Poets as opposed to Not Poets

[Aratzio]

Something I learned a long time ago on USENET, the real poets are able
to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself
can appreciate, even when on the receiving end. Skill at language is
interesting.

I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me.

Yeah, you know of whom I write...

[Aratzio]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:58:44 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
alt.arts.poetry.comments, "J. Corey Connor" <hierony...@gmail.com>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>Fuck you.

quod erat demonstrandum

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

Congratulations Mousey-Boy! You're the first nut-job to extol trollery as an art form.

[George Dance]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:55:49 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:

> Something I learned a long time ago on USENET, the real poets are able
> to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself
> can appreciate, even when on the receiving end. Skill at language is
> interesting.
>
> I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me.
>

Great news! As you may remember, you also said, back when you began infesting aapc a month ago:

"One [sic] thing that can always be said about me, I'm easy to killfile and I
usually get bored at some point and move on."

I'm sure you'll be missed by some.

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:58:34 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, "J. Corey Connor" <hierony...@gmail.com>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>Here is the point he was making, I think:
>Some insult eloquently. You're just succinct.

As they weasel to avoid admitting they are boring...

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:50:18 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

So, you're good with being a a bore with so little talent that the
sounds of cats being strangled is prefferable to your prose.

God to know, dunce.

[Aratzio]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:55:49 -0700, in the land of
alt.arts.poetry.comments, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
Pleasantly Postulated::

Given *which* wannabe drivel scribblers responded, yes, they do know.

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:58:17 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, "J. Corey Connor" <hierony...@gmail.com>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>I do not weasel. I wallow.
>Learn how to fucking read.

Poor baby, need a nappy change?

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

I take it your ass is all healed now, Mousey-Boy, and you've come back around for seconds.

[George Dance]

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:53:52 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:50:18 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
> >On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:55:49 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> >> Something I learned a long time ago on USENET, the real poets are able
> >> to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself
> >> can appreciate, even when on the receiving end. Skill at language is
> >> interesting.
>
> >> I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me.
>
> >Great news! As you may remember, you also said, back when you began infesting aapc a month ago:
>
> >"One [sic] thing that can always be said about me, I'm easy to killfile and I
> >usually get bored at some point and move on."
>
> >I'm sure you'll be missed by some.
>

> So, you're good with being a a bore with so little talent that the
> sounds of cats being strangled is prefferable to your prose.
>

If you'd preffer to read about strangling cats, that's your problem, Ratboy. I'm sure you'll find a a newsgroup that shares your interests.

>
> God to know, dunce.
>

God be with you, Ratty.

[Will Dockery]

"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:ig3el95akdoev5ek6...@4ax.com...

Could be all the poetry talk is just going over your head?

--
Will Dockery has a show on 04/26/2014 at 12:00 PM @ Hogbottom in Fort
Mitchell, AL http://www.reverbnation.com/c./poni/275847823

[George Dance]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 2:38:35 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:56:11 -0700,

> Of those four wannabe drivel-scribblers, two are KotM winners and the
> other two are current kook-award nominees.
>

All nominated by either PJ or Ratty, BTW.

>
> Being incapable of writing anything interesting enough to be called a
> poem and being a Usenet kook seem to be linked.
>

Translation: "Being disliked by PJ Ross and his toadies, and being nominated for Kooks' Awards, seem to be linked."

[Will Dockery]

"George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:9ed6bf26-60cb-45a3...@googlegroups.com...

aka "Revenge Nominations".

[bucky lastard]

On 4/24/2014 2:38 PM, Peter J Ross wrote:
> Being incapable of writing anything interesting enough to be called a
> poem and being a Usenet kook seem to be linked.
>
>

Yep, you're living proof of that, Ross.

[Aratzio]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 06:44:52 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>> So, you're good with being a a bore with so little talent that the
>> sounds of cats being strangled is prefferable to your prose.
>>
>
>If you'd preffer to read about strangling cats, that's your problem, Ratboy. I'm sure you'll find a a newsgroup that shares your interests.

Try to have your reading make sense:

"sounds of cats being strangled"

"read about strangling cats"

Yeah, Dunce, yer an idjit.

[George Dance]

Well, if you're too lazy to read about the subject, and preffer to just listen to something, maybe you can buy a a video somewhere. As I told you, that's your problem, not mine.

>
> Yeah, Dunce, yer an idjit.

It's a pity your vaunted Irony Meters are nothing but a stale joke.

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:44:29 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 06:44:52 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>>
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>>
>> Pleasantly Postulated::
>>
>> >> So, you're good with being a a bore with so little talent that the
>> >> sounds of cats being strangled is prefferable to your prose.
>>
>> >If you'd preffer to read about strangling cats, that's your problem, Ratboy. I'm sure you'll find a a newsgroup that shares your interests.
>>
>> Try to have your reading make sense:
>>
>> "sounds of cats being strangled"
>>
>> "read about strangling cats"
>>
>
>Well, if you're too lazy to read about the subject, and preffer to just listen to something, maybe you can buy a a video somewhere. As I told you, that's your problem, not mine.

So, you admit you are illiterate and now have to try to make up for
your illiteracy with another non sequitur.

The subject was your abyssmal prose not whether you can understand
simple words like "sounds"

>
>>
>> Yeah, Dunce, yer an idjit.
>
>It's a pity your vaunted Irony Meters are nothing but a stale joke.

Standard kook prose:
"I know you are but what am I?"

You would be mute if not for the writings of others providing your
thoughts.

[bucky lastard]

On 4/25/2014 6:17 PM, Aratzio wrote:
> I know you are but what am I?
>

You can shorten that with IKYABWAI, fatboy.

[George Dance]

On Friday, April 25, 2014 6:17:24 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
> >On Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:44:29 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 06:44:52 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> >> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> >> Pleasantly Postulated::
>

> >> >If you'd preffer to read about strangling cats, that's your problem, Ratboy. I'm sure you'll find a a newsgroup that shares your interests.
>
> >> Try to have your reading make sense:
>
> >> "sounds of cats being strangled"
>
> >> "read about strangling cats"
>
> >Well, if you're too lazy to read about the subject, and preffer to just listen to something, maybe you can buy a a video somewhere. As I told you, that's your problem, not mine.
>
> So, you admit you are illiterate and now have to try to make up for
> your illiteracy with another non sequitur.
>



> The subject was your abyssmal prose not whether you can understand
> simple words like "sounds"
>

No, it wasn't. You began the thread by whining about how 'bored' you are. It's only after I reminded you that you'd promised to leave after you got bored that you changed the subject to trying to insult my 'prose'.

> >> Yeah, Dunce, yer an idjit.
>
> >It's a pity your vaunted Irony Meters are nothing but a stale joke.
>
> Standard kook prose:
>
> "I know you are but what am I?"
>

Well, duh! All you have to do is look at who invented the Irony Meter concept.

> You would be mute if not for the writings of others providing your
> thoughts.

Why in the world would anyone waste any original thought on you, Ratty?

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:24:30 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, bucky
lastard <b...@nomail.invalid> Pleasantly Postulated::

>On 4/25/2014 6:17 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>> I know you are but what am I?
>>
>You can shorten that with IKYABWAI, fatboy.

Oh, goody, another fakey sock dies its death of dribbling stupid.

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:49:22 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Friday, April 25, 2014 6:17:24 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> Pleasantly Postulated::
>>
>> >On Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:44:29 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 06:44:52 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>> >> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> >> Pleasantly Postulated::
>>
>> >> >If you'd preffer to read about strangling cats, that's your problem, Ratboy. I'm sure you'll find a a newsgroup that shares your interests.
>>
>> >> Try to have your reading make sense:
>>
>> >> "sounds of cats being strangled"
>>
>> >> "read about strangling cats"
>>
>> >Well, if you're too lazy to read about the subject, and preffer to just listen to something, maybe you can buy a a video somewhere. As I told you, that's your problem, not mine.
>>
>> So, you admit you are illiterate and now have to try to make up for
>> your illiteracy with another non sequitur.

Hrmmm, no response.

>>
>
>
>
>> The subject was your abyssmal prose not whether you can understand
>> simple words like "sounds"
>>
>
>No, it wasn't. You began the thread by whining about how 'bored' you are. It's only after I reminded you that you'd promised to leave after you got bored that you changed the subject to trying to insult my 'prose'.

Well, stupid, the original post insulted your prose and for someone
that seems o believe he understands English, you sure are stupid.

Here is the clue, dumbass, I pointed ut that the real poets were quite
adroit in their usage of language and I always enjoyed when they
decided to get up in people grills, even my own. But there were a
certain number of drivel scribblers who claimed to be poets but were
just dullards. And I stated you knew who you were.

Then the only people stupid enough to fall for such an obvious troll
were the drivel scribblers it was quite evident that, yes, you were
quite aware just how shitty was your prose.

But! you driveled some boring response.

To which I pointed out the SOUNDS of strangling cats was preferable to
your prose.

To which you proved your illiteracy.

I pointed out your illiteracy and pointed out that you by virtue of
trying to change the subject accepted that your drivel was actually
boring drivel.

etc etc etc

So, now that the troll has been sufficiently explained feel free to
explain how it wasn't about your abysmal drivel inflected prose.

>
>> >> Yeah, Dunce, yer an idjit.
>>
>> >It's a pity your vaunted Irony Meters are nothing but a stale joke.
>>
>> Standard kook prose:
>>
>> "I know you are but what am I?"
>>
>
>Well, duh! All you have to do is look at who invented the Irony Meter concept.

Not you.

>
>> You would be mute if not for the writings of others providing your
>> thoughts.
>
>Why in the world would anyone waste any original thought on you, Ratty?

Point of order, dumbass, the record shows you have no original
thoughts. Therefore you have none to waste on anyone, even yourself,
let alone me.

As for original thoughts, see the original pst where I state that real
poets have great skill and even admitted they had used it on me. This
showing that real poets did find me sufficiently abrasive to flame me
with their well honed literary skills. Skills of which I was quite
appreciative, unlike yours.

Unlike you, plagiarist.

[Julian]

On 4/25/2014 5:11 PM, Aratzio wrote:

> As for original thoughts, see the original pst where I state that real
> poets have great skill and even admitted they had used it on me. This
> showing that real poets did find me sufficiently abrasive to flame me
> with their well honed literary skills. Skills of which I was quite
> appreciative, unlike yours.

You are not capable of appreciation. You are a dunce and have nothing
to contribute to this conversation. Please stop insulting real poets by
pretending that you can hold sway with them.
--
As Above
So Below
Underneath
the Starry Glow

[George Dance]

On Friday, April 25, 2014 7:11:00 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:49:22 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
> >On Friday, April 25, 2014 6:17:24 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>
> >> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> >> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
> >> >On Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:44:29 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 06:44:52 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>
> >> >> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> >> >> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
> >> >> >If you'd preffer to read about strangling cats, that's your problem, Ratboy. I'm sure you'll find a a newsgroup that shares your interests.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Try to have your reading make sense:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> "sounds of cats being strangled"
>
> >>
>
> >> >> "read about strangling cats"
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, if you're too lazy to read about the subject, and preffer to just listen to something, maybe you can buy a a video somewhere. As I told you, that's your problem, not mine.
>
> >>
>
> >> So, you admit you are illiterate and now have to try to make up for
> >> your illiteracy with another non sequitur.
>
> Hrmmm, no response.
>

There was no need to respond. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the subject; you've shown that you can't even use a spellchecker. All anyone needs to do, to show how worthless your opinions on the subject are, is to just let you babble away.

> >> The subject was your abyssmal prose not whether you can understand
> >> simple words like "sounds"
>
> No, it wasn't. You began the thread by whining about how 'bored' you are. It's only after I reminded you that you'd promised to leave after you got bored that you changed the subject to trying to insult my 'prose'.
>
> Well, stupid, the original post insulted your prose and for someone
> that seems o believe he understands English, you sure are stupid.
>

> Here is the clue, dumbass, I pointed ut that the real poets were quite
> adroit in their usage of language and I always enjoyed when they
> decided to get up in people grills, even my own. But there were a
> certain number of drivel scribblers who claimed to be poets but were
> just dullards. And I stated you knew who you were.
>

Yes, you whined and trolled that you liked some people's flaming, and didn't like others'. So what? Being able to troll and flame isn't a sign of being a 'real poet'. All that you actually 'pointed out' was that you have no idea what being a "real poet" is.

> Then the only people stupid enough to fall for such an obvious troll
> were the drivel scribblers it was quite evident that, yes, you were
> quite aware just how shitty was your prose.
>

Speaking of non-sequiturs...

> But! you driveled some boring response.
>

Actually, it was a very well-written response; I made sure to point out every one of your spelling and grammar mistakes. But I'm not surprised that all that went over your head.

>
> To which I pointed out the SOUNDS of strangling cats was preferable to
> your prose.
>

Good: you've finally learned how to spell 'prefer' correct -- and it took you only four hours.

>
> To which you proved your illiteracy.
>

Too bad there's no app to correct your faulty logic.

>
> I pointed out your illiteracy and pointed out

Now that you've (at least) temporarily solved your spelling problem, let's see what we can do about your grammar. That makes the fourth time you've used the term "pointed out" incorrectly. You haven't been "pointing out" anything; all you've been doing was give opinions; which, as we've seen, are not opinions worth paying much attention to.

> that you by virtue of
> trying to change the subject accepted that your drivel was actually
> boring drivel.
>

Which is completely illogical.

> etc etc etc
>

> So, now that the troll has been sufficiently explained feel free to
> explain how it wasn't about your abysmal drivel inflected prose.
>

For one thing, because it doesn't say a thing about my 'prose', or anyone else's. It's great that know some two- and three-syllable words, and even (with the help of your spell-checker) can finally spell them correctly; but that doesn't make your opinion about anyone's 'prose' anything more than an opinion

>
> >> >> Yeah, Dunce, yer an idjit.
>
> >> >It's a pity your vaunted Irony Meters are nothing but a stale joke.
>
> >> Standard kook prose:
>
> >> "I know you are but what am I?"
>
> >Well, duh! All you have to do is look at who invented the Irony Meter concept.
>
> Not you.
>

True. But I can show you how stupid it is, by using it back on you. Which (to repeat, since it probably went over your head the first time) is what I was doing earlier in response to your first illiterate whine about being 'bored'.

>
> >> You would be mute if not for the writings of others providing your
> >> thoughts.
>
> >Why in the world would anyone waste any original thought on you, Ratty?
>
> Point of order, dumbass, the record shows you have no original
> thoughts.

'The record' shows that you're certainly no judge of that.

>Therefore you have none to waste on anyone, even yourself,
> let alone me.
>




>
>
> As for original thoughts, see the original pst where I state that real
> poets have great skill and even admitted they had used it on me.

I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.

> This
> showing that real poets did find me sufficiently abrasive to flame me
> with their well honed literary skills.

Now you're misusing "showing" the way you misused "pointed out" earlier.

> Skills of which I was quite
> appreciative, unlike yours.
>

I'm sure that, as someone who spends his time trolling and flaming on usenet, you're quite happy when you can pick up new trolls and flames. Which has absolutely nothing to do with skill at writing, let alone being a "real poet".


>
> Unlike you, plagiarist.

Ho, hum ... back to that old smear -- which, I'll have to point out, isn't even a smear that you made up yourself. So much for your vaunted 'originality'.

[George Dance]

Well, as I see it, the more he babbles on, the more he demonstrates his own stupidity and ignorance; which is why I was content to let him babble on for a bit. There was one small problem with that though - he's too stupid to even realize how stupid he's been making himself look - which is why I've had to start explaining things to him.

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 25, 2014 7:11:00 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:

> Well, stupid, the original post insulted your prose and for someone
> that seems o believe he understands English, you sure are stupid.
> Here is the clue, dumbass, I pointed ut that the real poets were quite
> adroit in their usage of language and I always enjoyed when they
> decided to get up in people grills, even my own. But there were a
> certain number of drivel scribblers who claimed to be poets but were
> just dullards. And I stated you knew who you were.

> Then the only people stupid enough to fall for such an obvious troll
> were the drivel scribblers it was quite evident that, yes, you were
> quite aware just how shitty was your prose.

> But! you driveled some boring response.

> To which I pointed out the SOUNDS of strangling cats was preferable to
> your prose.

> To which you proved your illiteracy.

> I pointed out your illiteracy and pointed out that you by virtue of
> trying to change the subject accepted that your drivel was actually
> boring drivel.

> etc etc etc

> So, now that the troll has been sufficiently explained feel free to
> explain how it wasn't about your abysmal drivel inflected prose.

Word of (relatively) friendly advice: Keep it short and simple. These long-winded tirades only expose your incompetence.

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

Jinx! You owe me a soda.

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:28:19 -0600, in the land of
alt.arts.poetry.comments, Julian <kre...@yahoo.com> Pleasantly
Postulated::

So, feel free to use your magically imbued reading skills to point out
where you think I was pretending I could "hold sway" with a real poet.
It should be easy to find those quotes, right, cupcake? You can see
them, right? Otherwise you sorta look like an illiterate whiner
stamping his feetsies with a word salad of idiotic maundering.

As for my contribution to the thread, hrmm, cupcake, I am guessing you
are having a hard time figuring out who was the *original poster* in
this thread. You know the person that started the *conversation*.

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:30:06 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

"People like me they really do!!!"

Yeah, Dunce, you can't actually defend yourself and you need some
other moron to do it for you. So what that his word salad makes no
sense, has no basis and just looks at best petulant.

I also note your complete and utter cowardice in avoiding what I wrote
to mewl a pathetic "ME TOOO!!!!" slurp.

Yeah, Dunce, quite the demonstration of your *original thought*

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:26:55 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Friday, April 25, 2014 7:11:00 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:49:22 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>>
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> Pleasantly Postulated::
>>
>> >On Friday, April 25, 2014 6:17:24 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>>
>> >> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> >> Pleasantly Postulated::
>>
>> >> >On Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:44:29 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 06:44:52 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>>
>> >> >> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> >> >> Pleasantly Postulated::
>>
>> >> >> >If you'd preffer to read about strangling cats, that's your problem, Ratboy. I'm sure you'll find a a newsgroup that shares your interests.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Try to have your reading make sense:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> "sounds of cats being strangled"
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> "read about strangling cats"
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Well, if you're too lazy to read about the subject, and preffer to just listen to something, maybe you can buy a a video somewhere. As I told you, that's your problem, not mine.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> So, you admit you are illiterate and now have to try to make up for
>> >> your illiteracy with another non sequitur.
>>
>> Hrmmm, no response.
>>
>
>There was no need to respond. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the subject; you've shown that you can't even use a spellchecker. All anyone needs to do, to show how worthless your opinions on the subject are, is to just let you babble away.

And yet here you are now.

In which you failed to actually show that your illiteracy was not the
root causation of your use of non sequitur. Funny how that works. Best
part is you dodder off the cliff using another non sequitur.

A spell checker, really Dunce, you feel the need to use one is
indicative of intelligence. Feel free how needing a computer to verify
your spelling is intelligence. If there were something I wrote and
misspelled a word or had a typo in and you couldn't figure it out you
could have just asked instead of providing ample confirmation that you
are so easily confused by the words like "sounds".

>
>> >> The subject was your abyssmal prose not whether you can understand
>> >> simple words like "sounds"
>>
>> No, it wasn't. You began the thread by whining about how 'bored' you are. It's only after I reminded you that you'd promised to leave after you got bored that you changed the subject to trying to insult my 'prose'.
>>
>> Well, stupid, the original post insulted your prose and for someone
>> that seems o believe he understands English, you sure are stupid.
>>
>
>> Here is the clue, dumbass, I pointed ut that the real poets were quite
>> adroit in their usage of language and I always enjoyed when they
>> decided to get up in people grills, even my own. But there were a
>> certain number of drivel scribblers who claimed to be poets but were
>> just dullards. And I stated you knew who you were.
>>
>
>Yes, you whined and trolled that you liked some people's flaming, and didn't like others'. So what? Being able to troll and flame isn't a sign of being a 'real poet'. All that you actually 'pointed out' was that you have no idea what being a "real poet" is.

Ah, so when you claimed " you changed the subject to trying to insult
my 'prose'" I didn't actually change the subject but stayed exactly
upon the subject.

Like I said, Dunce, try to have your reading make sense. It does make
your need to backpedal from your own statements.

As for being a real poet, it is true there were many real poets that
never flamed as was their choice and I usually didn't interact with
them. But then again the ability to weaponize verbiage was always much
more obvious among those with talent. Which explains your total
failure to be write anything that isn't "ME TOO" or "I know you are
but what am I".

When you were failing as a politician I would be willing to bet people
voted for someone else not due to your policies but the fact they
realigned "Wow, what a dull miotherfucker"

>
>> Then the only people stupid enough to fall for such an obvious troll
>> were the drivel scribblers it was quite evident that, yes, you were
>> quite aware just how shitty was your prose.
>>
>
>Speaking of non-sequiturs...

So, we can add "non sequitur" to the list of words like "sounds" you
don't understand.

>
>> But! you driveled some boring response.
>>
>
>Actually, it was a very well-written response; I made sure to point out every one of your spelling and grammar mistakes. But I'm not surprised that all that went over your head.

<pats dunce's pointy little head"
I am quite sure the chief of delusion in your head told you just how
awesome it was.

Do tell how exciting it was for you to confuse the words "sounds" and
"read". I realize that reading in your world has a lot of sound as you
mumble and struggle with each word but to believe they have the same
meaning is just bizarre and not very bright.

>
>>
>> To which I pointed out the SOUNDS of strangling cats was preferable to
>> your prose.
>>
>
>Good: you've finally learned how to spell 'prefer' correct -- and it took you only four hours.

Poor Dunce, having issues with communication because of a simple
typographical error. It totally threw you off your best IKYABWAI work
and made you completely misunderstand the word "sounds"

But wait, if you knew the word was misspelled why did it cause you so
much confusion? Was there some sort of OCD problem that wouldn't allow
you to get beyond that point?

So, do tell, is the mechanical ability to type consider a marker of
intelligence in your world or just the ability and need to use a
spellchecker?

>
>>
>> To which you proved your illiteracy.
>>
>
>Too bad there's no app to correct your faulty logic.

Logic:
"sounds of cats being strangled" != "read about strangling cats"

Feel free to refute that logic, Dunce? Maybe you can claim since they
both have cats they are exactly the same thing?

>
>>
>> I pointed out your illiteracy and pointed out

>> that you by virtue of
>> trying to change the subject accepted that your drivel was actually
>> boring drivel.
>>
>
>Now that you've (at least) temporarily solved your spelling problem, let's see what we can do about your grammar. That makes the fourth time you've used the term "pointed out" incorrectly. You haven't been "pointing out" anything; all you've been doing was give opinions; which, as we've seen, are not opinions worth paying much attention to.
>

So, now you imagine that free form typing requires full and proper
grammar for you to understand it or you get so confused you think
"sounds" is the same as "read"

Do you always have such issues with relatively simple communication?
That you find yourself obsessing to the exclusion of actual
communication and are prevented from typing coherent responses?

Pointing out was a lighter shade of "pointing and laughing at"

>
>Which is completely illogical.

That word, it does not mean what you think it means.

>
>> etc etc etc
>>
>
>> So, now that the troll has been sufficiently explained feel free to
>> explain how it wasn't about your abysmal drivel inflected prose.
>>
>

<George whining that vocabulary is causing him more confusion>

>For one thing, because it doesn't say a thing about my 'prose', or anyone else's. It's great that know some two- and three-syllable words, and even (with the help of your spell-checker) can finally spell them correctly; but that doesn't make your opinion about anyone's 'prose' anything more than an opinion

Ah, logic:

"doesn't make your opinion about anyone's 'prose' anything more than
an opinion"

QED BITCHES
An opinion is an opinion, SO THERE!

George, your prose is drivel unless plagiarized.
The rest of what you dribble on USENET is just stupid, at best.

Yep. opinions, all mine. However given how poorly your drivel is
treated it is a well considered opinion.

>>>
>> >> >> Yeah, Dunce, yer an idjit.
>>
>> >> >It's a pity your vaunted Irony Meters are nothing but a stale joke.
>>
>> >> Standard kook prose:
>>
>> >> "I know you are but what am I?"
>>
>> >Well, duh! All you have to do is look at who invented the Irony Meter concept.
>>
>> Not you.
>>
>
>True. But I can show you how stupid it is, by using it back on you. Which (to repeat, since it probably went over your head the first time) is what I was doing earlier in response to your first illiterate whine about being 'bored'.

Ah, so you believe that people pointing out your simplistic drivel is
standard net.drvel for net.kooks doesn't do your simplistic drivel
justice? You want people to take your simplistic drivel seriously?

How kooky.

>
>>
>> >> You would be mute if not for the writings of others providing your
>> >> thoughts.
>>
>> >Why in the world would anyone waste any original thought on you, Ratty?
>>
>> Point of order, dumbass, the record shows you have no original
>> thoughts.
>
>'The record' shows that you're certainly no judge of that.

Yeah, using IKYABWAI as your standard response is so hard to detect.
Just in case the stupid overtakes you that is called "sarcasm".

>
>>Therefore you have none to waste on anyone, even yourself,
>> let alone me.
>>

Hrmmm, no response. He agrees.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> As for original thoughts, see the original pst where I state that real
>> poets have great skill and even admitted they had used it on me.
>
>I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.

OH DEER GAWD
BWAAAAhAAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
Selfnukes are always the best

>
>> This
>> showing that real poets did find me sufficiently abrasive to flame me
>> with their well honed literary skills.
>
>Now you're misusing "showing" the way you misused "pointed out" earlier.

At least they were *real poets*

>
>> Skills of which I was quite
>> appreciative, unlike yours.
>>
>
>I'm sure that, as someone who spends his time trolling and flaming on usenet, you're quite happy when you can pick up new trolls and flames. Which has absolutely nothing to do with skill at writing, let alone being a "real poet".

And yet, Dunce, you find yourself stuck mewling and whining about all
the trolling and flaming that you have to endure.

>
>
>>
>> Unlike you, plagiarist.
>
>Ho, hum ... back to that old smear -- which, I'll have to point out, isn't even a smear that you made up yourself. So much for your vaunted 'originality'.

Nope, not everything I write is original, never claimed it was. But
using that word to correctly describe you doesn't require originality,
does it?

Maybe you should just stick to spelling lames as your original
thoughts

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:26:55 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>> As for original thoughts, see the original pst where I state that real
>> poets have great skill and even admitted they had used it on me.
>
>I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.

Since I have "written to" on USENET:
You, Dunce
Creepy Mike
Drunkery
Lysaught
Tommy Tosser

That would mean you don't consider yourself or any of your current
fellow drivelers or daed rotting fellow drivelers to be real poets.

Which was my original point and it only took you 2 days to finally
agree with my irrefutable logic.

<TWIRLS>

[George Dance]

On Friday, April 25, 2014 11:26:30 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:30:06 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
>
>
> >On Friday, April 25, 2014 7:28:19 PM UTC-4, Julian wrote:
>
> >> On 4/25/2014 5:11 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > As for original thoughts, see the original pst where I state that real
>
> >> > poets have great skill and even admitted they had used it on me. This
>
> >> > showing that real poets did find me sufficiently abrasive to flame me
>
> >> > with their well honed literary skills. Skills of which I was quite
>
> >> > appreciative, unlike yours.
>
> >>
>
> >> You are not capable of appreciation. You are a dunce and have nothing
>
> >> to contribute to this conversation. Please stop insulting real poets by
>
> >> pretending that you can hold sway with them.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, as I see it, the more he babbles on, the more he demonstrates his own stupidity and ignorance; which is why I was content to let him babble on for a bit. There was one small problem with that though - he's too stupid to even realize how stupid he's been making himself look - which is why I've had to start explaining things to him.
>
>
>
> "People like me they really do!!!"
>
>
>
> Yeah, Dunce, you can't actually defend yourself and you need some
> other moron to do it for you. So what that his word salad makes no
> sense, has no basis and just looks at best petulant.
>

It was better written than any of your posts. Plus, I bet he won't be stamping his little foot all night, the way you've been, because someone else didn't agree with his post.

> I also note your complete and utter cowardice in avoiding what I wrote

Actually, I replied to what you wrote. And you know I replied to what you wrote. And you know that i replied to what you wrote, because you read my reply, and replied to it, BEFORE you wrote this post.

So, to recap:
1) you claimed here that I was "avoiding" what you wrote.
but:
2) I did not "avoid" what you wrote.
and:
3) You knew that I was not "avoiding" what you wrote.

Therefore, you were lying. QED

Now I can call you a proven liar with a clear conscience (as everyone reading the thread knows what I'm talking about).

> to mewl a pathetic "ME TOOO!!!!"

If you're going to pretend that all I said was, "Me, too", dishonest Ratty, you then you should have snipped what I actually said (the way you were doing earlier). Unfortunately, you forgot, and it's still up there.

>
> slurp.
>
> Yeah, Dunce, quite the demonstration of your *original thought*

Wow. Not only are you stealing lines from me, but you stole that one from the very post you were just dishonestly pretending that I hadn't written.

Too bad there aren't any real awards for Usenet kooks any more; I'd be sure to put your name in.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Arfatzio (aka TubbyTard Teh Dunce, aka FattyFatFat), in
<news:kr9ml9loohr1crdhb...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> So, do tell, is the mechanical ability to type consider a marker of
> intelligence in your world or just the ability and need to use a
> spellchecker?

Your functionally illiterate screedbomb notwithstanding, apparently I
need to point out yet again that your spelling errors are likely a
manifestation of your underpowered brain's inability to properly exert
the fine muscle control upon your fingers due to their sheer mass.

Now, shall we address your other grammatical problems, such as
substituting one word for a completely unrelated but similar sounding
one, which only lends credence to the "underpowered brain" theory?

You'd do better just mashing your porcine face against your keyboard
repeatedly... the upside is that then your poorly formatted screeds
might actually make some sense.

Try laying off the cupcakes, Cupcakes. You might lose a few hundred
pounds in your fingers alone, allowing you to type with some semblance
of readability, thereby allowing the intelligent amongst us to do away
with your nom de trvth of TubbyTard.

<snicker>

--

FNVWe:
"The Man Who Spanked Chimpy Checkmate The Cowardly CockSmoker Out Of
AUK, Then Out Of The Flonk, Then Into Insanity, Then Made Him Run Away
Like A Little Spankard Bitch. Again."

In which Checkmate says he wants to spank guys all night long:
MID: <k3m5ls$3pr$1...@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate confesses his desire to fuck who he claims is a
guy:
MID: <k3oolf$cpe$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k9nj0v$u4a$2...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <l8ogd6$1cd$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lclrtd$eei$4...@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate admits he'd definitely fuck a male dog:
MID: <k2h0j1$6ll$5...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k4dsc7$l32$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k5m8o5$vmq$5...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>

In which Checkmate admits to having a golden showers fetish:
MID: <k79p80$9ps$3...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9l0$nf0$5...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9kv$nev$5...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k994eg$77l$1...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k9i8is$sna$3...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <lf3noh$sqv$2...@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate asks a guy for a blowjob (again):
MID: <ka4m1r$8rs$2...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <knd50p$7ni$2...@news.albasani.net>
MID: <knnmme$3a4$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kp77db$rqk$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8t$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8u$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l069qt$g3j$9...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l1b6g1$qqv$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l65hh2$jpd$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9b7ha$ret$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfe72e$q0s$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lffimp$k2f$1...@news.mixmin.net>

Checkmate's got a thing about tickling guy's asses with random
objects:
MID: <l8rapt$rfm$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfm4f8$3jb$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <li2ao1$3rf$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <37fb49820eaf36d0...@dizum.com>

Checkmate's so gay he repeatedly insists that a picture of a vagina is
actually an asshole and balls... he went on and on about assholes and
balls... couldn't shut up about them:
MID: <l84jo7$cnd$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l84oip$icu$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l85ste$ao$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l87aud$saf$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l88ptv$nlj$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8dvdt$tj2$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8kl20$91i$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8psgt$m7d$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8rapv$rfm$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l98brg$6hp$6...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <ldg914$pel$2...@news.mixmin.net>

Checkmate's Rules To Live By:
=========================
MID: <MPG.2a5ec5516...@news.alt.net>
"Best you keester a kielbasa."

MID: <knnmmb$3a4$1...@news.mixmin.net>
"If you see a dick, suck it."

MID: <6qft9a....@news.alt.net>
"The Winchester 1892 would make a damned-good dildo."

MID: <l61jjg$tth$1...@news.mixmin.net>
"Pump a rump."

Message-ID: <l9d76m$k1v$4...@news.mixmin.net>
"You gerbils are always in the dark."

Message-ID: <lal84d$g2u$5...@news.mixmin.net>
"I gotta gay named Guido from Jersey"

Message-ID: <lamgt8$b2d$1...@news.mixmin.net>
"If they're soft, yer probably blowin' it all wrong."

Message-ID: <lchub0$q96$5...@news.mixmin.net>
"Hitler would have made a damned good Queen."

Message-ID: <lcsgjb$obk$2...@news.mixmin.net>
"Don't get slapped by the cocks you crave."
=========================

What a FAG!

Melt, Chimpy, melt.
Froth, Chimpy, froth.
Dance, Chimpy, dance!

<snicker>

/\ Properly known as Bill
\ /\ The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
\ / \ THERE IS NO CABAL - LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
\/ The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.

Accept no substitutes...
if it's from Databasix, it's a sure bet it's from a kook.

databasix.com / PacketDerm, LLC / COTSE:
all branches of the same malignant tree.

Message-ID: <l7m8ig$1ld$7...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8jh$1le$8...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8lh$1le$9...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8ne$1ld$8...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8pc$1le$1...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8rb$1ld$9...@news.mixmin.net>

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>> to mewl a pathetic "ME TOOO!!!!"
>
>If you're going to pretend that all I said was, "Me, too", dishonest Ratty, you then you should have snipped what I actually said (the way you were doing earlier). Unfortunately, you forgot, and it's still up there.
>
>>
>> slurp.

Nice post edit, Dunce.

Couldn't come up with anything that refuted your slurp so you editid
the context so you could play stupid.

Well, you won, you're stupid.

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>So, to recap:
>1) you claimed here that I was "avoiding" what you wrote.
>but:
>2) I did not "avoid" what you wrote.
>and:
>3) You knew that I was not "avoiding" what you wrote.

My apologies for following the thread vertically as opposed to
serially. However, I LOVED your response that I hadn't seen yet.
Especially the part where you proved you and the drivelers are not
real poets.

Brilliant how you proved exactly what I said in the original post.

But I wonder how Drunkery & Creepy Mike will look upon your admitting
theat you drivel scribblers are not real poets? Tosser and Lisesalot
are dead so I doubt that they care.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Arfatzio (aka TubbyTard Teh Dunce, aka FattyFatFat), in

<news:rrpll9hnesvnmced6...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:24:30 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, bucky
> lastard <b...@nomail.invalid> Pleasantly Postulated::

>> On 4/25/2014 6:17 PM, Arfatzio (aka TubbyTard Teh Dunce, aka

>> FattyFatFat) wrote:

>>> I know you are but what am I?

>> You can shorten that with IKYABWAI, fatboy.

> Oh, goody, another fakey sock dies its death of dribbling stupid.

That's not me, TubbyTard. But I can understand how an ass-kicked and
awestruck kook such as yourself would conflate everyone landing a boot
on your ultrawide posterior target to be the same, I see it happen all
the time with you kooks... it's often difficult to differentiate which
boot belongs to whom, especially since you've covered your eyes as you
whimper in fear.

Don't worry, we'll just continue kicking the living shit out of you,
and you'll be a pro at figuring out who's who in no time. So at least
you'll finally have *something* to brag about.

Gonna run away from me again, YouFuckingCoward?

<boot>

[bucky lastard]

You should charge fakey rent for the space he takes up
in your head, fatzio.

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:kr9ml9loohr1crdhb...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:26:55 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated::

<snippery>

>>I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your
>>life.
>
> OH DEER GAWD
> BWAAAAhAAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
> Selfnukes are always the best

I assume he included Dreckery in that statement. I'd hate to hear about
his fiancee being miffed and calling off the wedding because of it.

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Would you translate that into K00KSPEKE so I can understand it?" -
Raytard
Murphy admits his failure to communicate.

[Aratzio]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:09:15 +0000 (UTC), in the land of alt.aratzio,
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cu...@petitmorte.net> Pleasantly Postulated::

>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:kr9ml9loohr1crdhb...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:26:55 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
><snippery>
>
>>>I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your
>>>life.
>>
>> OH DEER GAWD
>> BWAAAAhAAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
>> Selfnukes are always the best
>
>I assume he included Dreckery in that statement. I'd hate to hear about
>his fiancee being miffed and calling off the wedding because of it.

Threw Dreckery, Creepy Mike and himself under the bus and then paid
the driver to stop on top of them.

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 3:30:57 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:

> > Word of (relatively) friendly advice: Keep it short and simple.
> > These long-winded tirades only expose your incompetence.

> Says the kook who's posted hundreds of lines of windy rhetoric in
> celebration of National Windy Rhetoric Month.

Yes, but mine weren't written in pidgin.

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:34:12 -0700, in the land of
alt.arts.poetry.comments, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
Pleasantly Postulated::

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAA
<crickets>

I guess Dunce isn't quite as smart as Dunce thought Dunce was.

Not like even your bride to be or matron of honor tried to give you
cover, Dunce. They bailed on you like you were caught on TV raping
that dog (canine you moron) in front of 10,000 people at Madison
Square Gardens.

[bucky lastard]

On 4/24/2014 3:29 PM, George Dance wrote:
> Translation: "Being disliked by PJ Ross and his toadies, and being nominated for Kooks' Awards, seem to be linked."
>
Yea, him and fat ratzio seem to live for AUK approval.

What's up with that?

[George Dance]

I think that at one time (perhaps back in the 1990's; long before I joined Usenet, anyway), AUK and the Kooks' Awards were about finding and outing actual kooks -- the kind of guys who think aliens are controlling our brains with x-rays and the like -- and outing them. If so, the awards would have been of some value, as they'd have kept people out of long and fruitless conversations with nuts. But I'm speculating, since I haven't seen any of that.

By the time I became aware of the Kooks' Awards in 2007, though, they were being used as sticks to beat PJ's and his friends' real or imagined enemies. I don't know of anyone outside AUK who pays any attention to them nowadays.

But I can see why the guys want to to keep up appearances, and pretend that this matters. After all, it sounds so much more impressive to say, "X won an Award for lying" (or whatever) than to say "6 of my friends voted that X was lying" (even though that's all a Kooks' Award does mean these days) -- it gives his and Ratty's tirades a sheen of objectivity, which may fool some people who don't understand the process.

[George Dance]

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 2:29:46 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
> >So, to recap:
> >1) you claimed here that I was "avoiding" what you wrote.
> >but:
> >2) I did not "avoid" what you wrote.
> >and:
> >3) You knew that I was not "avoiding" what you wrote.
>
> My apologies for following the thread vertically as opposed to
> serially. However, I LOVED your response that I hadn't seen yet.
>

Even if it were true that you hadn't seen my response (and there's no reason to believe take your word for anything at this point), that was no reason for you to claim that I hadn't written one. That's just more of your bad logic, on top of your lying.

> Especially the part where you proved you and the drivelers are not
> real poets.
>

I don't think any of the gentelemen on your lits o'haet (including me) has ever called himself a "real poet". You've been the only one claiming there are "real poets" on usenet (though you haven't been able to give any examples).

> Brilliant how you proved exactly what I said in the original post.
>

Actually, you're lying again. Let's look at what you said in that original post:

Aratzio:
Something I learned a long time ago on USENET, the real poets are able
to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself
can appreciate, even when on the receiving end. Skill at language is
interesting.

I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me. Yeah, you know of whom I write...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/tltERDRzwioJ

All you're claiming there, is that there's a group of people you call "real poets". So, you lied again.

[George Dance]

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:34:12 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:26:55 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
>

> >I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.

>
>
> Since I have "written to" on USENET:
>
> You, Dunce
> Creepy Mike
> Drunkery
> Lysaught
> Tommy Tosser
>
>

Nice lits o'haet, Ratty. But those aren't the only 6 people you've written to on usenet, are they?

> That would mean you don't consider yourself or any of your current
> fellow drivelers or daed rotting fellow drivelers to be real poets.
>

I've certainly never called myself a "real poet", and I doubt that any of the other gentelemen on your lits o'haet have, either. So far, you're the only one who's claimed there is such a thing.

snip

[George Dance]

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:03:39 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:34:12 -0700, in the land o

> alt.arts.poetry.comments, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
>

> >Which was my original point and it only took you 2 days to finally
> >agree with my irrefutable logic.
>
> ><TWIRLS>
>
> BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAA
> <crickets>
>

Apparently, Ratty wants a comment on his 'irrefutable logic'. Unfortunately, no one is going to want to wade back in the thread and look for any of that. So let's start with a short summary of the relevant part of the conversation:

Aratzio (original post in full):

Something I learned a long time ago on USENET, the real poets are able
to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself
can appreciate, even when on the receiving end. Skill at language is
interesting.

I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me. Yeah, you know of whom I write...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/tltERDRzwioJ

George Dance, April 25:

I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/qptPCoI4ea0J

Aratzio, April 25:

Which was my original point and it only took you 2 days to finally
agree with my irrefutable logic.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/tppaDtt01SUJ

Aratzio, April 26:

> Brilliant how you proved exactly what I said in the original post.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/VbV11tUq5I8J

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:14:19 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Saturday, April 26, 2014 2:29:46 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> Pleasantly Postulated::
>>
>> >So, to recap:
>> >1) you claimed here that I was "avoiding" what you wrote.
>> >but:
>> >2) I did not "avoid" what you wrote.
>> >and:
>> >3) You knew that I was not "avoiding" what you wrote.
>>
>> My apologies for following the thread vertically as opposed to
>> serially. However, I LOVED your response that I hadn't seen yet.
>>
>
>Even if it were true that you hadn't seen my response (and there's no reason to believe take your word for anything at this point), that was no reason for you to claim that I hadn't written one. That's just more of your bad logic, on top of your lying.

So, apologizing and admitting I was in error means I am lying. Really,
Dunce, do tell how that works. I did however, eventually read the
response where you admitted that you and the other drivel scribblers
are not real poets.

>
>> Especially the part where you proved you and the drivelers are not
>> real poets.

Yeah, that was a total hoot.

>>
>
>I don't think any of the gentelemen on your lits o'haet (including me) has ever called himself a "real poet". You've been the only one claiming there are "real poets" on usenet (though you haven't been able to give any examples).

So, you are a fake poet. I think you are into semantics now.
Fake Poet/Not Poet would be the same for this discussion.

>
>> Brilliant how you proved exactly what I said in the original post.
>>
>
>Actually, you're lying again. Let's look at what you said in that original post:

So, if I have "written to" you then in your estimation you are one of
the drivel scribblers that I consider not poets.

"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your
life. "

You did write that statement, right, Dunce? That would mean at this
point in time I am not writing to a real poet and therefore you are a
talentless hack that is not a real poet.

>
>Aratzio:
>Something I learned a long time ago on USENET, the real poets are able
>to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself
>can appreciate, even when on the receiving end. Skill at language is
>interesting.
>
>I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me. Yeah, you know of whom I write...
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/tltERDRzwioJ
>
>All you're claiming there, is that there's a group of people you call "real poets". So, you lied again.

But Dunce, if you are not one of the talented then you are in the
untalented and boring grouping. Which are not real poets. The clause
where real poets are defined as having talent with language? You see
that? Part where I mention skill, that part? You know all the things
you do not have.

Yep, that was my point, Real Poets can use language, you drivel.

But as you stated, you don't feel any of your contemporaries are real
poets. Rather rude of you don't you think?

:I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.

But if you feel denigrating the non-existant talent of your only
friends is the route you should take, I can heartily agree with you
that they are not rreal poets.

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:31:03 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:34:12 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:26:55 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> Pleasantly Postulated::
>>
>>
>> >I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>
>>
>>
>> Since I have "written to" on USENET:
>>
>> You, Dunce
>> Creepy Mike
>> Drunkery
>> Lysaught
>> Tommy Tosser
>>
>>
>
>Nice lits o'haet, Ratty. But those aren't the only 6 people you've written to on usenet, are they?

Yes, there are many more than 6, Dense, but the above would be called
a "subset" as defined by "talentless" and "hack" which given the names
did not have to be expressly defined as the subset is self-defining.

:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
Since you were the one that failed to express the list of real poets
with which I had never communicated I felt it was therefore necessary
to place in the record the list of fake poets with which I had
commumnicated.

Does that help, Dense? That you defined the only people you could even
consider to be friends as fake poets? People, like you, who are ego
defined by what they consider a talent and you go and admit they have
no talent.

Not much a friend are you, Dense.

>

>
>
>> That would mean you don't consider yourself or any of your current
>> fellow drivelers or daed rotting fellow drivelers to be real poets.
>>
>
>I've certainly never called myself a "real poet", and I doubt that any of the other gentelemen on your lits o'haet have, either. So far, you're the only one who's claimed there is such a thing.
>
>snip

You know Dunce, you act as if a non-poet like myself cannot appreciate
and identify the skills and talent of a real poet. Given how much
umbrage you take at being listed as a no talent poseur one would be
led to believe you think you have skill and/or talent at poetry.

But why should poetry be different from any other art, Dense? I can
appreciate the skill and talent of musicians, painters, sculptors and
many other arts of which I am less than skilled.

So, why is so hard for you and the other drivel scribblers to
recognize your own lack of any discernable skill or talent? You write
like a petulent child demanding that the hand in the cookie jar is not
theirs. Especially when your lack of skill and talent is pointed out.

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:53:36 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:03:39 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:34:12 -0700, in the land o
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>> Pleasantly Postulated::
>>
>> >Which was my original point and it only took you 2 days to finally
>> >agree with my irrefutable logic.
>>
>> ><TWIRLS>
>>
>> BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAA
>> <crickets>
>>
>
>Apparently, Ratty wants a comment on his 'irrefutable logic'. Unfortunately, no one is going to want to wade back in the thread and look for any of that. So let's start with a short summary of the relevant part of the conversation:
>
>Aratzio (original post in full):
>Something I learned a long time ago on USENET, the real poets are able
>to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself
>can appreciate, even when on the receiving end. Skill at language is
>interesting.
>
>I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me. Yeah, you know of whom I write...
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/tltERDRzwioJ

And given how hard you are working at this, Dense, that last bit sure
did hit the nail on the head. The beauty of the simple troll, tell the
truth and watch the targets gnash and froth. Pump it along, watch them
spin until they fuck themselves, like you did. It is a talent,
something of which you have no knowledge.

>
>George Dance, April 25:
>I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/qptPCoI4ea0J

George, your opinion of your fellow talentless hacks is not proof I
haven't communicated with a real poet. In my opinion Michael Cook is
awesome. The fact you are boring (ie lack talent) is the point. That
a real poet can use words in a manner that can be appreciated and
exhibits actual talent is the point. The point being, you have no
talent, Dense.

So, yes, ignoring your delusional reading failure, the point was that
you and the other drivel scribblers have no talent.

See, I could point to PJR and his talent but you and the other
talentless hacks would just let those very limited imaginations run
wild into your sexual fantasies, which are boring.

>
>Aratzio, April 25:
>Which was my original point and it only took you 2 days to finally
>agree with my irrefutable logic.
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/tppaDtt01SUJ

Dense, you do realize that you are not a member of the "real poets"
but a member of the "boring"

>
>Aratzio, April 26:
>> Brilliant how you proved exactly what I said in the original post.
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/VbV11tUq5I8J
>
>>
>> I guess Dunce isn't quite as smart as Dunce thought Dunce was.

Since Dense believes opinion to be fact, that must mean that Dense is
stupid.

>>

Keep working this Dense, I am sure someone will come along and forgive
you for calling them all fake poets.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:54:11 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:14:19 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated:
>
> >On Saturday, April 26, 2014 2:29:46 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>

> >> My apologies for following the thread vertically as opposed to
> >> serially. However, I LOVED your response that I hadn't seen yet.
>

> >Even if it were true that you hadn't seen my response (and there's no reason to take your word for anything at this point), that was no reason for you to claim that I hadn't written one. That's just more of your bad logic, on top of your lying.

>
> So, apologizing and admitting I was in error means I am lying.

No, claiming I was "avoiding" your posts when you knew I wasn't meant you were lying. And claiming you later admitted you were in error, when you did not admit you were in error, is also lying. But trying to justify your claim by saying you hadn't seen a post is just bad logic.

> Really,
> Dunce, do tell how that works.

See above.

I did however, eventually read the
> response where you admitted that

<quote>

I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/qptPCoI4ea0J

<paraphrase snipped>

>
> Yeah, that was a total hoot.
>

I'm glad to see you enjoyed your own joke. Please note, though, that I substituted what I actually wrote for your dishonest paraphrase. As long as you continue to pretend I said things I didn't, I'll have to keep doing that.

>
> >I don't think any of the gentelemen on your lits o'haet (including me) has ever called himself a "real poet". You've been the only one claiming there are "real poets" on usenet (though you haven't been able to give any examples).
>
>
> So, you are a fake poet.

No, I didn't say that, either. Or imply it: It doesn't follow that everyone (or every poet) who's not a "Real Poet" is a "Fake Poet"; that's the fallacy of False Alternative.

> I think you are into semantics now.
>

Semantics are unavoidable. It's impossible to agree on who's a "Real Poet" and who's a "Fake Poet" without agreeing on what those terms even mean; and it sounds like we don't.

>
> Fake Poet/Not Poet would be the same for this discussion.
>

In that case, "Real Poet" and "True Poet" can be the same for this discussion.

>
> >> Brilliant how you proved exactly what I said in the original post.
>
> >Actually, you're lying again. Let's look at what you said in that original post:
>

<restored>
<q>

> >Aratzio:
> >Something I learned a long time ago on USENET, the real poets are able
>to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself
>
> >can appreciate, even when on the receiving end. Skill at language is
>
> >interesting.
>
> >
>
> >I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me. Yeah, you know of whom I write...
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/tltERDRzwioJ

> So, if I have "written to" you then in your estimation you are one of
> the drivel scribblers that I consider not poets.

Wrong. Perhaps you think that only "Real Poets" are poets, and everyone who isn't a "Real Poet" is a "Drivel scribbler"; but that doesn't mean that I do.

>
> "I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your
> life. "
>

Which means only that neither I, nor anyone else you've "written to", is someone I'd consider a "Real Poet" (or "True Poet").

>
> You did write that statement, right, Dunce?
>

Certainly. That's why I didn't snip it, the way I've been doing for your paraphrases.

> That would mean at this
> point in time I am not writing to a real poet

To someone who doesn't consider himself a "Real Poet" or "True Poet", anyway (others may disagree).

> and therefore you are a
> talentless hack that is not a real poet.
>

That doesn't follow, either; just because someone isn't a "Real Poet" doesn't make them either talentless, or a hack.

>
> >All you're claiming there, is that there's a group of people you call "real poets". So, you lied again.
>
> But Dunce, if you are not one of the talented

I didn't say anything about being one of the 'talented'

> then you are in the
> untalented >
> and boring grouping.
>

Not necessarily. That's another False Alternative.

> Which are not real poets.

> The clause
> where real poets are defined as having talent with language?

"on USENET, the real poets are able to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself can appreciate, even when on the receiving end."

That just sounded like an empirical claim about "Real Poets"; that you enjoy reading their usenet flames. But now suddenly it's your 'definition':

You're *defining* a "Real Poet" as someone who 'weapnnizes language' on usnet to make flames you enjoy ('appreciate') reading. Noted.

> that? Part where I mention skill, that part?

> You know all the things
> you do not have.
>

IOW: you don't enjoy reading flames I write on usenet, and that means I'm not a "Real Poet" by your new definition.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with what anyone else considers a "Real Poet". It certainly has nothing to do with this sentence of mine: "I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life."

It does reinforce what I've said: you're not a competent judge of poets or poetry.

> Yep, that was my point, Real Poets can use language, you drivel.

So your point is that anyone who writes flames you 'appreciate' reading is a "Real Poet", and that's all that you mean by "Real Poet". That's what it means to say it's your definition.

> But as you stated, you don't feel any of your contemporaries are real
> poets. Rather rude of you don't you think?
>

If we're using your new definition -- that a "Real Poet" is someone whose usenet flames appreciate -- then it's no wonder that everyone on your lits o'haet is not a "Real Poet": you don't appreciate their flames, by definition.

But, of course, there's no reason to think I was using the same definition when I wrote:


> :I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>

> But if you feel denigrating the non-existant talent of your only
> friends is the route you should take,

But implying that the half-dozen or so people on your lits o'haet aren't "Real Poets" doesn't say anything about the quality of their poetry, by my definition or by yours.

> I can heartily agree with you
> that they are not rreal poets.

On the other hand, though, we would disagree on whether you and your slurp-buddies Ross and Cujo are "Real Poets": since you enjoy reading their flames, to you they are, by definition.

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:47:35 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:54:11 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:14:19 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> Pleasantly Postulated:
>>
>> >On Saturday, April 26, 2014 2:29:46 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>>
>> >> My apologies for following the thread vertically as opposed to
>> >> serially. However, I LOVED your response that I hadn't seen yet.
>>
>> >Even if it were true that you hadn't seen my response (and there's no reason to take your word for anything at this point), that was no reason for you to claim that I hadn't written one. That's just more of your bad logic, on top of your lying.
>>
>> So, apologizing and admitting I was in error means I am lying.
>
>No, claiming I was "avoiding" your posts when you knew I wasn't meant you were lying. And claiming you later admitted you were in error, when you did not admit you were in error, is also lying. But trying to justify your claim by saying you hadn't seen a post is just bad logic.

BWAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAA

Really, you got me, I admitted I was wrong, but you are such an
ignorant and delusion lackwit you can't even accept thatr I admitted
didn't read the posts in the order you needed them read. That I have
to lying and that your delusion of the order in which I read the posts
has to be the truth.

Truly awesome, Dense, your need to be a poor pathetic victim is
hilarious

>
>> Really,
>> Dunce, do tell how that works.
>
>See above.

I understand how you can't understand how apologies work, Dense, given
your inability to ever admit fault, but I have to admit that you
insisting that me telling you that you were correct is a lie is
awesome.

>
>
>I did however, eventually read the
>> response where you admitted that
>
><quote>
>I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/qptPCoI4ea0J
>
><paraphrase snipped>

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA
Dense is far to embarrased by his own admission that he and the rest
of the drivel scribblers are fake poets to leave it in.

>>I did however, eventually read the

>>response where you admitted that you and the other drivel scribblers
>>are not real poets.

Just one sentence, using goggle gropes that he HAD to replace with his
own words.

The original statemnt in akll its glory that Dense cannot admit he

wrote:
:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

That would mean that none of the people with whom i have communicated
are real poets. Unless you have an alternate explaination of rather
simple (as if Dense could drivel otherwise) English.

>>
>> Yeah, that was a total hoot.
>>
>
>I'm glad to see you enjoyed your own joke. Please note, though, that I substituted what I actually wrote for your dishonest paraphrase. As long as you continue to pretend I said things I didn't, I'll have to keep doing that.

Here is the quote, Dense. Do tell how you are your fellow drivel
scribblers can be anything other than fake poets since by your claim I
have never communicated with a real poet.
:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

Dense, you also fail to give yourself sufficent credit for failing so
wonderfully. I couldn't have had nearly as much amusement without your
admission of you and your fellow band of drivellers lack of talent.

>
>>
>> >I don't think any of the gentelemen on your lits o'haet (including me) has ever called himself a "real poet". You've been the only one claiming there are "real poets" on usenet (though you haven't been able to give any examples).

I did forget to point out your spelling of gentlemen, you are all
about how using a spellchecker as a necessity for proper posting here.
Must be difficult hauling those petards everywhere with you.

>>
>>
>> So, you are a fake poet.
>
>No, I didn't say that, either. Or imply it: It doesn't follow that everyone (or every poet) who's not a "Real Poet" is a "Fake Poet"; that's the fallacy of False Alternative.

Let us revistit the quote:

:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

Couple ways we can look at this:

Opposite of real is fake
Opposite of poet is you

Alternatively:
If I've never communicated with a real poet, then, given the current
communication, you are:
1. not real poet
2. real not poet

as we can only negate one time which is it?

Maybe you have some super duper awesome delusion that can explain how
you didn't insult all of your fellow drivel scribblers.

>
>
>> I think you are into semantics now.
>>
>
>Semantics are unavoidable. It's impossible to agree on who's a "Real Poet" and who's a "Fake Poet" without agreeing on what those terms even mean; and it sounds like we don't.

:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

So, we can agree then you do not consiider yourself a real poet.

>
>>
>> Fake Poet/Not Poet would be the same for this discussion.
>>
>
>In that case, "Real Poet" and "True Poet" can be the same for this discussion.

Yes, and lets go to the record
:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
replace real with true
:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'true poet' in your life. "

That means since we agree that real and true for this discussion are
the same, you admit you are not a true poet either.

Works for me.

>
>>
>> >> Brilliant how you proved exactly what I said in the original post.
>>
>> >Actually, you're lying again. Let's look at what you said in that original post:
>>
><restored>
><q>
>> >Aratzio:
>> >Something I learned a long time ago on USENET, the real poets are able
> >to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself
>>
>> >can appreciate, even when on the receiving end. Skill at language is
>>
>> >interesting.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me. Yeah, you know of whom I write...
>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/tltERDRzwioJ
>
>
>> So, if I have "written to" you then in your estimation you are one of
>> the drivel scribblers that I consider not poets.
>
>Wrong. Perhaps you think that only "Real Poets" are poets, and everyone who isn't a "Real Poet" is a "Drivel scribbler"; but that doesn't mean that I do.

No, Dense, I was pretty specific as to who are the drivel scribblers,
you even whined about the lits of drivel scribblers when I pointed out
to you which drivel scibbers were the drivel scribblers. You really
need to work on your short term memory, it seems to be eroding quite
rapidly. I did, however, include myself in the *NOT* poets but the
specific classification for drivel scribblers is for people who
believe themselves poets, post poetry and in the process prove that
they are talentless hacks. One does not have to be a poet to recognize
your utter lack of talent.

>
>>
>> "I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your
>> life. "
>>
>
>Which means only that neither I, nor anyone else you've "written to", is someone I'd consider a "Real Poet" (or "True Poet").

Since your belief is that anyone with whom I may have communicated
cannot be a real or true poet. That only leaves your belief that you
and the drivel scribblers are fake or false poets.

>
>>
>> You did write that statement, right, Dunce?
>>
>
>Certainly. That's why I didn't snip it, the way I've been doing for your paraphrases.

:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

Yep, you do not believe anyone I have ever had communications with is
a real poet.

That would include the drivel scriblers.
Not real poets
real not poets

Keep spinning, drivel scribbler, I find your efforts quite amusing.

>
>> That would mean at this
>> point in time I am not writing to a real poet
>
>To someone who doesn't consider himself a "Real Poet" or "True Poet", anyway (others may disagree).

Let us refresh the record:
:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

Appreciation and recognition of talent does not require one to have
that talent. Therefore identification of those who lack said talent,
like you, also does not require said taent.

Unless you believe only poets can see the talent of poets?

>
>> and therefore you are a
>> talentless hack that is not a real poet.
>>
>
>That doesn't follow, either; just because someone isn't a "Real Poet" doesn't make them either talentless, or a hack.

In your case, as I was quite specific, it does. Nothing you have ever
written, unless you stole it, describes you as talented.

>
>>
>> >All you're claiming there, is that there's a group of people you call "real poets". So, you lied again.
>>
>> But Dunce, if you are not one of the talented
>
>I didn't say anything about being one of the 'talented'

There is little opportunity or evidence for you to have claimed that.

>
>> then you are in the untalented and boring grouping.
>>
>
>Not necessarily. That's another False Alternative.

Dense's reading fails him as always.

Let us go to the record and compare the alternatives as originally
described: interesting or boring:

"Skill at language is interesting." (added the missing space)

"I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me."

Your lack skill as a poet, you are boring in your writing.

You would make a better pot than poet.

>
>> Which are not real poets.
>
>> The clause
>> where real poets are defined as having talent with language?
>
>"on USENET, the real poets are able to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself can appreciate, even when on the receiving end."
>
>That just sounded like an empirical claim about "Real Poets"; that you enjoy reading their usenet flames. But now suddenly it's your 'definition':
>
>You're *defining* a "Real Poet" as someone who 'weapnnizes language' on usnet to make flames you enjoy ('appreciate') reading. Noted.

The point, you illiterate tool, is you cannot use language in any way
that differentiates you from thousands of other net.kooks. That the
ability to use language in both poetry and flaming indicates an
understanding of both language and human nature that totally escapes
simpletons like you.

>
>> that? Part where I mention skill, that part?
>
>> You know all the things
>> you do not have.
>>
>
>IOW: you don't enjoy reading flames I write on usenet, and that means I'm not a "Real Poet" by your new definition.

BWAAAAAHAAAAAhAAAAAhAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Dense thinks he is a flamer?

Seriously, THAT is hilarious.

>
>That's nice, but it has nothing to do with what anyone else considers a "Real Poet". It certainly has nothing to do with this sentence of mine: "I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life."

Only your firends who think themselves to be real poets could be
insulted by that, Dense.

You know, the drivel scribblers, your pals. The ones who, in your
estimation, are not real poets.

>
>It does reinforce what I've said: you're not a competent judge of poets or poetry.

Well, your respect for your fellow drivel scribblers is quite evident:
:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

>
>> Yep, that was my point, Real Poets can use language, you drivel.
>
>So your point is that anyone who writes flames you 'appreciate' reading is a "Real Poet", and that's all that you mean by "Real Poet". That's what it means to say it's your definition.

Not even close. But funny.
"Skill with language is interesting"
The fact that I was expressly using Poets ans an example was lost on
you.

>
>> But as you stated, you don't feel any of your contemporaries are real
>> poets. Rather rude of you don't you think?
>>
>
>If we're using your new definition -- that a "Real Poet" is someone whose usenet flames appreciate -- then it's no wonder that everyone on your lits o'haet is not a "Real Poet": you don't appreciate their flames, by definition.

Well, you just stick with that delusion and prove that you lack any
"Skill with language" and are therefore in the boring classification.

>
>But, of course, there's no reason to think I was using the same definition when I wrote:

Real poets have skill with language. You don't. Not even a little.

>
>
>> :I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>>
>
>> But if you feel denigrating the non-existant talent of your only
>> friends is the route you should take,
>
>But implying that the half-dozen or so people on your lits o'haet aren't "Real Poets" doesn't say anything about the quality of their poetry, by my definition or by yours.

Their utter and complete lack of identifiable talent when you and they
post your drivel does.

>
>> I can heartily agree with you
>> that they are not rreal poets.
>
>On the other hand, though, we would disagree on whether you and your slurp-buddies Ross and Cujo are "Real Poets": since you enjoy reading their flames, to you they are, by definition.

You really are delusional.
I never once equated flaming and poetry you moron.
I pointed out that given the real poets facility with language they
were also quite excellent at flaming. Only a complete moron could fuck
that one up, moron.

"Skill at langiuage is interesting"

But the part I love is now that you have developed that delusion you
will continue to use your delusion to my amusement.

>
>

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:47:35 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>IOW: you don't enjoy reading flames I write on usenet, and that means I'm not a "Real Poet" by your new definition.

OH DEER GAWD
The idea that Dunce has EVER *flamed* anyone.

<wipes tears of laughter>

[Will Dockery]

And most of the nominations are invalid anyhow since there's a rule of theirs that rejects "Revenge Nominations" which most of them are these days.

[Will Dockery]

Aratzio wrote:

> George Dance wrote:
>
> >I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>

> Since I have "written to" on USENET:
>
> You, Dunce
>
> Creepy Mike
>
> Drunkery
>
> Lysaught
>
> Tommy Tosser

You left off Peter J. Ross and J. Corey Connor.

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 6:52:05 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Aratzio wrote:
>
> > George Dance wrote:
>
> > >I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>
> > Since I have "written to" on USENET:

>
> > You, Dunce
> > Creepy Mike
> > Drunkery
> > Lysaught
> > Tommy Tosser

Mousey-Boy seems to be suffering from the delusion that I've written to him. I guess he's so desperate for attention that he counts my horse laugh as a reply.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:27:02 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:31:03 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
> >On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:34:12 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:26:55 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> >> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> >> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
> >> >I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>
>
> >> Since I have "written to" on USENET:
>
> >> You, Dunce
> >> Creepy Mike
> >> Drunkery
> >> Lysaught
> >> Tommy Tosser
>
>
> >Nice lits o'haet, Ratty. But those aren't the only 6 people you've written to on usenet, are they?
>
> Yes, there are many more than 6, Dense, but the above would be called
> a "subset" as defined by "talentless" and "hack"

So it's a lits you made up, of people you claim are "talentless" and "hacks", and thought you could get out of supporting your claim by pretending that wasn't the case.

> which given the names
> did not have to be expressly defined as the subset is self-defining.
>

So, your only proof that those gentleman are talentless is that you defined them as "talentless"? That's as bad as your definition of "Real Poet". It's enough to point out that you're just redefining terms to mean whatever you feel like at the time.

>
> :"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
>
> Since you were the one that failed to express the list of real poets
> with which I had never communicated

> I felt it was therefore necessary
> to place in the record the list of fake poets with which I had
> commumnicated.
>

But, as we've seen, that's not an exhaustive lits of putative poets with which you've communicated. You just added two more names: "Michael Cook" and "PJR" -- and let me add "Dennis Hammes" to that lits. If need be, I can come with more names to add, too.

>
> Does that help, Dense? That you defined the only people you could even
> consider to be friends as fake poets?

I didn't do any such thing.

>
> People, like you, who are ego
> defined by what they consider a talent
> and you go and admit they have
> no talent.
>

No, I didn't say that: you did. I notice you have a knack for making things up and claiming other people said them; do you really think no one else is going to notice that, too?

>
> Not much a friend are you, Dense.
>

Even if I were "friends" with everyone on the group, that wouldn't oblige me to call them "Real Poets" (the way, for example, you feel obliged to do with PJ Ross). That doesn't make you PJ's friend, you know; it makes you his toady.

> >
>
> >> That would mean you don't consider yourself or any of your current
> >> fellow drivelers or daed rotting fellow drivelers to be real poets.
>
> >I've certainly never called myself a "real poet", and I doubt that any of the other gentelemen on your lits o'haet have, either. So far, you're the only one who's claimed there is such a thing.
>

> >snip
>

No answer? That proves, by your own logic, that you agree with me.

>
>
> You know Dunce, you act as if a non-poet like myself cannot appreciate
> and identify the skills and talent of a real poet.

Well, let's define that term: A "non-poet like Aratzio" would be someone who doesn't read poetry, knows nothing about poetry, and doesn't want to learn anything about poetry. Of course someone like that can't appreciate anything about poetry.

He can, of course, try to define "Real Poet" in a way that has nothing to do with writing poetry; but there's no reason anyone has to take any of that seriously.

>
> Given how much
> umbrage you take at being listed as a no talent poseur one would be
> led to believe you think you have skill and/or talent at poetry.
>

I'm just pointing out that your opinion on a subject that you know nothing about , and don't care to learn anything about, is useless. It doesn't matter what opinion I have of my own poems.

> But why should poetry be different from any other art, Dense? I can
> appreciate the skill and talent of musicians, painters, sculptors and
> many other arts of which I am less than skilled.
>

As usual, your premise is wrong. There's no reason to think you can speak with authority about any of those subjects.

Why do you think you can judge the talent of any artist -- poet, painter, sculptor, musician -- if you don't know anything about his or her art?

>
> So, why is so hard for you and the other drivel scribblers to
> recognize your own lack of any discernable skill or talent?

Lack of any real reason to think so, of course. Your calling them 'drivel scribblers' and claiming they have no skill or talent (I'm glad to see you've stopped confusing those, by the way) is no evidence, because
1) Besides the fact there's no reason to think you know anything about writing in general, and those gentlemen's writing in particular,
2) You've already admitted that you're saying these things about them only because they're your "targets".

> You write
> like a petulent child demanding that the hand in the cookie jar is not
> theirs. Especially when your lack of skill and talent is pointed out.

<Sigh> Once again, one 'points out' facts, not opinions. You're simply giving an opinion, which
1A) not only does no one else have any reason to believe, but
2) there's no actual evidence that even you believe it.

[George Dance]

No, that has been proven false. As I reminded you in your first post: if you were bored you'd have moved on, and here you still are.

The beauty of the simple troll, tell the
> truth and watch the targets gnash and froth. Pump it along, watch them
> spin until they fuck themselves, like you did. It is a talent,
> something of which you have no knowledge.
>

Since all that is happening only in your head, not in objective reality, of course no one else has any 'knowledge' of it. As for it being "the truth": the only truth in the above is that you're after "targets".

> >George Dance, April 25:
> >I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/qptPCoI4ea0J
>
> George, your opinion of your fellow talentless hacks is not proof I
> haven't communicated with a real poet. In my opinion Michael Cook is
> awesome.

That means nothing as to whether he's really talented or not. And it has nothing to do with whether he's a "Real Poet," which (as we've seen) has nothing to do with either talent or skill (which aren't the same thing).

The fact you are boring (ie lack talent) is the point.

You're wrong about that. That's not a fact, but an opinion; and not an opinion that's not worth much, as we've seen.

> That
> a real poet can use words in a manner that can be appreciated and
> exhibits actual talent is the point.

You're wrong about that, too. That (according to you) a "Real Poet" makes flames you appreciate has nothing to do with either talent or skill at wriing poetry.

> The point being, you have no
> talent, Dense.
>

As I've told you before; you're no judge of anyone's talent for writing poetry.

>
> So, yes, ignoring your delusional reading failure

Good idea, since you made that up. But, I notice, you're not ignoring it; you can't even get that minor point right.

> , the point was that
> you and the other drivel scribblers have no talent.
>

See above.

>
> See, I could point to PJR and his talent

You could even call him a "Real Poet", since you obviously enjoy his flaming -- but that of course would put you in a pickle, since you've "written to him" on usenet.

> but you and the other
> talentless hacks would just let those very limited imaginations run
> wild into your sexual fantasies, which are boring.
>

Saying you're 'bored' by that type of flaming is another lie from you. In fact you love homoerotic flaming - when you and "PJ" indulge in it.

>
> >Aratzio, April 25:
>
> >Which was my original point and it only took you 2 days to finally
> >agree with my irrefutable logic.
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/tppaDtt01SUJ
>
>
>
> Dense, you do realize that you are not a member of the "real poets"
> but a member of the "boring"
>

Well, that is the only thing that is clear from your posts: that you divide the writers on aapc into two groups, the "Real Poets" and the "False Poets", the first being your allies and the second your targets (everyone else).

But since distinction that has nothing to do with anyone's talent or skill at poetry, your definitions are wrong. That's the point.

>
> >Aratzio, April 26:
> >> Brilliant how you proved exactly what I said in the original post.
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/VbV11tUq5I8J
>

> Since Dense believes opinion to be fact, that must mean that Dense is
> stupid.
>

Actually, Ratty, it's you that's been calling your own opinions 'facts', throughout this thread.

[Will Dockery]

George Dance wrote:
>
> But, as we've seen, that's not an exhaustive lits of putative poets with
> which you've communicated. You just added two more names: "Michael Cook"
> and "PJR" -- and let me add "Dennis Hammes" to that lits. If need be, I
> can come with more names to add, too.

Certainly those three poets belong on a list of Usenet Poets, I'd add Dale
Houstman and J. Corey Connor as well.

--
Check out Idle Hour Night / Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars -
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery/song/15928895-idle-hour-night--dockery-mallard

[Aratzio]

On 28 Apr 2014 16:15:09 GMT, in the land of alt.aratzio, Peter J Ross
<p...@homeridae.org> Pleasantly Postulated::

>In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:41:50 -0700,

>There may be proof in the archives that Dunce is a flamer.
>
>It will be next to the proof that you threatened to kill him.

I literally had to stop and walk away from my computer after reading
that. Old fucks like me shouldn't get the giggles.

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:48:40 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

<drivel snip>

Where Dense insults each and every one of his only friends.
:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

That's all anyone has to know about Dense. All his backpedalling and
obfuscation and the fact is hee doesn't think of himself or his brides
to be as real poets.

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:39:24 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

<multi-whine snip>

[George Dance]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 12:23:23 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>

> > But, as we've seen, that's not an exhaustive lits of putative poets with
> > which you've communicated. You just added two more names: "Michael Cook"
> > and "PJR" -- and let me add "Dennis Hammes" to that lits. If need be, I
> > can come with more names to add, too.
>
> Certainly those three poets belong on a list of Usenet Poets, I'd add Dale
> Houstman and J. Corey Connor as well.
>

Oh, sure, they're poets. But the question here is, are they "Real Poets" or "True Poets"?

[George Dance]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 6:30:35 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:39:24 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
> <multi-whine snip>
>
>

Funny, after three days of pontificating about who on AAPC is a "Real Poet" and who isn't, Aratzio suddenly doesn't want to talk about it.

Let's be fair, and him out by giving him a second chance to respond:

<quote>

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:34:12 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:26:55 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
>
>

> >I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.

>
>

> Since I have "written to" on USENET:
>
> You, Dunce
> Creepy Mike
> Drunkery
> Lysaught
> Tommy Tosser
>
>

Nice lits o'haet, Ratty. But those aren't the only 6 people you've written to on usenet, are they?

[Funny how Ratty would run away from such a simple question, isn't it?)

> That would mean you don't consider yourself or any of your current
> fellow drivelers or daed rotting fellow drivelers to be real poets.
>

I've certainly never called myself a "real poet", and I doubt that any of the other gentelemen on your lits o'haet have, either. So far, you're the only one who's claimed there is such a thing.

snip

</q>

[George Dance]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 12:15:09 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> There may be proof in the archives that Dunce is a flamer.
>
> It will be next to the proof that you threatened to kill him.
>

Perhaps. For those interested in looking, here are four of those threats, from two different threads ; at least it's a place to start:

*[Names of posters added for clarity]

<quote>
>[ARATZIO:] So you want to kill George too.
[PJ Ross] Many people would definitely agree that the only good George is a dead George, apparently, as you've previously admitted.</q>
Message-ID: <slrnfs1du...@pjr.motzarella.org>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usenet.kooks/oiDaBsI9gWg/k9-8ezpc9O8J

<quote>
>[GD:] Now, now, you don't speak for "every person" - by my count, it's > you,Dennis, Fred, Peter, Barbara's Kook, and Meat Plow - oh, and Art Deco; he wants to be on the lits, too. I'll accept your claim to > speak for them, and the converse that they speak for you as well.
[ARATZIO:] Not even close, deluded one, they all just happen to hold the pedo fantasy in the same esteem. However, your great conspiracy to kill you seems to be growing, will you soon be accusing them of harboring evil unto their hearts because you disagree?</q>
Message-ID: <bje2s35can9qeosvb...@4ax.com>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usenet.kooks/oiDaBsI9gWg/Hgpovqgt5rAJ

<quote>
{ARATZIO:] George is on the fast track wo WINNAH! status. But only if he can stay alive long enough to win. All these people out here that want to kill
him.</q>
Message-ID: <7if3s39du2m88tgo8...@4ax.com>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usenet.kooks/oiDaBsI9gWg/KRo1J6Km0vcJ

<quote>
[ARATZIO:] So you want to kill george too.</q>
Message-ID: <kdeet3lmi5m17dppb...@4ax.com>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usenet.kooks/qDB7SwjA3_U/QENs5bNbpW0J

[George Dance]

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 6:37:44 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:47:35 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> Pleasantly Postulated::
> >On Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:54:11 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:14:19 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
> >> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
> >> Pleasantly Postulated:
>
> >> >On Saturday, April 26, 2014 2:29:46 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>

<snip Ratty's pretence that he apologized for lying earlier>

>
> >I did however, eventually read the
> >> response where you admitted that
>
> ><quote>
> >I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/qptPCoI4ea0J
>
> ><paraphrase snipped>
>
> BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA
>
> Dense is far to embarrased by his own admission that he and the rest
> of the drivel scribblers are fake poets

No, there's no one namesd in that statement, and nothing about anyone being a "Drivel Scribbler" or a "Fake Poet". Now everyone has the chance to read that for him or herself, rather than taking your word for it (since they've seen by now what your word is worth).

> to leave it in.

That statement is what you were calling my 'admission', imbecile.

>
> >>I did however, eventually read the
> >>response where you admitted that you and the other drivel scribblers
> >>are not real poets.
>

> Just one sentence,

that doesn't call anyone a "Drivel Scribbler"

using goggle gropes that he HAD to replace with his
> own words.
>

Actually, it was Ratty who just tried replacing that statement with his own words.

> The original statemnt in akll its glory that Dense cannot admit he
> wrote:
>
> :"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
>

That's the very same statement I just added to the thread, imbecile; the only difference is that I gave a link so it can be read in context. How can it be that you claim I "cannot admit" I wrote it, when you're the one who keeps snipping it (and pretending I wrote something else), while I'm the one who keeps putting it back in?

>
> That would mean that none of the people with whom i have communicated
> are real poets.

No, that's fair. I haven't seen any "Real Poets" or "True Poets" on usenet; just people who write poetry.

> Unless you have an alternate explaination of rather
> simple (as if Dense could drivel otherwise) English.
>
> >> Yeah, that was a total hoot.
>
>
> >I'm glad to see you enjoyed your own joke. Please note, though, that I substituted what I actually wrote for your dishonest paraphrase. As long as you continue to pretend I said things I didn't, I'll have to keep doing that.
>
> Here is the quote, Dense. Do tell how you are your fellow drivel
> scribblers can be anything other than fake poets since by your claim I
> have never communicated with a real poet.
>
> :"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
>

That's the very same statement, imbecile. What the fuck is wrong with you?

> Dense, you also fail to give yourself sufficent credit for failing so
> wonderfully. I couldn't have had nearly as much amusement without your
> admission of you and your fellow band of drivellers lack of talent.
>

Once again: that statement doesn't call anyone a "driveller" or say anything about anyone's 'talent'.

>
> >> >I don't think any of the gentelemen on your lits o'haet (including me) has ever called himself a "real poet". You've been the only one claiming there are "real poets" on usenet (though you haven't been able to give any examples).
>
> I did forget to point out your spelling of gentlemen, you are all
> about how using a spellchecker as a necessity for proper posting here.
>

No, I'm "all about" posing as an authority on poetry, as you are in this thread, works better if you can spell correctly. Since you can't, I advised you to use a spellchecker.

Do you have to lie about everything I write?

> Must be difficult hauling those petards everywhere with you.
>
>
> >> So, you are a fake poet.
>
> >No, I didn't say that, either. Or imply it: It doesn't follow that everyone (or every poet) who's not a "Real Poet" is a "Fake Poet"; that's the fallacy of False Alternative.
>
> Let us revistit the quote:

Again? This is the fourth time it's been posted in this one message. But, at least, it helps distinguish what I really wrote from what you've been saying I wrote; so let's go for it:

>
> :"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
>
> Couple ways we can look at this:
>

> Opposite of real is fake
> Opposite of poet is you
>

That's one. Here's another:
*"poets" is a subset of "people who write poetry"
*"Real Poets" is a subset of "poets"

Or here's another:
"Real Poets" is a name given to some people, that has nothing to do with the quality of their poetry, or even whether they write poetry at all.

> Alternatively:
> If I've never communicated with a real poet, then, given the current
> communication, you are:

> 1. not real poet
> 2. real not poet
>


> as we can only negate one time which is it?
>

Not a "Real Poet", obviously. But that gets us nowhere.

>
> Maybe you have some super duper awesome delusion that can explain how
> you didn't insult all of your fellow drivel scribblers.
>

Actually, by your logic, I insulted everyone you've communicated with on usenet. But I can't see that I insulted anyone but the ones who go around calling themselves "Real Poets" (or the like); and none of the people you've been calling 'drivel scribblers' is in that group.

>
> >> I think you are into semantics now.
> >
>
> >Semantics are unavoidable. It's impossible to agree on who's a "Real Poet" and who's a "Fake Poet" without agreeing on what those terms even mean; and it sounds like we don't.
>
> :"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
>

Five times.

>
> So, we can agree then you do not consiider yourself a real poet.
>

Not a "Real Poet", anyway; don't equivocate.

>
> >> Fake Poet/Not Poet would be the same for this discussion.
>
>
> >In that case, "Real Poet" and "True Poet" can be the same for this discussion.
>
>
> Yes, and lets go to the record
> :"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
> replace real with true
> :"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'true poet' in your life. "
>
>
> That means since we agree that real and true for this discussion are
> the same, you admit you are not a true poet either.
>

Not a "True Poet", anyway.


> Works for me.
>

Good. Now, to see who I've allegedly insulted, let's look at the people you've written to who've been called "Real Poets" or "True Poets". Who are they?

>
> >> >> Brilliant how you proved exactly what I said in the original post.
>
> >> >Actually, you're lying again. Let's look at what you said in that original post:
>
> ><restored>
>
> ><q>
> >> >Aratzio:
> >> >Something I learned a long time ago on USENET, the real poets are able
> > >to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself
> >> >can appreciate, even when on the receiving end. Skill at language is
> >> >interesting.
>
> >> >I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me. Yeah, you know of whom I write...
> >> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/tltERDRzwioJ
>

So there are people who call themselves (or whom you call) "Real Poets" or "True Poets", and with whom you've communicated on usenet (since you've been on the 'receiving end' of some of their flames).

I didn't 'prove' that claim of yours: I said I doubted it.

>
> >> So, if I have "written to" you then in your estimation you are one of
> >> the drivel scribblers that I consider not poets.
>
> >Wrong. Perhaps you think that only "Real Poets" are poets, and everyone who isn't a "Real Poet" is a "Drivel scribbler"; but that doesn't mean that I do.
>
> No, Dense, I was pretty specific as to who are the drivel scribblers,

More lies, Ratty. What you said was "as poets go, most of you bore me. Yeah, you know of whom I write..." IOW, (1) you admitted your targets were poets (just not "Real Poets"); (2) you did NOT call them 'drivel scribblers'; (3) you did not give any names.

> you even whined about the lits of drivel scribblers

You mean your lits o' haet, right? In fact, you came up with that only after I'd made this quote, to (falsely) claim that I'd been talking about those half-dozen gentlemen, and that I'd

> when I pointed out to you which drivel scibbers were the drivel scribblers.

You mean, when you *called* six people "drivel scribblers" (once again, that's an opinion of yours, not a fact, and one 'points out' facts, not opinions. I did point out (since it's a fact) that this was just a lits you'd made up, not a list of every would-be poet you've written to on usenet (since that is a fact).

> You really
> need to work on your short term memory, it seems to be eroding quite
> rapidly.

Not in that respect. Maybe in this one, though:

> I did, however, include myself in the *NOT* poets

I haven't seen that. I have noted you including yourself in the list (and maybe as the only member of that list) of those qualified to say who's a "Real Poet" and who isn't; but that doesn't make you not a "Real Poet" or "True Poet" (much less not a poet), since most of those who claim they can judge who's a "True Poet" do include themselves as such.

>
> but the specific classification for drivel scribblers is for people who
> believe themselves poets, post poetry and in the process prove that
> they are talentless hacks.

IOW, it's your opinion, that has nothing to do with what I said, or this quote of mine that you keep trying to misrepresent.

>
> One does not have to be a poet to recognize
> your utter lack of talent.
>

One has to have learned something about poetry -- at minimum, one has to at least have read some poetry -- to be able to say which writers have skills or talent, and which don't. There's no sign you've done either.

>
> >> "I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your
> >> life. "

Is that six times, or seven. Anyway, it makes it clear: there's nothing in there about your lits of so-called "drivel scribblers" you dislike so much that you're obsessing even over the ones who are long dead; nothing about anyone's skills or talents; and nothing about who's a poet.

> >Which means only that neither I, nor anyone else you've "written to", is someone I'd consider a "Real Poet" (or "True Poet").
>
> Since your belief is that anyone with whom I may have communicated
> cannot be a real or true poet.

"Real Poet" or "True Poet", if you please. That's just a label for some people, meaning (at this point) only that they call themselves (or someone else calls them) "Real Poets".

> That only leaves your belief that you
> and the drivel scribblers are fake or false poets.
>

No. As I said, people can write poetry without claiming to be (or being called) "Real Poets" or "True Poets". People can even be poets without claiming to be (or being called) "Real Poets" or "True Poets".

>
> >> You did write that statement, right, Dunce?
>
> >Certainly. That's why I didn't snip it, the way I've been doing for your paraphrases.
>
> :"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
>

Eight.

>
> Yep, you do not believe anyone I have ever had communications with is
> a real poet.
>

Correction: a 'real poet', or "Real Poet". Can you think of anyone you've communicated with who calls himself one? Or whom you'd all one?

> That would include the drivel scriblers.

> Not real poets
>

Not "Real Poets"

>
>
> Keep spinning

Stop with the PKBs. In fact, you're the one trying to spin my quote: first pretending I wrote something else, and then, when caught, trying to pretend I meant something else.

>, drivel scribbler, I find your efforts quite amusing.
>

So you've been lying and misrepresenting for fun? Thanks for the brief moment of honesty.

>
> >> That would mean at this
> >> point in time I am not writing to a real poet
>
> >To someone who doesn't consider himself a "Real Poet" or "True Poet", anyway (others may disagree).
>
> Let us refresh the record:
>
> :"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
>
> Appreciation and recognition of talent does not require one to have
> that talent.

Judging the quality of a work of art does require one to know something about that art. There's no sign that you do.

> Therefore identification of those who lack said talent,
> like you, also does not require said taent.
>

If the art form uses the English language, it requires not only some knowledge of the art form (which you don't have), but also the rudiments of English, such as the ability to spell (which you also don't have).As I pointed out, you don't even have the ability to fake the latter by using your spellchecker).

>
> Unless you believe only poets can see the talent of poets?
>
>
> >> and therefore you are a
> >> talentless hack that is not a real poet.
>
>
> >That doesn't follow, either; just because someone isn't a "Real Poet" doesn't make them either talentless, or a hack.
>
> In your case, as I was quite specific, it does.

No, it doesn't follow (ie, isn't an implication) at all.

>
> Nothing you have ever
> written, unless you stole it, describes you as talented.
>

Why would I describe myself as talented?

>
> >> >All you're claiming there, is that there's a group of people you call "real poets". So, you lied again.
>
> >> But Dunce, if you are not one of the talented
>
> >I didn't say anything about being one of the 'talented'
>

Nor did you. You were talking about "Real Poets".

>
>
> There is little opportunity or evidence for you to have claimed that.
>

There's little reason to believe people who call themselves talented (or recruit friends or allies to do that for them).

> >> then you are in the untalented and boring grouping.
>
>
> >Not necessarily. That's another False Alternative.
>
> Dense's reading fails him as always.
>
> Let us go to the record and compare the alternatives as originally
> described: interesting or boring:

That's true enough. Though a reader's 'interest' in a poem depends more on the reader than on the writer.

> "Skill at language is interesting." (added the missing space)
>
> "I have to say, as poets go, most of you bore me."
>

Which sounds more like your problem than theirs.

>
> Your lack skill as a poet, you are boring in your writing.
>
>

As I've explained to you, repeatedly; you're no judge of that.

>
> You would make a better pot than poet.
>

Is that meant to be an example of "weapnizing language"?

>
> >> Which are not real poets.
> >> The clause
> >> where real poets are defined as having talent with language?
>
> >"on USENET, the real poets are able to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself can appreciate, even when on the receiving end."
>
> >That just sounded like an empirical claim about "Real Poets"; that you enjoy reading their usenet flames. But now suddenly it's your 'definition':
>
> >You're *defining* a "Real Poet" as someone who 'weapnnizes language' on usnet to make flames you enjoy ('appreciate') reading. Noted.
>
> The point, you illiterate tool, is you cannot use language in any way
> that differentiates you from thousands of other net.kooks.

It differentiates me from some net.kooks: you and Cujo, for two.

> That the
> ability to use language in both poetry and flaming indicates an
> understanding of both language and human nature that totally escapes
> simpletons like you.
>
>
> >> that? Part where I mention skill, that part?
>
> >> You know all the things
> >> you do not have.
>
>
> >IOW: you don't enjoy reading flames I write on usenet, and that means I'm not a "Real Poet" by your new definition.
>
>
> BWAAAAAHAAAAAhAAAAAhAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Dense thinks he is a flamer?
>

Maybe not a "Real Flamer"; but I've written flames, just as I've written poetry.

>
> Seriously, THAT is hilarious.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >That's nice, but it has nothing to do with what anyone else considers a "Real Poet". It certainly has nothing to do with this sentence of mine: "I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life."
>

>
> Only your firends who think themselves to be real poets could be
> insulted by that, Dense.
>

But, AFAIK, no one on your lits o'haet ever called himself a "Real Poet", "True Poet," or the like, nor does anyone else. So no one's insulted, right?

>
> You know, the drivel scribblers, your pals.

The people on your lits o'haet, dead or alive.

> The ones who, in your
> estimation, are not real poets.
>

And who don't call themselves, or each other, "Real Poets" or the like.

>
> >It does reinforce what I've said: you're not a competent judge of poets or poetry.

>
>
> Well, your respect for your fellow drivel scribblers is quite evident:
>
> :"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "
>

>
> >> Yep, that was my point, Real Poets can use language, you drivel.
>
> >So your point is that anyone who writes flames you 'appreciate' reading is a "Real Poet", and that's all that you mean by "Real Poet". That's what it means to say it's your definition.
>
> Not even close. But funny.
> "Skill with language is interesting"
>

"Skill" being the ability to "weapnize" language and use it against people (those on the "receiving end"); ie, trolls and flames.

> The fact that I was expressly using Poets ans an example was lost on
> you.
>
>
> >> But as you stated, you don't feel any of your contemporaries are real
> >> poets. Rather rude of you don't you think?
>
>

> >If we're using your new definition -- that a "Real Poet" is someone whose usenet flames [you] appreciate -- then it's no wonder that everyone on your lits o'haet is not a "Real Poet": you don't appreciate their flames, by definition.

>
> Well, you just stick with that delusion and prove that you lack any
> "Skill with language" and are therefore in the boring classification.
>

Are you now pretending it's a 'delusion that you wrote:

"real poets are able to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself can appreciate, even when on the receiving end."

And that you just called that your *definition* of a "Real Poet"?

>
> >But, of course, there's no reason to think I was using the same definition when I wrote:
>

> ><unsnipped>

> >I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/j4acQCHsZRI/qptPCoI4ea0J

> Real poets have skill with language.

For flaming, perhaps. You can't judge the skill of anyone's poetry, but there is a chance you can judge their trolls and flames; since you do have some experience with that.

>
>You don't. Not even a little.
>

In flaming and trolling, possibly.

>
> >> :I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life.
>
>
> >> But if you feel denigrating the non-existant talent of your only
> >> friends is the route you should take,
>
> >But implying that the half-dozen or so people on your lits o'haet aren't "Real Poets" doesn't say anything about the quality of their poetry, by my definition or by yours.
>
> Their utter and complete lack of identifiable talent when you and they
> post your drivel does.
>

That's your claimed opinion, and (as I've pointed out) not one worth paying attention to. The subject here is your dishonest pretence that it was my opinion.

> >> I can heartily agree with you
> >> that they are not rreal poets.
>
>
> >On the other hand, though, we would disagree on whether you and your slurp-buddies Ross and Cujo are "Real Poets": since you enjoy reading their flames, to you they are, by definition.
>
> You really are delusional.
>
> I never once equated flaming and poetry you moron.

More lies from you, Ratty: you did in your original *definition*

"real poets are able to weapnize language and use it in ways an old Engineer like myself can appreciate, even when on the receiving end."

And you've continued to do so, as recently as in this post of yours:

"the
> ability to use language in both poetry and flaming indicates an
> understanding of both language and human nature "

>

> I pointed out that given the real poets facility with language they
> were also quite excellent at flaming. Only a complete moron could fuck
> that one up, moron.
>

But you can't judge their poetry, remember? (That's why you came up with this "Real Poet" nonsense in the first place, right?) All you *may* be able to judge is the quality of their trolling and flaming; which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their poetry, as it's a completely different skill set.

> "Skill at langiuage is interesting"
>
> But the part I love is now that you have developed that delusion you
> will continue to use your delusion to my amusement.
>

Good. I'll continue to post the quotes you claim don't exist, just as I've done for things in the past you've called delusions. (Then you can claim you were only joking, of course, just as you've done in the past.)

[George Dance]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 7:21:21 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:

> *ba-da-boom-ching*.
>
>
>
> I'll be here all week.
>
>
>
> But the truth is that you and I are the only people likely to get the
>
> giggles about such jokes

You mean even qwerty, Cujo, and gwyneth won't claim your buddy's threats were 'jokes'? What is happening to your allies, PJ? Is Ratboy really all you have left?

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 6:57:24 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> I've certainly never called myself a "real poet", and I doubt that any of the other gentelemen on your lits o'haet have, either. So far, you're the only one who's claimed there is such a thing.
>

Until recently, I'd have agreed with you on this. However, I honestly believe that P.J. Ross is only pretending to be a poet as a hoax.

Of course, if it turns out that I'm mistaken, and his non-rhonda-jane spoofs are intended as serious verse, I'll gladly revert back to my former stance.

[Aratzio]

On 28 Apr 2014 23:21:21 GMT, in the land of alt.aratzio, Peter J Ross
<p...@homeridae.org> Pleasantly Postulated::

>In alt.usenet.kooks on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:30:34 -0700, Aratzio wrote:
>

>*ba-da-boom-ching*.
>
>I'll be here all week.
>
>But the truth is that you and I are the only people likely to get the

>giggles about such jokes, because we're the only ones who were having
>fun at Dunce's expense far away in a newsgroup long ago. Perhaps it
>would be more entertaining for bystanders if we played with Creepy
>Mike, because Creepy Mike is *new*.
>
>Alternatively, we could set out to demonstrate to people who don't
>know Dunce how kooky Dunce is. (Dunce is certainly by far the
>kookiest poetry kook who isn't deservedly dead, as you and I both
>know.) We could start by demonstrating his cluelessness, then move on
>to demonstrating his envy, his talentlessness, his dishonesty, his
>narcissism, etc etc etc. (We don't need to demonstrate that he's a
>plagiarist; the evidence has been posted often enough.)

Everyone would agree, you qare correct

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:57:24 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Monday, April 28, 2014 6:30:35 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:39:24 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> Pleasantly Postulated::
>>
>> <multi-whine snip>
>>
>>
>
>Funny, after three days of pontificating about who on AAPC is a "Real Poet" and who isn't, Aratzio suddenly doesn't want to talk about it.
>
>Let's be fair, and him out by giving him a second chance to respond:

<more whine snippage>

Yeah, Dunce, your bloviation and obfuscation is quite dull. If you had
an argument that wasn't based upon delusion you might have had a leg
to stand on.

:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

That's all anyone has to know about Dense. He fucked his only friends.

Maybe if yiu stamp your feet and demand loudly you'll get me to read
your current whines.

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Monday, April 28, 2014 12:15:09 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>> There may be proof in the archives that Dunce is a flamer.
>>
>> It will be next to the proof that you threatened to kill him.
>>
>
>Perhaps. For those interested in looking,

BWAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAA
You fucking bloviating dullard.

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:6va0m950ld2et97c7...@4ax.com:

> Everyone would agree, you are correct

Is the proof Dunce is a flamer next to the evidence that Dreckery can
read Usenet headers?

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"When the students and newsgroups and world is ready, the master
appears"
- Edmond Wollmann, trying ever so hard to be modest.

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:03:16 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Sunday, April 27, 2014 6:37:44 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:47:35 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> Pleasantly Postulated::
>> >On Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:54:11 PM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:14:19 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>> >> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> >> Pleasantly Postulated:
>>
>> >> >On Saturday, April 26, 2014 2:29:46 AM UTC-4, Aratzio wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>>
>
><snip Ratty's pretence that he apologized for lying earlier>
>
>>

Poor Dunce

:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

That's all anyone has to know about Dense. No respect for any of his
so called friends.

<snip delusionals Dense Whines Unread>

[George Dance]

Don't make the mistake of confusing "Real Poet" (as I've used the term) with poet, period. A "Real Poet", or a "True Poet", is a subset of the group poets, which is a subset of the larger group, people who write poetry.

As I see it, any writer, with enough serious effort and concentration, learn the needed skills and can write a good poem.

Some of people can write good poems more or less consistently, more or less at will. Those would be the people I'd call "poets".

I'd reserve the "Real Poet" or "True Poet" terms for the natural talents who don't need to make the effort to learn the skills; they just start writing and the good poetry flows out, more or less on demand. The only historical figure I can think of fits who could fit that bill would be Arthur Rimbaud, who was already producing a steady stream of top-notch poetry at fifteen.

As I said, I haven't seen any such talents on usenet, though (rarely) someone claims the "Real Poet" label or (even more rarely) someone else gives it to him. (The latest example being PJ Ross himself, going by his pal Aratzio's comments upthread.) Given your remarks, I don't think I have to explain why I'm sceptical about that claim.

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:06:18 -0700 (PDT), in the land of

alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
Pleasantly Postulated::

>On Monday, April 28, 2014 7:21:21 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In alt.usenet.kooks on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:30:34 -0700, Aratzio wrote:
>> > On 28 Apr 2014 16:15:09 GMT, in the land of alt.aratzio, Peter J Ross
>> > <p...@homeridae.org> Pleasantly Postulated::
>> >>In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:41:50 -0700,
>> >>Aratzio wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:47:35 -0700 (PDT), in the land of
>> >>> alt.arts.poetry.comments, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> >>> Pleasantly Postulated::
>> >>>>IOW: you don't enjoy reading flames I write on usenet, and that means I'm not a "Real Poet" by your new definition.
>>
>> >>> OH DEER GAWD
>>
>> >>> The idea that Dunce has EVER *flamed* anyone.
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> <wipes tears of laughter>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>There may be proof in the archives that Dunce is a flamer.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>It will be next to the proof that you threatened to kill him.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I literally had to stop and walk away from my computer after reading
>>
>> > that. Old fucks like me shouldn't get the giggles.
>>
>>
>>
>> *ba-da-boom-ching*.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll be here all week.
>>
>>
>>
>> But the truth is that you and I are the only people likely to get the
>>
>> giggles about such jokes
>

Dunce, demonstrating his self professed "flame" talent, which is right
up there iwith his poetry talent.

>You mean even qwerty, Cujo, and gwyneth won't claim your buddy's threats were 'jokes'? What is happening to your allies, PJ? Is Ratboy really all you have left?

Poor Dunce imagines that because his pathetic ego is so "dependent
upon the kindness of others" that others are just as pathetic as he.
Therefore that must be flame material, for him!

:"I doubt that you've ever talked or written to a 'real poet' in your life. "

That's all anyone has to know about Dense. Stand by him and get
fucked.

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:28:42 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Checkmate <Lunati...@The.Edge> Pleasantly Postulated::

>
> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
>by Checkmate!

>
> First check out what George Dance said:
>
>
>> No, that has been proven false. As I reminded you in your first post: if you were bored you'd have moved on, and here you still are.
>>
>

>I got bored and moved on.

There isn't that far to move.