Your question was an obvious attempt to deflect from the topic at hand.
> >> Funny, then, that you're the one that began talking about it. Now, do
> >> you mind answering the question?
> Non-answer #2
Again, your question is an attempt to deflect from the topic at hand (or... at belt).
> >>> The point is that you were conditioned to lie in your bed with your pajama bottoms pulled down in docile anticipation of a whipping.
> >> The point about that, Michael, is that you found that line in a poem,
> >> and just made up that it had happened to: and then went on to make up
> >> that I'd said it had happened to me.
> >>
> >> All you've found that I actually said happen to me is that I'd been
> >> beaten by my father as a child. So, since that is your entire point,
> >> I'll ask you again:
> >> Were you beaten by your father as a child?
> >
> Non-answer #3
Again, you question is an attempt to deflect from the issue at hand.
If you wish to know personal information about my childhood, you may ask me in another thread. (I'm not making any promises that I'll answer.)
> > That is not all I found by you, George. You said that your poem was "largely based on (your) own experience" and that you were subjected to "corporal punishment."
> That is the quotation we've been discussing, Michael. But we haven't
> commented on the "largely based ..." quotation.
"Largely based" would mean at least 50% -- and certainly gives the impression of a much larger percentage.
> > The two statements, taken in conjunction, strongly imply that the boy lying in bed with his bare ass exposed was George J. Dance.
> No, Michael, they really don't. "Largely based" implies that my poem is
> *not* entirely based on my own experiences (not strictly
> autobiographical); which goes for the one stanza you quoted as well as
> for the rest. You imagined that one was strictly autobiographical, and
> you liked that so much that you imagined that I'd told you that it was
> strictly autobiographical.
As previously noted the conjunction of your two statements make its autobiographical nature extremely probable.
> > But why drag this out? If you want to pretend that the bare-assed boy was one of the other boys who provided a much smaller portion of the basis of your poem, now would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
> i'll leave you with interpretation you prefer. But please stop
> pretending you have some evidence that that incident ever happened, and
> certainly not that I told you that it had happened. As much as I dislike
> calling you a liar again, what can I do when you're lying again?
In light of your previous statement/s: "The boy is a composite; largely based on my own experience...and most of
the boys (in my family) were subject to corporal punishment"; and barring any information to the contrary, one can only conclude that the bare-assed incident is autobiographical.
> > Barring this disclaimer to the contrary, the implication remains.
> >
> Imagine what you like; just stop pretending you're doing anything but
> imagaining.
No, George, I'm not imagining it.
I'm basing my conclusion on your statements. I cannot say that it is beyond any and all doubt 100% autobiographical; but I can say that it is so beyond a reasonable doubt. And beyond a reasonable doubt is all that the law requires for the jury to make base its verdict on.