. Kill Rob. Kill Rob." Dance quacked:
> >>
> >> > Aratzio wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> <George Mode>
> >> >> You didn't quote someone else "up thread" so therefore you are
> >> >> defending the killing of babies and cute little kittens.
> >> >> </George Mode>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What are you doing off of alt.usenet.kooks, Ratboy? Day pass?
> >>
> >>
> >> Oi, Georgie gonna fwame me. Wun away, Wun away.
> >
> >
> > I just want you properly introduced on a new group.
>
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> George, I've been round these poetry groups for years. Anyone but a
> n00b knows that, n00b.
Theological Farce 46: No one existed on Usenet
until Saint George said "Let there be posters."
> >> So, clot, will you be getting around to answering Rik's question?
> >
> >
> > Reread. Rik didn't ask a question. What he did was say that my answer
> > to Rob's question (which he quoted) was irrelevant to that question.
[ Evasion of answering the question noted ... again. ]
> So you are going to ignore ROb's question that Rik pointed out in his
> restatement of the same question.
>
> Keep weaselling. You still are running from the question.
>
> Face it nitwit, you made another accusation you cannot back-up with
> anything but weasel and waffle.
IIRC, Granny has served that to Jethro more than once.
--
Cm~
"Try to read what's actually been written."
- George Dance, belligerent as usual
Barbara's Cat
> George "Everyone except ME is a Killer" Dance quacked:
>
> > Aratzio wrote:
> >
> >
> > [I missed this bit]
> >
> >> will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
> >> are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
> >> to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
> >>
> >> <insert response here>
> >
> >
> > I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
> > only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
> > also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
> > in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
>
>
> Using the official George method of analysis: You want to kill women.
<html><pre><tt>
___
/ \
( @ @ )
---oOO-(_)-Ooo---
KILL ROB WAS HERE
</tt></pre></html>
--
Cm~
"pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers"
- George Dance NOT Quacking
Barbara's Cat
> "pedo-fantasy"
--
Cm~
"The age of consent in Canada is 13."
- George Dance's Justifying
George Dance
> Aratzio said:
>
>
>
> > George "Everyone except ME is a Killer" Dance quacked:
>
> <html><pre><tt>
>
> ___
> / \
> ( @ @ )
> ---oOO-(_)-Ooo---
> KILL ROB WAS HERE
>
> </tt></pre></html>
>
> --
> Cm~
>
> "pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers"
> - George Dance NOT Quacking
I have to admit, you gave me a laugh.
But the killer is Jack, not Rob; and he's in-the-Green: he's hiding
behind a bush, not a wall.
Barbara's Cat
> you really don't know what you're doing here.
--
Cm~
"If you want to keep it going for years, asshole,
I don't see what other choice I have."
- George Dance, regarding his NOT responding
Aratzio
rec.arts.poems, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> got double
secret probation for writing:
>On Feb 25, 9:21 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:14:47 -0800 (PST), in the land of
>> rec.arts.poems, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> got double
>> secret probation for writing:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >[I missed this bit]
>>
>> >> will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
>> >> are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
>> >> to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
>>
>> >> <insert response here>
>>
>> >I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
>> >only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
>> >also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
>> >in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA*SNORK*HAAAAHAAAA
>>
>> Which explains how you can't figure out the pedo-fantasy is not a
>> poem.
>>
>
>
>Rob's "pedo-fantasy" is actually a very good poem
Rob wrote a pedo-fantasy? Got a link to it?
> - the above lines
>are particularly well-written - and the fact that you can't see that
>for yourself indicates only that you have no idea how to recognize or
>read a poem.
>
Poor George. Sad you have to do this to yourself.
George Dance
Who said anything about NOT responding?
Aratzio
rec.arts.poems, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> got double
secret probation for writing:
>On Feb 25, 9:26 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:14:47 -0800 (PST), in the land of
>> rec.arts.poems, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> got double
>> secret probation for writing:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >[I missed this bit]
>>
>> >> will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
>> >> are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
>> >> to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
>>
>> >> <insert response here>
>>
>> >I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
>> >only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
>> >also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
>> >in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
>>
>> Using the official George method of analysis: You want to kill women.
>>
>
>
>That's called a 'non sequitur,'
Yeah, first time I saw you use it I kinda tipped my head and looked at
it askance.
> but for you I'll dumb it down and call it a "stupid comment."
Most people would agree, that was the thinking when you first
delivered that type of analysis.
>Now go back to the kook group, for God's sake; you really don't know
>what you're doing here.
Make me George.
I am disagreeing with you again, does that mean I want to kill you
still?
Aratzio
Barbara's Cat <c...@XSPAMscientist.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio said:
It is swell that George is campaigning so hard for his KotM. I like
when my nominees work hard for their just rewards.
Barbara's Cat
> Barbara's Cat wrote:
>
> > <html><pre><tt>
> >
> > ___
> > / \
> > ( @ @ )
> > ---oOO-(_)-Ooo---
> > KILL ROB WAS HERE
> >
> > </tt></pre></html>
>
>
> I have to admit, you gave me a laugh.
That's been the point for months, George.
Some people (and sadly all farm critters)
never learn: War is hell, why start one?
--
Cm~
"War is hell, and I mean to make it so."
- William Tecumseh Sherman
Barbara's Cat
Someone should have warned him: "Fuck the cup!
On this hill, you fuken need full body armor!"
--
Cm~
"He lives not long who battles with the immortals,
nor do his children prattle about his knees when
he has come back from battle and the dread fray."
- Homer, /The Iliad/
Barbara's Cat
> Barbara's Cat wrote:
>
> > "If you want to keep it going for years, asshole,
> > I don't see what other choice I have."
> > - George Dance, regarding his NOT responding
>
>
> Who said anything about NOT responding?
"I have no interest in trolling newgroups."
- George Dance, UseNet Saint
--
Cm~
"As a woodcock to mine own springe, Osric:
I am justly killed with mine own treachery."
- William Shakespeare, /Hamlet/
Dennis M. Hammes
> Here's Jack!
> ---------------
>
> A red flower by any other name:
> The Green Man, the Risen Man,
> Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
>
> Until she appears - young,
> not strong, not knowing spring,
> the Corn King, has found her.
>
> Winter.
>
> She's thirteen. She drops,
> in an alley, a mewling thing
> and runs for mercy to the rain.
>
> Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
> Red Jack - what's in a name?
> They are all the same.
>
> - Rob Evans
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "I have never written a poem about killing young girls."- Rob Evans,
> Feb. 24, 2008
>
Try to have your "reading" make sense.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Feb 25, 11:18 am, Rob <r...@mla001.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message
>><bf6c3d34-9b80-433c-a5fc-6be9fe9e0...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> writes
>>
>>
>>>Here's Jack!
>>>---------------
>>
>>>A red flower by any other name:
>>>The Green Man, the Risen Man,
>>>Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
>>
>>>Until she appears - young,
>>>not strong, not knowing spring,
>>>the Corn King, has found her.
>>
>>>Winter.
>>
>>>She's thirteen. She drops,
>>>in an alley, a mewling thing
>>>and runs for mercy to the rain.
>>
>>>Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
>>>Red Jack - what's in a name?
>>>They are all the same.
>>
>>Thank you, George - right on cue. Now, you complete uncomprehending
>>moron, please point out the part where the girl is killed.
>>
>
>
>
> At the beginning of S5, where your hero becomes "Ripper" and "Red
> Jack."
The Corn King is neither a hero nor a person.
While a "jack" is a "knave," a Jack-in-the-Green (f. a wooer in
the corn) is also a Jack-in-the-Pulpit, and both are also symbols,
like the "Risen Man" (whether J.C., his precursors cf. Dionys,
Osiris, etc., or a jack in the corn with a hardon) of spring.
And the "Risen Man" by any figure above all notes that "they are
all the same," i.e., that the biggest single cause of death is birth.
Try to have your "reading" make sense, you stupid little Protestant
psychopath.
>
> "Jack the Ripper is the most popular name given to the perpetrator of
> the Whitechapel killings that occurred in the autumn of 1888. Though
> the nicknames Red Jack and Leather Apron were also attached to the
> unknown assailant, Jack the Ripper was the name adopted by the press
> and Scotland Yard, notably because of the lurid series of letters
...signed "the messenjah"? Or "George Dance"?
Never mind.
Thank you for proving that Jack the Ripper did not kill those
women and did not /want/ to kill those women because he wrote letters
about a fantasy everybody was having or could have been having.
(Letters to the Editor were the Victorian version of UseNet.)
Try to have your "reading" make sense.
> concerning the murders signed with that name. Despite some
> disagreement about the actual number of Ripper victims, five women
> indisputably claim the celebrity of comprising the canon."
How could they "claim" anything, being dead?
Did they *agree* with each other on the Editorial Page?
Were any of them baby-sitters?
(They could not possibly have been prostitutes because they were
called prostitutes in the letters, which everyone knew were a
complete fiction having no bearing on the psychology of the murderer.)
Try to have your slurping make sense.
> - http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS
>
>
>
>>I know that you will try - even though your stumbling Duckrish Dance
>>will require word definitions from a language-less dimension.
>>
>>Rob
>>--
>>Rob Evans
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Feb 25, 12:47 pm, Rik Roots <r...@nowayhosay.org> wrote:
>
>>?
>>
>
>
>
> "Jack the Ripper is the most popular name given to the perpetrator of
> the Whitechapel killings that occurred in the autumn of 1888. Though
> the nicknames Red Jack and Leather Apron were also attached to the
> unknown assailant, Jack the Ripper was the name adopted by the press
> and Scotland Yard, notably because of the lurid series of letters
> concerning the murders signed with that name. Despite some
> disagreement about the actual number of Ripper victims, five women
> indisputably claim the celebrity of comprising the canon."
Once again, the Student Of The Duck poasts the same irrelevant tripe
to prove he can't read either the original poem, the original
argument, or it tripe he asserts to "support" him.
(He just likes sucking other people's dried turds, because they're
the "right" size, weight, temperature, shape on the working end, and
swell up with The Power and pass something warm down his throat when
he sucks them.)
>
>
>>No, seriously: ?
>>
>>Rik, knee deep.
>>
>>ps Rob: why is Sunny George posting your poem?
>
>
>
> He asked me to.
Dennis M. Hammes
> George Dance wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 12:47 pm, Rik Roots <r...@nowayhosay.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> George Dance wrote:
>
>
>>>> On Feb 25, 11:18 am, Rob <r...@mla001.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Thank you, George - right on cue. Now, you complete uncomprehending
>>>>> moron, please point out the part where the girl is killed.
>
>
>>>> At the beginning of S5, where your hero becomes "Ripper" and "Red
>>>> Jack."
>
>
>>> ?
>>>
>
>> "Jack the Ripper is the most popular name given to the perpetrator of
>> the Whitechapel killings that occurred in the autumn of 1888. Though
>> the nicknames Red Jack and Leather Apron were also attached to the
>> unknown assailant, Jack the Ripper was the name adopted by the press
>> and Scotland Yard, notably because of the lurid series of letters
>> concerning the murders signed with that name. Despite some
>> disagreement about the actual number of Ripper victims, five women
>> indisputably claim the celebrity of comprising the canon."
>> -
>> http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-8/body_vds-8.html
>>
>
>
> Irrelevant to the question: *where* *in* *the* *poem* does the girl get
> killed?
He /seD/. "Whitechapel."
(That his "Authority" appears to be Curious George may be suspect,
but he /did/ /say/.)
>
> Seekers of insight, etc.
>
> Rik, knee deep.
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:59:29 GMT, in the land of rec.arts.poems, Rik
> Roots <r...@nowayhosay.org> got double secret probation for writing:
>
>
>>George Dance wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Feb 25, 12:47 pm, Rik Roots <r...@nowayhosay.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>George Dance wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Feb 25, 11:18 am, Rob <r...@mla001.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Thank you, George - right on cue. Now, you complete uncomprehending
>>>>>>moron, please point out the part where the girl is killed.
>>
>>>>>At the beginning of S5, where your hero becomes "Ripper" and "Red
>>>>>Jack."
>>
>>>>?
>>>>
>>
>>>"Jack the Ripper is the most popular name given to the perpetrator of
>>>the Whitechapel killings that occurred in the autumn of 1888. Though
>>>the nicknames Red Jack and Leather Apron were also attached to the
>>>unknown assailant, Jack the Ripper was the name adopted by the press
>>>and Scotland Yard, notably because of the lurid series of letters
>>>concerning the murders signed with that name. Despite some
>>>disagreement about the actual number of Ripper victims, five women
>>>indisputably claim the celebrity of comprising the canon."
>>>- http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-8/body_vds-8.html
>>
>>Irrelevant to the question: *where* *in* *the* *poem* does the girl get
>>killed?
>>
>>Seekers of insight, etc.
>>
>>Rik, knee deep.
>
>
> <George Mode>
> You didn't quote someone else "up thread" so therefore you are
> defending the killing of babies and cute little kittens.
> </George Mode>
>
Where in the poem (besides Whitechapel) does the girl kill a kitten?
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Feb 25, 6:28 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>><George Mode>
>>You didn't quote someone else "up thread" so therefore you are
>>defending the killing of babies and cute little kittens.
>></George Mode>
>>
>
>
> What are you doing off of alt.usenet.kooks, Ratboy? Day pass?
>
What are you doing off your toilet, George?
Oh.
Right.
Drijbbling it here.
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:49:44 -0800 (PST), in the land of
>>rec.arts.poems, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> got double
>>secret probation for writing:
>>
>>
>>>On Feb 25, 6:28 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>><George Mode>
>>>>You didn't quote someone else "up thread" so therefore you are
>>>>defending the killing of babies and cute little kittens.
>>>></George Mode>
>>
>>>What are you doing off of alt.usenet.kooks, Ratboy? Day pass?
>>
>>Oi, Georgie gonna fwame me. Wun away, Wun away.
>>
>
>
> I just want you properly introduced on a new group.
>
>
>
>>So, clot, will you be getting around to answering Rik's question?
>
>
>
> Reread. Rik didn't ask a question. What he did was say that my answer
> to Rob's question (which he quoted) was irrelevant to that question.
>
Most probably because it /was/.
(He's like that, you know.)
QUESTION:
When are you going to quit pretending to be your LUUUver, and stop
pasting irrelevant tripe you can't even read in a vain pretense that
it answers a question you obviously can't read, either?
END QUESTION.
(Oh, hell, that was /'way/ too many words for Curious George.)
Dennis M. Hammes
Dockery has served that to Curious George more than once right in
front of us.
(Curious George /LIKE/!)
Dennis M. Hammes
"Merely a flesh wound, my dear."
-- Furious Fosdick, aka The Blank Night
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [I missed this bit]
>
>
>
>>will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
>>are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
>>to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
>>
>><insert response here>
>
>
> I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
> only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
> also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
> in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
>
>
>
Try to have your gibbering make sense.
Dennis M. Hammes
> George "I See Pedo-Fantasies Everywhere!" Dance quacked:
>
>
>>"pedo-fantasy"
>
"...have no idea how to recognize or
read a poem," too, but we already knew.
Dennis M. Hammes
You really think anybody would do it /to/ him?
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:14:47 -0800 (PST), in the land of
> rec.arts.poems, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> got double
> secret probation for writing:
>
>
>>On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>[I missed this bit]
>>
>>
>>
>>>will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
>>>are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
>>>to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
>>>
>>><insert response here>
>>
>>I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
>>only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
>>also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
>>in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
>>
>>
>
> Using the official George method of analysis: You want to kill women.
>
By ripping them.
(Hey, does that make him a serial rippist?)
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Feb 25, 9:26 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:14:47 -0800 (PST), in the land of
>>rec.arts.poems, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> got double
>>secret probation for writing:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>[I missed this bit]
>>
>>>>will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
>>>>are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
>>>>to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
>>
>>>><insert response here>
>>
>>>I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
>>>only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
>>>also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
>>>in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
>>
>>Using the official George method of analysis: You want to kill women.
>>
>
>
>
> That's called a 'non sequitur,' but for you I'll dumb it down and call
> it a "stupid comment."
> Now go back to the kook group, for God's sake; you really don't know
> what you're doing here.
>
Sure he does.
(He even knows what /you're/ doing here.)
Dennis M. Hammes
You. Repeatedly and at great length.
Thus, of course, "not responding."
Kinda like chuckles' "not raping."
And Rik's "not asking questions."
And 'Ratz' "not posting on rap."
And Rob's "not writing poems."
And Duckery's "making sense."
<space reserved for George's demands that I dredge through his months
of shit to "prove" to him that he poasted it>
Dennis M. Hammes
> George "I Outright Refuse to Get It!" Dance quacked:
>
>
>>Barbara's Cat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"If you want to keep it going for years, asshole,
>>> I don't see what other choice I have."
>>> - George Dance, regarding his NOT responding
>>
>>
>>Who said anything about NOT responding?
>
>
>
> "I have no interest in trolling newgroups."
> - George Dance, UseNet Saint
>
But Curious George does /not/ troll newsfroups.
A TrVe Protestant, he poasts only Holy Writ.
Dennis M. Hammes
And with a dead kitten, no less.
(Don't worry, George, the poem seZ he can only kill you in
Whitechapel.)
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Feb 25, 10:04 pm, Barbara's Cat <c...@XSPAMscientist.com> wrote:
>
>>Aratzio said:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>George "Everyone except ME is a Killer" Dance quacked:
>>
>
>
>
>><html><pre><tt>
>>
>> ___
>> / \
>> ( @ @ )
>> ---oOO-(_)-Ooo---
>> KILL ROB WAS HERE
>>
>></tt></pre></html>
>>
>>--
>>Cm~
>>
>>"pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers"
>> - George Dance NOT Quacking
>
>
>
> I have to admit, you gave me a laugh.
>
> But the killer is Jack, not Rob; and he's in-the-Green: he's hiding
> behind a bush, not a wall.
>
Pf. Your analysis of the poem clearly stated he was hiding in
Whitechapel.
Barbara's Cat
> Barbara's Cat wrote:
>
> > George "I Outright Refuse to Get It!" Dance quacked:
> >
> >> Barbara's Cat wrote:
> >>
> >>> "If you want to keep it going for years, asshole,
> >>> I don't see what other choice I have."
> >>> - George Dance, regarding his NOT responding
> >>
> >>
> >> Who said anything about NOT responding?
> >
> >
> > "I have no interest in trolling newgroups."
> > - George Dance, UseNet Saint
>
>
> But Curious George does /not/ troll newsfroups.
> A TrVe Protestant, he poasts only Holy Writ.
"And all must prays to precious."
- 1:2 Booka George
--
Cm~
"Try to read what's actually been written."
- George Dance, belligerent as usual
Aratzio
<scraw...@arvig.net> bloviated:
Just a hypocrite.
Aratzio
Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> bloviated:
>Aratzio wrote:
So what killed him, Sgt?
'e's been beaten to death, Guv.
Do we have the murder weapon?
Alls we have, Guv, is a dead kitten with what looks like the victims
blood.
Ah, the game is a feline!
Aratzio
Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> bloviated:
>Aratzio wrote:
I had a kitten named Jack, he died, george killed him with a poem.
Aratzio
Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> bloviated:
>George Dance wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [I missed this bit]
>>
>>
>>
>>>will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
>>>are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
>>>to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
>>>
>>><insert response here>
>>
>>
>> I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
>> only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
>> also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
>> in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
>>
>>
>>
>Try to have your gibbering make sense.
Sumtin' bout the rain.
Aratzio
Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> bloviated:
>Aratzio wrote:
What I am afraid is we will find out what does it for him.
Rob
<6fef1ee9-96ca-404f...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> writes
>> <bf6c3d34-9b80-433c-a5fc-6be9fe9e0...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> writes
>>
>> >Here's Jack!
>> >---------------
>>
>> >A red flower by any other name:
>> >The Green Man, the Risen Man,
>> >Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
>>
>> >Until she appears - young,
>> >not strong, not knowing spring,
>> >the Corn King, has found her.
>>
>> >Winter.
>>
>> >She's thirteen. She drops,
>> >in an alley, a mewling thing
>> >and runs for mercy to the rain.
>>
>> >Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
>> >Red Jack - what's in a name?
>> >They are all the same.
>>
>> moron, please point out the part where the girl is killed.
>>
>
>
>
>> I know that you will try - even though your stumbling Duckrish Dance
>> will require word definitions from a language-less dimension.
>>
>
and the thirteen year old is murdered?
You are stupid George. Every time you opine, you prove that. You have
no idea at all how metre or language works.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
When I see a swine
I reach for 45-calibre pearls.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Barbara's Cat
> Aratzio wrote:
>
> > George "Pedo-Fantasy" Dance quacked:
> >
> > > Rob's "pedo-fantasy" is actually a very good poem
> >
> >
> > Rob wrote a pedo-fantasy? Got a link to it?
> >
> >
> > > - the above lines are particularly well-written - and the fact that
> > > you can't see that for yourself indicates only that you have no idea
> > > how to recognize or read a poem.
> >
> >
> > Poor George. Sad you have to do this to yourself.
>
>
> You really think anybody would do it /to/ him?
Dr Duckvorkian often offers him assistance.
Rob
<1beb4ac0-2b9a-4d2f...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>On Feb 25, 11:18 am, Rob <r...@mla001.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <bf6c3d34-9b80-433c-a5fc-6be9fe9e0...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> writes
>>
>> >Here's Jack!
>> >---------------
>>
>> >A red flower by any other name:
>> >The Green Man, the Risen Man,
>> >Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
>>
>> >Until she appears - young,
>> >not strong, not knowing spring,
>> >the Corn King, has found her.
>>
>> >Winter.
>>
>> >She's thirteen. She drops,
>> >in an alley, a mewling thing
>> >and runs for mercy to the rain.
>>
>> >Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
>> >Red Jack - what's in a name?
>> >They are all the same.
>>
>> Thank you, George - right on cue. Now, you complete uncomprehending
>> moron, please point out the part where the girl is killed.
>>
>
>
>Jack."
>
>the Whitechapel killings that occurred in the autumn of 1888. Though
>the nicknames Red Jack and Leather Apron were also attached to the
>unknown assailant, Jack the Ripper was the name adopted by the press
>and Scotland Yard, notably because of the lurid series of letters
>concerning the murders signed with that name. Despite some
>disagreement about the actual number of Ripper victims, five women
>indisputably claim the celebrity of comprising the canon."
Here's a clue: metaphor.
Do come back if you ever get a clue of your own.
Rob
<r...@nowayhosay.org> writes
>George Dance wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 11:18 am, Rob <r...@mla001.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> In message
>>> <bf6c3d34-9b80-433c-a5fc-6be9fe9e0...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> writes
>
>>>> Here's Jack!
>>>> ---------------
>>>> A red flower by any other name:
>>>> The Green Man, the Risen Man,
>>>> Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
>
>>>> Until she appears - young,
>>>> not strong, not knowing spring,
>>>> the Corn King, has found her.
>
>>>> Winter.
>
>>>> She's thirteen. She drops,
>>>> in an alley, a mewling thing
>>>> and runs for mercy to the rain.
>
>>>> Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
>>>> Red Jack - what's in a name?
>>>> They are all the same.
>
>>> Thank you, George - right on cue. Now, you complete uncomprehending
>>> moron, please point out the part where the girl is killed.
>>>
>> At the beginning of S5, where your hero becomes "Ripper" and "Red
>> Jack."
>>
>
>No, seriously: ?
>
>Rik, knee deep.
>
>
>make him throw his toys out of his pram this time?
The Duck insists that all poetry contains "autobiographical" elements.
The music of our laughter induced poor George to dance in Duckrish
agreement as usual. George's supplementary "point" (hah!), therefore,
seems to be that the above poem is autobiographical evidence of my
fantasies about killing girls.
George is not equipped to detect any sympathy for the victim or able to
see the central metaphor that the rape is inexcusable by being compared
to early pagan fertility myths and the even bloodier sexual violence of
the Ripper.
I think the literal-minded plonker really doesn't have any feel for the
technique of metaphor in poetry and therefore there as to be a murder in
the poem.
And, of course, Duckrish logic dictates I must therefore harbour dark
fantasies.
I remember attending a workshop a few years back where we were
challenged to write poems in the persona of a psychopathic type. I
wrote one as a sadistic professional torturer and one as a gay,
religious lunatic serial killer. I think I posted them to RAP
afterwards - neither were very good but daft Willie and wee Georgie
would have had a field day if they had found such "smoking guns" in the
archives.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
Poetry is the machette that hacks your finger;
everything else is the torture rack,
bwahaahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
George Dance
"They are all the same." (L13)
> and the thirteen year old is murdered?
>
Unless "Red Jack" merely gave her a red lollipop. (That would explain
the 'red,' wouldn't it?.)
> You are stupid George. Every time you opine, you prove that. You have
> no idea at all how metre or language works.
>
> Rob
> --
> Rob Evans
- Rob Evans replies to criticism of his poetry.
Great sig. Thank you.
Rik Roots
<snippity snip>
> But the killer is Jack, not Rob; and he's in-the-Green: he's hiding
> behind a bush, not a wall.
>
Oh sweet baby Jesus on a stick!
Do us all a fucking favour and use your not inconsiderable googling
skillz to check out the phrase "Jack in the green".
Or if that's too much work for you, here's a handy dandy Wikipedia link
for you to check out - if you can fit it into your already jam-packed
information gathering timetable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_in_the_green
HTH
Rik, knee deep.
Rik Roots
<snip>
> The Duck insists that all poetry contains "autobiographical" elements.
> The music of our laughter induced poor George to dance in Duckrish
> agreement as usual. George's supplementary "point" (hah!), therefore,
> seems to be that the above poem is autobiographical evidence of my
> fantasies about killing girls.
>
Our Will is now offering deep insight into the poetic nature of
humanity? Oh, goody-good: I'll get some popcorn and a comfy cushion ...
> George is not equipped to detect any sympathy for the victim or able to
> see the central metaphor that the rape is inexcusable by being compared
> to early pagan fertility myths and the even bloodier sexual violence of
> the Ripper.
>
> I think the literal-minded plonker really doesn't have any feel for the
> technique of metaphor in poetry and therefore there as to be a murder in
> the poem.
>
ISTR one of his earliest descents into stupidity was over the use of
metaphor in poetry.
> And, of course, Duckrish logic dictates I must therefore harbour dark
> fantasies.
>
You can't be a fully paid up member of the Super Secret Poetry Cabal of
Usenet unless you have Dark Fantasies - it's in the Rules and Regs.
(BTW - your membership renewal is due at the end of the month. Please
note that SSPCU no longer accepts blood sacrifices or goat heads as
alternative payment options).
> I remember attending a workshop a few years back where we were
> challenged to write poems in the persona of a psychopathic type. I
> wrote one as a sadistic professional torturer and one as a gay,
> religious lunatic serial killer. I think I posted them to RAP
> afterwards - neither were very good but daft Willie and wee Georgie
> would have had a field day if they had found such "smoking guns" in the
> archives.
>
I've got more than a few they could have "fun" with - f'rinstance the
one about the knife, or the one written in the voice of a hetrosexual
man ... (The shame! The shame!)
> Rob
Rik, knee deep.
George Dance
> George Dance wrote:
>
> <snippity snip>
>
> > But the killer is Jack, not Rob; and he's in-the-Green: he's hiding
> > behind a bush, not a wall.
>
> Oh sweet baby Jesus on a stick!
>
> Do us all a fucking favour and use your not inconsiderable googling
> skillz to check out the phrase "Jack in the green".
>
Check it out yourself, Rikki. Here's a link to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_in_the_green
> Or if that's too much work for you, here's a handy dandy Wikipedia link
> for you to check out - if you can fit it into your already jam-packed
> information gathering timetable:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_in_the_green
>
Nope, no men hiding in bushes: Rik said so. They must be green walls.
> HTH
>
> Rik, knee deep.
Sherrie Lee
The part about what's in a name/They are all the same reminds me of a
documentary about an Irish priest (etc... ) where trust was given
based on a title and wardrobe and all that is associated with what all
the names' attributions (and whatnot, sorry if I'm being redundant)
bring.
Maybe it works for a rose, that it looks like a rose then it can be
called a rose because that's what 'word' is: for what it 'looks
like' (perspective).
The question now becomes, What is the word for 'what it is', bro?
And that's what we try writing poems for: the name.
Sherrie Lee (really?? skip that last part. ok.)
K. A. Cannon
<1c9f4049-f425-4f63...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com> in
rec.arts.poems on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:30:13 -0800 (PST):
>On Feb 26, 11:01 am, Rik Roots <r...@nowayhosay.org> wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
>>
>> <snippity snip>
>>
>> > But the killer is Jack, not Rob; and he's in-the-Green: he's hiding
>> > behind a bush, not a wall.
>>
>> Oh sweet baby Jesus on a stick!
>>
>> Do us all a fucking favour and use your not inconsiderable googling
>> skillz to check out the phrase "Jack in the green".
>>
>
>
>Check it out yourself, Rikki. Here's a link to get you started:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_in_the_green
So your proof is the same URL that Rik cites in his post?
Brilliant.
>> Or if that's too much work for you, here's a handy dandy Wikipedia link
>> for you to check out - if you can fit it into your already jam-packed
>> information gathering timetable:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_in_the_green
>>
>
>
>Nope, no men hiding in bushes: Rik said so. They must be green walls.
What a dolt.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia.
-Charles Schultz
COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
Karla
You tipped off your Jack metaphor early on when you first posted this -
dark/light pagan fertility myths - in a response to Dennis back in June.
Of course, a reader will bring his/her own associations to a poem and though it
may not be what we intended, we can't stop that process.
I'm behind on rap and aapc so I'm not sure why a poem must be desecrated to
prove a point, and such a dark point at that.
Now, an off-topic question: I'm wanting to buy individual books for each of
Shakespeare's plays. I have a couple of BIG books containing all the plays but
they're cumbersome to read. Can anyone recommend a publisher? Ideally, the type
wouldn't be too small and the font would be pleasing. I can buy used, no
problem. I guess I want hardcover, but I'd consider paperback if they don't look
too tacky. I don't mind footnotes unless they pollute the reading experience.
End notes maybe.
Thanks!
Karla
--
--
Peter J Ross
<kar...@sbcNOSPAMglobal.net> wrote:
> Now, an off-topic question: I'm wanting to buy individual books for each of
> Shakespeare's plays. I have a couple of BIG books containing all the plays but
> they're cumbersome to read. Can anyone recommend a publisher? Ideally, the type
> wouldn't be too small and the font would be pleasing. I can buy used, no
> problem. I guess I want hardcover, but I'd consider paperback if they don't look
> too tacky. I don't mind footnotes unless they pollute the reading experience.
> End notes maybe.
I like the Arden editions, but they have a /lot/ of footnotes.
http://www.ardenshakespeare.com/
The Penguin Classics editions don't have footnotes, but may be
available only as paperbacks.
http://www.penguinclassics.co.uk/static/cs/uk/10/minisites/shakespeare/
--
PJR :-)
Rob
<74ab82a0-53d8-46fb...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> writes
George displays no critical facility
QED
Karla
It's hard to tell with the Arden (no sample pages) though I'm tempted to buy one
for those seductive covers alone! Look at the three volumes of King Henry VI
with the rose in stages to deterioration.
Hmm, the bookstore close to me at work doesn't carry it - perhaps I'll order
Twelfth Night & just trust you on it, Peter!
Thanks,
Karla
--
--
Dennis M. Hammes
> Dennis M. Hammes said:
>
>
>>Aratzio wrote:
>>
>>
>>>George "Pedo-Fantasy" Dance quacked:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rob's "pedo-fantasy" is actually a very good poem
>>>
>>>
>>>Rob wrote a pedo-fantasy? Got a link to it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>- the above lines are particularly well-written - and the fact that
>>>>you can't see that for yourself indicates only that you have no idea
>>>>how to recognize or read a poem.
>>>
>>>
>>>Poor George. Sad you have to do this to yourself.
>>
>>
>>You really think anybody would do it /to/ him?
>
>
>
> Dr Duckvorkian often offers him assistance.
>
"Whip that switch down, Eyesore! No, not that switch, dammit! The
/leather/ switch!"
Dennis M. Hammes
"Felines -- nothing more than felines!
OB
> I've got more than a few they could have "fun" with - f'rinstance the
> one about the knife, or the one written in the voice of a hetrosexual
> man ... (The shame! The shame!)
> Rik, knee deep.
Heterophobe.
Rik Roots
(But why do they have to be so ... greasy? I know they can't help it,
but even so ...
<shudders>)
Rik, knee deep.
George Dance
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:54:49 -0800 (PST), in the land of
> rec.arts.poems, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> got double
> secret probation for writing:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >> rec.arts.poems, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> got double
> >> secret probation for writing:
>
>
> >> >> <George Mode>
> >> >> You didn't quote someone else "up thread" so therefore you are
> >> >> defending the killing of babies and cute little kittens.
> >> >> </George Mode>
>
>
> >> Oi, Georgie gonna fwame me. Wun away, Wun away.
>
> >I just want you properly introduced on a new group.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> George, I've been round these poetry groups for years. Anyone but a
> n00b knows that, n00b.
>
>
>
> >> So, clot, will you be getting around to answering Rik's question?
>
> >Reread. Rik didn't ask a question. What he did was say that my answer
> >to Rob's question (which he quoted) was irrelevant to that question.
>
> So you are going to ignore ROb's question that Rik pointed out in his
> restatement of the same question.
>
I'd answered Rob's question before Rik showed up: "Jack" kills the
girl in S5.
> Keep weaselling. You still are running from the question.
>
Actually, you're "running from" the answer.
> Face it nitwit, you made another accusation you cannot back-up with
> anything but weasel and waffle.
>
I 'accused' Rob of writing a poem, and thinking about his subject. He
hasn't denied doing either.
George Dance
> In message <waDwj.26802$jH4.25...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Rik Roots
Calling her a "thing" doesn't sound very sympathetic.
> or able to
> see the central metaphor that the rape is inexcusable by being compared
> to early pagan fertility myths and the even bloodier sexual violence of
> the Ripper.
>
Don't misrepresent the "cultural reference," HR. Ripper didn't rape
his victims: he killed them:
"The Ripper seemed to follow a fairly regimented modus operandi when
dispatching his victims. In many cases there seems to be evidence of
strangulation, followed by the severance of the carotid artery, which
caused near-immediate death. Then he performed various abdominal/
genital/facial mutilations, to varying degrees. On some victims there
were only a few cuts and stab wounds, while others were mutilated
beyond recognition.
None of his victims showed evidence of rape or sexual "connexion," as
the Victorians termed it."
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/faq.html#5
> I think the literal-minded plonker really doesn't have any feel for the
> technique of metaphor in poetry and therefore there as to be a murder in
> the poem.
>
You just admitted that there's a rape in the poem, by referring to the
exact same 'metaphor.' Though you misstated what you were comparing
your hero to. JtR was a serial killer, not a rapist.
> And, of course, Duckrish logic dictates I must therefore harbour dark
> fantasies.
>
Only if you'd thought about what you were writing, of course. Are you
claiming to have had someone else's thoughts?
Aratzio
Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> bloviated:
George has evidence the author is a liar.
>
>
>> Keep weaselling. You still are running from the question.
>>
>
>
>Actually, you're "running from" the answer.
No, you had not answered, liar.
The answer you eventually gave ONLY you have. An answer no other
person posting here can find. Yeah George, quite the evidence hound,
you have proven in your own mind you are right. *Evidence be damned, I
am right!"
How is Jack-in-the-green doing today.
*snork*
Even I got that reference.
>
>
>> Face it nitwit, you made another accusation you cannot back-up with
>> anything but weasel and waffle.
>>
>
>
>I 'accused' Rob of writing a poem, and thinking about his subject. He
>hasn't denied doing either.
You claimed it was evidence he wrote a poem about murdering. It was
not.
Nice backpedal, though.
Not quite as good as when you claimed I wrote Dennis's words and then
claimed I was responsible for Dennis's words, regardless whether I
quoted or even read them.
You make claim.
You get slapped by facts.
You weasel off into new direction to support your claim.
You get smacked for lying.
You run away.
>
>
George Dance
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:59:36 -0800 (PST), in rec.arts.poems, George
<q>
> please point out the part where the girl is killed.
At the beginning of S5, where your hero becomes "Ripper" and "Red
Jack." </q>
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/ffd3ede8702a7946
You're busted again.
> The answer you eventually gave ONLY you have. An answer no other
> person posting here can find.
Well, now you have a link, from someone with admittedly superior
googling skills.
> Yeah George, quite the evidence hound,
> you have proven in your own mind you are right. *Evidence be damned, I
> am right!"
>
You just didn't bother to read the backthread before you jumped in,
once again.
> How is Jack-in-the-green doing today.
> *snork*
He doesn't really exist, you know; he's just a character in a fantasy
Rob had.
> Even I got that reference.
>
Good for you. What do you think it means?
>
>
> >> Face it nitwit, you made another accusation you cannot back-up with
> >> anything but weasel and waffle.
>
> >I 'accused' Rob of writing a poem, and thinking about his subject. He
> >hasn't denied doing either.
>
> You claimed it was evidence he wrote a poem about murdering. It was
> not.
>
Are you saying Rob didn't write it?
> Nice backpedal, though.
What backpedal?
> Not quite as good as when you claimed [we] wrote Dennis's words and then
> claimed I was responsible for Dennis's words, regardless whether I
> quoted or even read them.
>
It've shown that you replied to a message that contained them; as I've
already told you, that's prime facie evidence that you read them.
> You make claim.
> You get slapped by facts.
You haven't given any 'facts,' only opinions. Learn the difference
between a fact and an opinion.
> You weasel off into new direction to support your claim.
> You get smacked for lying.
> You run away.
>
Sounds like you're having a fantasy of your own. 8)
OB
> On Feb 26, 9:14 am, Rob <r...@mla001.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<spinelessly snipped, passim>
> > >>>> Here's Jack!
> > >>>> ---------------
> > >>>> A red flower by any other name:
> > >>>> The Green Man, the Risen Man,
> > >>>> Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
>
> > >>>> Until she appears - young,
> > >>>> not strong, not knowing spring,
> > >>>> the Corn King, has found her.
>
> > >>>> Winter.
>
> > >>>> She's thirteen. She drops,
> > >>>> in an alley, a mewling thing
> > >>>> and runs for mercy to the rain.
>
> > >>>> Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
> > >>>> Red Jack - what's in a name?
> > >>>> They are all the same.
> > George is not equipped to detect any sympathy for the victim
>
> Calling her a "thing" doesn't sound very sympathetic.
I assume you parsed "drops" as intransitive, which would make "a
mewling thing" an appositive. Re-parse as transitive, with "thing" as
direct object. Proceed to strike forehead with palm of hand as often
as required.
George Dance
Your suggesting she gave birth at the time of the rape? And the
"thing" is her child? That doesn't sound any more sympathetic to the
victim.
Rob
<78bc9c62-5306-42d6...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> writes
George, George, George how any times do you have to be told to try to
make your reading make sense.
She (THE GIRL, still with me? Good boy!) drops in the alley a mewling
thing (NOT THE GIRL).
Christ, you're stupid, even by Duckrish standards.
>
>
>> or able to
>> see the central metaphor that the rape is inexcusable by being compared
>> to early pagan fertility myths and the even bloodier sexual violence of
>> the Ripper.
>>
>
>
>Don't misrepresent the "cultural reference," HR. Ripper didn't rape
>his victims: he killed them:
So in the poem the girl is killed and then turns up in the alley
The cultural reference was to the Green Man and you are blissfully
ignorant of it. But being a fuckwit, you need to dance.
Rob
>
>
>> I think the literal-minded plonker really doesn't have any feel for the
>> technique of metaphor in poetry and therefore there as to be a murder in
>> the poem.
>>
>
>
>You just admitted that there's a rape in the poem, by referring to the
>exact same 'metaphor.' Though you misstated what you were comparing
>your hero to. JtR was a serial killer, not a rapist.
In your metapor-less world, that's the "conclusion" you're stuck with.
And Maureen, of course.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
When I see a swine
I reach for 45-calibre pearls.
--
Aratzio
Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> bloviated:
No, George, you are lying.
You claimed two different messages were your evidence I took
responsibility for words I did not quote. Words you originally claimed
I wrote, when directly asked to provide eveidence I called anything
Rape or Murder. BTW: No one but you EVER called it murder, dumbass.
Find the message where *I* quote Dennis's words. Go ahead, quoting you
repeating Dennis's words after the fact does not count, since you were
claiming I wrote those words.
Show how I read words I did not quote in my response to you.
How not quoting those words in any way makes them my words, as you
charged.
Show how I am responsible for words written by Dennis and snipped by
me.
<gets popcorn>
This one should be good for many laughs. Another one that thinks
because google is all they know, that google must be how everyone else
reads usenet.
George Dance
>
> >> George is not equipped to detect any sympathy for the victim
>
> >Calling her a "thing" doesn't sound very sympathetic.
>
> George, George, George how any times do you have to be told to try to
> make your reading make sense.
>
> She (THE GIRL, still with me? Good boy!) drops in the alley a mewling
> thing (NOT THE GIRL).
>
So you claim that she's raped and gives birth immediately; which you
claim "makes sense."
> Christ, you're stupid, even by Duckrish standards.
>
>
Apparently; I've always thought there was an interval between
conception and birth.
>
> >> or able to
> >> see the central metaphor that the rape is inexcusable by being compared
> >> to early pagan fertility myths and the even bloodier sexual violence of
> >> the Ripper.
>
> >Don't misrepresent the "cultural reference," HR. Ripper didn't rape
> >his victims: he killed them:
>
<unsnip>
"The Ripper seemed to follow a fairly regimented modus operandi when
dispatching his victims. In many cases there seems to be evidence of
strangulation, followed by the severance of the carotid artery, which
caused near-immediate death. Then he performed various abdominal/
genital/facial mutilations, to varying degrees. On some victims there
were only a few cuts and stab wounds, while others were mutilated
beyond recognition.
None of his victims showed evidence of rape or sexual "connexion," as
the Victorians termed it."
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/faq.html#5
</us>
> So in the poem the girl is killed and then turns up in the alley
>
> The cultural reference was to the Green Man and you are blissfully
> ignorant of it.
"Ripper" refers to the "Green Man"? That is news to me.
> But being a fuckwit, you need to dance.
>
Yet you're the one dancing away from the point at issue; this
'sympathy for the victim' that you claim is in your poem.
Rik Roots
> So you claim that she's raped and gives birth immediately; which you
> claim "makes sense."
>
?
No, really: ?
Does 'drop' always equate to 'birth' in your idiolect?
I 'dropped' a ball
He 'dropped' a kitten
She 'dropped' a mewling thing
My Lord! If I pull my sexist-assumptions-cap over my eyes, I can see it!
Rik, knee deep.
George Dance
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:46:38 -0800 (PST), in rec.arts.poems, George
>
> >On Feb 27, 12:28 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not quite as good as when you claimed [we] wrote Dennis's words and then
> >> claimed I was responsible for Dennis's words, regardless whether I
> >> quoted or even read them.
>
> >It've shown that you replied to a message that contained them; as I've
> >already told you, that's prime facie evidence that you read them.
>
> No, George, you are lying.
>
Here's the message you replied to:
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/f1d0f34ecbbf0519
Do you need me to quote it in full?
> You claimed two different messages were your evidence I took
> responsibility
AFAIK, no one's 'accused' you of taking responsibility for anything.
> for words I did not quote. Words you originally claimed
> [we] wrote
, when directly asked to provide eveidence I called anything
> Rape or Murder.
Actually, you 'asked' after I made that 'claim', and changed the
reference: either to distort what I'd said, or because you'd
misunderstood. Since I've explained that, more than once, you're not
misunderstanding now.
> BTW: No one but you EVER called it murder, dumbass.
>
Look, Ratboy, since you want to discuss some other poem than the one
the thread is about: How about if I just post that in a separate
thread?
Aratzio
Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> bloviated:
>On Feb 27, 2:30 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:46:38 -0800 (PST), in rec.arts.poems, George
>> Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> bloviated:
>>
>> >On Feb 27, 12:28 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Not quite as good as when you claimed [we] wrote Dennis's words and then
>> >> claimed I was responsible for Dennis's words, regardless whether I
>> >> quoted or even read them.
>>
>> >It've shown that you replied to a message that contained them; as I've
>> >already told you, that's prime facie evidence that you read them.
>>
>> No, George, you are lying.
>>
>
>
>Here's the message you replied to:
>http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/f1d0f34ecbbf0519
>
>
>Do you need me to quote it in full?
So you evidence that I am responsible for / own Dennis's words is
/your/ post. One that I did not write. One where /you/ quote Dennia.
One from which I quoted a single paragraph of /your/ ignorance.
That is your evidence I am responsible for Dennis's words.
Bizarre.
Now demonstrate when I read Dennis's words.
>
>
>> You claimed two different messages were your evidence I took
>> responsibility
>
>
>AFAIK, no one's 'accused' you of taking responsibility for anything.
"Nonsense. By defending the comment, you've taken ownership of it
yourself."
See George, according to not quoting someone makes you the owner of
the words you did not quote. Does not matter that you didn't read
them, in your delusional world I own the words.
Hint here George, what I wrote had /only/ to do with what you wrote
and the ignorance of /your/ words.
>
>
>> for words I did not quote. Words you originally claimed
>> [we] wrote
Post editing, how dishonest, George. Can't handle the truth so you
just make it into whatever your delusion calls for.
>
>
>, when directly asked to provide eveidence I called anything
>> Rape or Murder.
>
>
>Actually, you 'asked' after I made that 'claim', and changed the
>reference: either to distort what I'd said, or because you'd
>misunderstood. Since I've explained that, more than once, you're not
>misunderstanding now.
George, you lie. You claimed I called it Rape & Murder I have asked
you several times where *I* made that claim. You always point at
Dennis's post. (Who never called it murder, only you did)
Now show where *I* made that claim you say I did.
>
>
>> BTW: No one but you EVER called it murder, dumbass.
>>
>
>
>Look, Ratboy, since you want to discuss some other poem than the one
>the thread is about: How about if I just post that in a separate
>thread?
Nice avoidance, cupcake.
Point out where anyone but you called anything in Chuckwits poem
murder, unless you think I changed the subject, you delusional old
goat raper.
OB
"hero"?
> > >> George is not equipped to detect any sympathy for the victim
>
> > >Calling her a "thing" doesn't sound very sympathetic.
>
> > George, George, George how any times do you have to be told to try to
> > make your reading make sense.
>
> > She (THE GIRL, still with me? Good boy!) drops in the alley a mewling
> > thing (NOT THE GIRL).
>
> So you claim that she's raped and gives birth immediately; which you
> claim "makes sense."
I didn't see him claim any such thing. The poem certainly doesn't.
Where did "immediately" come from? Didn't you notice "spring" followed
by "Winter"?
> > Christ, you're stupid, even by Duckrish standards.
>
> Apparently; I've always thought there was an interval between
> conception and birth.
>
>
>
> > >> or able to
> > >> see the central metaphor that the rape is inexcusable by being compared
> > >> to early pagan fertility myths and the even bloodier sexual violence of
> > >> the Ripper.
>
> > >Don't misrepresent the "cultural reference," HR. Ripper didn't rape
> > >his victims: he killed them:
>
> <unsnip>
> "The Ripper seemed to follow a fairly regimented modus operandi when
> dispatching his victims. In many cases there seems to be evidence of
> strangulation, followed by the severance of the carotid artery, which
> caused near-immediate death. Then he performed various abdominal/
> genital/facial mutilations, to varying degrees. On some victims there
> were only a few cuts and stab wounds, while others were mutilated
> beyond recognition.
> None of his victims showed evidence of rape or sexual "connexion," as
> the Victorians termed it."http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/faq.html#5
> </us>
>
> > So in the poem the girl is killed and then turns up in the alley
>
> > The cultural reference was to the Green Man and you are blissfully
> > ignorant of it.
>
> "Ripper" refers to the "Green Man"? That is news to me.
The last line equates them explicitly via a chain of appositions
carried over from the beginning of the poem, but does so via a speaker
who may or may not be the same speaker as in the rest of the poem, and
hence may not necessarily be reliable ("They are all the same" --
where have you heard /that/ before?) Hence, the reader is left to
decide whether they really /are/ "all the same" or not. The poem's
narrative logic, as Hammes already pointed out, tends to suggest its
own answer.
> > But being a fuckwit, you need to dance.
>
> Yet you're the one dancing away from the point at issue; this
> 'sympathy for the victim' that you claim is in your poem.
Maybe you've been listening to The Smiths, and expected "This Night
Has Opened My Eyes", or somesuch.
For me, the linebreak at the end of L5 alone is sufficient to
establish the speaker's sympathy, even without the surrounding
clinchers.
So far, your only argument /against/ there being any sympathy has
consisted of a misparse.
>
>
> > Rob
>
> > >> I think the literal-minded plonker really doesn't have any feel for the
> > >> technique of metaphor in poetry and therefore there as to be a murder in
> > >> the poem.
>
> > >You just admitted that there's a rape in the poem, by referring to the
> > >exact same 'metaphor.' Though you misstated what you were comparing
> > >your hero to. JtR was a serial killer, not a rapist.
If a thirteen-year-old girl gives birth to a child ("mewling thing"),
then (except in Canada, according to you) she's been raped, since it's
assumed a minor cannot give consent to sex (in some jurisdictions the
term "statutory rape" is used). So yes, it would seem obvious that the
poem's narrative, such as it is, implies or suggests an act of rape.
But it's instructive to compare this poem, in which there is
absolutely no description of the act itself (unless "has found her"
qualifies) with the chuckles' repulsive piece over in the other
thread, in which the act is described in graphic terms, and then
gloated and snickered over (via the bad joke at the end); note also
that in the chuckles' piece the event is trivialised, whereas in this
piece the act of seducing a minor is compared, explicitly, to the
murderous violence of JtR. If you can't see the difference, well...
If you /can/ see the difference, then I don't really understand your
point here.
George Dance
> George Dance wrote:
> > So you claim that she's raped and gives birth immediately; which you
> > claim "makes sense."
>
> ?
>
> No, really: ?
>
> Does 'drop' always equate to 'birth' in your idiolect?
>
Of course not. That was OB's suggestion, as you'd know if you were
paying attention.
> I 'dropped' a ball
> He 'dropped' a kitten
> She 'dropped' a mewling thing
So your reading is that the girl was holding a mewling ball or kitten.
Wonderful.
>
> My Lord! If I pull my sexist-assumptions-cap over my eyes, I can see it!
>
When you take it off and put the tinfoil one back on again, what do
you see her carrying and dropping? A mewling ball?
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> I'd answered Rob's question before Rik showed up: "Jack" kills the
> girl in S5.
>
Try to have your "reading" use the squiggles that are actually on the
screen.
"See spots run."
Dennis M. Hammes
Look, look, see the Word.
The word is "Winter."
It is on a "line" all by itself.
Gosh, like it might be a /title/ of a /section/.
Almost as if nine months had passed since all those "image"
thingies of that "spring festival" thingy.
Try to have your drijbbling make sense, monkey.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> When you take it off and put the tinfoil one back on again, what do
> you see her carrying and dropping? A mewling ball?
>
Yes. It signs itself, "George Dance."
"See George Dance."
Dance, George, Dance.
Aratzio
Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> bloviated:
>On Feb 27, 2:30 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:46:38 -0800 (PST), in rec.arts.poems, George
>> Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> bloviated:
<crickets>
George, did you forget what you were doing in the middle of your
doing? Perhaps you misremembered how the buttons on your googly
interface worked? Possibly a cornspiricy of people out to kill you
because of the words you write.
The world awaits, breath like bait.
Best of Hammy Hog
>
>
> (He just likes sucking other people's dried turds, because they're
> the "right" size, weight, temperature, shape on the working end, and
> swell up with The Power and pass something warm down his throat when
> he sucks them.)
>
George Dance
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:42:02 -0800 (PST), in the land of
> rec.arts.poems, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> got double
> secret probation for writing:
>
>
>
> >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:14:47 -0800 (PST), in the land of
> >> rec.arts.poems, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> got double
> >> secret probation for writing:
>
> >> >On Feb 25, 7:01 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> will you be getting around to answering Rik's question? You
> >> >> are so expert at poetic interpretation you should be able to explain
> >> >> to Rik where he was writing about killing women.
>
> >> >> <insert response here>
>
> >> >I already answered Rob's question: the girl is killed in LL11-12. Not
> >> >only do "Ripper" and "Red Jack" identify him as a killer, but they're
> >> >also puns: In L11 he cuts her open ("Jack-in-the-Green, rip her") and
> >> >in L12 he gets her blood all over him ("Red Jack").
>
>
> >> Which explains how you can't figure out the pedo-fantasy is not a
> >> poem.
>
> >Rob's "pedo-fantasy" is actually a very good poem
>
> Rob wrote a pedo-fantasy?
That's your word for it. He wrote a poem about raping a yong girl.
> Got a link to it?
How about if "we" try doing their own search this time? Hint: the
poem's title is the same as the title of this thread.
>
> > - the above lines
> >are particularly well-written - and the fact that you can't see that
> >for yourself indicates only that you have no idea how to recognize or
> >read a poem.
>
> Poor George. Sad you have to do this to yourself.
>
You're still disavowing responsibility for your actions, then.
George Dance
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:04:23 -0800 (PST), in alt.usenet.kooks, George
>
> >On Feb 27, 2:30 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:46:38 -0800 (PST), in rec.arts.poems, George
> >> Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> bloviated:
>
> >> >On Feb 27, 12:28 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Not quite as good as when you claimed [we] wrote Dennis's words and then
> >> >> claimed I was responsible for Dennis's words, regardless whether I
> >> >> quoted or even read them.
>
> >> >It've shown that you replied to a message that contained them; as I've
> >> >already told you, that's prime facie evidence that you read them.
>
> >> No, George, you are lying.
>
> >Here's the message you replied to:
> >http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/f1d0f34ecbbf0519
>
> >Do you need me to quote it in full?
>
> So you evidence that I am responsible for / own Dennis's words is
> /your/ post. One that I did not write. One where /you/ quote Dennia.
> One from which I quoted a single paragraph of /your/ ignorance.
>
So you're still disagreeing with my statements: "She's smiling because
(except in your mind) she wasn't a victim, nor
was the babysitter a rapist. It's clear from the poem that there
wasn't any rape; that the girl was a consenting partner to the whole
thing."
So why are you pretending that you haven't disagreed?
> That is your evidence I am responsible for Dennis's words.
>
> Bizarre.
>
> Now demonstrate when I read Dennis's words.
>
>
>
> >> You claimed two different messages were your evidence I took
> >> responsibility
>
> >AFAIK, no one's 'accused' you of taking responsibility for anything.
>
> "Nonsense. By defending the comment, you've taken ownership of it
> yourself."
>
Oh, yeah; you are responsible for your position. However, you haven't
taken responsibility; you want to weasel out of defending your
position by pretending you haven't taken it.
> See George, according to not quoting someone makes you the owner of
> the words you did not quote. Does not matter that you didn't read
> them, in your delusional world I own the words.
>
> Hint here George, what I wrote had /only/ to do with what you wrote
> and the ignorance of /your/ words.
>
>
>
> >> for words I did not quote. Words you originally claimed
> >> [we] wrote
>
> Post editing, how dishonest, George. Can't handle the truth
No. You lied about what I "originally claimed". I corrected your
statement to what I actually claimed.
> so you
> just make it into whatever your delusion calls for.
>
Whenever you lie about what I said, I'll correct your statements. So
don't try it again.
George Dance
> While a "jack" is a "knave," a Jack-in-the-Green (f. a wooer in
> the corn) is also a Jack-in-the-Pulpit, and both are also symbols,
If you were me, Rik would tell you it's "stupid" to call them
'symbols'; Rob would tell you they're called 'metaphors'; and Karla
would tell you the word you meant was 'allegories'. But I understand
the symbolism well enough:
Green Man = man's face in leaves
Jack-in-the-Green = knave hiding in bushes
(liked and borrowed your 'jack' BTW)
Risen Man = man with an erection
Corn King = fertility god
Ripper, Red Jack = serial killer, body mutilator
Since the poem also deals with the conquest of winter by spring, you
also have:
spring = the conqueror
winter = the conquered
> like the "Risen Man" (whether J.C., his precursors cf. Dionys,
> Osiris, etc., or a jack in the corn with a hardon) of spring.
> And the "Risen Man" by any figure above all notes that "they are
> all the same," i.e., that the biggest single cause of death is birth.
>
> Try to have your "reading" make sense,
Here's what my "reading" gives me; perfectly sensible:
Here's Jack! (Dance Mix)
-------------------------------
A red flower by any other name:
man's face in leaves, man with an erection,
knave hiding in the bushes, is waiting...
Until she appears - young,
not strong, not knowing the conqueror,
the fertility god, has found her.
The conquered.
She's thirteen. She drops,
in an alley, a mewling thing
and runs for mercy to the rain.
Man hiding in the bushes, serial killer,
body mutilator - what's in a name?
They are all the same.
> you stupid little Protestant
> psychopath.
>
Let's see what your "reading" gives, wannabe priest.
<cue the chirping crickets>
Dennis M. Hammes
Get a language or shut the fuck up.
Sherrie Lee
> > On Feb 27, 4:44 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> So you're still disagreeing with my statements: "She's smiling because
> (except in your mind) she wasn't a victim, nor
> was the babysitter a rapist. It's clear from the poem that there
> wasn't any rape; that the girl was a consenting partner to the whole
> thing."
Are you talking about Chuck's poem? There I cannot comment because I
have not read it (in a long time, ago, where a good debate took place
regarding subjects about which one is 'free' to write).
Are you talking about Rob's poem?
In any case, I'd be cautious of saying "consenting partner to the
whole thing".
What is meant by "whole thing"?
That aside, for the moment, I'm getting that Rob's poem is about a red
flower.
Thirteen confuses me as well as "runs for mercy to the rain", though.
While I don't usually picture a rose (or any other red flower for that
matter, flower) running or lasting past 13 days, I can picture any
flower on some occasion (thriving) with the help of (the 'right'
balance) of rain.
The "Here's Jack!" thing (a red flower by any other name, a.k.a.
"Here's Johnny!") had me searching "The Shining", and a question, now:
Why is/was it called, _The Shining_?
Here's Jack!
---------------
A red flower by any other name:
The Green Man, the Risen Man,
Jack-in-the-Green, is waiting...
Until she appears - young,
not strong, not knowing spring,
the Corn King, has found her.
Winter.
She's thirteen. She drops,
in an alley, a mewling thing
and runs for mercy to the rain.
Jack-in-the-Green, Ripper,
Red Jack - what's in a name?
They are all the same.
- Rob Evans
Peter J Ross
Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> So you're still disagreeing with my statements: "She's smiling because
> (except in your mind) she wasn't a victim, nor
> was the babysitter a rapist. It's clear from the poem that there
> wasn't any rape; that the girl was a consenting partner to the whole
> thing."
A particularly nasty aspect of chuckles's paedophile fantasy is that
the victim is blamed. You, however, seem to think that the pretence
that the victim is to blame excuses the fantasist.
I doubt if you really think that. You're merely adopting that position
because you can't face losing an argument, which is one of the reasons
that you're a worthy candidate for Kook of the Month.
--
PJR :-)
Barbara's Cat
> Why is/was it called, _The Shining_?
The little boy Danny?s psychic power,
his ?shining?.
--
Cm~
"Never fear shadows. They simply mean
there's a light shining somewhere nearby."
- Ruth E. Renkel
Aratzio
Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> bloviated:
>> On Feb 27, 4:44 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:04:23 -0800 (PST), in alt.usenet.kooks, George
>> Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> bloviated:
>>
>> >On Feb 27, 2:30 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:46:38 -0800 (PST), in rec.arts.poems, George
>> >> Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> bloviated:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 27, 12:28 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Not quite as good as when you claimed [we] wrote Dennis's words and then
>> >> >> claimed I was responsible for Dennis's words, regardless whether I
>> >> >> quoted or even read them.
>>
>> >> >It've shown that you replied to a message that contained them; as I've
>> >> >already told you, that's prime facie evidence that you read them.
>>
>> >> No, George, you are lying.
>>
>> >Here's the message you replied to:
>> >http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/f1d0f34ecbbf0519
>>
>> >Do you need me to quote it in full?
>>
>> So you evidence that I am responsible for / own Dennis's words is
>> /your/ post. One that I did not write. One where /you/ quote Dennia.
>> One from which I quoted a single paragraph of /your/ ignorance.
>>
>
>
>So you're still disagreeing with my statements: "She's smiling because
>(except in your mind) she wasn't a victim, nor
>was the babysitter a rapist. It's clear from the poem that there
>wasn't any rape; that the girl was a consenting partner to the whole
>thing."
No, you ignorant stump. I disagreed with what you wrote. None of your
illucid logic puts Dennis's words in my post. What you wrote was your
standard ignorant codswollop. What caused you to write your ignorant
codswollop is not relevant to be pointing out you wrote ignorant
codswopllop.
>
>So why are you pretending that you haven't disagreed?
With words I did not read? Do you find yourself agreeing or
disagreeing with words you do not read often?
>
>
>> That is your evidence I am responsible for Dennis's words.
>>
>> Bizarre.
>>
>> Now demonstrate when I read Dennis's words.
>>
Whoopsie. Did you miss that part? You know the part that makes your
whole premise I own Dennis's words more and more like the proverbial
one-legged man.
>>
>>
>> >> You claimed two different messages were your evidence I took
>> >> responsibility
>>
>> >AFAIK, no one's 'accused' you of taking responsibility for anything.
>>
>> "Nonsense. By defending the comment, you've taken ownership of it
>> yourself."
>>
>
>
>Oh, yeah; you are responsible for your position. However, you haven't
>taken responsibility; you want to weasel out of defending your
>position by pretending you haven't taken it.
The position YOU wrote ignorant codswollop? I've never once denied you
wrote ignorant codswollop. What promted you to write your ignorant
codswollop has not bearing upon your writing the ignorant codswollop.
Any of this getting through to you? That you are responsible for what
you write not Dennis.
>
>
>> See George, according to not quoting someone makes you the owner of
>> the words you did not quote. Does not matter that you didn't read
>> them, in your delusional world I own the words.
>>
>> Hint here George, what I wrote had /only/ to do with what you wrote
>> and the ignorance of /your/ words.
>>
Did you miss that part too? Seems whenever I point out the illucid
nature of your own argument you just ignore the fact your are a
blitering fool.
>>
>>
>> >> for words I did not quote. Words you originally claimed
>> >> [we] wrote
>>
>> Post editing, how dishonest, George. Can't handle the truth
>
>
>No. You lied about what I "originally claimed". I corrected your
>statement to what I actually claimed.
I do not write your words nor do I write Dennis's, you drooling
mornion, I write for me. SO *WE* cannot write anything.
And what *lie* would that be? The one where you claim I wrote the
words written by Dennis? Or the lie where you claim I *own* the words
written by Dennis? Or the part where you claim your words cannot stand
independant and require Dennis's words?
You are that stupid, aren't you.
>
>> so you
>> just make it into whatever your delusion calls for.
>>
>
>
>Whenever you lie about what I said, I'll correct your statements. So
>don't try it again.
>
You will post edit anything to make if fit your delusions.
Good to know.
>
>>
>>
>> >, when directly asked to provide eveidence I called anything
>> >> Rape or Murder.
>>
>> >Actually, you 'asked' after I made that 'claim', and changed the
>> >reference: either to distort what I'd said, or because you'd
>> >misunderstood. Since I've explained that, more than once, you're not
>> >misunderstanding now.
>>
>> George, you lie. You claimed I called it Rape & Murder I have asked
>> you several times where *I* made that claim. You always point at
>> Dennis's post. (Who never called it murder, only you did)
>>
>> Now show where *I* made that claim you say I did.
>
Hrmm, seems you missed the opportunity to *correct* me, George. Why is
that? The facts get in the way, again?
>>
>> >> BTW: No one but you EVER called it murder, dumbass.
>>
>> >Look, Ratboy, since you want to discuss some other poem than the one
>> >the thread is about: How about if I just post that in a separate
>> >thread?
>>
>> Nice avoidance, cupcake.
>>
>> Point out where anyone but you called anything in Chuckwits poem
>> murder, unless you think I changed the subject, you delusional old
>> goat raper.
Lack of refutation, again.
Plenty of opportunity for you to point out where:
1. I wrote Dennis's words.
2. I ever read Dennis's words.
3. I ever called it Rape or Murder.
4. Where /anyone/ but you called it murder.
Funny all that George, why is that? Four possible points for you to
refute and all you can do is continue to post you illucid delusion
that not reading someone's words means you own the words you did not
read/.
So here is another opportunity for you to stand up for /your/ truth.
Aratzio
Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> bloviated:
>George Danc<slap>
>
>
>Get a language or shut the fuck up.
He is quite fluent in illucid screed.