February / George Dance

[George Dance]

February

Unnoticed dreams:
ocean waves in winter,
the curve of your cheek.

[On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built]

In article <a7217e97-3360-4047...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
George Dance says...

ocean waves in winter
the curve of your cheek
Unnoticed dreams

the curve of your cheek

Unnoticed dreams
ocean waves in winter

noticed seems
the ocean waves of Doris DeWinter
the curve of your beak

Focused beams
location slaves in summer
the verve of your seeking

hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.

or a Mr. Potato Head.

man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!

most sincerely,

GodBuilt

--
-----------------------------------------------
"I am a false prophet and God is a superstition.." "Again!"

There Will Be Blood

[Karla]

In article <gmqeq...@drn.newsguy.com>, On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built
says...

>
>In article <a7217e97-3360-4047...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>George Dance says...
>>
>>February
>>
>>Unnoticed dreams:
>>ocean waves in winter,
>>the curve of your cheek.
>
>ocean waves in winter
>the curve of your cheek
>Unnoticed dreams
>
>the curve of your cheek
>Unnoticed dreams
>ocean waves in winter
>
>noticed seems
>the ocean waves of Doris DeWinter
>the curve of your beak
>
>Focused beams
>location slaves in summer
>the verve of your seeking
>
>
>hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.
>
>or a Mr. Potato Head.
>
>man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!
>
>most sincerely,
>
>GodBuilt

Unnoticed curves
cheek waves in dreams
the curve of your winter

And j r, your "focused beams" reminded me of a certain poetess's Balancing Beam
poem. Shame on you!

Karla

--
--

[George Dance]

On Feb 9, 6:39 pm, On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built
<GodBuilt1...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <a7217e97-3360-4047-9c0a-d80c87ae3...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

> George Dance says...
>
>
>
> >February
>
> >Unnoticed dreams:
> >ocean waves in winter,
> >the curve of your cheek.
>

> -

>
> ocean waves in winter
> the curve of your cheek
> Unnoticed dreams
>
> the curve of your cheek
> Unnoticed dreams
> ocean waves in winter
>
> noticed seems
> the ocean waves of Doris DeWinter
> the curve of your beak
>
> Focused beams
> location slaves in summer
> the verve of your seeking
>

Errr ... interesting. What do you call it?

> hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.
>
> or a Mr. Potato Head.
>

Maybe one of those could be your title.

> man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!
>

I don't find that. But I suppose readers will be as interested in your
opinion as mine.

[Manwolf]

This is actually probably better than most of the stuff that he writes.
Why? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
take that over hollow and pompous verse any day.

[Manwolf]

Okay, not bad, but it definitely needs more to make it stand on its own.
It sounds like you are starting to describe certain things you've
taken for granted: someone you love, the beauty in winter, and so on. If
you build on the theme a little more and added some line I think it
could be good.

[On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built]

In article <2bf660e1-a08f-4984...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
George Dance says...
>
>On Feb 9, 6:39=A0pm, On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built
><GodBuilt1...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <a7217e97-3360-4047-9c0a-d80c87ae3...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.=

>com>,
>> George Dance says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >February
>>
>> >Unnoticed dreams:
>> >ocean waves in winter,
>> >the curve of your cheek.
>>
>> -
>>
>> ocean waves in winter
>> the curve of your cheek
>> Unnoticed dreams
>>
>> the curve of your cheek
>> Unnoticed dreams
>> ocean waves in winter
>>
>> noticed seems
>> the ocean waves of Doris DeWinter
>> the curve of your beak
>>
>> Focused beams
>> location slaves in summer
>> the verve of your seeking
>>
>
>
>Errr ... interesting. What do you call it?

something that took a few seconds?

>
>> hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.
>>
>> or a Mr. Potato Head.
>>
>
>
>Maybe one of those could be your title.

more imaginative than yours, certainly.

>> man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!
>>
>
>
>I don't find that.

no kidding.

>But I suppose readers will be as interested in your
>opinion as mine.

bullshit. i'm so way-ass more charming than you will EVER be, Dancy. people love
me because i'm so wonderful. whereas people think you're an idiot because you're
just some dumbass canuck who thinks he's empowering himself by admonishing those
who are fucking with him like a cat plays with a mouse.

christ, dancypants, you couldn't buy a clue if you were given a gift
certificate.

[On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built]

In article <49911fa1$1...@news.x-privat.org>, Manwolf says...
>

>This is actually probably better than most of the stuff that he writes.
>Why? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
>and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
>tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
>take that over hollow and pompous verse any day.

and it was really fucking easy, manboy!! i mean really, a few seconds, and boom!
something certainly better than la canuck-dumbasse.

really, this poetry shit is so fucking easy!!!

well, for SOME of us. heh...

[FarStar]

George Dance wrote:

This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Subjugate the rhyme and rawk with the rhythm
Only got one line to balk all the schizm

SteepleJack Beer
http://www.lulu.com/content/5611390

[FarStar]

George Dance wrote:

This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard

very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form

As with most of your stuff, I just like reading
and teasing my mind with the wind-blown
deposits it drifts within as I trace the morphology
braided in it's outflow

[FarStar]

On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built wrote:

> In article
> <a7217e97-3360-4047...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, George
> Dance says...
>>
>>February
>>
>>Unnoticed dreams:
>>ocean waves in winter,
>>the curve of your cheek.
>
> ocean waves in winter
> the curve of your cheek
> Unnoticed dreams
>
> the curve of your cheek
> Unnoticed dreams
> ocean waves in winter
>
> noticed seems
> the ocean waves of Doris DeWinter
> the curve of your beak
>
> Focused beams
> location slaves in summer
> the verve of your seeking

Poor, it tangled up in the middle 2nd and 3rd stanzas
consequently your fourth stanza, some would say your most important, said
very little

strive for lucidity
maintain the thread where and when you can
try to have as few parallel threads as one can when your a beginner
this will help to a) keep it simple b)strive for lucidity c)reinforce
elucidation
Your topic will determine if it's a simple, complex, or multiplexural poem
so don't stress about writing in a certain manner, they can all fail or
succeed for that matter... Just focus on finding your niche and being
yourself

> man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!

keep trying

[msifg]

"FarStar" <ecowb...@gmailREMOVEME.com> wrote in message
news:Nr2dnd0VDKpahw_U...@giganews.com...

i would say he lost it right after the first
stanza. you know, the point where he started
"contributing" to the actual poem itself?

the man is completely oblivious to anything
but his anger. his frustration hasn't been
tempered yet. he'll get there. he's only
thirty two. these things take time.

[George Dance]

On Feb 10, 12:42 pm, On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built
<GodBuilt1...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <2bf660e1-a08f-4984-8a45-cdbc9ad3a...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

> George Dance says...
>
> >On Feb 9, 6:39=A0pm, On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built
> ><GodBuilt1...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In article <a7217e97-3360-4047-9c0a-d80c87ae3...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> George Dance says...
>
> >> >February
>
> >> >Unnoticed dreams:
> >> >ocean waves in winter,
> >> >the curve of your cheek.
>
> >> -
>

On Feb 10, 12:42 pm, On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built
<GodBuilt1...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <2bf660e1-a08f-4984-8a45-cdbc9ad3a...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

> George Dance says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 9, 6:39=A0pm, On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built
> ><GodBuilt1...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In article <a7217e97-3360-4047-9c0a-d80c87ae3...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
>

> >> [Mr. Potato Head]

>
> >> ocean waves in winter
> >> the curve of your cheek
> >> Unnoticed dreams
>
> >> the curve of your cheek
> >> Unnoticed dreams
> >> ocean waves in winter
>
> >> noticed seems
> >> the ocean waves of Doris DeWinter
> >> the curve of your beak
>
> >> Focused beams
> >> location slaves in summer
> >> the verve of your seeking
>
>

> >> [ - by jr sherman writing as "On the Highways and Bi-Ways God Built]

> >
> >Errr ... interesting. What do you call it?
>
> something that took a few seconds?
>

No, don't call it that. Why state the obvious?

>
> >> hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.
>
> >> or a Mr. Potato Head.
>
> >Maybe one of those could be your title.
>
> more imaginative than yours, certainly.
>

I'm glad you like them. OK, so we'll call your "poem" "Mr. Potato
Head" (MPH) for now, until you come up with a better title. I added it
in, and your byline.

> >> man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!
>
> >I don't find that.
>
> no kidding.
>

Well, you are the only one of us who tries to write "poetry shit." I
wouldn't question that your "Mr. Potato Head" is shit; but I do think
it's wrong for you to call it poetry.

> >But I suppose readers will be as interested in your
> >opinion as mine.
>
> bullshit. i'm so way-ass more charming than you will EVER be, Dancy.

No you aren't; you're a creepy little man whom everyone hates; they're
just trying to be nice.

But that's irrelevant, anyway; aapc does not stand for
alt.arts.prince.charming. We're not judging personalities here, but
two poems: my "February" and your "Mr. Potato Head."

You claim that MPH is a better poem than "February." In reply, I'd say
that's complete bullshit and that MPH isn't a poem at all.

The rest of your irrelevancy snipped, except for your admission of
trolling:

[George Dance]

On Feb 9, 6:55 pm, Karla <karl...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> In article <gmqeqo02...@drn.newsguy.com>, On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built
> says...
> >In article <a7217e97-3360-4047-9c0a-d80c87ae3...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

> >George Dance says...
>
> >>February
>
> >>Unnoticed dreams:
> >>ocean waves in winter,
> >>the curve of your cheek.
>
>
>

> Unnoticed curves
> cheek waves in dreams
> the curve of your winter
>
>

> Karla
>

Hello, Karla. Do you want to tell me how much better your "poem" is
than mine, too?

[George Dance]

On Feb 10, 12:00 pm, FarStar <ecowboy...@gmailREMOVEME.com> wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
> > February
>
> > Unnoticed dreams:
> > ocean waves in winter,
> > the curve of your cheek.
>
> This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form

Thanks.

> As with most of your stuff, I just like reading
> and teasing my mind with the wind-blown
> deposits it drifts within as I trace the morphology
> braided in it's outflow
>

Thanks, again. I always read your poems. Some I like, some I don't;
but they're always entertaining, and worth the read for that.

[FarStar]

On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built fanged:

>contribute something I like or die
>contribute or get butt-raped
>
>most sincerely,
> Shit on my Dick

[FarStar]

On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built fanged:

> and it was really fucking easy, manboy!! i mean really, a few seconds, and
> boom! something certainly better than la canuck-dumbasse.

> most insincerely,
> Shit on my Dick

Poetry is not-buttraping, fuckhead
--

[ggamble]

On 10-Feb-2009, FarStar <ecowb...@gmailREMOVEME.com> wrote:

> George Dance wrote:
>
> > February
> >
> > Unnoticed dreams:
> > ocean waves in winter,
> > the curve of your cheek.
>
>
>
> This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form

It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate.

Still, george has an *online friend* now.

[ggamble]

On 10-Feb-2009, FarStar <ecowb...@gmailREMOVEME.com> wrote:

> George Dance wrote:
>
> > February
> >
> > Unnoticed dreams:
> > ocean waves in winter,
> > the curve of your cheek.
>
> This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form
> As with most of your stuff, I just like reading
> and teasing my mind with the wind-blown
> deposits it drifts within as I trace the morphology
> braided in it's outflow

Oh, he liked it so much he came back for more after he accidentally hit
send.

He even shared some of his incoherency stash with you.

You must be very happy to have such a devoted fan.

[FarStar]

msifg wrote:

hurry up, he's eyeing my butt

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subjugate the rhyme and rawk with the rhythm
Only got one line to balk all the schizm

with god and laugh, bring all to shocking rose
with rod and staff we walk a rocky road

SteepleJack Beer
http://www.lulu.com/content/5611390

[FarStar]

ggamble is an idiot - fanged:

>only I know what is normal

it must really suck to be you
unable to relate with the rest of society
I mean, shit, if your so normal
what are you doing fucking your grandfather?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subjugate the rhyme and rawk with the rhythm
Only got one line to balk all the schizm

[FarStar]

ggamble fanged:

>I'm really in the closet with my antisocial tendencies

Your therapist wants ta hear your problems, we don't
find another closet

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subjugate the rhyme and rawk with the rhythm
Only got one line to balk all the schizm

[ggamble]

On 10-Feb-2009, FarStar <ecowb...@gmailREMOVEME.com> wrote:

> Your therapist wants ta hear your problems, we don't
> find another closet

I swear you're smoking/drinking/huffing/shooting/swallowing the same thing
jk harvey is.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[FarStar]

ggamble fanged:

> how come you can't be normal?

what, and try butt-raping people like you too?

[Manwolf]

On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built wrote:
> In article <49911fa1$1...@news.x-privat.org>, Manwolf says...
>
>> This is actually probably better than most of the stuff that he writes.
>> Why? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
>> and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
>> tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
>> take that over hollow and pompous verse any day.
>
> and it was really fucking easy, manboy!! i mean really, a few seconds, and boom!
> something certainly better than la canuck-dumbasse.
>
> really, this poetry shit is so fucking easy!!!
>
> well, for SOME of us. heh...

I didn't say it was good, merely better than your usual stuff.

Hit us with some more of your stuff!

[Manwolf]

ggamble wrote:
>
> It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate.
>

Spoken like a true genius my man.

[George Dance]

On Feb 10, 11:38 pm, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:

> On 10-Feb-2009, FarStar <ecowboy...@gmailREMOVEME.com> wrote:
>
> > George Dance wrote:
>
> > > February
>
> > > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > the curve of your cheek.
>
> > This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> > very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form
> > As with most of your stuff, I just like reading
> > and teasing my mind with the wind-blown
> > deposits it drifts within as I trace the morphology
> > braided in it's outflow
>
>
>

> You must be very happy to have such a devoted fan.

Oh, you think FS is my "fan," do you?

That explains why you're always throwing shit at him.

[On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built]

In article <0rOdnamamOPfyw_U...@giganews.com>, ggamble says...

oh man, i missed this one:

"I just like reading and teasing my mind with the wind-blown deposits it drifts
within as I trace the morphology braided in it's outflow"

hahahahahahahahahaha...

no wonder his poetry is such shit. heh.

[Will Dockery]

George Dance wrote...

>
> >February
>
> >Unnoticed dreams:
> >ocean waves in winter,
> >the curve of your cheek.
>

> ocean waves in winter
> the curve of your cheek
> Unnoticed dreams
>
> the curve of your cheek

> Unnoticed dreams
> ocean waves in winter

Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
perspective.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
"Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
Video by Doug Cole

[Barbara's Cat]

On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built wrote:

> ggamble says...
>
> > FartsAreI blew George a kiss then cooed:
> >
> > > caDuck George "My Homemade Hall Monitor Badge is Pretty" Dance quack:

> > >
> > > > February
> > > >
> > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> > > very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form
> > > As with most of your stuff, I just like reading
> > > and teasing my mind with the wind-blown
> > > deposits it drifts within as I trace the morphology
> > > braided in it's outflow
> >
> >
> > Oh, he liked it so much he came back for more after he accidentally
> > hit send.
> >
> > He even shared some of his incoherency stash with you.
> >
> > You must be very happy to have such a devoted fan.
>
>
> oh man, i missed this one:
>
> "I just like reading and teasing my mind with the wind-blown deposits
> it drifts within as I trace the morphology braided in it's outflow"
>
> hahahahahahahahahaha...
>
> no wonder his poetry is such shit. heh.
>
> most sincerely,
>
> GodBuilt

Takes the guessing out of who'll be giving who
roses and chocolates for Valentine's Day, eh?

--
Cm~

"Love is an irresistible desire
to be irresistibly desired."
- Robert Frost

[FarStar]

Barbara's Cat fanged:

> I wanna join the gang bang you fags

"we know"

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subjugate the rhyme and rawk with the rhythm
Only got one line to balk all the schizm

[George Dance]

On Feb 11, 6:45 pm, Barbara's Cat <c...@XSPAMscientist.com> got catty
again:

> > >
> > > FartsAreI blew George a kiss then cooed:
> > > > caDuck George "My Homemade Hall Monitor Badge is Pretty" Dance quack:
>
> > > > > February
>
> > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
>
> > > > This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> > > > very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form
> > > > As with most of your stuff, I just like reading
> > > > and teasing my mind with the wind-blown
> > > > deposits it drifts within as I trace the morphology
> > > > braided in it's outflow
>
>

> Takes the guessing out of who'll be giving who
> roses and chocolates for Valentine's Day, eh?
>

Not all of it puss-puss. We don't know who you'll be cyberhugging and
cyberkissing this year, with Hammy Hog dead and gone.

[George Dance]

On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Dance wrote...
>
> > >February
>
> > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > >ocean waves in winter,
> > >the curve of your cheek.
>
> > ocean waves in winter
> > the curve of your cheek
> > Unnoticed dreams
>
> > the curve of your cheek
> > Unnoticed dreams
> > ocean waves in winter
>
> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> perspective.
>

Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
each repeated three times.
It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
villanelle.

I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
they'd work together:

Ever after
They come,
she says:

“They come,”
she says.
Ever after,

she says:
“Ever after,
They come.”

I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."

> --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8

[Will Dockery]

On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:

> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > George Dance wrote...
>
> > > >February
>
> > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > > >ocean waves in winter,
> > > >the curve of your cheek.
>
> > > ocean waves in winter
> > > the curve of your cheek
> > > Unnoticed dreams
>
> > > the curve of your cheek
> > > Unnoticed dreams
> > > ocean waves in winter
>
> > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > perspective.
>
> Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
for /arranging/ the lines, at best.

In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
collage":

"...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
"post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
happen
because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
ubiquity
of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
has
become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
quiet
and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."

Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
explicitly.

> But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> each repeated three times.

Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.

> It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> villanelle.
>
> I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> they'd work together:
>
> Ever after
> They come,
> she says:
>
> “They come,”
> she says.
> Ever after,
>
> she says:
> “Ever after,
> They come.”
>
> I might try writing a poem that way, but not poor "February."> --

Not bad, not bad at all.

--

[Barbara's Cat]

caDuck George "Stroke Mine and I'll Stroke Yours" Dance quacked:

> Barbara's Cat wrote:
>
> > On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built wrote:
> >
> > > ggamble says...
> > >

> > > > FartsAreI blew George a kiss then cooed:
> > > >
> > > > > caDuck George "My Homemade Hall Monitor Badge is Pretty" Dance quack:
> > > > >
> > > > > > February
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> > > > > very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form
> > > > > As with most of your stuff, I just like reading
> > > > > and teasing my mind with the wind-blown
> > > > > deposits it drifts within as I trace the morphology
> > > > > braided in it's outflow
> > > >
> > > >

> > > > Oh, he liked it so much he came back for more after he accidentally
> > > > hit send.
> > > >
> > > > He even shared some of his incoherency stash with you.
> > > >
> > > > You must be very happy to have such a devoted fan.
> > >
> > >
> > > oh man, i missed this one:
> > >

> > > "I just like reading and teasing my mind with the wind-blown deposits
> > > it drifts within as I trace the morphology braided in it's outflow"
> > >

> > > hahahahahahahahahaha...
> > >
> > > no wonder his poetry is such shit. heh.
> > >
> > > most sincerely,
> > >
> > > GodBuilt
> >
> >

> > Takes the guessing out of who'll be giving who
> > roses and chocolates for Valentine's Day, eh?
>
>
> Not all of it puss-puss. We don't know who you'll be cyberhugging and
> cyberkissing this year, with Hammy Hog dead and gone.

FartsAreI's mating call rang loud through the valley of Usenet
and the intended recipient wettedly answered his howling with

"Thanks. Thanks, again. I always read your poems."

The mutual stroking of ego-erections was so very obvious, eh?

--
Cm~

"The great nations have always acted like gangsters,
and the small nations like prostitutes."
- Stanley Kubrick

[Barbara's Cat]

Horny-for-George FartsAreI squeaked:

> [ squeaking snipped ]

George's leg is waiting in want for you over there -->

Enjoy!

--
Cm~

"If music be the food of love; play on."
- William Shakespeare

[FarStar]

Babbling Cat fanged:

> I offer my dildo two cents

Surely you don't mean everyone should be as gay as you?

[FarStar]

Barbara's Cat fanged:

>obviously we don't have butt buddies

but you try raping a lot of people up the butt enough

[George Dance]

On Feb 10, 11:36 pm, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:

> On 10-Feb-2009, FarStar <ecowboy...@gmailREMOVEME.com> wrote:
>
> > George Dance wrote:
>
> > > February
>
> > > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > the curve of your cheek.
>
> > This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> > very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form
>

> It must really suck when your only fan if [sic] functionally illiterate.
>

I'll defer to your greater experience in that area.

-------------------------------

"Gary Gamble is a true lover of language and a fine writer."
- Barbara's Cat

[ggamble]

On 11-Feb-2009, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > >February

(snip)

Did Leonard Cohen write this one too?

[George Dance]

On Feb 28, 11:16 am, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:
> On 11-Feb-2009, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > >February
> (snip)
<unsnip>
February

Unnoticed dreams:
ocean waves in winter,
the curve of your cheek.

- George Dance
</us>

>
> Did Leonard Cohen write this one too?

This is a poetry group, ggamble; I expect most readers of a poetry
group are familiar with what Leonard Cohen wrote.

[Will Dockery]

"George Dance" wrote:
>On Feb 28, 11:16 am, "ggamble" wrote:

> On 11-Feb-2009, George Dance wrote:
>
> > > > >February
> (snip)
<unsnip>
February

Unnoticed dreams:
ocean waves in winter,
the curve of your cheek.

- George Dance
</us>

> Did Leonard Cohen write this one too?

This is a poetry group, ggamble; I expect most readers of a poetry
group are familiar with what Leonard Cohen wrote.

***If not, then they should get familiar, in my opinion.

--
"Corning Town", new song (rough draft) by Will Dockery & Brian Mallard:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[NancyGene]

On Monday, February 9, 2009 at 11:31:36 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> February
> Unnoticed dreams:
> ocean waves in winter,
> the curve of your cheek.

This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism. He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound. Others didn't agree. Note that Will Dockery further down the thread didn't understand or didn't read the previous posts. Fourteen years later, he still has the same reading comprehension skills.

"It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."

[Michael Pendragon]

Once a Donkey... always a Donkey.

[Will Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:
>
> February
> Unnoticed dreams:
> ocean waves in winter,
> the curve of your cheek.

Kudos to NancyGene, good find, excellent nectoposting.

🙂

[George Dance]

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:

> This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.

It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).

> He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.

The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.

> Others didn't agree.

True; the three comments on the poem disagreed. One reader (Manwolf) "got" it and liked it, but thought it was unfinished, more a first draft than anything. Another reader (Farstar) loved it, calling it a "tender love poem". A third (jr sherman) hated it, calling it "shit" and writing his own "way better" poem to show the peasants how it should be done. The three did get different responses, which is apparently NastyGoon's point.

> Note that Will Dockery further down the thread didn't understand or didn't read the previous posts.

That's funny; it looked to me like Will understood jr sherman's (and Karla's) posts:

<quote>

Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
collage":
"...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
"post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
happen
because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
ubiquity
of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
has
become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
quiet
and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that

explicitly. </q>

> Fourteen years later, he still has the same reading comprehension skills.

Apparently the Monkeys have learned to spell "comprehension". Perhaps it was just a lucky copy and paste; or, perhaps they are capable of learning some things, after all.

> "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."

- Gary Gamble

[George Dance]

And this time it wasn't even a decade-old draft for c&c, but a decade-old finished poem. That was a nice surprise.

[W.Dockery]

NancyGene got something right for a change.

🙂

[Zod]

Cool, well put....

[Zod]

On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built wrote:

> In article <a7217e97-3360-4047...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> George Dance says...

>
> >February
> >
> >Unnoticed dreams:
> >ocean waves in winter,
> >the curve of your cheek.

> ocean waves in winter
> the curve of your cheek
> Unnoticed dreams
> the curve of your cheek

> Unnoticed dreams
> ocean waves in winter

> noticed seems
> the ocean waves of Doris DeWinter
> the curve of your beak
> Focused beams
> location slaves in summer
> the verve of your seeking
>
> hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.
> or a Mr. Potato Head.
> man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!

> most sincerely,
> GodBuilt
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------
> "I am a false prophet and God is a superstition.." "Again!"
> There Will Be Blood

Depends of the poem, some write themselves almost, others are a slower task...!

[Will Dockery]

NancyGene wrote:

> On Monday, February 9, 2009 at 11:31:36 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
>

>> February
>> Unnoticed dreams:
>> ocean waves in winter,
>> the curve of your cheek.

> This thread, from 2009, is a good example

Good find, NancyGene.

🙂

[General-Zod]

Cool poem, G.D...!

[W.Dockery]

Good morning, agreed.

[Zod]

George J. Dance wrote:
> On Feb 9, 6:39 pm, On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built
> <GodBuilt1...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <a7217e97-3360-4047-9c0a-d80c87ae3...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> > George J. Dance says...

>
> > >February
> >
> > >Unnoticed dreams:
> > >ocean waves in winter,
> > >the curve of your cheek.
> >
> > ocean waves in winter
> > the curve of your cheek
> > Unnoticed dreams
> >
> > the curve of your cheek
> > Unnoticed dreams
> > ocean waves in winter
> >
> > noticed seems
> > the ocean waves of Doris DeWinter
> > the curve of your beak
> >
> > Focused beams
> > location slaves in summer
> > the verve of your seeking
> >

> Errr ... interesting. What do you call it?

> > hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.
> >
> > or a Mr. Potato Head.
> >

> Maybe one of those could be your title.

> > man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!
> >

> I don't find that. But I suppose readers will be as interested in your
> opinion as mine.

And what did we get...?

Wait for it...

More crickets... ha ha.

[George Dance]

Merely by accident. NastyGoon saw a poem I'd posted and a couple of posts flaming it, didn't understand either the poem or the flames, but "figured out" from the two flames that it must be a bad poem. So they bumped it, and looked like a fool again.

[W-Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

She may have been having another "John Dunne" or "London is in Ireland" moment.

:)

[General-Zod]

Yep on this we can all agree....!

[W-Dockery]

That's about it, yes.

:)

[Zod]

And now..... wait for it....

***Crickets***

Ha ha.

[General-Zod]

[W-Dockery]

Good morning, Zod, again, correct.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.
> It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).
>

What part of "This thread...is a good example" are you failing to understand?

> > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
> The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.

Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as profound?

Generally, when a poet writes such a short poem, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others.

If you didn't think your 3-line poem profound, what motivated you to share it?

> > Others didn't agree.
>
> True; the three comments on the poem disagreed. One reader (Manwolf) "got" it and liked it, but thought it was unfinished, more a first draft than anything. Another reader (Farstar) loved it, calling it a "tender love poem". A third (jr sherman) hated it, calling it "shit" and writing his own "way better" poem to show the peasants how it should be done. The three did get different responses, which is apparently NastyGoon's point.
>

Is it cherry-picking season in Canuckland, George?

1) GodBuilt wrote two similar poems, and made a caustic remark about what child's play it was to stick three random thoughts together and call it a poem.

2) Karla randomly chopped up and switched around your lines, as a comment on the meaninglessness of your poem.

3) Here's what Manwolf actually wrote:

"This is actually probably better than most of the stuff that he writes.
Why? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
take that over hollow and pompous verse any day."

Ouch! That had to hurt.

4) FarStar loved it.

5) misifg attacked GodBuilt.

6) ggamble commented that:

"It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate. Still, george has an *online friend* now."

7) Barbara's Cat flamed various members.

8) Will Donkey, illiterate and clueless as ever, mistook GodBuilt's additional verses as part of your poem, and hilariously commented on how he liked "the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective."

I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious.

And...

You gave FarStar the requisite slurp-back, politely corrected the Donkey, and spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone else.

> > Note that Will Dockery further down the thread didn't understand or didn't read the previous posts.
> That's funny; it looked to me like Will understood jr sherman's (and Karla's) posts:

That's funny; it looked to me like you needed to set Will straight on that point:

WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.

GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

Which again begs the eternal question: Why do you lie so much, George?

Rather than address NancyGene's point: that you swap slurps with those who praise your work, and snip at those who don't, you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread.

> > "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."
> - Gary Gamble

Mr. Gamble's observation still holds true today -- although you now have three functionally illiterate fans. Kudos.

[W-Dockery]

Zod wrote:

> George Dance wrote:
>> NancyGene wrote:
>>
>> > This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.
>
>> It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).
>> > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
>> The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
>>
>> > Others didn't agree.
>>

>> True; the three comments on the poem disagreed. One reader (Manwolf) "got" it and liked it, but thought it was unfinished, more a first draft than anything. Another reader (Farstar) loved it, calling it a "tender love poem".. A third (jr sherman) hated it, calling it "shit" and writing his own "way better" poem to show the peasants how it should be done. The three did get different responses, which is apparently NastyGoon's point.

Agreed.

[George Dance]

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.
> > It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).
> >
> What part of "This thread...is a good example" are you failing to understand?

I didn't say I was failing to understand any of that. I said I was surprised that NG claimed to have found a "good example" of something, but decided to snip it rather than let us read it for ourselves.

> > > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
> > The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
> Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as profound?

Let's see.
Profound = 1
a : having intellectual depth and insight
b: difficult to fathom or understand

I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you andyour "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?

> Generally, when a poet writes such a short poem, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others.

Duh! Generally, when someone posts anything here, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others. Is that what you thought "profound" means?

> If you didn't think your 3-line poem profound, what motivated you to share it?

What a silly question. Do you post only the poems of yours that you think are intellectually deep or hard to understand? Or do you not know what "profound" means?

> > > Others didn't agree.
> >
> > True; the three comments on the poem disagreed. One reader (Manwolf) "got" it and liked it, but thought it was unfinished, more a first draft than anything. Another reader (Farstar) loved it, calling it a "tender love poem". A third (jr sherman) hated it, calling it "shit" and writing his own "way better" poem to show the peasants how it should be done. The three did get different responses, which is apparently NastyGoon's point.
> >
> Is it cherry-picking season in Canuckland, George?

Do you understand what "cherry-picking" means? Three people gave "criticism" of my poem, and I mentioned all three of them.

> 1) GodBuilt wrote two similar poems, and made a caustic remark about what child's play it was to stick three random thoughts together and call it a poem.

This is why it's a good idea to not snip the thread. jr sherman ("GodBuilt") did not write any "similar" poems. He just randomly switched around the lines of mine. Here's my poem:

>>> February
>>> Unnoticed dreams:
>>> ocean waves in winter,
>>> the curve of your cheek.

- and here are his first two stanzas:

>> ocean waves in winter
>> the curve of your cheek
>> Unnoticed dreams
>>
>> the curve of your cheek

>> Unnoticed dreams
>> ocean waves in winter

His comment ("kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.") looked like a good description of what he was doing (just reassembling the pieces). He didn't say anything about "stick[in] three random thoughts together and call[ing] it a poem" - that's you're own criticism you're trying to put into his mouth.

He did comment on my poem later, to tell me his was "way better" and that he was better looking too.

> 2) Karla randomly chopped up and switched around your lines, as a comment on the meaninglessness of your poem.

Karla was copying jr sherman, and her only comment was on his "poem" (or "poems" according to you): "And j r, your "focused beams" reminded me of a certain poetess's Balancing Beam poem. Shame on you!" She did not offer any criticism of mine - the only "comment on the meaninglessness of your poem" was yours, which you're trying to put into her mouth.

> 3) Here's what Manwolf actually wrote

Actually, this is Manwolf 's criticism of jr sherman's "poem" (or "poems" according to you). Notice his reference to sherman "play[ing] around with [my] words".

>
> "This is actually probably better than most of the stuff that he writes.
> Why? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
> and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
> tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
> take that over hollow and pompous verse any day."

> Ouch! That had to hurt.

Perhaps it did -- sherman disappeared almost immediately. And here I thought it was because I'd called him a "creepy little man" later in the thread.

Here's what Manwolf actually wrote about my poem:
"Okay, not bad, but it definitely needs more to make it stand on its own.
It sounds like you are starting to describe certain things you've
taken for granted: someone you love, the beauty in winter, and so on. If
you build on the theme a little more and added some line I think it
could be good."

> 4) FarStar loved it.
Here's his comment:"> This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form." I replied "Thanks".
>
> 5) misifg attacked GodBuilt.
msifg criticized sherman's poem, as did FarStar.

> 6) ggamble commented that:
> "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate. Still, george has an *online friend* now." [sic]

Troll that he is, ggamble called FarStar an "illiterate". (It was an apostrophe lame, BTW.) He attacked FarStar several more times, even using his trademark "What the fuck is wrong with you?" line on him That may have been because FarStar liked my poem, or he may have been just chasing FarStar around the group that day. In any case ggamble never offered any criticism of my poem, and at least this time you don't even pretend he is.

> 7) Barbara's Cat flamed various members.

Barbara's Cat was doing backup trolling for ggamble, ie attacking FarStar.

> 8) Will Donkey, illiterate and clueless as ever, mistook GodBuilt's additional verses as part of your poem, and hilariously commented on how he liked "the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective."

No, Will's point was that they were mine, and I could add them if I wanted. Maybe that wasn't clear in his first comment, but he clarified it in his second:

'Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else

could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
for /arranging/ the lines, at best.

'In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &

collage".'

> I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious.

I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.

> And...
>
> You gave FarStar the requisite slurp-back, politely corrected the Donkey, and spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone else.

Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.

> > > Note that Will Dockery further down the thread didn't understand or didn't read the previous posts.
> > That's funny; it looked to me like Will understood jr sherman's (and Karla's) posts:
> That's funny; it looked to me like you needed to set Will straight on that point:
>
> WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
>
> GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

To which he replied that the whole thing was mine (see above). Of course I didn't and don't want any of it but my 3 lines.

> Which again begs the eternal question: Why do you lie so much, George?

And you get the eternal response: Why do you project so much, Michael?

> Rather than address NancyGene's point: that you swap slurps with those who praise your work, and snip at those who don't, you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread.

> > > "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."
> > - Gary Gamble
> Mr. Gamble's observation still holds true today

It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".

Your comment says a lot about you, too, Michael. You don't even know FarStar, but ggamble's the enemy of your enemy, so you're quite happy to call FarStar an illiterate yourself.

> -- although you now have three functionally illiterate fans. Kudos.

Oh, I bet you say that to all your enemies.

[NancyGene]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:35:06 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.
> > > It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).

George Dance, we replied to your initial post in this thread. Also "thread" = "example." We did not snip anything from the thread, since we did not reply to the whole thread. Additionally, if you want everyone to start including all comments in replies, please tell that to Will Dockery and George Sulzbach, who employ xxxx and truncate people's replies.

> > >
> > What part of "This thread...is a good example" are you failing to understand?
> I didn't say I was failing to understand any of that. I said I was surprised that NG claimed to have found a "good example" of something, but decided to snip it rather than let us read it for ourselves.

The example is the thread and your replies in the thread. You and others were free to read the thread.

> > > > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
> > > The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
> > Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as profound?
> Let's see.
> Profound = 1
> a : having intellectual depth and insight
> b: difficult to fathom or understand
>
> I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you andyour "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?

Because you posted it. You must have thought it said something (resonated) that was worth sharing with others. While we are talking about the poem, how can dreams be unnoticed? They can be unremembered, they can be remembered, they can be pleasant or scary, but unnoticed?

> > Generally, when a poet writes such a short poem, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others.
> Duh! Generally, when someone posts anything here, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others. Is that what you thought "profound" means?

What you wrote is not deep or profound. It is meaningless. For profound:
"Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
[...]"

> > If you didn't think your 3-line poem profound, what motivated you to share it?
> What a silly question. Do you post only the poems of yours that you think are intellectually deep or hard to understand? Or do you not know what "profound" means?

Maybe people would want to hesitate at posting something that is not their best?

No, he called it "nice work." Will thought that all of the lines were yours.

>
> 'Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
>
> 'In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> collage".'

No, Will was trying to cover for his mistake. No one said that they wrote the original three lines.

> > I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious.
> I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.

No one claimed that Will criticized your poem. Will would NEVER do that, because he lacks words.

> > And...
> >
> > You gave FarStar the requisite slurp-back, politely corrected the Donkey, and spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone else.
> Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.

That was the comment that you deleted.

> > > > Note that Will Dockery further down the thread didn't understand or didn't read the previous posts.
> > > That's funny; it looked to me like Will understood jr sherman's (and Karla's) posts:
> > That's funny; it looked to me like you needed to set Will straight on that point:
> >
> > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> >
> > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> To which he replied that the whole thing was mine (see above). Of course I didn't and don't want any of it but my 3 lines.
> > Which again begs the eternal question: Why do you lie so much, George?
> And you get the eternal response: Why do you project so much, Michael?
> > Rather than address NancyGene's point: that you swap slurps with those who praise your work, and snip at those who don't, you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread.
>
> > > > "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."
> > > - Gary Gamble
> > Mr. Gamble's observation still holds true today
> It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".

If we call someone illiterate, it is for a good reason. Your colleagues have demonstrated that they are illiterate and incapable of understanding concepts in literature.

>
> Your comment says a lot about you, too, Michael. You don't even know FarStar, but ggamble's the enemy of your enemy, so you're quite happy to call FarStar an illiterate yourself.
> > -- although you now have three functionally illiterate fans. Kudos.
> Oh, I bet you say that to all your enemies.

The posters early in this thread made some good points about your poem, George Dance. In fact, you should listen to all of the criticisms of all of your poems. Your poems and your writing would improve.

[Will Dockery]

Something we're still seeing now, in the current era.

> > I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious.
> I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.
> > And...
> >
> > You gave FarStar the requisite slurp-back, politely corrected the Donkey, and spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone else.
> Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.
> > > > Note that Will Dockery further down the thread didn't understand or didn't read the previous posts.
> > > That's funny; it looked to me like Will understood jr sherman's (and Karla's) posts:
> > That's funny; it looked to me like you needed to set Will straight on that point:
> >
> > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> >
> > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> To which he replied that the whole thing was mine (see above). Of course I didn't and don't want any of it but my 3 lines.
> > Which again begs the eternal question: Why do you lie so much, George?
> And you get the eternal response: Why do you project so much, Michael?
> > Rather than address NancyGene's point: that you swap slurps with those who praise your work, and snip at those who don't, you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread.
>
> > > > "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."
> > > - Gary Gamble
> > Mr. Gamble's observation still holds true today
> It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".
>
> Your comment says a lot about you, too, Michael. You don't even know FarStar, but ggamble's the enemy of your enemy, so you're quite happy to call FarStar an illiterate yourself.
> > -- although you now have three functionally illiterate fans. Kudos.
> Oh, I bet you say that to all your enemies.

...

[Will Donkey]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:35:06 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.
> > > It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).
> > >
> > What part of "This thread...is a good example" are you failing to understand?
> I didn't say I was failing to understand any of that. I said I was surprised that NG claimed to have found a "good example" of something, but decided to snip it rather than let us read it for ourselves.
>

Damn, but you're dense, Dance!

What part of "This thread" are you failing to understand?

Allow me to explain it to you in no uncertain terms:

The example is this thread. This thread is the example.

This thread is still here. Therefore NancyGene could not possibly have snipped it.

> > > > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
> > > The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
> > Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as profound?
> Let's see.
> Profound = 1
> a : having intellectual depth and insight
> b: difficult to fathom or understand
>
> I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you andyour "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?

You should have read a little further before responding. I've already answered your question.

> > Generally, when a poet writes such a short poem, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others.
> Duh! Generally, when someone posts anything here, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others. Is that what you thought "profound" means?
>

"Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight." An expression of intellectual depth and insight would certainly be worthy of sharing.

> > If you didn't think your 3-line poem profound, what motivated you to share it?
> What a silly question. Do you post only the poems of yours that you think are intellectually deep or hard to understand? Or do you not know what "profound" means?

A poem needn't be profound for one to share it, George. It can possess many qualities that are "share-worthy." However, a three-line poem is extremely limited in that regard and has little-to-nothing else to offer.

> > > > Others didn't agree.
> > >
> > > True; the three comments on the poem disagreed. One reader (Manwolf) "got" it and liked it, but thought it was unfinished, more a first draft than anything. Another reader (Farstar) loved it, calling it a "tender love poem". A third (jr sherman) hated it, calling it "shit" and writing his own "way better" poem to show the peasants how it should be done. The three did get different responses, which is apparently NastyGoon's point.
> > >
> > Is it cherry-picking season in Canuckland, George?
> Do you understand what "cherry-picking" means? Three people gave "criticism" of my poem, and I mentioned all three of them.

Eight people commented on your poem, George. You cherry-picked three of those comments. Do you know how to count to eight?

> > 1) GodBuilt wrote two similar poems, and made a caustic remark about what child's play it was to stick three random thoughts together and call it a poem.
> This is why it's a good idea to not snip the thread. jr sherman ("GodBuilt") did not write any "similar" poems. He just randomly switched around the lines of mine. Here's my poem:
>

EARTH TO GEORGE: No one snipped your thread. Your thread is right here. I'm typing in your thread right this moment.

There is no need for anyone to "quote" an entire thread when their post is a part of that same thread.

> >>> February
> >>> Unnoticed dreams:
> >>> ocean waves in winter,
> >>> the curve of your cheek.
> - and here are his first two stanzas:
> >> ocean waves in winter
> >> the curve of your cheek
> >> Unnoticed dreams
> >>
> >> the curve of your cheek
> >> Unnoticed dreams
> >> ocean waves in winter
> His comment ("kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.") looked like a good description of what he was doing (just reassembling the pieces). He didn't say anything about "stick[in] three random thoughts together and call[ing] it a poem" - that's you're own criticism you're trying to put into his mouth.
>

Don't you mean "stick[ing]," George? "He who dances with Donkeys becomes a donkey himself." -- Nietzsche

My description of his statement stands.

> He did comment on my poem later, to tell me his was "way better" and that he was better looking too.

Well, duh.

> > 2) Karla randomly chopped up and switched around your lines, as a comment on the meaninglessness of your poem.
> Karla was copying jr sherman, and her only comment was on his "poem" (or "poems" according to you): "And j r, your "focused beams" reminded me of a certain poetess's Balancing Beam poem. Shame on you!" She did not offer any criticism of mine - the only "comment on the meaninglessness of your poem" was yours, which you're trying to put into her mouth.
>

I haven't put any words in Karla's mouth, George. I said that she followed Jr's example and switched your words around yet another way.

In doing so, she further demonstrates Jr's point -- that the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole.

IOW: Karla's actions spoke louder than words.

> > 3) Here's what Manwolf actually wrote
> Actually, this is Manwolf 's criticism of jr sherman's "poem" (or "poems" according to you). Notice his reference to sherman "play[ing] around with [my] words".
> >
> > "This is actually probably better than most of the stuff that he writes.

He is addressing Jr, and telling him that his expansion of your poem is better than the stuff you usually write.

> > Why? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
> > and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
> > tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
> > take that over hollow and pompous verse any day."
>
> > Ouch! That had to hurt.
> Perhaps it did -- sherman disappeared almost immediately. And here I thought it was because I'd called him a "creepy little man" later in the thread.

Funny how Manwolf's description is a startlingly accurate description of George Dance: "narrow conventions," "rigid ego," "hollow and pompous verse."

I've raised the same points regarding your poetry on numerous occasions in the past.

> Here's what Manwolf actually wrote about my poem:
> "Okay, not bad, but it definitely needs more to make it stand on its own.
> It sounds like you are starting to describe certain things you've
> taken for granted: someone you love, the beauty in winter, and so on. If
> you build on the theme a little more and added some line I think it
> could be good."

It's constructive, but hardly complimentary.

> > 4) FarStar loved it.
> Here's his comment:"> This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard

I'm guessing that FarStar has not read very much poetry (as his misuse of "heard" reveals).

> > very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form." I replied "Thanks".
> >
> > 5) misifg attacked GodBuilt.
> msifg criticized sherman's poem, as did FarStar.

Msifg attacked GodBuilt. This was not an example of literary criticism, but of a Zod-like lapdog snapping at his master's "enemy."

> > 6) ggamble commented that:
> > "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate. Still, george has an *online friend* now." [sic]
>
> Troll that he is, ggamble called FarStar an "illiterate". (It was an apostrophe lame, BTW.)

Or, as previously noted, his misuse of "heard."

> He attacked FarStar several more times, even using his trademark "What the fuck is wrong with you?" line on him That may have been because FarStar liked my poem, or he may have been just chasing FarStar around the group that day. In any case ggamble never offered any criticism of my poem, and at least this time you don't even pretend he is.
>

I haven't pretended anything, anywhere in this post, George. I simply reported it as it is.

That is, noted and described all *eight* of the comments -- not just a cherry-picked three.

> > 7) Barbara's Cat flamed various members.
> Barbara's Cat was doing backup trolling for ggamble, ie attacking FarStar.

Or maybe Barbara's Cat realizes that FarStar is an illiterate moron (is FarStar one of Zod's old aliases?).

> > 8) Will Donkey, illiterate and clueless as ever, mistook GodBuilt's additional verses as part of your poem, and hilariously commented on how he liked "the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective."
> No, Will's point was that they were mine, and I could add them if I wanted. Maybe that wasn't clear in his first comment, but he clarified it in his second:

No, Will's second comment appeared after he was called on it. It's a transparent attempt to save face -- nothing more.

> 'Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
>
> 'In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> collage".'

Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with Dale Houstman's essays on poetic theory. Are they available at Amazon?

> > I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious.
> I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.

I was referring to Will Donkey's comments, George. Please try to pay attention.

> > And...
> >
> > You gave FarStar the requisite slurp-back, politely corrected the Donkey, and spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone else.
> Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.

I'm sorry, Mr. Pickanit. You spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone (that is, everyone who you realized) had submitted a negative opinion on your work.

> > > > Note that Will Dockery further down the thread didn't understand or didn't read the previous posts.
> > > That's funny; it looked to me like Will understood jr sherman's (and Karla's) posts:
> > That's funny; it looked to me like you needed to set Will straight on that point:
> >
> > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> >
> > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> To which he replied that the whole thing was mine (see above). Of course I didn't and don't want any of it but my 3 lines.

What has that got to do with anything, George?

The Donkey either hadn't read the thread before responding, or else he failed to understand what had actually taken place. Either way, he was acting like his usual clueless self.

> > Which again begs the eternal question: Why do you lie so much, George?
> And you get the eternal response: Why do you project so much, Michael?

You claimed that Will understood Jr and Karla's posts. It is clear that he mistook their verses for yours. This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that you have lied.

> > Rather than address NancyGene's point: that you swap slurps with those who praise your work, and snip at those who don't, you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread.
>
> > > > "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."
> > > - Gary Gamble
> > Mr. Gamble's observation still holds true today
> It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".

It says that Gamble is not incapable of making typos. So what?

> Your comment says a lot about you, too, Michael. You don't even know FarStar, but ggamble's the enemy of your enemy, so you're quite happy to call FarStar an illiterate yourself.
>

Don't be silly, George. I called FarStar illiterate for claiming that he'd "heard" your poem. That's not a typo, but a clear instance of his not knowing what a common word means.

> > -- although you now have three functionally illiterate fans. Kudos.
> Oh, I bet you say that to all your enemies.

I don't see you as my enemy, George.

I do, however, see you as a possessing an extremely fragile ego, and hypersensitive to negative criticism (whether perceived or intended). Your trio of illiterate fan bois is an example of your desperate need for praise, regardless of its source.

[Zod]

Yep... and somewhat often...

> > > I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious.
> > I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.
> > > And...
> > >
> > > You gave FarStar the requisite slurp-back, politely corrected the Donkey, and spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone else.
> > Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.
> > > > > Note that Will Dockery further down the thread didn't understand or didn't read the previous posts.
> > > > That's funny; it looked to me like Will understood jr sherman's (and Karla's) posts:
> > > That's funny; it looked to me like you needed to set Will straight on that point:
> > >
> > > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> > >
> > > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > To which he replied that the whole thing was mine (see above). Of course I didn't and don't want any of it but my 3 lines.
> > > Which again begs the eternal question: Why do you lie so much, George?
> > And you get the eternal response: Why do you project so much, Michael?
> > > Rather than address NancyGene's point: that you swap slurps with those who praise your work, and snip at those who don't, you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread.
> >
> > > > > "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."
> > > > - Gary Gamble
> > > Mr. Gamble's observation still holds true today
> > It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".
> >
> > Your comment says a lot about you, too, Michael. You don't even know FarStar, but ggamble's the enemy of your enemy, so you're quite happy to call FarStar an illiterate yourself.
> > > -- although you now have three functionally illiterate fans. Kudos.
> > Oh, I bet you say that to all your enemies.

Yep...

[W-Dockery]

Zod wrote:

> On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>>
>> > This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.
>> It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).
>> > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
>> The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
>>
>> > Others didn't agree.
>>

>> True; the three comments on the poem disagreed. One reader (Manwolf) "got" it and liked it, but thought it was unfinished, more a first draft than anything. Another reader (Farstar) loved it, calling it a "tender love poem".. A third (jr sherman) hated it, calling it "shit" and writing his own "way better" poem to show the peasants how it should be done. The three did get different responses, which is apparently NastyGoon's point.

Agreed.

[George Dance]

Thanks, but it's a good lesson in humility for me: after a few days of thinking about the poem, I'm no longer happy with it, so I think I have to revise it again.

The problem is with the word "dreams" -- the more I think about it, the more I think that word doesn't add anything to the poem, but instead obscures the meaning -- which is why Michael Monkey and NastyGoon seemingly can't understand it. Neither the waves or my wife's face are "dreams," so why call them that?

I think the word that fits best is "beauty" -- the idea of the poem, of course, being that the two images are examples of the beauty that I've failed to notice. (Of course the "curve of your cheek" is a synecdoche, a part that stands for the whole -- I don't love my wife only for her cheeks :) So why didn't I use it? Probably because it's an abstract noun (an "abstraction"), and you're not s'posed to use abstractions. That was the rule 14 years ago, so that was the rule I was following. I let that rule get in my way, and the poem suffered.

The other word I can think of is "visions". That's not just pure abstraction like "beauty," but it's not as informative -- unlike "beauty," it doesn't tell me why I'm suddenly noticing those things now.

So I haven't decided. I have two alternative drafts:

> >> > Unnoticed beauty:

> >> > ocean waves in winter,
> >> > the curve of your cheek.

or

> >> > Unnoticed visions:

> >> > ocean waves in winter,
> >> > the curve of your cheek.

Let's see if I can actually get some constructive criticism. Which version do you prefer (and, if you can express it, why)? Or would you suggest some other word (and again, why)? Those are questions for everyone in the thread, not just for you.

[George Dance]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:24:51 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:35:06 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.
> > > > It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).
> George Dance, we replied to your initial post in this thread. Also "thread" = "example." We did not snip anything from the thread, since we did not reply to the whole thread.

If your there's an "example" in the thread, then show it. You haven't shown any.

> Additionally, if you want everyone to start including all comments in replies, please tell that to Will Dockery and George Sulzbach, who employ xxxx and truncate people's replies.

Strawman. You don't have to include everything in the thread, just the parts you're talking about.

> > I didn't say I was failing to understand any of that. I said I was surprised that NG claimed to have found a "good example" of something, but decided to snip it rather than let us read it for ourselves.
> The example is the thread and your replies in the thread. You and others were free to read the thread.

Anyone who does read the thread will know what really happened. Unfortunately, most won't, but will simply take your word for what happened.

> > > > > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
> > > > The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
> > > Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as profound?
> > Let's see.
> > Profound = 1
> > a : having intellectual depth and insight
> > b: difficult to fathom or understand
> >

> > I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you and your "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?

> Because you posted it. You must have thought it said something (resonated) that was worth sharing with others.

That is not what "profound" means. Of course I thought the poem was worth sharing; but that doesn't mean I thought it was "profound". You just made that up yourself, probably because you think (or want to pretend) that you can read minds.

> While we are talking about the poem, how can dreams be unnoticed? They can be unremembered, they can be remembered, they can be pleasant or scary, but unnoticed?

To notice something is to take notice of it, to pay attention to it. I often have dreams that I don't pay any attention to; YMMV.

In any case, that's moot as of today, since the poem no longer refers to "dreams."

> > > Generally, when a poet writes such a short poem, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others.
> > Duh! Generally, when someone posts anything here, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others. Is that what you thought "profound" means?
> What you wrote is not deep or profound.

No one suggested that it was, but you. You might have thought that you read my mind, or that your "figured it out" (to use your phrase), but you didn't. It's just another strawman you've come up with.

> It is meaningless.

Finally, you're criticizing the poem.

For profound:
> "Do not stand at my grave and weep
> I am not there. I do not sleep.
> I am a thousand winds that blow.
> I am the diamond glints on snow.
> I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
> I am the gentle autumn rain.
> [...]"

It's interesting to see what you consider "profound".

> > What a silly question. Do you post only the poems of yours that you think are intellectually deep or hard to understand? Or do you not know what "profound" means?
> Maybe people would want to hesitate at posting something that is not their best?

If that's what you do, then you don't understand the group you're on. aapc is a venue for people to post poems that they think could be better -- IOW, that are not their best -- and get feedback in the hope of improving them.

> > No, Will's point was that they were mine, and I could add them if I wanted. Maybe that wasn't clear in his first comment, but he clarified it in his second:
> No, he called it "nice work." Will thought that all of the lines were yours.

All of the lines were mine, in jr sherman's Tinker-Toy poem and in Karla's. If they'd tried to pass them off as their own poetry, they'd have been plagiarizing. Of course, they weren't trying to write poetry; they were just trying to troll.

> > 'Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> >
> > 'In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > collage".'

> No, Will was trying to cover for his mistake.

Now you're trying to pretend to read Will's mind as well.

> No one said that they wrote the original three lines.

Will wasn't commenting on the "original three lines." He was commenting on the "repetitions in the "Tinker-Toy" poem, and saying those were my lines as well (which they were, at least at the beginning).

> > I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.
> No one claimed that Will criticized your poem. Will would NEVER do that, because he lacks words.

That's what I said: he didn't criticize my poem -- he criticized sherman's "Tinker-Toy" thing.

> > Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.
> That was the comment that you deleted.

I doubt it.

> > It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".

> If we call someone illiterate, it is for a good reason. Your colleagues have demonstrated that they are illiterate and incapable of understanding concepts in literature.

IOW; if you call someone an illiterate, and are challenged, you just repeat yourself.

.
> The posters early in this thread made some good points about your poem, George Dance.

One person (Manwolf) made a good point. Another person loved the poem, and another called it shit or whatever. As I said, those were the only three comments on the poem (which anyone who actually reads the thread can see).

> In fact, you should listen to all of the criticisms of all of your poems.

Of course I listen to them all. That doesn't mean I'm going to follow them all.

> Your poems and your writing would improve.

You mean, whomever I was "listening to" might like them better.

[George Dance]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:39:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Will Donkey" wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:35:06 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > I didn't say I was failing to understand any of that. I said I was surprised that NG claimed to have found a "good example" of something, but decided to snip it rather than let us read it for ourselves.
> >
> Damn, but you're dense, Dance!
>
> What part of "This thread" are you failing to understand?
>
> Allow me to explain it to you in no uncertain terms:
>
> The example is this thread. This thread is the example.
>
> This thread is still here. Therefore NancyGene could not possibly have snipped it.
> > > > > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
> > > > The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
> > > Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as profound?
> > Let's see.
> > Profound = 1
> > a : having intellectual depth and insight
> > b: difficult to fathom or understand
> >
> > I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you andyour "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?
> You should have read a little further before responding. I've already answered your question.
> > > Generally, when a poet writes such a short poem, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others.
> > Duh! Generally, when someone posts anything here, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others. Is that what you thought "profound" means?
> >
> "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."

Yes, Michael. I just gave you the definition; I'm glad to see you learned it.

> An expression of intellectual depth and insight would certainly be worthy of sharing.

But not everything worth sharing is an expression of intellectual depth and insight.

> > > If you didn't think your 3-line poem profound, what motivated you to share it?
> > What a silly question. Do you post only the poems of yours that you think are intellectually deep or hard to understand? Or do you not know what "profound" means?

> A poem needn't be profound for one to share it, George. It can possess many qualities that are "share-worthy."

That's exactly what I've been telling you. I posted the poem because I thought it was 'shareworthy'. I didn't and don't it poem was "profound" and I never said it was; that was just something NG made up.

> However, a three-line poem is extremely limited in that regard and has little-to-nothing else to offer.

Don't be silly; a 3-line poem can offer more than "profundity". I have read many good haiku, for example, but I've never read one I've considered intellectually deep.

> > Do you understand what "cherry-picking" means? Three people gave "criticism" of my poem, and I mentioned all three of them.
> Eight people commented on your poem, George. You cherry-picked three of those comments. Do you know how to count to eight?

No, Michael, that's not true. Eight people commented in the thread. Four of them -- Karla, msifg, ggamble, and Barbara's Cat -- didn't even comment on the poem, much less criticized it. Will did comment, but on sherman's "Tinker-Toy" poem, not on mine. That leaves the three who offered criticism.

Did you even read the thread, or just count how many people had posted in it?

> > > 1) GodBuilt wrote two similar poems, and made a caustic remark about what child's play it was to stick three random thoughts together and call it a poem.
> > This is why it's a good idea to not snip the thread. jr sherman ("GodBuilt") did not write any "similar" poems. He just randomly switched around the lines of mine. Here's my poem:
> >
> EARTH TO GEORGE: No one snipped your thread. Your thread is right here. I'm typing in your thread right this moment.

The backthread isn't; instead we have your story about the backthread, which is full of errors if not outright lying. There's a second one: your claim that jr sherman wrote any poems here. He was just trolling.

> There is no need for anyone to "quote" an entire thread when their post is a part of that same thread.

In this case, probably, because when you lie what about what happened in the thread, I'll continue to correct you.

> > His comment ("kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.") looked like a good description of what he was doing (just reassembling the pieces). He didn't say anything about "stick[in] three random thoughts together and call[ing] it a poem" - that's you're own criticism you're trying to put into his mouth.
> >
> Don't you mean "stick[ing]," George?

Yes I did.

> "He who dances with Donkeys becomes a donkey himself." -- Nietzsche

Typical monkey shit from you; rather than address my point (that you were putting your words into other people's mouth again, you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread. So let's get back to the point: The above criticism of my poem -- "what child's play it was to stick three random thoughts together and call it a poem" -- came from you. Now don't lie and pretend sherman said anything of the kind.

> My description of his statement stands.

You've been corrected. You're free to whine all day long about my poem being three random lines stuck together; if you try to pretend that anyone but you called it that, I'll feel free to label you a liar.

> > He did comment on my poem later, to tell me his was "way better" and that he was better looking too.
> Well, duh.

> 2) Karla randomly chopped up and switched around your lines, as a comment on the meaninglessness of your poem.
> > Karla was copying jr sherman, and her only comment was on his "poem" (or "poems" according to you): "And j r, your "focused beams" reminded me of a certain poetess's Balancing Beam poem. Shame on you!" She did not offer any criticism of mine - the only "comment on the meaninglessness of your poem" was yours, which you're trying to put into her mouth.
> >
> I haven't put any words in Karla's mouth, George. I said that she followed Jr's example and switched your words around yet another way.
>
> In doing so, she further demonstrates Jr's point -- that the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole.

Karla's and sherman's only point was to have some fun trolling. You are the only one claiming that "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."

> IOW: Karla's actions spoke louder than words.

IOW: Karla didn't say what you pretended she had. "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."

> > > 3) Here's what Manwolf actually wrote
> > Actually, this is Manwolf 's criticism of jr sherman's "poem" (or "poems" according to you). Notice his reference to sherman "play[ing] around with [my] words".
> > >
> > > "This is actually probably better than most of the stuff that he writes.
> He is addressing Jr, and telling him that his expansion of your poem is better than the stuff you usually write.

No, you're wrong again. Manwolf is addressing me, and telling me that sherman's "expansion" is better than what he normally writes.

> > > Why? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
> > > and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
> > > tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
> > > take that over hollow and pompous verse any day."

(Note "HE's actually managed to ... play around with YOUR words" (stress added)

> > > Ouch! That had to hurt.
> > Perhaps it did -- sherman disappeared almost immediately. And here I thought it was because I'd called him a "creepy little man" later in the thread.
> Funny how Manwolf's description is a startlingly accurate description of George Dance: "narrow conventions," "rigid ego," "hollow and pompous verse."

Call me whatever you want; but please stop trying to put your words into other people's mouths. Neither sherman, Karla, or Manwolf said what you claimed they did.

> I've raised the same points regarding your poetry on numerous occasions in the past.

Possibly, given your method of argument: to throw all the poo you can and hope that something sticks. The point is, for now it's just you saying this stuff about me, so please stop trying to pretend it's what "others" have said.

> > Here's what Manwolf actually wrote about my poem:
> > "Okay, not bad, but it definitely needs more to make it stand on its own.
> > It sounds like you are starting to describe certain things you've
> > taken for granted: someone you love, the beauty in winter, and so on. If
> > you build on the theme a little more and added some line I think it
> > could be good."
> It's constructive, but hardly complimentary.

No one said it was "complimentary." I was looking for constructive criticism, not compliments, and Manwolf was the only one who offered any.

> > > 4) FarStar loved it.
> > Here's his comment:"> This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> I'm guessing that FarStar has not read very much poetry (as his misuse of "heard" reveals).

I don't think it reveals any such thing.

> > > very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form." I replied "Thanks".
> > >
> > > 5) misifg attacked GodBuilt.
> > msifg criticized sherman's poem, as did FarStar.
> Msifg attacked GodBuilt. This was not an example of literary criticism, but of a Zod-like lapdog snapping at his master's "enemy."

It was an example of no such thing. It was an example of attacking a troll who was going around the thread attacking other people -- me, Manwolf, and FarStar (all of whom IIRC were flaming him back by then).

> > Troll that he is, ggamble called FarStar an "illiterate". (It was an apostrophe lame, BTW.)
> Or, as previously noted, his misuse of "heard."
> > He attacked FarStar several more times, even using his trademark "What the fuck is wrong with you?" line on him That may have been because FarStar liked my poem, or he may have been just chasing FarStar around the group that day. In any case ggamble never offered any criticism of my poem, and at least this time you don't even pretend he is.
> >
> I haven't pretended anything, anywhere in this post, George. I simply reported it as it is.

Your "reporting" has all been wrong so far. At this point, I think NG's reason for not wanting us to read the backthread was so you two could make up your own, misleading and error-ridden, story about it.

> That is, noted and described all *eight* of the comments -- not just a cherry-picked three.

Once again, there were only three comments on my poem, not eight; and those are the only three that could could . You and anyone else are free to read the backthread (not just count the number of people who posted) and verify that.

> > > 7) Barbara's Cat flamed various members.
> > Barbara's Cat was doing backup trolling for ggamble, ie attacking FarStar.
> Or maybe Barbara's Cat realizes that FarStar is an illiterate moron (is FarStar one of Zod's old aliases?).

Don't be silly. He's a published poet. He just made the mistake of saying he liked one of my poems.

> > > 8) Will Donkey, illiterate and clueless as ever, mistook GodBuilt's additional verses as part of your poem, and hilariously commented on how he liked "the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective."
> > No, Will's point was that they were mine, and I could add them if I wanted. Maybe that wasn't clear in his first comment, but he clarified it in his second:
> No, Will's second comment appeared after he was called on it. It's a transparent attempt to save face -- nothing more.

No, it wasn't. He was responding to sherman's bragging about his "Tinker-Toy" poem, by pointing out that I'd actually written all his lines.

> > 'Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> >
> > 'In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > collage".'
> Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with Dale Houstman's essays on poetic theory. Are they available at Amazon?

I doubt it. AFAIK, he's just someone who used to hang out here and pontificate.

> > > I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious.
> > I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.
> I was referring to Will Donkey's comments, George. Please try to pay attention.

It's quite clear what you were doing. Rather than deal with that Will actually said, you were just making a lame from some other thread.

> > > You gave FarStar the requisite slurp-back, politely corrected the Donkey, and spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone else.
> > Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.
> I'm sorry, Mr. Pickanit. You spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone (that is, everyone who you realized) had submitted a negative opinion on your work.

Nonsense; the only person who submitted a negative opinion" of my work was jr sherman, and he was already being flamed before that -- by me, Manwolf, and msifg -- for his trolling. He just started trying to insult the poem and me as his part in that little flamewar.

> > > > > Note that Will Dockery further down the thread didn't understand or didn't read the previous posts.
> > > > That's funny; it looked to me like Will understood jr sherman's (and Karla's) posts:
> > > That's funny; it looked to me like you needed to set Will straight on that point:
> > >
> > > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> > >
> > > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > To which he replied that the whole thing was mine (see above). Of course I didn't and don't want any of it but my 3 lines.
> What has that got to do with anything, George?

You're misrepresenting what Will said (in addition to what sherman, Karla, and Manwolf said), and I'm correcting you. Again, if you ignore the corrections and keep repeating your stories, I'll feel free to call you a liar for that, too.

> The Donkey either hadn't read the thread before responding, or else he failed to understand what had actually taken place. Either way, he was acting like his usual clueless self.

Wrong. I already explained what he was doing: reacting to sherman's bragging about his "Tinker-Toy" by pointing out that he'd lifted all the lines from me.

> You claimed that Will understood Jr and Karla's posts.

What's to understand? Their game was simple: "fucking with him [ie with me] like a cat plays with a mouse" as sherman put it.

> It is clear that he mistook their verses for yours.

No, it isn't. As I see it, he was pointing out that they were using all of my own lines; pretending to be "better" poets but not managing to write a line of poetry, let alone a poem, in this thread. He was subtly trolling a couple of trolls

I understand Will's your main enemy here, so you can't resist an opportunity to make up another story about him; but that's all you're doing again.

> This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that you have lied.

> > > Rather than address NancyGene's point: that you swap slurps with those who praise your work, and snip at those who don't

NG's "point" is just as misleading as yours have been. I didn't "snip" anyone's comments. I flamed a couple of trolls who'd flamed me first, that's all, and did not flame anyone (msifg, Manwolf, FarStar, or Will) who wasn't already flaming first.

> , you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread.

Didn't I just call you out on making a lame from some other thread? Indeed I did.

> > > > > "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."
> > > > - Gary Gamble
> > > Mr. Gamble's observation still holds true today
> > It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".
> It says that Gamble is not incapable of making typos. So what?

If you're calling someone else an 'illiterate' for making a typo, you should make sure you don't make any yourself. Otherwise, like Gamble, you'll look like a fool.

> > Your comment says a lot about you, too, Michael. You don't even know FarStar, but ggamble's the enemy of your enemy, so you're quite happy to call FarStar an illiterate yourself.

> Don't be silly, George. I called FarStar illiterate for claiming that he'd "heard" your poem. That's not a typo, but a clear instance of his not knowing what a common word means.

Not really. Perhaps he reads the poems out loud to judge them. You're just flaming him because you've chosen sides in this 14-year-old flame war you two dug up: FarStar's the friend of your enemy.

> > > -- although you now have three functionally illiterate fans. Kudos.
> > Oh, I bet you say that to all your enemies.
> I don't see you as my enemy, George.

I was talking about the three people you were calling "functionally illiterate", not me. For someone who likes to go around calling other people "illiterate," you sure don't read very well, do you?

> I do, however, see you as a possessing an extremely fragile ego, and hypersensitive to negative criticism (whether perceived or intended).

That sounds to me like more projection on your part.

> Your trio of illiterate fan bois is an example of your desperate need for praise, regardless of its source.

Sorry, Michael; I'm not the one whose goal in life is to get slurps. It sounds like you're confusing me with one of your own "fan bois."

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:29:09 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:25:14 PM UTC-4, General-Zod wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:01:45 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> George J. Dance wrote:
> > >
> > >> > February
> > >> > Unnoticed dreams:
> > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> > >> > the curve of your cheek.
> >
> > >> Kudos to NancyGene, good find, excellent nectoposting.
> > >> 🙂
> >
> > > And this time it wasn't even a decade-old draft for c&c, but a decade-old finished poem. That was a nice surprise.
> > Cool poem, G.D...!
> Thanks, but it's a good lesson in humility for me: after a few days of thinking about the poem, I'm no longer happy with it, so I think I have to revise it again.
>
> The problem is with the word "dreams" -- the more I think about it, the more I think that word doesn't add anything to the poem, but instead obscures the meaning -- which is why Michael Monkey and NastyGoon seemingly can't understand it. Neither the waves or my wife's face are "dreams," so why call them that?
>

Stop lying, George.

NancyGene and I are arguing that any author of a three-line poem must necessarily believe that it says something profound.

We base this in the obvious fact, that there is no other valid reason for writing such a short piece.

It's basically a haiku with irregular feet -- and the *point* of a haiku is that the juxtaposition of the first two lines creates a deeper meaning that is expressed by the third.

> I think the word that fits best is "beauty" -- the idea of the poem, of course, being that the two images are examples of the beauty that I've failed to notice. (Of course the "curve of your cheek" is a synecdoche, a part that stands for the whole -- I don't love my wife only for her cheeks :) So why didn't I use it? Probably because it's an abstract noun (an "abstraction"), and you're not s'posed to use abstractions. That was the rule 14 years ago, so that was the rule I was following. I let that rule get in my way, and the poem suffered.
>
> The other word I can think of is "visions". That's not just pure abstraction like "beauty," but it's not as informative -- unlike "beauty," it doesn't tell me why I'm suddenly noticing those things now.
>
> So I haven't decided. I have two alternative drafts:
>
> > >> > Unnoticed beauty:
> > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> > >> > the curve of your cheek.
> or
>
> > >> > Unnoticed visions:
> > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> > >> > the curve of your cheek.
> Let's see if I can actually get some constructive criticism. Which version do you prefer (and, if you can express it, why)? Or would you suggest some other word (and again, why)? Those are questions for everyone in the thread, not just for you.
>

"Unnoticed beauty" correctly expresses your idea. "Unnoticed visions" does not.

[Will Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:24:51 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:

>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:35:06 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
>> > On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:

>> > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > > > This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.
>> > > > It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).
>> George Dance, we replied to your initial post in this thread. Also "thread" = "example." We did not snip anything from the thread, since we did not reply to the whole thread.

> If your there's an "example" in the thread, then show it. You haven't shown any.

>> Additionally, if you want everyone to start including all comments in replies, please tell that to Will Dockery and George Sulzbach, who employ xxxx and truncate people's replies.

> Strawman. You don't have to include everything in the thread, just the parts you're talking about.

>> > I didn't say I was failing to understand any of that. I said I was surprised that NG claimed to have found a "good example" of something, but decided to snip it rather than let us read it for ourselves.

>> The example is the thread and your replies in the thread. You and others were free to read the thread.

> Anyone who does read the thread will know what really happened. Unfortunately, most won't, but will simply take your word for what happened.

>> > > > > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
>> > > > The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
>> > > Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as profound?
>> > Let's see.
>> > Profound = 1
>> > a : having intellectual depth and insight
>> > b: difficult to fathom or understand
>> >

>> > I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you and your "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?
>> Because you posted it. You must have thought it said something (resonated) that was worth sharing with others.

> That is not what "profound" means. Of course I thought the poem was worth sharing; but that doesn't mean I thought it was "profound". You just made that up yourself, probably because you think (or want to pretend) that you can read minds.

>> While we are talking about the poem, how can dreams be unnoticed? They can be unremembered, they can be remembered, they can be pleasant or scary, but unnoticed?

> To notice something is to take notice of it, to pay attention to it. I often have dreams that I don't pay any attention to; YMMV.

> In any case, that's moot as of today, since the poem no longer refers to "dreams."

>> > > Generally, when a poet writes such a short poem, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others.
>> > Duh! Generally, when someone posts anything here, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others. Is that what you thought "profound" means?

>> What you wrote is not deep or profound.

> No one suggested that it was, but you. You might have thought that you read my mind, or that your "figured it out" (to use your phrase), but you didn't. It's just another strawman you've come up with.

>> It is meaningless.

> Finally, you're criticizing the poem.

> For profound:
>> "Do not stand at my grave and weep
>> I am not there. I do not sleep.
>> I am a thousand winds that blow.
>> I am the diamond glints on snow.
>> I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
>> I am the gentle autumn rain.
>> [...]"

> It's interesting to see what you consider "profound".

>> > What a silly question. Do you post only the poems of yours that you think are intellectually deep or hard to understand? Or do you not know what "profound" means?

>> Maybe people would want to hesitate at posting something that is not their best?

> If that's what you do, then you don't understand the group you're on. aapc is a venue for people to post poems that they think could be better -- IOW, that are not their best -- and get feedback in the hope of improving them..

>> > No, Will's point was that they were mine, and I could add them if I wanted. Maybe that wasn't clear in his first comment, but he clarified it in his second:

>> No, he called it "nice work." Will thought that all of the lines were yours.

> All of the lines were mine, in jr sherman's Tinker-Toy poem and in Karla's. If they'd tried to pass them off as their own poetry, they'd have been plagiarizing. Of course, they weren't trying to write poetry; they were just trying to troll.

>> > 'Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
>> > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
>> > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
>> > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
>> >
>> > 'In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
>> > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
>> > collage".'

Here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> No, Will was trying to cover for his mistake.

> Now you're trying to pretend to read Will's mind as well.

>> No one said that they wrote the original three lines.

> Will wasn't commenting on the "original three lines." He was commenting on the "repetitions in the "Tinker-Toy" poem, and saying those were my lines as well (which they were, at least at the beginning).

Exactly, see above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> > I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.

>> No one claimed that Will criticized your poem. Will would NEVER do that, because he lacks words.

> That's what I said: he didn't criticize my poem -- he criticized sherman's "Tinker-Toy" thing.

>> > Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.

>> That was the comment that you deleted.

> I doubt it.

>> > It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".

>> If we call someone illiterate, it is for a good reason. Your colleagues have demonstrated that they are illiterate and incapable of understanding concepts in literature.

> IOW; if you call someone an illiterate, and are challenged, you just repeat yourself.

> ..

>> The posters early in this thread made some good points about your poem, George Dance.

> One person (Manwolf) made a good point. Another person loved the poem, and another called it shit or whatever. As I said, those were the only three comments on the poem (which anyone who actually reads the thread can see).

>> In fact, you should listen to all of the criticisms of all of your poems.

> Of course I listen to them all. That doesn't mean I'm going to follow them all.

>> Your poems and your writing would improve.

> You mean, whomever I was "listening to" might like them better.

...

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:49:52 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:24:51 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:35:06 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > This thread, from 2009, is a good example of how George Dunce responds to criticism.
> > > > > It's surprising, then, that NastyGoon not only didn't comment on the examples, but snipped them (along with the rest of the thread).
> > George Dance, we replied to your initial post in this thread. Also "thread" = "example." We did not snip anything from the thread, since we did not reply to the whole thread.
> If your there's an "example" in the thread, then show it. You haven't shown any.

What is wrong with you, George Dance?

In this thread, you have thanked those who gave you positive (in your understanding) comments, and attacked those whose criticisms were (largely) negative.

I have already listed all eight of the comments/commentators (above) along with a brief description of their comments; and noted how your gave a slurp-back to the positive commentator, and spewed your typically snippy insults at the rest.

*I neglected to note that you were polite to ManWolf, whose comments you mistook for being supportive. I neglected to do so because (what I assume to have been) your comment to ManWolf has been deleted.

But you're going to pretend that you haven't read my comments (even though you've already responded to them), and claim that since they came from me (and not from NancyGene) that they are irrelevant to your discussion with her.

You're big on yelling "Strawman!" at everyone else, but what is this sort of nit-picking tunnel vision if not a strawman variation?

> > Additionally, if you want everyone to start including all comments in replies, please tell that to Will Dockery and George Sulzbach, who employ xxxx and truncate people's replies.
> Strawman. You don't have to include everything in the thread, just the parts you're talking about.

Again, what the fuck is wrong with you, George Dance?

The thread is here. One cannot snip a thread.

NancyGene's post is a part of the thread it appears in.

If you wish to see the examples she is referring to, all you need to do is to scroll up.

> > > I didn't say I was failing to understand any of that. I said I was surprised that NG claimed to have found a "good example" of something, but decided to snip it rather than let us read it for ourselves.
> > The example is the thread and your replies in the thread. You and others were free to read the thread.
> Anyone who does read the thread will know what really happened. Unfortunately, most won't, but will simply take your word for what happened.

Anyone who reads the thread will certainly see what really happened, because no one has snipped it.

And anyone who has any interest in this discussion will have enough interest to scroll up and read the thread from the start. I can assure you that I have done just that.

> > > > > > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
> > > > > The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
> > > > Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as profound?
> > > Let's see.
> > > Profound = 1
> > > a : having intellectual depth and insight
> > > b: difficult to fathom or understand
> > >
> > > I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you and your "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?
> > Because you posted it. You must have thought it said something (resonated) that was worth sharing with others.
> That is not what "profound" means. Of course I thought the poem was worth sharing; but that doesn't mean I thought it was "profound". You just made that up yourself, probably because you think (or want to pretend) that you can read minds.
>

Strawman! NancyGene is not attempting to define "profound."

Both she and I are arguing that *the only reason one could conceivably have for posting a three-line poem is because they believe it to be profound.*

> > While we are talking about the poem, how can dreams be unnoticed? They can be unremembered, they can be remembered, they can be pleasant or scary, but unnoticed?
> To notice something is to take notice of it, to pay attention to it. I often have dreams that I don't pay any attention to; YMMV.

Bullshit.

If you're dreaming something, it has your full and complete (one might even say rapt) attention for the duration of the dream. That's how dreams work.

> In any case, that's moot as of today, since the poem no longer refers to "dreams."

IOW, you've recognized the soundness of NancyGene's remark and modified your poem accordingly.

Most poets (real poets, at any rate) would be thanking her profusely for that.

> > > > Generally, when a poet writes such a short poem, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others.
> > > Duh! Generally, when someone posts anything here, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others. Is that what you thought "profound" means?
> > What you wrote is not deep or profound.
> No one suggested that it was, but you. You might have thought that you read my mind, or that your "figured it out" (to use your phrase), but you didn't. It's just another strawman you've come up with.
>

For the third time: the extreme brevity of your poem necessary limits your reasons for posting it. For example: it is not a sonnet, a haiku, a triolet, or any other poetry form. It does not rhyme, or sustain a meter (one cannot use "sustain" to describe something so brief), relate an interesting narrative, etc.

Three lines/one sentence constitute a statement. And when one's poem consists solely of a three-line statement, it follows that the poet's only motivation for posting it is that he thinks it has something to say.

> > It is meaningless.
>
> Finally, you're criticizing the poem.

Strawman!

NancyGene's argument has been that you believed your poem to express something profound. You have consistently attempted to dance around that topic, and are attempting to dance around it now.

> For profound:
> > "Do not stand at my grave and weep
> > I am not there. I do not sleep.
> > I am a thousand winds that blow.
> > I am the diamond glints on snow.
> > I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
> > I am the gentle autumn rain.
> > [...]"
> It's interesting to see what you consider "profound".

How is this not profound?

> > > What a silly question. Do you post only the poems of yours that you think are intellectually deep or hard to understand? Or do you not know what "profound" means?
> > Maybe people would want to hesitate at posting something that is not their best?
> If that's what you do, then you don't understand the group you're on. aapc is a venue for people to post poems that they think could be better -- IOW, that are not their best -- and get feedback in the hope of improving them.
>

That is not what she is saying, George.

*NOTE: If you keep playing the dunce, you can't fault others for believing you to be one.

It is one thing to seek comments and criticism in the hope of improving your work; and it is something else entirely to post a three-line statement that you do not believe offers some meaningful or valuable insight.

Blue skies
Fluffy clouds
Sunny day.

Is not a very profound, deep, or in any way meaningful sentiment for a poem to express. Posting it would be an imposition on everyone else's time.

> > > No, Will's point was that they were mine, and I could add them if I wanted. Maybe that wasn't clear in his first comment, but he clarified it in his second:
> > No, he called it "nice work." Will thought that all of the lines were yours.
> All of the lines were mine, in jr sherman's Tinker-Toy poem and in Karla's. If they'd tried to pass them off as their own poetry, they'd have been plagiarizing. Of course, they weren't trying to write poetry; they were just trying to troll.
>

All of the lines were yours. But the expanded/rearranged poem that followed was not.

Will failed to realize this -- either because Will is semi-retarded, or because Will (as he has admitted) doesn't read the posts he responds to.

PJR: Do you ever read the posts to which you reply?
WILL DOCKERY: Okay, good point.

> > > 'Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > >
> > > 'In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > collage".'
>
> > No, Will was trying to cover for his mistake.
> Now you're trying to pretend to read Will's mind as well.

No one has to read Will's mind. His mistake is there for all to see.

> > No one said that they wrote the original three lines.
> Will wasn't commenting on the "original three lines." He was commenting on the "repetitions in the "Tinker-Toy" poem, and saying those were my lines as well (which they were, at least at the beginning).
>

What part of "No one said that they wrote the original three lines" are you failing to understand?

Will thought that the expanded (joke) poem was yours.

When you explained to him that you'd only written the first three lines, he made a ridiculous attempt to cover himself.

> > > I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.
> > No one claimed that Will criticized your poem. Will would NEVER do that, because he lacks words.
> That's what I said: he didn't criticize my poem -- he criticized sherman's "Tinker-Toy" thing.

Again, I caution you about the long-term effects of constantly playing the dunce.

NancyGene said that Will is *incapable* of writing a criticism because he lacks the vocabulary (and compositional skills) to do so.

Will did not criticize your poem, nor did he criticize Jr Sherman's spoof of your poem.

Will did what Donkeys always do -- he offered a dumbass comment.

> > > Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.
> > That was the comment that you deleted.
> I doubt it.

When in doubt, scroll up.

> > > It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".
>
> > If we call someone illiterate, it is for a good reason. Your colleagues have demonstrated that they are illiterate and incapable of understanding concepts in literature.
> IOW; if you call someone an illiterate, and are challenged, you just repeat yourself.

WTF are you talking about, George?

NancyGene has not been challenged, nor has she repeated herself.

Will Donkey, General Stink, and Jordy's Pervy Uncle are demonstrably illiterate. I can, and have, point to dozens of Will and Stink's poems, and hundreds of the post by all three, as examples of their illiteracy.

> > The posters early in this thread made some good points about your poem, George Dance.
> One person (Manwolf) made a good point. Another person loved the poem, and another called it shit or whatever. As I said, those were the only three comments on the poem (which anyone who actually reads the thread can see).
>

I counted 8 comments on the poem, George. You insist on ignoring 5 of them.

Anyone who scrolls up can see that you are lying (i.e., playing the dunce by claiming that the remaining 5 don't specifically mention your poem -- or some other dunce-worthy nitpick).

> > In fact, you should listen to all of the criticisms of all of your poems.
> Of course I listen to them all. That doesn't mean I'm going to follow them all.

No, you don't. You bitch, moan, and whine about them; then call the commentators childish names.

> > Your poems and your writing would improve.
> You mean, whomever I was "listening to" might like them better.

No, she means that your poems would improve as a result. Just as your three-line poem (that forms the topic of this thread) has been improved by NancyGene's having pointed out that the word "dreams" had been incorrectly used. E.g., your substitution of "beauty" for "dreams" makes for a better poem.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:54:55 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:39:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Will Donkey" wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:35:06 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > I didn't say I was failing to understand any of that. I said I was surprised that NG claimed to have found a "good example" of something, but decided to snip it rather than let us read it for ourselves.
> > >
> > Damn, but you're dense, Dance!
> >
> > What part of "This thread" are you failing to understand?
> >
> > Allow me to explain it to you in no uncertain terms:
> >
> > The example is this thread. This thread is the example.
> >
> > This thread is still here. Therefore NancyGene could not possibly have snipped it.
> > > > > > He wrote a mindless three line poem that probably seemed to him to be profound.
> > > > > The poem did indeed have three lines; congratulations to NastyGoon for getting that much correct.
> > > > Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as profound?
> > > Let's see.
> > > Profound = 1
> > > a : having intellectual depth and insight
> > > b: difficult to fathom or understand
> > >
> > > I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you andyour "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?
> > You should have read a little further before responding. I've already answered your question.
> > > > Generally, when a poet writes such a short poem, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others.
> > > Duh! Generally, when someone posts anything here, it's because he believes it to be expressing something worthy of sharing with others. Is that what you thought "profound" means?
> > >
> > "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
> Yes, Michael. I just gave you the definition; I'm glad to see you learned it.

That's an idiotic comment for you to make.

Do you really think you can bait me into an argument over whether I knew the meaning of a word? Or that my engaging in such an argument would divert readers away from the actual point NancyGene had raised? (One can see why so many AAPC members past and present have seen fit to refer to you as "Dancypants.")

Since we agree upon the definition of profound, let's substitute it in NancyGene's original statement:

"Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as having intellectual depth and insight?"

Well... are you?

> > An expression of intellectual depth and insight would certainly be worthy of sharing.
> But not everything worth sharing is an expression of intellectual depth and insight.

What else worth sharing could a 3-line, one sentence poem possibly offer?

> > > > If you didn't think your 3-line poem profound, what motivated you to share it?
> > > What a silly question. Do you post only the poems of yours that you think are intellectually deep or hard to understand? Or do you not know what "profound" means?
>
> > A poem needn't be profound for one to share it, George. It can possess many qualities that are "share-worthy."
> That's exactly what I've been telling you. I posted the poem because I thought it was 'shareworthy'. I didn't and don't it poem was "profound" and I never said it was; that was just something NG made up.
>

What do you think makes it "shareworthy," George?

> > However, a three-line poem is extremely limited in that regard and has little-to-nothing else to offer.
> Don't be silly; a 3-line poem can offer more than "profundity". I have read many good haiku, for example, but I've never read one I've considered intellectually deep.

As previously noted: a *real* haiku (not the imitations posted by amateurs who fail to understand the form) uses the juxtaposition of the first two lines to create a deep and/or insightful meaning which is expressed by the third.

If you don't consider that intellectually deep, then you've either never read an actual haiku, or you've failed to understand how haiku works.

> > > Do you understand what "cherry-picking" means? Three people gave "criticism" of my poem, and I mentioned all three of them.
> > Eight people commented on your poem, George. You cherry-picked three of those comments. Do you know how to count to eight?
> No, Michael, that's not true. Eight people commented in the thread. Four of them -- Karla, msifg, ggamble, and Barbara's Cat -- didn't even comment on the poem, much less criticized it. Will did comment, but on sherman's "Tinker-Toy" poem, not on mine. That leaves the three who offered criticism.
>

All of the above comments relate, either directly or indirectly, to your poem. Will Donkey confusedly mistook Sherman's additional (spoof) lines as having been part of your work.

> Did you even read the thread, or just count how many people had posted in it?

Stop playing the dunce. I summarized each of the 8 comments earlier in this thread. I could not possibly have summarized them without first having read them, now could I?

> > > > 1) GodBuilt wrote two similar poems, and made a caustic remark about what child's play it was to stick three random thoughts together and call it a poem.
> > > This is why it's a good idea to not snip the thread. jr sherman ("GodBuilt") did not write any "similar" poems. He just randomly switched around the lines of mine. Here's my poem:
> > >
> > EARTH TO GEORGE: No one snipped your thread. Your thread is right here. I'm typing in your thread right this moment.
> The backthread isn't; instead we have your story about the backthread, which is full of errors if not outright lying. There's a second one: your claim that jr sherman wrote any poems here. He was just trolling.
>

WTF is wrong with you, George?

The thread is here. Scroll up and you can read every post made in it in its entirety (except for your response to ManWolf which you deleted).

> > There is no need for anyone to "quote" an entire thread when their post is a part of that same thread.
> In this case, probably, because when you lie what about what happened in the thread, I'll continue to correct you.

If I have made a lie, point it out.

I can easily scroll up and identify the specific statement I was referring to.

Your constant unfounded accusations only show what a malicious little Goebbels-quoting liar you truly are.

> > > His comment ("kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.") looked like a good description of what he was doing (just reassembling the pieces). He didn't say anything about "stick[in] three random thoughts together and call[ing] it a poem" - that's you're own criticism you're trying to put into his mouth.
> > >
> > Don't you mean "stick[ing]," George?
> Yes I did.

You're welcome.

> > "He who dances with Donkeys becomes a donkey himself." -- Nietzsche
> Typical monkey shit from you; rather than address my point (that you were putting your words into other people's mouth again, you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread. So let's get back to the point: The above criticism of my poem -- "what child's play it was to stick three random thoughts together and call it a poem" -- came from you. Now don't lie and pretend sherman said anything of the kind.
>

Here are Sherman's exact words:

"hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.

or a Mr. Potato Head.

man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!"

[End Quote]

NEWSFLASH: Sherman compared your poem to playing with children's toys -- specifically Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head (a sly comment on Mensa George).

> > My description of his statement stands.
> You've been corrected. You're free to whine all day long about my poem being three random lines stuck together; if you try to pretend that anyone but you called it that, I'll feel free to label you a liar.
>

Sherman's statement (reproduced above) supports my own; and shows what a deceitful p.o.s. you are.

> > > He did comment on my poem later, to tell me his was "way better" and that he was better looking too.
> > Well, duh.
>
> > 2) Karla randomly chopped up and switched around your lines, as a comment on the meaninglessness of your poem.
> > > Karla was copying jr sherman, and her only comment was on his "poem" (or "poems" according to you): "And j r, your "focused beams" reminded me of a certain poetess's Balancing Beam poem. Shame on you!" She did not offer any criticism of mine - the only "comment on the meaninglessness of your poem" was yours, which you're trying to put into her mouth.
> > >
> > I haven't put any words in Karla's mouth, George. I said that she followed Jr's example and switched your words around yet another way.
> >
> > In doing so, she further demonstrates Jr's point -- that the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole.
> Karla's and sherman's only point was to have some fun trolling. You are the only one claiming that "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."
>

Karla' and Sherman's spoofs implicitly make such a statement.

You're either playing the dunce again, or willfully closing your eyes to the truth.

> > IOW: Karla's actions spoke louder than words.
> IOW: Karla didn't say what you pretended she had. "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."

Again, that is what her spoof undeniably implies. Deal with it.

> > > > 3) Here's what Manwolf actually wrote
> > > Actually, this is Manwolf 's criticism of jr sherman's "poem" (or "poems" according to you). Notice his reference to sherman "play[ing] around with [my] words".
> > > >
> > > > "This is actually probably better than most of the stuff that he writes.
> > He is addressing Jr, and telling him that his expansion of your poem is better than the stuff you usually write.
> No, you're wrong again. Manwolf is addressing me, and telling me that sherman's "expansion" is better than what he normally writes.

Manwolf is laughing at you, just as everyone else in the thread (except for FarStar and your Donkey) is laughing at you.

Hell, I'm even laughing at you now.

> > > > Why? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
> > > > and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
> > > > tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
> > > > take that over hollow and pompous verse any day."
> (Note "HE's actually managed to ... play around with YOUR words" (stress added)

Granted.

However, it is still unclear as to whether the last line refers to Sherman's poetry... or yours.

Assuming that he isn't on a "team," he could be criticizing you both.

> > > > Ouch! That had to hurt.
> > > Perhaps it did -- sherman disappeared almost immediately. And here I thought it was because I'd called him a "creepy little man" later in the thread.
> > Funny how Manwolf's description is a startlingly accurate description of George Dance: "narrow conventions," "rigid ego," "hollow and pompous verse."
> Call me whatever you want; but please stop trying to put your words into other people's mouths. Neither sherman, Karla, or Manwolf said what you claimed they did.

As for Karla and Sherman, I have addressed both claims above. Sherman compared your poem to playing with Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head; and Karla's further switching around of your words *implicitly* demonstrates that they are interchangeable and therefore worthless.

> > I've raised the same points regarding your poetry on numerous occasions in the past.
> Possibly, given your method of argument: to throw all the poo you can and hope that something sticks. The point is, for now it's just you saying this stuff about me, so please stop trying to pretend it's what "others" have said.
>

Stop lying, George.

I criticized your poetry accurately and fairly.

If you can't handle the truth, that's just too bad.

Now pull down your pajama bottoms, assume the position, and silently await your punishment.

> > > Here's what Manwolf actually wrote about my poem:
> > > "Okay, not bad, but it definitely needs more to make it stand on its own.
> > > It sounds like you are starting to describe certain things you've
> > > taken for granted: someone you love, the beauty in winter, and so on. If
> > > you build on the theme a little more and added some line I think it
> > > could be good."
> > It's constructive, but hardly complimentary.
> No one said it was "complimentary." I was looking for constructive criticism, not compliments, and Manwolf was the only one who offered any.

Yet, as NancyGene pointed out, you bitched, moaned, whined, cried, threw assorted hissyfits, and spewed out insults in exchange for every negative comment that was made.

> > > > 4) FarStar loved it.
> > > Here's his comment:"> This is the most tender love poem I've ever heard
> > I'm guessing that FarStar has not read very much poetry (as his misuse of "heard" reveals).
> I don't think it reveals any such thing.

If you wish to claim illiteracy for yourself, I doubt that many here would argue over it.

> > > > very much so reminiscent of a Haiku in it's true form." I replied "Thanks".
> > > >
> > > > 5) misifg attacked GodBuilt.
> > > msifg criticized sherman's poem, as did FarStar.
> > Msifg attacked GodBuilt. This was not an example of literary criticism, but of a Zod-like lapdog snapping at his master's "enemy."
> It was an example of no such thing. It was an example of attacking a troll who was going around the thread attacking other people -- me, Manwolf, and FarStar (all of whom IIRC were flaming him back by then).
>

Is FarStar one of General Stink's pseudonyms?

> > > Troll that he is, ggamble called FarStar an "illiterate". (It was an apostrophe lame, BTW.)
> > Or, as previously noted, his misuse of "heard."
> > > He attacked FarStar several more times, even using his trademark "What the fuck is wrong with you?" line on him That may have been because FarStar liked my poem, or he may have been just chasing FarStar around the group that day. In any case ggamble never offered any criticism of my poem, and at least this time you don't even pretend he is.
> > >
> > I haven't pretended anything, anywhere in this post, George. I simply reported it as it is.
> Your "reporting" has all been wrong so far. At this point, I think NG's reason for not wanting us to read the backthread was so you two could make up your own, misleading and error-ridden, story about it.
>

Another of your bizarre conspiracy theories.

The backthread necessarily exists as the entire thread (less the post that you deleted) exists.

> > That is, noted and described all *eight* of the comments -- not just a cherry-picked three.
> Once again, there were only three comments on my poem, not eight; and those are the only three that could could . You and anyone else are free to read the backthread (not just count the number of people who posted) and verify that.
>

See above.

> > > > 7) Barbara's Cat flamed various members.
> > > Barbara's Cat was doing backup trolling for ggamble, ie attacking FarStar.
> > Or maybe Barbara's Cat realizes that FarStar is an illiterate moron (is FarStar one of Zod's old aliases?).
> Don't be silly. He's a published poet. He just made the mistake of saying he liked one of my poems.

Who is FarStar and where has his work appeared?

> > > > 8) Will Donkey, illiterate and clueless as ever, mistook GodBuilt's additional verses as part of your poem, and hilariously commented on how he liked "the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective."
> > > No, Will's point was that they were mine, and I could add them if I wanted. Maybe that wasn't clear in his first comment, but he clarified it in his second:
> > No, Will's second comment appeared after he was called on it. It's a transparent attempt to save face -- nothing more.
> No, it wasn't. He was responding to sherman's bragging about his "Tinker-Toy" poem, by pointing out that I'd actually written all his lines.

Bulllshit.

Will shot his mouth off without having read any of the posts. That's the Donkey way:

PJR: Do you ever read the posts to which you reply?
WILL DOCKERY: Okay, good point.

> > > 'Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> > > could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> > > yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> > > for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> > >
> > > 'In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> > > following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> > > collage".'
> > Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with Dale Houstman's essays on poetic theory. Are they available at Amazon?
> I doubt it. AFAIK, he's just someone who used to hang out here and pontificate.

I doubt it as well: hence my sarcasm.

> > > > I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious.
> > > I'm surprised you think that his comments were criticism of my poem. He actually didn't say anything about that.
> > I was referring to Will Donkey's comments, George. Please try to pay attention.
> It's quite clear what you were doing. Rather than deal with that Will actually said, you were just making a lame from some other thread.

Stop lying.

WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

> > > > You gave FarStar the requisite slurp-back, politely corrected the Donkey, and spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone else.
> > > Really? PPOSTFU. I'd like to see this alleged "snippy comment" to Manwolf.
> > I'm sorry, Mr. Pickanit. You spewed your typical snippy comments at everyone (that is, everyone who you realized) had submitted a negative opinion on your work.
> Nonsense; the only person who submitted a negative opinion" of my work was jr sherman, and he was already being flamed before that -- by me, Manwolf, and msifg -- for his trolling. He just started trying to insult the poem and me as his part in that little flamewar.
>

Are you really that delusional?

As someone else recently noted, you really are Canada's version of Will Donkey.

> > > > > > Note that Will Dockery further down the thread didn't understand or didn't read the previous posts.
> > > > > That's funny; it looked to me like Will understood jr sherman's (and Karla's) posts:
> > > > That's funny; it looked to me like you needed to set Will straight on that point:
> > > >
> > > > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> > > >
> > > > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> > > > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > > To which he replied that the whole thing was mine (see above). Of course I didn't and don't want any of it but my 3 lines.
> > What has that got to do with anything, George?
> You're misrepresenting what Will said (in addition to what sherman, Karla, and Manwolf said), and I'm correcting you. Again, if you ignore the corrections and keep repeating your stories, I'll feel free to call you a liar for that, too.
>

The comments are all there for all to read, and interpret, for themselves.

> > The Donkey either hadn't read the thread before responding, or else he failed to understand what had actually taken place. Either way, he was acting like his usual clueless self.
> Wrong. I already explained what he was doing: reacting to sherman's bragging about his "Tinker-Toy" by pointing out that he'd lifted all the lines from me.

Stop lying.

WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

> > You claimed that Will understood Jr and Karla's posts.
> What's to understand? Their game was simple: "fucking with him [ie with me] like a cat plays with a mouse" as sherman put it.

Stop lying.

WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

> > It is clear that he mistook their verses for yours.
> No, it isn't. As I see it, he was pointing out that they were using all of my own lines; pretending to be "better" poets but not managing to write a line of poetry, let alone a poem, in this thread. He was subtly trolling a couple of trolls

Stop lying.

WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.>

> I understand Will's your main enemy here, so you can't resist an opportunity to make up another story about him; but that's all you're doing again.

Stop lying.

WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

> > This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that you have lied.
>
> > > > Rather than address NancyGene's point: that you swap slurps with those who praise your work, and snip at those who don't
> NG's "point" is just as misleading as yours have been. I didn't "snip" anyone's comments. I flamed a couple of trolls who'd flamed me first, that's all, and did not flame anyone (msifg, Manwolf, FarStar, or Will) who wasn't already flaming first.
>

NancyGene said that you don't accept criticism graciously. You don't. This thread demonstrates that you don't. Other threads demonstrate that you don't. Whenever anyone dislikes one of your poems, you claim that they are part of some vast conspiracy against you.

> > , you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread.
> Didn't I just call you out on making a lame from some other thread? Indeed I did.

If you did, you were probably mistaken.

> > > > > > "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."
> > > > > - Gary Gamble
> > > > Mr. Gamble's observation still holds true today
> > > It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".
> > It says that Gamble is not incapable of making typos. So what?
> If you're calling someone else an 'illiterate' for making a typo, you should make sure you don't make any yourself. Otherwise, like Gamble, you'll look like a fool.

That is true. Gamble's typo compromises his statement.

However, said compromise is superficial and irrelevant at best. The basis of his statement (regardless of his typo) remains true.

> > > Your comment says a lot about you, too, Michael. You don't even know FarStar, but ggamble's the enemy of your enemy, so you're quite happy to call FarStar an illiterate yourself.
>
> > Don't be silly, George. I called FarStar illiterate for claiming that he'd "heard" your poem. That's not a typo, but a clear instance of his not knowing what a common word means.
> Not really. Perhaps he reads the poems out loud to judge them. You're just flaming him because you've chosen sides in this 14-year-old flame war you two dug up: FarStar's the friend of your enemy.
>

If he read it out loud he would have *spoken* it -- not *heard* it.

You're starting to sound as dumb as Will Donkey.

> > > > -- although you now have three functionally illiterate fans. Kudos.
> > > Oh, I bet you say that to all your enemies.
> > I don't see you as my enemy, George.
> I was talking about the three people you were calling "functionally illiterate", not me. For someone who likes to go around calling other people "illiterate," you sure don't read very well, do you?
>

Let's see what what actually said:

GARY GAMBLE: It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate.
MMP: Mr. Gamble's observation still holds true today -- although you now have three functionally illiterate fans. Kudos.
GEORGE DANCE: Oh, I bet you say that to all your enemies.
MMP: I don't see you as my enemy, George.
GEORGE DANCE: I was talking about the three people you were calling "functionally illiterate", not me. For someone who likes to go around calling other people "illiterate," you sure don't read very well, do you?

Which one of us doesn't read very well, George?

> > I do, however, see you as a possessing an extremely fragile ego, and hypersensitive to negative criticism (whether perceived or intended).
> That sounds to me like more projection on your part.

IKYABWAI much, George?

> > Your trio of illiterate fan bois is an example of your desperate need for praise, regardless of its source.
> Sorry, Michael; I'm not the one whose goal in life is to get slurps. It sounds like you're confusing me with one of your own "fan bois."

Bullshit.

You side with the three mentally defective idiots who flood this group with dozens of "hello" posts a day because they stick a "Well put" after each of your posts.

If you gave a crap about AAPC, you would not condone such behavior that can only run AAPC even further into the ground.

[Will Dockery]

You nailed it, George.

> > This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that you have lied.
>
> > > > Rather than address NancyGene's point: that you swap slurps with those who praise your work, and snip at those who don't
> NG's "point" is just as misleading as yours have been. I didn't "snip" anyone's comments. I flamed a couple of trolls who'd flamed me first, that's all, and did not flame anyone (msifg, Manwolf, FarStar, or Will) who wasn't already flaming first.
> > , you resort to making a spelling lame from some other thread.
> Didn't I just call you out on making a lame from some other thread? Indeed I did.
> > > > > > "It must really suck when your only fan if functionally illiterate."
> > > > > - Gary Gamble
> > > > Mr. Gamble's observation still holds true today
> > > It says a lot about Gary Gamble: he couldn't call someone else an "illiterate" without making a spelling mistake. Sort of like your NastyGoon "colleague".
> > It says that Gamble is not incapable of making typos. So what?
> If you're calling someone else an 'illiterate' for making a typo, you should make sure you don't make any yourself. Otherwise, like Gamble, you'll look like a fool.
> > > Your comment says a lot about you, too, Michael. You don't even know FarStar, but ggamble's the enemy of your enemy, so you're quite happy to call FarStar an illiterate yourself.
>
> > Don't be silly, George. I called FarStar illiterate for claiming that he'd "heard" your poem. That's not a typo, but a clear instance of his not knowing what a common word means.
> Not really. Perhaps he reads the poems out loud to judge them. You're just flaming him because you've chosen sides in this 14-year-old flame war you two dug up: FarStar's the friend of your enemy.
> > > > -- although you now have three functionally illiterate fans. Kudos.
> > > Oh, I bet you say that to all your enemies.
> > I don't see you as my enemy, George.
> I was talking about the three people you were calling "functionally illiterate", not me. For someone who likes to go around calling other people "illiterate," you sure don't read very well, do you?
> > I do, however, see you as a possessing an extremely fragile ego, and hypersensitive to negative criticism (whether perceived or intended).
> That sounds to me like more projection on your part.
> > Your trio of illiterate fan bois is an example of your desperate need for praise, regardless of its source.
> Sorry, Michael; I'm not the one whose goal in life is to get slurps. It sounds like you're confusing me with one of your own "fan bois."

And so it goes.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 12:40:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:29:09 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:25:14 PM UTC-4, General-Zod wrote:
> > > >> George J. Dance wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > February
> > > >> > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> > > >> > the curve of your cheek.

> > >

> > > Cool poem, G.D...!
> > Thanks, but it's a good lesson in humility for me: after a few days of thinking about the poem, I'm no longer happy with it, so I think I have to revise it again.
> >
> > The problem is with the word "dreams" -- the more I think about it, the more I think that word doesn't add anything to the poem, but instead obscures the meaning -- which is why Michael Monkey and NastyGoon seemingly can't understand it. Neither the waves or my wife's face are "dreams," so why call them that?
> >
> Stop lying, George.

Stop trolling, Michael. You've already told us that you couldn't figure out what the poem meant:

"the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."

> NancyGene and I are arguing that any author of a three-line poem must necessarily believe that it says something profound.

We're discussing your so-called "argument" in another part of the thread. There's no reason for you to bring it up here, except as another deflection.

<snip>

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:14:36 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 12:40:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:29:09 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:25:14 PM UTC-4, General-Zod wrote:
> > > > >> George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> > February
> > > > >> > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > >> > the curve of your cheek.
>
> > > >
> > > > Cool poem, G.D...!
> > > Thanks, but it's a good lesson in humility for me: after a few days of thinking about the poem, I'm no longer happy with it, so I think I have to revise it again.
> > >
> > > The problem is with the word "dreams" -- the more I think about it, the more I think that word doesn't add anything to the poem, but instead obscures the meaning -- which is why Michael Monkey and NastyGoon seemingly can't understand it. Neither the waves or my wife's face are "dreams," so why call them that?
> > >
> > Stop lying, George.
> Stop trolling, Michael. You've already told us that you couldn't figure out what the poem meant:
> "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."

Here is my unedited statement:

Stop lying, George.

NancyGene and I are arguing that any author of a three-line poem must necessarily believe that it says something profound.

We base this in the obvious fact, that there is no other valid reason for writing such a short piece.

It's basically a haiku with irregular feet -- and the *point* of a haiku is that the juxtaposition of the first two lines creates a deeper meaning that is expressed by the third.

[END QUOTE]

You're getting as snip-happy as your Donkey.

You posted your poem for the obvious reason that you thought it had something worthwhile to say.

But your string of three unrelated thought fragments has no inherent meaning. It can say anything that you, or your reader, wish to make it say.

Karla and Jr mocked you for posting this non-sense by rearranging your lines without harming, improving, or significantly modifying your poem's meaning in any way.

> > NancyGene and I are arguing that any author of a three-line poem must necessarily believe that it says something profound.
> We're discussing your so-called "argument" in another part of the thread. There's no reason for you to bring it up here, except as another deflection.

There is every reason to bring it up, here.

You falsely claimed that we did not understand the poem. That is a lie.

We understand exactly what you poem is -- and while Karla and Jr chose to mock it as they did.

We can also take a more-or-less accurate guess at your *intended* meaning. As originally posted, your poem purports to list a pair of "unnoticed dreams" as designated by your inclusion of a colon at the end of line one. Of course, there is no such thing as an unnoticed dream, and if there were, it is hard to see how ocean waves in winter or the curve of someone's cheek would qualify as "dreams."

Your poem comes across as precisely what Karla and Jr portrayed it to be: a trio of unrelated, unintelligible, and interchangeable, thought fragments.

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:14:36 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 12:40:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:29:09 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:25:14 PM UTC-4, General-Zod wrote:
> > > > >> George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> > February
> > > > >> > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > >> > the curve of your cheek.
>
> > > >
> > > > Cool poem, G.D...!
> > > Thanks, but it's a good lesson in humility for me: after a few days of thinking about the poem, I'm no longer happy with it, so I think I have to revise it again.
> > >
> > > The problem is with the word "dreams" -- the more I think about it, the more I think that word doesn't add anything to the poem, but instead obscures the meaning -- which is why Michael Monkey and NastyGoon seemingly can't understand it. Neither the waves or my wife's face are "dreams," so why call them that?
> > >
> > Stop lying, George.
> Stop trolling, Michael.

Michael Pendragon stop lying and trolling?

Not likely.

> You've already told us that you couldn't figure out what the poem meant:
> "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."
> > NancyGene and I are arguing that any author of a three-line poem must necessarily believe that it says something profound.
> We're discussing your so-called "argument" in another part of the thread. There's no reason for you to bring it up here, except as another deflection.
>
> <snip>

...

[George Dance]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:54:55 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:39:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Will Donkey" wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:35:06 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> > > "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
> > Yes, Michael. I just gave you the definition; I'm glad to see you learned it.
> That's an idiotic comment for you to make.
>

It was idiotic of you to pretend you were telling me what "profound" means, when I'd just quoted the definition you were reading.

> Do you really think you can bait me into an argument over whether I knew the meaning of a word? Or that my engaging in such an argument would divert readers away from the actual point NancyGene had raised?

NG's "point" was that I and "others" disagreed on whether my poem was "profound." In fact, no one had said anything about that -- no one had even used the word -- until NG jumped in..

> (One can see why so many AAPC members past and present have seen fit to refer to you as "Dancypants.")

So far in this thread we've seen you and jr shermancall me that. I'm sure you can get NG to call me "Dancypants" too, or even call in your other 3 flunkies, too, if you think it will help you win your "argument".

> Since we agree upon the definition of profound, let's substitute it in NancyGene's original statement:
>
> "Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as having intellectual depth and insight?"

I already told you that.
> > > > I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you and your "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?

> Well... are you?

I did; you just failed to read it or remember it. Both you and NG have failed to answer my above question, BTW.

> What else worth sharing could a 3-line, one sentence poem possibly offer?

Well, let's see. NG posted one yesterday: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/6_n1BNGTjbY/m/pZjf2ry0AAAJ?hl=en

Ask them why they shared it; I'd be surprised if even they claimed they shared because it was "profound".

> What do you think makes it "shareworthy," George?

The fact that so many have liked it, Michael.

> As previously noted: a *real* haiku (not the imitations posted by amateurs who fail to understand the form) uses the juxtaposition of the first two lines to create a deep and/or insightful meaning which is expressed by the third.
>

Your "real haiku" sound like Real Scotsman.

> If you don't consider that intellectually deep, then you've either never read an actual haiku, or you've failed to understand how haiku works.

I don't think you understand haiku very well, either, but I also think you're trying to deflect the discussion into a debate on haiku; so I won't rise to your bait.

> All of the above comments relate, either directly or indirectly, to your poem. Will Donkey confusedly mistook Sherman's additional (spoof) lines as having been part of your work.

We've been through that. Five of the 8 people in the thread didn't make any "comments" on my poem, period.

> Stop playing the dunce. I summarized each of the 8 comments earlier in this thread. I could not possibly have summarized them without first having read them, now could I?

You didn't "summarize" them accurately. That leads me to think that you may have looked at them, but nothing else.

> WTF is wrong with you, George?
>
> The thread is here. Scroll up and you can read every post made in it in its entirety (except for your response to ManWolf which you deleted).

I'll keep reminding you I have read the thread (except for that deleted comment, which you and NG are claiming to have seen but of course I'm not taking your word for that.

> If I have made a lie, point it out.
>

I 've been doing that, and I'll continue to do so.

> I can easily scroll up and identify the specific statement I was referring to.

And you can just as easily "scroll up" and identify which statements of yours I've already pointed out were lies.

> Your constant unfounded accusations only show what a malicious little Goebbels-quoting liar you truly are.

> >

> Here are Sherman's exact words:
> "hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.
>
> or a Mr. Potato Head.
> man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!"
> [End Quote]
>
> NEWSFLASH: Sherman compared your poem to playing with children's toys -- specifically Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head (a sly comment on Mensa George).

Wrong. "Tinker Toys" and "Legos" are units you assemble in different ways to make different things -- just like sherman was doing with the lines of my original poem. His comment described the "poetry shit" he'd just finished writing.

> Sherman's statement (reproduced above) supports my own; and shows what a deceitful p.o.s. you are.

As I've noted, you were misrepresenting his statement. Maybe you should go back and reread it in context.

> Karla' and Sherman's spoofs implicitly make such a statement.

IOW, neither Karla nor jr sherman made any such statement; you and NG just made it up.

> You're either playing the dunce again, or willfully closing your eyes to the truth.

Now it's my turn to wonder WTF is wrong with you. Even if one of those had actually said what you made up and tried to attribute to them, remember that they were both trolling here. Why would it matter if a couple of trolls had said that?

> Again, that is what her spoof undeniably implies. Deal with it.

As I've told you before, in a discussion of another one of my poems, you don't understand implication at all; you constantly use the word to mean whatever you pops into your imagination when you read something.

> Manwolf is laughing at you, just as everyone else in the thread (except for FarStar and your Donkey) is laughing at you.

No, Manwolf wasn't laughing at anyone. Who was else in the thread? Just the 4 trolls and msifg. I think you're lying when you say he was laughing at me, too. While the 4 trolls probably were, or at least pretending to; that's what trolls do.

> Hell, I'm even laughing at you now.

Like I said; that's what trolls do.

> > > > > Why? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
> > > > > and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
> > > > > tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
> > > > > take that over hollow and pompous verse any day."
> > (Note "HE's actually managed to ... play around with YOUR words" (stress added)
> Granted.
>
> However, it is still unclear as to whether the last line refers to Sherman's poetry... or yours.

No, it isn't. He's talking about sherman's "Tinker Toy" poem throughout. He talked about my poem separately.

> Assuming that he isn't on a "team," he could be criticizing you both.

I haven't denied that he criticized my poem. Not in the post you quoted, though.

> As for Karla and Sherman, I have addressed both claims above. Sherman compared your poem to playing with Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head; and Karla's further switching around of your words *implicitly* demonstrates that they are interchangeable and therefore worthless.

As I've pointed out, you're lying or confused about Sherman's comment; he was comparing his own reassembly to "playing with Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head." Karla was just playing along with him; there was no sign she had an opinion on my poem at all.

> Stop lying, George.
>
> I criticized your poetry accurately and fairly.

You certainly haven't been doing that in this thread.

> If you can't handle the truth, that's just too bad.
>
> Now pull down your pajama bottoms, assume the position, and silently await your punishment.

Thanks for bringing up "My Father's House" -- another poem of mine that I see you're still lying about to this day. I think those are enough to identify "I criticized your poetry accurately and fairly" as another lie.

> Yet, as NancyGene pointed out, you bitched, moaned, whined, cried, threw assorted hissyfits, and spewed out insults in exchange for every negative comment that was made.

The "negative comments" as I've said, were coming from trolls -- and they were replies in kind.

> If you wish to claim illiteracy for yourself, I doubt that many here would argue over it.

I doubt that many would believe it; but, hey, you like calling people "illiterates" so you go right ahead.

> Is FarStar one of General Stink's pseudonyms?

I think I've already answered that as well. Of course FarStar wsn't Zod.

> > Your "reporting" has all been wrong so far. At this point, I think NG's reason for not wanting us to read the backthread was so you two could make up your own, misleading and error-ridden, story about it.
> >
> Another of your bizarre conspiracy theories.

Oh, really? Are you claiming that it's just a "coincidence" that you two made up your own, misleading and error-ridden, story about it?

> The backthread necessarily exists as the entire thread (less the post that you deleted) exists.

> See above.

> Who is FarStar and where has his work appeared?

He's posted poems here; go and search for them.

> Bulllshit.
>
> Will shot his mouth off without having read any of the posts. That's the Donkey way:
> PJR: Do you ever read the posts to which you reply?
> WILL DOCKERY: Okay, good point.

> I doubt it as well: hence my sarcasm.

> > > > >

> > It's quite clear what you were doing. Rather than deal with that Will actually said, you were just making a lame from some other thread.
> Stop lying.

Your lame ("I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious" came from a PPB thread called "March" by Mary Slade.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/c/rsCInRw4suE/m/QkxQjf6wAQAJ?hl=en
Everyone, including you and your flunkies, remembers that thread. Why would you be so stupid as to pretend it didn't exist?

You must be getting upset. I note that you start calling everyone a liar, and every statement a lie, when you get upset.

> WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

> Are you really that delusional?
>
> As someone else recently noted, you really are Canada's version of Will Donkey.

Yep, sounds like you're breaking down into incoherence.

> The comments are all there for all to read, and interpret, for themselves.

I know, Michael; I've spent going back and rereading them. That's why I can say with confidence that you're lying about and misrepresenting them from your first post in this thread.

> Stop lying.
> WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

> Stop lying.
> WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

> Stop lying.
> WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.>

> Stop lying.
> WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

MELTDOWN!

-- and that's more than enough of Michael Monkey for one night.

<snip>

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:36:19 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:39:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:54:55 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:39:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Will Donkey" wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:35:06 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
> > > > "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
> > > Yes, Michael. I just gave you the definition; I'm glad to see you learned it.
> > That's an idiotic comment for you to make.
> >
> It was idiotic of you to pretend you were telling me what "profound" means, when I'd just quoted the definition you were reading.

Everyone knows what profound means, George.

I was trying to show as dunce that NancyGene's statement fully coincided with his definition.

Unfortunately, explaining something to a dunce is as fruitless as explaining something to a Donkey.

IOW: Potatoes are potatoes; you're Mr. Yukon Gold.

> > Do you really think you can bait me into an argument over whether I knew the meaning of a word? Or that my engaging in such an argument would divert readers away from the actual point NancyGene had raised?
> NG's "point" was that I and "others" disagreed on whether my poem was "profound." In fact, no one had said anything about that -- no one had even used the word -- until NG jumped in..
>

Wrong again.

NancyGene said that you must have believed your 3-line poem to be profound ("having intellectual depth and insight") or else you would not have posted it.

If you didn't think your 3-line poem was profound, why did you post here?

Are you like Will Donkey in that you believe every thought (or whatever passes for one) that enters your brain needs to be shared?

> > (One can see why so many AAPC members past and present have seen fit to refer to you as "Dancypants.")
> So far in this thread we've seen you and jr shermancall me that. I'm sure you can get NG to call me "Dancypants" too, or even call in your other 3 flunkies, too, if you think it will help you win your "argument".
>

A search for "Dancypants" pulls up results dating back to 2009.

Your moral cowardice turned up in these results as well, when Barbara's Cat wrote:

There once was a coward named Dance
too ball-less to take a /man's/ stance
and write the word "queer"
because he did fear
that Rik would kick him in the pants.

> > Since we agree upon the definition of profound, let's substitute it in NancyGene's original statement:
> >
> > "Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as having intellectual depth and insight?"
> I already told you that.
> > > > > I didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you and your "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?
>
> > Well... are you?
>
> I did; you just failed to read it or remember it. Both you and NG have failed to answer my above question, BTW.

If you are, you need to explain why you bothered posting it at all.

As to your question, I've answered it several times. I shall now answer it again (please try paying attention): There is no conceivable reason why anyone would post a 3-line poem to a poetry group unless he felt that it had something deep or insightful to say.

Got that? Or do I need to repeat it in ALL CAPS?

> > What else worth sharing could a 3-line, one sentence poem possibly offer?
> Well, let's see. NG posted one yesterday: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/6_n1BNGTjbY/m/pZjf2ry0AAAJ?hl=en

A) NancyGene is spoofing your poem. Once again, you are incapable of understanding the concept of humor.
B) NancyGene's poem is making an insightful commentary on your poem. Again, contextual meaning is as foreign to you as humor.
C) Attempting to divert the argument to what someone else did, amounts to an admission that you were wrong.

> Ask them why they shared it; I'd be surprised if even they claimed they shared because it was "profound".

I don't need to ask. The poem makes for an insightful commentary on your poem. It is therefore, in accordance with our agreed upon definition, profound.

Now explain why you posted yours.

> > What do you think makes it "shareworthy," George?
> The fact that so many have liked it, Michael.

I don't see where anyone other than FarStar liked it. I'm discounting the Donkey because A) he obviously didn't read or poem, or understand where yours ended and Jr's and Karla's began; and 2) because the Donkey has made it clear that he will call *every* post you make "interesting," "well put," etc.

One like doesn't even begin to constitute "so many."

> > As previously noted: a *real* haiku (not the imitations posted by amateurs who fail to understand the form) uses the juxtaposition of the first two lines to create a deep and/or insightful meaning which is expressed by the third.
> >
> Your "real haiku" sound like Real Scotsman.

I've no idea what you're referring to -- but am guessing that it's yet another attempt at diversion via a strawman argument. If I bite, you'll launch into a diversionary spew about something I said 9 years ago that you thought was wrong.

> > If you don't consider that intellectually deep, then you've either never read an actual haiku, or you've failed to understand how haiku works.
> I don't think you understand haiku very well, either, but I also think you're trying to deflect the discussion into a debate on haiku; so I won't rise to your bait.

I have offered a clear and concise description of how a haiku is supposed to work. You have not. You can choose not to discuss the topic, as it would take us on an only marginally related tangent; but to dismiss my description without offering one of your own, is simply blowing smoke out of your ass.

> > All of the above comments relate, either directly or indirectly, to your poem. Will Donkey confusedly mistook Sherman's additional (spoof) lines as having been part of your work.
> We've been through that. Five of the 8 people in the thread didn't make any "comments" on my poem, period.

Contextually, they did.

> > Stop playing the dunce. I summarized each of the 8 comments earlier in this thread. I could not possibly have summarized them without first having read them, now could I?
> You didn't "summarize" them accurately. That leads me to think that you may have looked at them, but nothing else.

I summarized them accurately. You didn't summarize them at all.

If you wish to offer your own summary and compare the two, be my guest. Otherwise, you're just blowing more smoke.

> > WTF is wrong with you, George?
> >
> > The thread is here. Scroll up and you can read every post made in it in its entirety (except for your response to ManWolf which you deleted).
> I'll keep reminding you I have read the thread (except for that deleted comment, which you and NG are claiming to have seen but of course I'm not taking your word for that.
>

You don't need to take our word for anything. If you go to Google Groups and scroll up, you will see that one message has been deleted. I don't know what it said, but I believe that NancyGene uses a newsreader and does.

> > If I have made a lie, point it out.
> >
> I 've been doing that, and I'll continue to do so.

Then do it. Stop blowing smoke and point one out HERE:

> > I can easily scroll up and identify the specific statement I was referring to.
> And you can just as easily "scroll up" and identify which statements of yours I've already pointed out were lies.

Then do it.

I can't address your accusations until you identify them.

But we both know that you're just blowing more smoke.

You're just a smarter version of the Donkey. His troll tactic is to persist in idiotic claims an behaviors ("Hello Jordy") until everyone gets sick of responding to him and "skips and ignores" his nonsense. You make false accusations and unsupported claims, incorrectly restate what everyone says, pretend to misunderstand what others say, etc., in order to achieve the same end.

Like I said, Yukon Gold.

> > Your constant unfounded accusations only show what a malicious little Goebbels-quoting liar you truly are.
>
> > >
> > Here are Sherman's exact words:
> > "hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.
> >
> > or a Mr. Potato Head.
> > man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!"
> > [End Quote]
> >
> > NEWSFLASH: Sherman compared your poem to playing with children's toys -- specifically Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head (a sly comment on Mensa George).
> Wrong. "Tinker Toys" and "Legos" are units you assemble in different ways to make different things -- just like sherman was doing with the lines of my original poem. His comment described the "poetry shit" he'd just finished writing.
>

So is Mr. Potato Head, and all three are children's toys.

Sherman spanked you and you were too dense to realize it.

> > Sherman's statement (reproduced above) supports my own; and shows what a deceitful p.o.s. you are.
> As I've noted, you were misrepresenting his statement. Maybe you should go back and reread it in context.

Contextually, Sherman said that he cold reassemble your poem as easily as playing with children's toys that "are units you assemble in different ways to make different things."

Mr. Yukon Gold Head.

> > Karla' and Sherman's spoofs implicitly make such a statement.
> IOW, neither Karla nor jr sherman made any such statement; you and NG just made it up.

Look up "implicit" and get back to me.

> > You're either playing the dunce again, or willfully closing your eyes to the truth.
> Now it's my turn to wonder WTF is wrong with you. Even if one of those had actually said what you made up and tried to attribute to them, remember that they were both trolling here. Why would it matter if a couple of trolls had said that?
>

I remember no such thing, George. I wasn't here at the time. AFAIK they were both poets. That they didn't seem to think very highly of you doesn't make them trolls.

I don't think very highly of you, and I don't consider myself to be a troll. Quite the contrary: I'm actively trying to engage in poetry-based discussions, critique, comment on, and publish poetry by AAPC members.

Once again, you sound like the Donkey, braying that everyone who dislikes him is a "malicious troll."

> > Again, that is what her spoof undeniably implies. Deal with it.
> As I've told you before, in a discussion of another one of my poems, you don't understand implication at all; you constantly use the word to mean whatever you pops into your imagination when you read something.
>

You wish. That would allow you to keep your blinders on. Karla and Sherman were mocking you. They were laughing at your expense and everyone (except for FarStar and the Donkey) was laughing along with them.

> > Manwolf is laughing at you, just as everyone else in the thread (except for FarStar and your Donkey) is laughing at you.
> No, Manwolf wasn't laughing at anyone. Who was else in the thread? Just the 4 trolls and msifg. I think you're lying when you say he was laughing at me, too. While the 4 trolls probably were, or at least pretending to; that's what trolls do.
>

Whether Manwolf was laughing at you is questionable.

> > Hell, I'm even laughing at you now.
> Like I said; that's what trolls do.

No. That's what people who think you're a dunce do.

Unless you can find a credible source that defines "troll" as "Anyone who thinks George Dance is a dunce," you're simply sticking your fingers in your ears and calling names.

> > > > > > Why? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
> > > > > > and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
> > > > > > tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
> > > > > > take that over hollow and pompous verse any day."
> > > (Note "HE's actually managed to ... play around with YOUR words" (stress added)
> > Granted.
> >
> > However, it is still unclear as to whether the last line refers to Sherman's poetry... or yours.
> No, it isn't. He's talking about sherman's "Tinker Toy" poem throughout. He talked about my poem separately.

Funny how his description fits your poetry to a T.

> > Assuming that he isn't on a "team," he could be criticizing you both.
> I haven't denied that he criticized my poem. Not in the post you quoted, though.

Whatever.

A criticism is a criticism is a criticism.

> > As for Karla and Sherman, I have addressed both claims above. Sherman compared your poem to playing with Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head; and Karla's further switching around of your words *implicitly* demonstrates that they are interchangeable and therefore worthless.
> As I've pointed out, you're lying or confused about Sherman's comment; he was comparing his own reassembly to "playing with Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head." Karla was just playing along with him; there was no sign she had an opinion on my poem at all.
>

No, George. As I've pointed out, he was laughing in your face.

> > Stop lying, George.
> >
> > I criticized your poetry accurately and fairly.
> You certainly haven't been doing that in this thread.

I haven't critiqued your poem in this thread, George.

I've made comments about it as called for to explain a point, but a negative comment is hardly a critique.

And, as you've already noted, once you followed NancyGene's advice and changed your opening line from "dreams" (which made no sense, and rendered the following lines equally nonsensical) to "beauty," the poem, at least, made sense. (That doesn't mean that it's any good. But, at least, it's no longer unintelligible, interchangeable gibberish.)

> > If you can't handle the truth, that's just too bad.
> >
> > Now pull down your pajama bottoms, assume the position, and silently await your punishment.
> Thanks for bringing up "My Father's House" -- another poem of mine that I see you're still lying about to this day. I think those are enough to identify "I criticized your poetry accurately and fairly" as another lie.
>

I have not lied about your poem, George. I honestly believe it is one of your worst. It isn't Donkey-bad, but it isn't far from it.

> > Yet, as NancyGene pointed out, you bitched, moaned, whined, cried, threw assorted hissyfits, and spewed out insults in exchange for every negative comment that was made.
> The "negative comments" as I've said, were coming from trolls -- and they were replies in kind.

Bullshit.

The negative comments were justified. You need to learn how to take the negative comments along with the positive and/or constructive ones with some semblance of grace.

> > If you wish to claim illiteracy for yourself, I doubt that many here would argue over it.
> I doubt that many would believe it; but, hey, you like calling people "illiterates" so you go right ahead.

Will Donkey and his Stink can barely read at a 4th Grade level. Calling them "illiterate" is practically a kindness.

As to you, many here have expressed their belief that you are. In fact, when I first came here, PJR said that he wondered how long it would take me to find out just how illiterate you and your Donkey actually were.

For the record, I don't think that you're illiterate -- just childish, petty, and full of yourself (without cause). But I have argued against your supposed illiteracy with enough people enough times to know of what I speak.

> > Is FarStar one of General Stink's pseudonyms?
> I think I've already answered that as well. Of course FarStar wsn't Zod.

Of course, nothing. FarStar sounds like Stink to me. And since Stink has come and gone and come back since I've been here, it requires no stretch of the imagination to think that he might have done so in the past.

> > > Your "reporting" has all been wrong so far. At this point, I think NG's reason for not wanting us to read the backthread was so you two could make up your own, misleading and error-ridden, story about it.
> > >
> > Another of your bizarre conspiracy theories.
> Oh, really? Are you claiming that it's just a "coincidence" that you two made up your own, misleading and error-ridden, story about it?

We've made nothing up, George. The entire thread (less one deleted post) is here. Right HERE. In this thread. NancyGene didn't delete any portion of the thread. Scroll up and see. What you call the "backthread" is all right HERE. WTF are you claiming is missing?

> > The backthread necessarily exists as the entire thread (less the post that you deleted) exists.
> > See above.
> > Who is FarStar and where has his work appeared?
> He's posted poems here; go and search for them.

If he posted them under his pseudonym, that won't tell me who he is or where his work was published.

If he posted them under his real name, then a search for "FarStar" won't pull them up.

> > Bulllshit.
> >
> > Will shot his mouth off without having read any of the posts. That's the Donkey way:
> > PJR: Do you ever read the posts to which you reply?
> > WILL DOCKERY: Okay, good point.
> > I doubt it as well: hence my sarcasm.
>
> > > > > >
> > > It's quite clear what you were doing. Rather than deal with that Will actually said, you were just making a lame from some other thread.
> > Stop lying.
> Your lame ("I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious" came from a PPB thread called "March" by Mary Slade.
> https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/c/rsCInRw4suE/m/QkxQjf6wAQAJ?hl=en
> Everyone, including you and your flunkies, remembers that thread. Why would you be so stupid as to pretend it didn't exist?

Will actually complimented you on how brilliantly your rearrangement of the lines worked. YOU then explained to him that you'd only written the three original lines, and not the rearrangements.

When you pretend that Will *meant* to say something else, I say that you are lying. If Will hadn't misspoken, you'd have had no reason to correct him.

> You must be getting upset. I note that you start calling everyone a liar, and every statement a lie, when you get upset.

Claiming that someone is getting upset (or butthurt, or confused, or having a meltdown, etc.) is the last, desperate tactic of a child who knows he's lost the argument. it won't wash here.

> > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> > Are you really that delusional?
> >
> > As someone else recently noted, you really are Canada's version of Will Donkey.
> Yep, sounds like you're breaking down into incoherence.

What do you find incoherent about that, George?

Granted Will's claim that he likes "the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective" is a tad incoherent (since he failed to explain how the perspective shifted -- or what the perspective originally was); but your statement is perfectly clear in explaining his mistake.

> > The comments are all there for all to read, and interpret, for themselves.
> I know, Michael; I've spent going back and rereading them. That's why I can say with confidence that you're lying about and misrepresenting them from your first post in this thread.
>

Yet you cannot back up that claim with even one example.

Generalizations don't cut it. Post proof. Be specific.

> > Stop lying.
> > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
>
> > Stop lying.
> > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
>
> > Stop lying.
> > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.>
>
> > Stop lying.
> > WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
> > GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> MELTDOWN!

Try "canned response."

Each of your lies (which you've conveniently snipped) is proven to be such by your earlier exchange with Will (which I've quoted).

> -- and that's more than enough of Michael Monkey for one night.
>
> <snip>

And... we're back to the childish name-calling.

[W-Dockery]

>> Well, let's see. NG posted one yesterday: https://groups.google.com/g/alt..arts.poetry.comments/c/6_n1BNGTjbY/m/pZjf2ry0AAAJ?hl=en

> A) NancyGene is spoofing your poem. Once again, you are incapable of understanding the concept of humor.
> B) NancyGene's poem is making an insightful commentary on your poem. Again, contextual meaning is as foreign to you as humor.
> C) Attempting to divert the argument to what someone else did, amounts to an admission that you were wrong.

>> Ask them why they shared it; I'd be surprised if even they claimed they shared because it was "profound".

> I don't need to ask. The poem makes for an insightful commentary on your poem. It is therefore, in accordance with our agreed upon definition, profound.

> Now explain why you posted yours.

>> > What do you think makes it "shareworthy," George?
>> The fact that so many have liked it, Michael.

> I don't see where anyone other than FarStar liked it. I'm discounting the Donkey because A) he obviously didn't read or poem, or understand where yours ended and Jr's and Karla's began;

Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?

>> > As previously noted: a *real* haiku (not the imitations posted by amateurs who fail to understand the form) uses the juxtaposition of the first two lines to create a deep and/or insightful meaning which is expressed by the third.
>> >
>> Your "real haiku" sound like Real Scotsman.

>

>> > If you don't consider that intellectually deep, then you've either never read an actual haiku, or you've failed to understand how haiku works.
>
>> I don't think you understand haiku very well, either, but I also think you're trying to deflect the discussion into a debate on haiku; so I won't rise to your bait.

>

>

>> We've been through that. Five of the 8 people in the thread didn't make any "comments" on my poem, period.

>

>

>> You didn't "summarize" them accurately. That leads me to think that you may have looked at them, but nothing else.

>
>

>

>> > (except for your response to ManWolf which you deleted).

Can you post proof of this?

>> I'll keep reminding you I have read the thread (except for that deleted comment, which you and NG are claiming to have seen but of course I'm not taking your word for that.

If they've seen it they should be able to quote it.

> If you go to Google Groups and scroll up, you will see that one message has been deleted. I don't know what it said, but I believe that NancyGene uses a newsreader and does.

Anyone can look it up on Narkive.org.


In fact, I'll have a look right now.

<Snipped for brevity>

> childish, petty, and full of yourself

That's pretty funny coming from Michael Pendragon with his childish name calling and delusional statements such as thinking he's a better poet than T.S. Eliot and William Carlos Williams.

HTH and HAND.

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, February 9, 2009 at 6:31:36 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
>
> February
> Unnoticed dreams:
> ocean waves in winter,
> the curve of your cheek.

Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:

https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance

HTH and HAND.

[George Dance]

Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)

Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).

Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.

The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper.

[ME]

BULLSHIT!!!!

[Will Dockery]

Zod used to be Farstsr?

Amazing.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.

Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.

*Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him. Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.

HtH & HAND

[Will Dockery]

No, not really.

🙂

[George Dance]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:02:39 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:58:15 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 9, 2009 at 6:31:36 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> > > >
> > > > February
> > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
> > >
> > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > >
> > > HTH and HAND.
> > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
> >
> > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
> >
> > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
> >
> > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper.
> >
> Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.

We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?

> Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.

That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.

> *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him.

And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.

> Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.

So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:16:01 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:02:39 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:58:15 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 9, 2009 at 6:31:36 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > February
> > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
> > > >
> > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > > >
> > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
> > >
> > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
> > >
> > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
> > >
> > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper.
> > >
> > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
> We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?

What do you call this?

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc

> > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
> That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.

You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.

> > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him.
> And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.

I've done no such thing, George.

There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).

It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.

This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.

But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.

> > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
> So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
>

No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.

I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.

[George Dance]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:16:01 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:02:39 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:58:15 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, February 9, 2009 at 6:31:36 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > February
> > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > > > >
> > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
> > > >
> > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
> > > >
> > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
> > > >
> > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper.
> > > >
> > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
> > We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?
> What do you call this?
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc

The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?

> > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
> > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
> You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.

You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.

> > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him.
> > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
> I've done no such thing, George.
>
> There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).

So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.

> It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.

Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.

> This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
>
> But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.

Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.

However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it.

> > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
> > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
> >
> No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
>
> I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.

So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical.

[W-Dockery]

> Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman..

>> This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
>>
>> But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.

> Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.

> However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it.

>> > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
>> > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
>> >
>> No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
>>
>> I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.

> So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical.

Again, here's the complete thread:

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:58:15 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 9, 2009 at 6:31:36 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
>
> > > > > > February
> > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > > > >
> > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)

Apparently Michael Pendragon either missed or ignored the link, so here it is again:

https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance

> > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
> > > >
> > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
> > > >
> > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper.
> > > >
> > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
> > We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?
> What do you call this?
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc

That's called a repost of the revised poem:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

February

Unnoticed beauty:

ocean waves in winter,
the curve of your cheek.

- George J. Dance, 2023
____________________________________________

HTH and HAND.

[George Dance]

Nailed it, Will. :)

[Will Dockery]

Now time to go to Narkive and see what that mysterious deleted post is all about, rather than NancyGene and Pendragon's lies.

https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance

:)

[George Dance]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:36:40 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:14:36 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 12:40:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:29:09 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:25:14 PM UTC-4, General-Zod wrote:
> > > > > >> George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > February
> > > > > >> > Unnoticed dreams:
> > > > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > >> > the curve of your cheek.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cool poem, G.D...!
> > > > Thanks, but it's a good lesson in humility for me: after a few days of thinking about the poem, I'm no longer happy with it, so I think I have to revise it again.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is with the word "dreams" -- the more I think about it, the more I think that word doesn't add anything to the poem, but instead obscures the meaning -- which is why Michael Monkey and NastyGoon seemingly can't understand it. Neither the waves or my wife's face are "dreams," so why call them that?
> > > >
> > > Stop lying, George.
> > Stop trolling, Michael. You've already told us that you couldn't figure out what the poem meant:
> > "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."

> Here is my unedited statement:
>
> Stop lying, George.

At least stop making these false accusations, Michael.

> NancyGene and I are arguing that any author of a three-line poem must necessarily believe that it says something profound.

> We base this in the obvious fact, that there is no other valid reason for writing such a short piece.

As I've already told you, there are plenty of 3-line poems, written and published, that are not "profound," and were never meant to be.

> It's basically a haiku with irregular feet -- and the *point* of a haiku is that the juxtaposition of the first two lines creates a deeper meaning that is expressed by the third.

You're wrong. A haiku presents two images, in two sections, one of 2 lines and one of 1 line, and lets the reader infer his own "meaning."

> [END QUOTE]
>
> You're getting as snip-happy as your Donkey.

I've already dealt with all of that, Michael. You posted it here only as a troll, to deflect from the topic, and also from your own false accusation of lying.

> You posted your poem for the obvious reason that you thought it had something worthwhile to say.

> But your string of three unrelated thought fragments has no inherent meaning. It can say anything that you, or your reader, wish to make it say.

No, that's not true. "February" has a definite meaning. For you to say it doesn't tells me only that you didn't understand it.

> Karla and Jr mocked you for posting this non-sense by rearranging your lines without harming, improving, or significantly modifying your poem's meaning in any way.

As I've said, jr sherman was trolling -- playing with my lines like a child plays with Tinker Toys (as he described it himself), and Karla jumped playing along with him. It's certainly false that their Tinker Toy models didn't change the poem.

> > > NancyGene and I are arguing that any author of a three-line poem must necessarily believe that it says something profound.
> > We're discussing your so-called "argument" in another part of the thread. There's no reason for you to bring it up here, except as another deflection.
> There is every reason to bring it up, here.

The only one that I can see is that you like to keep trying to change the subject.

> You falsely claimed that we did not understand the poem. That is a lie.

There's your false accusation again. I said "Michael Monkey and NastyGoon seemingly can't understand" the poem. That was how it looked then, and that's how it still looks.

> We understand exactly what you poem is

"... what your poem is."
No you did not understand the poem. Your false claim that it had no meaning shows that you did not understand the meaning.

> -- and while Karla and Jr chose to mock it as they did.

Perhaps; or perhaps they were just trolling an "adversary." I couldn't read their minds.

You, OTOH, are pretending to read their minds, just like NG was pretending to read mine when they claimed I'd thought it was "profound."

> We can also take a more-or-less accurate guess at your *intended* meaning. As originally posted, your poem purports to list a pair of "unnoticed dreams" as designated by your inclusion of a colon at the end of line one. Of course, there is no such thing as an unnoticed dream, and if there were, it is hard to see how ocean waves in winter or the curve of someone's cheek would qualify as "dreams."
>
> Your poem comes across as precisely what Karla and Jr portrayed it to be: a trio of unrelated, unintelligible, and interchangeable, thought fragments.

As I said; that honestly sounds like you didn't understand it. Yet, when I pointed that out to Zod, you falsely accused me of lying. Grow up.

[W-Dockery]

>> We can also take a more-or-less accurate guess at your *intended* meaning.. As originally posted, your poem purports to list a pair of "unnoticed dreams" as designated by your inclusion of a colon at the end of line one. Of course, there is no such thing as an unnoticed dream, and if there were, it is hard to see how ocean waves in winter or the curve of someone's cheek would qualify as "dreams."

>>
>> Your poem comes across as precisely what Karla and Jr portrayed it to be: a trio of unrelated, unintelligible, and interchangeable, thought fragments.

> As I said; that honestly sounds like you didn't understand it. Yet, when I pointed that out to Zod, you falsely accused me of lying. Grow up.

You nailed it.

[Will Dockery]

Good evening, George, thanks.

🙂