Snipku of the Day - Jan. 7, 2022

[George J. Dance]

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> Will
>
> obsession
>
> every day
>
> since September 2000
>
> --
> PJR :-)

[George J. Dance]

Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en

[Michael Pendragon]

Please explain how your snipkus are any less "spam" than the "Slurp-puppet" poem.

[Ash Wurthing]

He can't. Once PJR noticed his tit for tat strategy, he was able to play him good.

[Will Dockery]

Because he's not spam flooding them like you were doing?

[Michael Pendragon]

I suggest you start counting his snipku threads, Donkey.

HINT: It will require both you and Stink to remove your clodhoppers.

[Will Dockery]

It'll take a while to match the hundreds of spam flooding posts you made recently.

[Michael Pendragon]

So no difference, then.

[W.Dockery]

Another difference is George is creating new poems, while you post the same one over and over.

[Michael Pendragon]

Why do you lie so much, Donkey?

"Slurp-puppet" has new lines added all the time.

It's already book length -- and will eventually be published as "The Shadowville Mythos".

[W.Dockery]

I'm already using that title:

https://shadowville-mythos.blogspot.com/?m=1

[Michael Pendragon]

So am I.

Deal with it, Donkey.

[Will Dockery]

I had it first.

https://shadowville-mythos.blogspot.com/?m=1

But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Great. Feel free order multiple copies when avaliable.

[George J. Dance]

[Will Dockery]

Exactly.

🙂

[General Zod]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada#Poetry

[Will Dockery]

What, no contributor copy?

😉

[George J. Dance]

You didn't explain whether you meant:
1) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you were posting it last fall; or
2) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you are posting it today.

Since in order to answer you I have to use one of those interpretations, I'll use (2).

The snipkus are not 'less spam' than the "Slurp-puppet poem," because neither are spam -- zero spam -- and 'less than zero spam' is meaningless.

Why are they both zero spam? Because they stay on their own threads. They are not being shoved into the faces of group readers who are trying to read and talk about something else. The only people who ever come face-to face with either are people who want to read them.

There's no law or 'group rule' here about staying in one's own thread, but I'd call it a rule of common courtesy or decent human behavior. As you know, I analogize social media to a neighborhood and the other people to one's neighbors; and the first and most important rule to living in a neighborhood is that of Robert Frost:

"Good fences make good neighbors" - Mending Wall

[George J. Dance]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRs0OqV4uSc

> 😉

[W-Dockery]

About the Snipku being a valid poetry form, I think Zod nailed it when he saw the connection with types of Dadaist art and poetry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.#/media/File:Marcel_Duchamp,_1919,_L.H.O.O.Q.jpg

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 8:55:10 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:11:33 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Will
> > > > >
> > > > > obsession
> > > > >
> > > > > every day
> > > > >
> > > > > since September 2000
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > PJR :-)
> > > Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > Please explain how your snipkus are any less "spam" than the "Slurp-puppet" poem.
> You didn't explain whether you meant:
> 1) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you were posting it last fall; or
> 2) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you are posting it today.
>
> Since in order to answer you I have to use one of those interpretations, I'll use (2).
>
> The snipkus are not 'less spam' than the "Slurp-puppet poem," because neither are spam -- zero spam -- and 'less than zero spam' is meaningless.
>
> Why are they both zero spam? Because they stay on their own threads. They are not being shoved into the faces of group readers who are trying to read and talk about something else. The only people who ever come face-to face with either are people who want to read them.
>

Agreed.

However, I'll assume that you considered "Slurp-puppet" to be spam when it appears in multiple threads.

My point is that a dozen *different* snipku threads = a dozen appearances of "Slurp-puppet" in multiple threads.

Both are forms of troll poetry (poetry designed to troll a specific target). And just as your snipkus change from thread to thread, "Slurp-puppet" changes from update to update.

[W.Dockery]

Heh

[Will Dockery]

Good find.

[Zod]

A connection, though loose....

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-01-24 1:20 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 8:55:10 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:11:33 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will
>>>>>>
>>>>>> obsession
>>>>>>
>>>>>> every day
>>>>>>
>>>>>> since September 2000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> PJR :-)
>>>> Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en
>>>>
>>> Please explain how your snipkus are any less "spam" than the "Slurp-puppet" poem.
>> You didn't explain whether you meant:
>> 1) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you were posting it last fall; or
>> 2) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you are posting it today.
>>
>> Since in order to answer you I have to use one of those interpretations, I'll use (2).
>>
>> The snipkus are not 'less spam' than the "Slurp-puppet poem," because neither are spam -- zero spam -- and 'less than zero spam' is meaningless.
>>
>> Why are they both zero spam? Because they stay on their own threads. They are not being shoved into the faces of group readers who are trying to read and talk about something else. The only people who ever come face-to face with either are people who want to read them.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> However, I'll assume that you considered "Slurp-puppet" to be spam when it appears in multiple threads.
>

For sure, when it began appearing in my threads (usually, whenever Will
replied to one.

> My point is that a dozen *different* snipku threads = a dozen appearances of "Slurp-puppet" in multiple threads.

I'd say they're more different than similar.

> Both are forms of troll poetry (poetry designed to troll a specific target).

No; I'll compose a snipku in response to a post from anyone. It isn't
the they're all directed at any one person, or that any person keeps
getting them.

> And just as your snipkus change from thread to thread, "Slurp-puppet" changes from update to update.

"Slurp-puppet" kept getting longer, but the changes were an increasingly
smaller percentage of each post. It was mainly the same poem, and
increasingly (by the above logic) the exact same poem, with every post.

In contrast, the snipkus are not changes to *a* poem -- each one is a
different poem. That's the same trouble I have with PJ Ross over the
PPB: posts -- he sees them as all part of the same 'spam,' when in fact
they're all different posts. You're like Emily Dickinson, looking at the
snow and seeing an "it", when in fact every snowflake (like every
snipku) is unique unto itself.

[Peter J Ross]

On 2022-02-06, George "J." NaziDunce <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> "Slurp-puppet" kept getting longer, but the changes were an increasingly
> smaller percentage of each post. It was mainly the same poem, and
> increasingly (by the above logic) the exact same poem, with every post.

Creepy Mike's "slurp-puppet" posts are spam, because they're
substantively identical, NaziDunce.

> In contrast, the snipkus are not changes to *a* poem -- each one is a
> different poem.

Nobody imagines that your attempts at snipku are spam, NaziDunce.
They're moronic, but they're not spam.

But the posts in which you append an URL to the snipku may be spam,
NaziDunce, because they may be "substatively identical". I'd need a
second expert opinion before making my mind up.

> That's the same trouble I have with PJ Ross over the
> PPB: posts -- he sees them as all part of the same 'spam,' when in fact
> they're all different posts.

Your spam is "substantively identical" because it "advertises the same
service", NaziDunce.

The only element that varies is the clickbait that precedes the link to
your commercial kooksite, NaziDunce.

You've been spamming links to your commercial kooksite in the hope of
selling your plagiarised books for many years, NaziDunce. Have you sold
any yet?


--
PJR :-)

[Michael Pendragon]

I haven't seen one from you that didn't constitute a personal attack on the original poster.

> > And just as your snipkus change from thread to thread, "Slurp-puppet" changes from update to update.
> "Slurp-puppet" kept getting longer, but the changes were an increasingly
> smaller percentage of each post. It was mainly the same poem, and
> increasingly (by the above logic) the exact same poem, with every post.

If an additional verse has been added, it has been changed. The diminishing percentage to which it has been changed (due to its increasing length) does not negate the change.

> In contrast, the snipkus are not changes to *a* poem -- each one is a
> different poem. That's the same trouble I have with PJ Ross over the
> PPB: posts -- he sees them as all part of the same 'spam,' when in fact
> they're all different posts. You're like Emily Dickinson, looking at the
> snow and seeing an "it", when in fact every snowflake (like every
> snipku) is unique unto itself.

In theory. If you had created snipkus that commented on a general topic, I would agree. But when every snipku exists only to attack another AAPC member, they become interchangeable.

[Will Dockery]

No, almost all of the poetry George Dance posts is classic public domain work, some obscure or completely forgotten.

He's not selling anything, he's keeping poetry history alive.

[ME]

He’s spamming. Just like you.
That’s your only reason for being here.
Why?

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 5:55:26 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

Whatever inspires the poem.

[Ash Wurthing]

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 12:06:21 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef @gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 5:55:26 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-01-24 1:20 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 8:55:10 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:

Yep, the snipkus were some of the worst trolling here, spammed with multiple threads. Tampering to misrepresent someone else's words to insult them is some of the most provocative trolling there is. Despite what Mr Superior claims, his plagiarizing insults with other people's words, were just low brow flaming. I used to think better of GD, but PJR brought his ivory tower down by making him into a lowly troll.

[Will Dockery]

Not even close.

[W-Dockery]

Nailed it.

[Ash Wurthing]

Yes, George Dance sure did nailed it-- nailed his toe to the floor. Any new worthy poets coming here would look at Gfeorge Dance's snipkus and think he was merely a lowly troll of the worst kind that would twist their own words against them if they dare criticize his golden boy for his trolling and spamming. I tried warning people that what they do in their fighting gives people an insight of their hidden faces. If he did this over in RAP, everyone would abandon him. You fools lost a chance for new members, your loss not mine-- I love rubbing your noses in it.

[Will Dockery]

For once we agree.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> On 2022-02-06, George "J." NaziDunce <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Slurp-puppet" kept getting longer, but the changes were an increasingly
> > smaller percentage of each post. It was mainly the same poem, and
> > increasingly (by the above logic) the exact same poem, with every post.
> Creepy Mike's "slurp-puppet" posts are spam, because they're
> substantively identical, NaziDunce.
> > In contrast, the snipkus are not changes to *a* poem -- each one is a
> > different poem.
> Nobody imagines that your attempts at snipku are spam, NaziDunce.
> They're moronic, but they're not spam.
>
> But the posts in which you append an URL to the snipku may be spam,
> NaziDunce, because they may be "substatively identical". I'd need a
> second expert opinion before making my mind up.
> > That's the same trouble I have with PJ Ross over the
> > PPB: posts -- he sees them as all part of the same 'spam,' when in fact
> > they're all different posts.
> Your spam is "substantively identical" because it "advertises the same
> service", NaziDunce.

Again, not really.

[Will Dockery]

I'd say of a similar lineage.

[W.Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>> Will
>>
>> obsession
>>
>> every day
>>
>> since September 2000
>>
>> --
>> PJR :-)

PJR has company, since Jim Senetto and Nancy Gene have displayed their slobbering obsession with me all morning, so far.

[Zod]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > Will
> > >
> > > obsession
> > >
> > > every day
> > >
> > > since September 2000
> > >
> > > --
> > > PJR :-)

> Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en

Sure does fit James D. Senetto, who can't seem to think about anything BUT Doc and his family and friends....

Truly a droopy eyed NUTJOB, that Rochester wannabe.....

[Ash Wurthing]

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
< obsession

< every day

< can't seem to think about anything BUT

< Rochester

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:17:01 AM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>
> < obsession
>
> < every day
> < can't seem to think about anything BUT
> < Rochester

Good, hold that thought, maybe you'll be able to get me off your mind for a while, Ash.

🙂

[ME]

On Tuesday, 8 February 2022 at 09:39:10 UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:17:01 AM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >
> > < obsession
> >
> > < every day
> > < can't seem to think about anything BUT
> > < Rochester



> Good,

> you get me off,
>Ash.
>
> 🙂



BWAHAHAHA

[Zod]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > Will
> > >
> > > obsession
> > >
> > > every day
> > >
> > > since September 2000
> > >
> > > --
> > > PJR :-)
> Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en

Yep...

[ME]

BUMP

[Will Dockery]

That applies to several in this so-called poetry group.

[Michael Pendragon]

This "so-called poetry group" produces a monthly online magazine of original poems as well as a "Year's Best" print collection.

If you've been excluded from the group, it's because you've refused repeated requests to cut down on the number of your spam/slurp/necro posts.

When you refuse to take the wishes of a group's members into consideration, you end up... in Donkeyville.

Deal with it.

[W-Dockery]

Excellent, Pendragon.

You guys stick with that and lay off the personal attacks and trolling, and this poetry group might survive, after all.

😉

[Will Dockery]

Senetto obviously has issues.

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Yes, we all have some issues at times.

Your brother died on January 24....found dead in his home, which would mean you found him.

On that day you posted throughout the day and into the evening without a word of his passing.

I find that an issue with you and your callous empty soul.

You should hang your fat head in shame.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:47:18 PM UTC-5, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:38:07 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will
> > > > > >
> > > > > > obsession
> > > > > >
> > > > > > every day
> > > > > >
> > > > > > since September 2000
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > PJR :-)
> > > > Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > Sure does fit James D. Senetto, who can't seem to think about anything BUT Doc and his family and friends....
> > >
> > > Truly a droopy eyed NUTJOB, that Rochester wannabe.....
> > Senetto obviously has issues.
> Yes, we all have some issues at times.
>
> Your brother

Like I said, you have some real obsession and stalking issues.

My life and my family and friends are not your business.

If you were not so obsessed with me you'd understand that, Senetto.

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

When you called the ambulance on January 24, to take your brother to the morgue. You then spent the day and night right here with silly comments on silly things.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 11:17:05 PM UTC-5, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 11:12:11 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:47:18 PM UTC-5, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:38:07 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 4:42:40 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Will
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > obsession
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > every day
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > since September 2000
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > PJR :-)
> > > > > > Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure does fit James D. Senetto, who can't seem to think about anything BUT Doc and his family and friends....
> > > > >
> > > > > Truly a droopy eyed NUTJOB, that Rochester wannabe.....
> > > > Senetto obviously has issues.
> > > Yes, we all have some issues at times.
> > >
> > > Your brother
> > Like I said, you have some real obsession and stalking issues.
> >
> > My life and my family and friends are not your business.
> >
> > If you were not so obsessed with me you'd understand that, Senetto.
> When you called the

Look at you, Senetto.

You're so slobberingly obsessive over me you're daydreaming details you know nothing about.

Again, my life, and the lives of my family and friends are simply none of your business.

Think about how crazy you look right now... and back off.

HTH and HAND.

[Will Dockery]

Unfortunately, spot on.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:16:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:23:56 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:11:33 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will
> > > > > >
> > > > > > obsession
> > > > > >
> > > > > > every day
> > > > > >
> > > > > > since September 2000
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > PJR :-)
> > > > Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en
> > > >

> > > Please explain how your snipkus are any less "spam" than the "Slurp-puppet" poem.

> > Because he's not spam flooding them like you were doing?

Exactly.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >
> > Will
> >
> > obsession
> >
> > every day
> >
> > since September 2000
> >
> > --
> > PJR :-)

PJR is not alone.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 5:55:26 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-01-24 1:20 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

> > On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 8:55:10 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> >> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:11:33 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:

> >>>> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Will
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> obsession
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> every day
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> since September 2000
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> PJR :-)

> >>>> Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en
> >>>>
> >>> Please explain how your snipkus are any less "spam" than the "Slurp-puppet" poem.

> >> You didn't explain whether you meant:
> >> 1) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you were posting it last fall; or
> >> 2) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you are posting it today.
> >>
> >> Since in order to answer you I have to use one of those interpretations, I'll use (2).
> >>
> >> The snipkus are not 'less spam' than the "Slurp-puppet poem," because neither are spam -- zero spam -- and 'less than zero spam' is meaningless.
> >>
> >> Why are they both zero spam? Because they stay on their own threads. They are not being shoved into the faces of group readers who are trying to read and talk about something else. The only people who ever come face-to face with either are people who want to read them.
> >>
> >

> > Agreed.
> >
> > However, I'll assume that you considered "Slurp-puppet" to be spam when it appears in multiple threads.
> >
> For sure, when it began appearing in my threads (usually, whenever Will
> replied to one.
> > My point is that a dozen *different* snipku threads = a dozen appearances of "Slurp-puppet" in multiple threads.
> I'd say they're more different than similar.
> > Both are forms of troll poetry (poetry designed to troll a specific target).
> No; I'll compose a snipku in response to a post from anyone. It isn't
> the they're all directed at any one person, or that any person keeps
> getting them.
> > And just as your snipkus change from thread to thread, "Slurp-puppet" changes from update to update.

> "Slurp-puppet" kept getting longer, but the changes were an increasingly
> smaller percentage of each post. It was mainly the same poem, and
> increasingly (by the above logic) the exact same poem, with every post.
>

> In contrast, the snipkus are not changes to *a* poem -- each one is a

> different poem. That's the same trouble I have with PJ Ross over the

> PPB: posts -- he sees them as all part of the same 'spam,' when in fact

> they're all different posts. You're like Emily Dickinson, looking at the
> snow and seeing an "it", when in fact every snowflake (like every
> snipku) is unique unto itself.

> >> There's no law or 'group rule' here about staying in one's own thread, but I'd call it a rule of common courtesy or decent human behavior. As you know, I analogize social media to a neighborhood and the other people to one's neighbors; and the first and most important rule to living in a neighborhood is that of Robert Frost:
> >>
> >> "Good fences make good neighbors" - Mending Wall

Well put.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >
> > Will
> >
> > obsession
> >
> > every day
> >
> > since September 2000
> >
> > --
> > PJR :-)

By his own logic this is truth.

[Zod]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >
> > Will
> >
> > obsession
> >
> > every day
> >
> > since September 2000
> >
> > --
> > PJR :-)

Yep

[Will Dockery]

By his own logic.

🙂

[Ash Wurthing]

EVIDENCE: Will and his ass sock continuously trolling someone even after all is said and done. And people say these two trolls are innocent, just victims of haters. And what about Will's poetry bigotry (which he condemns MP of but then he, Will, goes and summarily trashes 3 other poets here in a single post)

I believe Mockery and ass monkey are trying to lure PJR back to attack everyone else in the group for them. Nice guys my ass!
The lowest and slimiest sewer sludge that I've seen.

Mockery, you're high on my shit list but still low in my To Do (In) list so I'll get to you at my convenience.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >
> > Will
> >
> > obsession
> >
> > every day
> >
> > since September 2000
> >
> > --
> > PJR :-)

Part of the mass obsession.

[General-Zod]

Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
>> > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Will
>> > > >
>> > > > obsession
>> > > >
>> > > > every day
>> > > >
>> > > > since September 2000
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > PJR :-)
>> > Yep
>> By his own logic.

> EVIDENCE:

Here ya go:

Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:


>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:28:43 PM UTC-5, hierony...@gmail.com wrote:
>


> So one must wonder why this was posted by Corey to me....

> "Nothing better defines you than your fixation with all things Dockery."
QUOTE OF THE DAY ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Because it is obviously true, Senetto....!!

[W-Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
>> >
>> > Will
>> >
>> > obsession
>> >
>> > every day
>> >
>> > since September 2000
>> >
>> > --
>> > PJR :-)

> Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en

True of so many here, obviously.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 8:55:10 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:11:33 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Please explain how your snipkus are any less "spam" than the "Slurp-puppet" poem.
> You didn't explain whether you meant:
> 1) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you were posting it last fall; or
> 2) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you are posting it today.
>
> Since in order to answer you I have to use one of those interpretations, I'll use (2).
>
> The snipkus are not 'less spam' than the "Slurp-puppet poem," because neither are spam -- zero spam -- and 'less than zero spam' is meaningless.
>
> Why are they both zero spam? Because they stay on their own threads. They are not being shoved into the faces of group readers who are trying to read and talk about something else. The only people who ever come face-to face with either are people who want to read them.
>

[Zod]

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:38:07 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:

To say the least

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >
> > Will
> >
> > obsession
> >
> > every day
> >
> > since September 2000
> >
> > --
> > PJR :-)

This applies to several posting here.

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Do you mean you, 24/7 fat fuck?

[Will Dockery]

Definitely you are one, Senetto.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > Will
> > >
> > > obsession
> > >
> > > every day
> > >
> > > since September 2000
> > >
> > > --
> > > PJR :-)

> Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en

This applies to several posters here.

[Zod]

Yep that nailed Peter......!

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >
> > Will
> >
> > obsession
> >
> > every day
> >
> > since September 2000
> >
> > --
> > PJR :-)

Give or take a few years.

🙂

[Zod]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >
> > Will
> >
> > obsession
> >
> > every day
> >
> > since September 2000
> >
> > --
> > PJR :-)

Ha ha ha....

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 5:55:26 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-01-24 1:20 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

> > On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 8:55:10 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> >> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:11:33 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:

> >>>> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Will
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> obsession
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> every day
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> since September 2000
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> PJR :-)

> >>>> Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en
> >>>>
> >>> Please explain how your snipkus are any less "spam" than the "Slurp-puppet" poem.
> >> You didn't explain whether you meant:
> >> 1) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you were posting it last fall; or
> >> 2) 'the "Slurp-puppet" poem' as you are posting it today.
> >>
> >> Since in order to answer you I have to use one of those interpretations, I'll use (2).
> >>
> >> The snipkus are not 'less spam' than the "Slurp-puppet poem," because neither are spam -- zero spam -- and 'less than zero spam' is meaningless.
> >>
> >> Why are they both zero spam? Because they stay on their own threads. They are not being shoved into the faces of group readers who are trying to read and talk about something else. The only people who ever come face-to face with either are people who want to read them.
> >>
> >

> > Agreed.
> >
> > However, I'll assume that you considered "Slurp-puppet" to be spam when it appears in multiple threads.
> >
> For sure, when it began appearing in my threads (usually, whenever Will
> replied to one.
> > My point is that a dozen *different* snipku threads = a dozen appearances of "Slurp-puppet" in multiple threads.
> I'd say they're more different than similar.
> > Both are forms of troll poetry (poetry designed to troll a specific target).
> No; I'll compose a snipku in response to a post from anyone. It isn't
> the they're all directed at any one person, or that any person keeps
> getting them.
> > And just as your snipkus change from thread to thread, "Slurp-puppet" changes from update to update.
> "Slurp-puppet" kept getting longer, but the changes were an increasingly
> smaller percentage of each post. It was mainly the same poem, and
> increasingly (by the above logic) the exact same poem, with every post.
>
> In contrast, the snipkus are not changes to *a* poem -- each one is a
> different poem. That's the same trouble I have with PJ Ross over the
> PPB: posts -- he sees them as all part of the same 'spam,' when in fact
> they're all different posts. You're like Emily Dickinson, looking at the
> snow and seeing an "it", when in fact every snowflake (like every
> snipku) is unique unto itself.

> >> There's no law or 'group rule' here about staying in one's own thread, but I'd call it a rule of common courtesy or decent human behavior. As you know, I analogize social media to a neighborhood and the other people to one's neighbors; and the first and most important rule to living in a neighborhood is that of Robert Frost:
> >>
> >> "Good fences make good neighbors" - Mending Wall

Exactly.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >
> > Will
> >
> > obsession
> >
> > every day
> >
> > since September 2000
> >
> > --
> > PJR :-)

This applies to several here, unfortunately.

🙂

[ME]

No one is obsessed with you. Annoyed, yes.
But that’s your stock and trade. Annoy, antagonize, bully...
That’s what you do
But no one is obsessed with you.
You just don’t merrit that.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:16:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:23:56 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:11:33 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:36:08 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:

> > > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will
> > > > > >
> > > > > > obsession
> > > > > >
> > > > > > every day
> > > > > >
> > > > > > since September 2000
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > PJR :-)

> > > > Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en
> > > >
> > > Please explain how your snipkus are any less "spam" than the "Slurp-puppet" poem.

> > Because he's not spam flooding them like you were doing?

Exactly.

🙂

[General-Zod]

Will Dockery wrote:

> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:16:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:23:56 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, George J. Dance wrote:
>> > > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> > > > > > Will
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > obsession
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > every day
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > since September 2000
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > PJR :-)
>> > > > Source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/mvh7jHeHGq0/m/DHuzZ__5AgAJ?hl=en
>> > > >
>> > > Please explain how your snipkus are any less "spam" than the "Slurp-puppet" poem.
>> > Because he's not spam flooding them like you were doing?

> Exactly.

> 🙂

Good ole Peter, he is missed....

[Victor H.]

Yep...

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 12:34:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >
> > Will
> >
> > obsession
> >
> > every day
> >
> > since September 2000
> >
> > --
> > PJR :-)

This poem could be about any one of several posters here.

🙂