Final Jeopardy for 11-1-22 in the Category "Poets"

[NancyGene]

"Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lovell’s Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 13."

None of the contestants guessed the correct "answer." Guesses were: Who is Pendragon, who is NancyGene, and who is Benders.

No Googling! We will know and you will be disqualified.

[Michael Pendragon]

I took a guess, Googled it, and was proven correct. However, that has also disqualified me from the competition.

The first seven lines of this poem are flawlessly written and exhibit the same powerful display of rhyme an meter that would characterize the poet's later work. The remaining nine lines falter at several points, but still show hints of promise.

[Spam-I-Am]

Wasn't the poet a rather short fellow with really long arms? Was his hair colored yellow?

[Ash Wurthing]

Pendragon was 13 in 1820?
*buzzer*
*Ash gets the crook and drug off stage*

[Michael Pendragon]

Not to reveal my true identity, but 13 isn't too far off the mark.

[Ash Wurthing]

o.O
NG, what was that link to the vampire hunting kit?
:P

[NancyGene]

We heard that you guessed correctly, but then were told you also Googled it. Trust your instincts!

[NancyGene]

Yes, but you need to write a name on the board.

[NancyGene]

Pendragon has always been with us.

[NancyGene]

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/c76h8-Y6QYU/m/ntsd327yEgAJ

Pendragon says he already has one, so he probably also has the antidote (machete-proof helmet?).

[Spam-I-Am]

I guess I cannot win the game,
and thus won’t take it to the bank
I can’t recall the fellow’s name,
but did he ever go by Hank?

[NancyGene]

As some men will grow tall, he wasn’t very long,
but into every fellow’s life some rain must fall.
As ships passing in the night, their song
tells us we didn’t really know Hank at all.

[Ash Wurthing]

Damned those gorgets! And here I thought they stopped using them. And ballistic vests have trauma plates to protect the heart...

[Rachel]

i took a guess, looked it up, and i got it.

[Michael Pendragon]

Copycat.

[%]

Michael Pendragon wrote:
> Copycat.
>
fuckwit

[Spam-I-Am]

Frozen cow patty.

[Ash Wurthing]

Hah! I made Google gag! It told me no! No more! I was not allowed to post any more...
So I never posted my response and now all I can do is mourn the loss opportunity for someone to be relevant...
So sad that :(

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."
--Cool Hand Luke

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:

I haven't googled it but I also haven't seen an answer in the thread. I
believe his initials are HWL.

--
"If the viewer doesn't read the language the film is in, that's why
subtitles are provided." - Will Dockery being his usual incoherent self.

[NancyGene]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> > "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lovell’s
> > Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 13."
> >
> > None of the contestants guessed the correct "answer." Guesses were:
> > Who is Pendragon, who is NancyGene, and who is Benders.
> >
> > No Googling! We will know and you will be disqualified.
> I haven't googled it but I also haven't seen an answer in the thread. I
> believe his initials are HWL.
>

Cujo, could you expand your answer? We don't have a name yet.

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was a poet from Maine in the 1800's and is my
best guess. I didn't want to give it away.

[Ash Wurthing]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 7:24:10 PM UTC-4, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> > wrote:
> >> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >> > "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lovel
> > l’s
> >> > Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 13."
> >
> >> >
> >> > None of the contestants guessed the correct "answer." Guesses were:
> >> > Who is Pendragon, who is NancyGene, and who is Benders.
> >> >
> >> > No Googling! We will know and you will be disqualified.
> >> I haven't googled it but I also haven't seen an answer in the thread.
> >> I
> >
> >> believe his initials are HWL.
> >>
> > Cujo, could you expand your answer? We don't have a name yet.
> Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was a poet from Maine in the 1800's and is my
> best guess. I didn't want to give it away.
> --
> "If the viewer doesn't read the language the film is in, that's why
> subtitles are provided." - Will Dockery being his usual incoherent self.

Woot, now we know who the Hell this long fella is!

[NancyGene]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> > wrote:
> >> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >> > "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lovel
> > l’s
> >> > Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 13."
> >
> >> >
> >> > None of the contestants guessed the correct "answer." Guesses were:
> >> > Who is Pendragon, who is NancyGene, and who is Benders.
> >> >
> >> > No Googling! We will know and you will be disqualified.
> >> I haven't googled it but I also haven't seen an answer in the thread.
> >> I
> >
> >> believe his initials are HWL.
> >>
> > Cujo, could you expand your answer? We don't have a name yet.
> Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was a poet from Maine in the 1800's and is my
> best guess. I didn't want to give it away.
> --

Cujo wins! Cujo wins!

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:

> Cujo wins! Cujo wins!

You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?

I iz teh shockiest.

[NancyGene]

Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three. Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.

[Rachel]

what about me

[Spam-I-Am]

What about you?

[Spam-I-Am]

I really enjoyed our little rhyming exchange.
Believe it or not, that was a lot of fun for me.
I’m very easily amused.

[NancyGene]

We will report any new poetry-related "answers" that are on Jeopardy. Cujo will be appearing on the Tournament of Champions soon.

[Spam-I-Am]

Yay!

[Rachel]

oh whatever never mind.

actually, first i thought mark twain, but then i wasn't sure about the time, and also, if he wrote acclaimed poetry, so then i thought to myself, longfellow, and then looked it up.

(lucky guess)

btw, i looked it up and read it...his command of language is impressive, but i don't care for the topic or perspective. but, hey, what can you do, the world as it is won't disappear, will it?

[Ash Wurthing]

"Books are the liberated spirits of men."
~~Mark Twain

[Zod]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 7:44:56 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>

> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything

At least I know who John Donne is and have read his poetry... you did not, having spelled his name wrong TWICE...!

Your "John Dunne" may have been lost in Ireland with Robert F. Stillings... looking for London.

Ha ha

[Michael Pendragon]

"I was influenced by the poetry of Edgar Allan Poland other poets but I don't consider that a topic to debate."
-- Will Dockery on his literary influences

"You may be thinking of Henry David Theroux, who lived On Walden Pond."
-- Will Dockery, feigning literacy

"Jeeze, just my opinion, but Spencer's poetry definitely could improve by casting it with modern language and spelling."
-- Will Donkey on improving the spelling of Spenser.

Ha ha ha.

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 2:49:51 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:

You nailed it, Zod.

🙂

[Ash Wurthing]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 2:49:51 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:

Are you still obsessing over a typo from five months ago? You obviously have no worthwhile life to focus on and no readers of your so called "real poetry" to keep satisfied with more. And Dockery's whining about leaving typos alone is just his usual hypocritical shit. And lest you forget Mr. "Exactly, you nailed that onme, Doc...!"
(Zod, Oct 31, 2022, 9:09:53 PM https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/564o4vvQEbI/m/TBz3CrMUAQAJ

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:28:02 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 2:49:51 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 7:44:56 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >
> > > Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything
> > At least I know who John Donne is and have read his poetry... you did not, having spelled his name wrong TWICE...!
> >
> > Your "John Dunne" may have been lost in Ireland with Robert F. Stillings... looking for London.
> >
> > Ha ha
> Are you still obsessing

Look who's talking.

🙂

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
>>> wrote:
>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
>>> vel
>>>>> l’s
>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
>>> 3."
>>

>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
>>
>> I iz teh shockiest.
>
> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.

You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
right there.

> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.

In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."

Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.

[Spam-I-Am]

Jesus fuck, George, wtf is your problem?

[Michael Pendragon]

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >>> vel
> >>>>> l’s
> >>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >>> 3."
> >>
> >> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >>
> >> I iz teh shockiest.
> >
> > Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> You're lying again, NastyGene.

Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.

You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is just bitchiness.

> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> right there.

A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in one's mind.

You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.

> > Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."

This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also provides some interesting background information on HWL.

That's all.

> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.

If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.

[George J. Dance]

[Michael Pendragon]

What is "George prematurely buzzed in without having thought of anything to say," Alex?

[Ash Wurthing]

Lo7!!!
It seems that the tat armchair master's ass seems to be tat sore and burning for another game of tatting asses...
Alas! The ignominy of this impasse
Of someone having to act like an ass
Braying so boldly and behaving so crass
A jack ass so smug in his house of glass
And those his ass editor rate as low class
he harasses to create a hypocritical morass
a "real poetry" shitsty that shows "real class"
in shit slinging by a "victim", yet crass as ass

[George J. Dance]

Why the personal attack, Corey? Are the facts too much for you to handle?

(1) I believed this 'Jeopardy' thread of NG's was a propaganda attack on
"Team Donkey".
(2) Given NG's past 'Jeopardy' threads, I was justified in believing it
was an attack on "Team Donkey".
(3) In fact, NG's has turned out to be a propaganda attack on "Team
Donkey" -- so (1) is true.

Therefore,
(4) I knew this thread was a propaganda attack on Team Donkey.

Those are facts. Deal with them.

[Spam-I-Am]

“Jesus fuck, George, wtf is your problem?“
refers to comments that were once very
common here, that predate your tenure.

[Spam-I-Am]

I’m not attacking you, George.
I’m making fun of you. See?

[Ash Wurthing]

Propaganda attack?
ROFLMAO!1!
WTF!?! George, lay off the bleach, I think you huffed too much!

[Spam-I-Am]

If the man believes he’s under attack,
then the man believes he’s under attack,
and he’ll justify his belief any way he can.

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
Let's see.

>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>> right there.
>

> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
failed, so let's try that.

> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
>

I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.


Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
(3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.


Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.

NG lied about that.


> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had

searched Google for the answer.

And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
except for Google.

But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
remembered it.

I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom).

> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
knowledgeable than you already are.

In this case, since I (and you) already had that knowledge. But, once
again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.

>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
>
> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
provides some interesting background information on HWL.
>
> That's all.
>

No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
into an attack the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.

>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
>
> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.

You seriously believe that? And just how the fuck could I have "made" NG
turn the thread into an attack on me when (by your own admission) I
hadn't even posted in the thread before their attack?

[George J. Dance]

It seems that another Team Monkey member in denial has decided to come
in and defend NG.

> Alas! The ignominy of this impasse
> Of someone having to act like an ass
> Braying so boldly and behaving so crass
> A jack ass so smug in his house of glass
> And those his ass editor rate as low class
> he harasses to create a hypocritical morass
> a "real poetry" shitsty that shows "real class"
> in shit slinging by a "victim", yet crass as ass

And, as usual, the Ashtroll's response has nothing to do with the
subject, but is just ad hom attack (though he'll probably pretend he was
"making fun").

[Spam-I-Am]

Jesus fuck, George, your blog does not contain any knowledge,
and is certainly not knowledge itself. Knowledge is awareness.

[George J. Dance]

Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack.

> I’m making fun of you. See?

So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal with the
facts. No surprise there.

[Spam-I-Am]

Ash’s response was to me, George. I understood him perfectly.
I’d explain what he meant, and how it applies to the discussion
if I thought it would do any good, but you’re invested in trying to
justify your commentary relative to the attacks you perceive.

[George J. Dance]

As Gary Gamble would say, "Jesus fuck, Ashtroll. What's your problem?"


You don't seem very bright, but I used to put you in the midwit category
(90-110 IQ). But a midwit should be capable of recognizing propaganda.

[Spam-I-Am]

Your facts aren’t factual. I’m sorry you perceive
me as a smug asshole. We could be having fun.

[George J. Dance]

A reasonable person interested in the truth would try to justify his
beliefs, and drop the ones he couldn't.


> any way he can.


Of course; all sources of justification are on the table, and none are
privileged.


(If you have a problem with the justification I gave, let's hear it.)

[Spam-I-Am]

As a matter of fact, as Gary Gamble would actually say, “Jesus fuck, George.
What’s your problem?” To my knowledge, the question has never been answered.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

I didn't call you a name, George.

I described the nature of petty accusation.

FYI: "petty" is also not a name.

> >> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >> right there.
> >
> > A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> failed, so let's try that.

Deflection noted.

> > Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> >
> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.

Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their knowledge through words?

> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.

If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.

Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection, can we proceed to the issue at hand?

> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.

Nope. You're not done.

Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

Definition of knowledge
1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2): the range of one's information or understanding
answered to the best of my knowledge
c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION
d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
a person of unusual knowledge
2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
barchaic : a branch of learning
3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
4obsolete : COGNIZANCE

As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance," and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.

Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently, does not possess knowledge.

Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass you further?

> NG lied about that.
>
> > You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> searched Google for the answer.
> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> except for Google.

You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice of creating "strawman" arguments.

Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are."

As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the answer. I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.

> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> remembered it.

Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.

> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom).

I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.

> > Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> knowledgeable than you already are.
> In this case, since I (and you) already had that knowledge. But, once
> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.

And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above observation would not apply.

I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one has access to.

> >>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> >> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
> >
> > This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >
> > That's all.
> >
> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> into an attack the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.

The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the correct response.

And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said "gang's" lack of response.

> >> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >
> > If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> You seriously believe that? And just how the fuck could I have "made" NG
> turn the thread into an attack on me when (by your own admission) I
> hadn't even posted in the thread before their attack?

You could have acted like a member of AAPC and taken a guess at the question.

[George J. Dance]

[Spam-I-Am]

[George J. Dance]

Stipulated. *When" NG turned the thread into an attack on me and the
rest of "Team Donkey" is not at issue. We're in agreement that that's
what they did.

> And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said "gang's" lack of response.
>

So NG decided that I didn't know the answer, and couldn't, just because
they were ignorant. Their decided to attack me, and their attack was
pure bullshit.

And then they decided to post their bullshit attacks just to troll me
into the thread (which worked for them).

Why, if you and NG are not both playing on the same team ("Team
Monkey"), are you trying to make excuses for that?

>>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
>>>
>>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
>> You seriously believe that? And just how the fuck could I have "made" NG
>> turn the thread into an attack on me when (by your own admission) I
>> hadn't even posted in the thread before their attack?
>
> You could have acted like a member of AAPC and taken a guess at the question.
>

aapc is a newsgroup, not a team. Teams have 'members' - usenet groups
just have people who post to them.





>

[George J. Dance]

>>>> (3) In fact, NG's thread has turned out to be a propaganda attack on "Team

>>>> Donkey" -- so (1) is true.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore,
>>>> (4) I knew this thread was a propaganda attack on Team Donkey.
>>>>
>>>> Those are facts. Deal with them.
>>>
>>> I’m not attacking you, George.
>> Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack.
>>> I’m making fun of you. See?
>> So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal with the
>> facts. No surprise there.
>
> Your facts aren’t factual.


> I’m sorry you perceive
> me as a smug asshole.

That's unfortunate. Learning how others perceive your behavior can be an
opportunity to change, not just to feel sorry for yourself.

> We could be having fun.

So let's have fun.


Why do you think you come across as a smug asshole?

[George J. Dance]

Poor Ashtroll. Team Monkey wants to gaslight, the Ashtroll has to gaslight.

[Michael Pendragon]

No, George, we are not in agreement on this.

"Attack" is a strong (and, IMHO, paranoid) word.

I saw NancyGene's post as a playful means of getting you to participate in the next round of Jeopardy.

> > And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said "gang's" lack of response.
> >
> So NG decided that I didn't know the answer, and couldn't, just because

> they were ignorant. [They] decided to attack me, and their attack was
> pure bullshit.

Had you known the answer, you should have provided it.

You obviously care (to the point of having a near meltdown) about whether others here think that you knew the answer.

Next time, trying showing off your Mensa-level IQ.

> And then they decided to post their bullshit attacks just to troll me
> into the thread (which worked for them).

Stop whining. You're a grown man and should be well beyond such pettiness.

If you're part of our group (AAPC), you're encouraged to participate in group activities -- like Jeopardy.

Had you participated, and provided the correct answer prior to Cujo, you would have won -- and would, consequently, have nothing to whine about.

> Why, if you and NG are not both playing on the same team ("Team
> Monkey"), are you trying to make excuses for that?

I'm on Team AAPC. NancyGene is on Team AAPC. So, for that matter, is George Dance.

Jeopardy is a group activity meant to spur team members into researching and discussion poetry-related topics. It seems like a win-win-win situation all around.

I'm not going to trash one of the few positive threads on AAPC just because you chose not to participate in it.

> >>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >>>
> >>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> >> You seriously believe that? And just how the fuck could I have "made" NG
> >> turn the thread into an attack on me when (by your own admission) I
> >> hadn't even posted in the thread before their attack?
> >
> > You could have acted like a member of AAPC and taken a guess at the question.
> >
> aapc is a newsgroup, not a team. Teams have 'members' - usenet groups
> just have people who post to them.

AAPC is newsgroup. AAPC is also made up of people. Those of us who would like to improve AAPC are referred to as "Team AAPC."

Those of us who flood AAPC with 100+ slurp-posts, personal attacks, whines, necro-posts, and bumps on a 24/7 basis are referred to as "The Donkey and His Stink and their pervy Uncle Isaac."

Despite your unexplainable support of the trolls, and your paranoid attacks on everyone else, I consider you a member of Team AAPC.

Oh, and FYI: one has to *join* Usenet groups accessed through Google Groups.

[Michael Pendragon]

Your above post was buckets of crazy, George.

Ash merely noted it as such.

[Will Dockery]

Exactly.

I stayed out of the thread myself until I noticed it was being used by NancyGene to attack me, and others.

Typical example of the malicious agenda of NancyGene.

[Michael Pendragon]

You stayed out of the thread because Longfellow was never quoted by Batman, Popeye, or the Archies.

[Will Dockery]

Actually, some of the first poems I heard recited to me were Longfellow poems.

HTH and HAND.

[Spam-I-Am]

You previously perceived me as a homophobe and anti-Semite for making
fun of you, so I’m not surprised you now perceive me as a smug asshole.
I’ve never perceived much of a sense of humor in you. All I can do now is
apologize for your mistaken perceptions, and hope you get better soon.

[George J. Dance]

I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
"pettiness."

>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>>>> right there.
>>>
>>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
>> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
>> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
>> failed, so let's try that.
>
> Deflection noted.

No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.

>
>>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
>>>
>> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
>> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
>
> Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
knowledge through words?
>

Not according to you, since the words "aren't in their minds" -- meaning
that can't contain any "knowledge", either. If they can't contain
knowledge, they can't be used to transmit it.

>> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
>> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
>
> If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.

Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.

> Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection

Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
homs.

> , can we proceed to the issue at hand?
>
>> Since PPP's information in this case meets that definition, it's
>> knowledge; and PPP is one of its repositories.
>
> Nope. You're not done.
>
> Knowledge is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
>
> Definition of knowledge
> 1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity
gained through experience or association
> (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
> (2): the range of one's information or understanding
> answered to the best of my knowledge
> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact
through reasoning : COGNITION
> d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
> a person of unusual knowledge
> 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and
principles acquired by humankind
> barchaic : a branch of learning
> 3archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
> 4obsolete : COGNIZANCE
>
> As you can see, "knowledge" entails "understanding," "cognizance,"
and "awareness" -- all of which necessitate sentience.

Well, yeah; 'knowledge' presupposes that someone or something able to
know it.

But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
(epistemologists) use.

Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
(3) justified.

> Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
does not possess knowledge.

So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
That's what we're discussing.

PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17, 1820.[7]

That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.

> Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
you further?
>

If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
you go right ahead.

>> NG lied about that.
>>
>>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
>> searched Google for the answer.
>> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
>> except for Google.
>
> You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
of creating "strawman" arguments.

I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
called it a 'deflection'?

> Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for
the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
you already are."

That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
incorrect description of PPP.

>
> As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
answer.

I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
"okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling".

I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.

So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
Pond" unless they already knew it? Not from PPP, not from the sources
PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.

>> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
>> remembered it.
>
> Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.

It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)

remembered that I knew it.

>> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
>> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom).
>
> I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make
an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have
given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of
Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
>

I'd say that's just because you couldn't remember it; not because you
didn't know the answer at all. "Jeopardy" is a game involving knowlege
*and* memory, not just the former.

>>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
>> knowledgeable than you already are.

There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.


>> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that

knowledge. But, once
>> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
>
> And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
observation would not apply.
>

Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.

And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").

> I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
has access to.

But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the at answer. As
did you, at least after you looked it up.

OTOH, those who didn't know it, and read Cuckoo the Meatpuppet's
statement, and independently verified it, would now

>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.

>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
knew
>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
Donkey."
>>>
>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
>>>
>>> That's all.
>>>
>> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned

>> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.

>
> The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
correct response.
>
> And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
"gang's" lack of response.

So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
want to quibble about when they did that. You also admit they were
trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
was that was that I'd left their thread alone.

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Michael Pendragon <michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b106479c-53b1-4b31...@googlegroups.com:

Did Longfellow ever get a "Perky" award?

PS: Gotta give Dreckweasel a boat anchor to cling to. It's only fair.

--
"If the viewer doesn't read the language the film is in, that's why
subtitles are provided." - Will Dockery being his usual incoherent self.

[George J. Dance]

Typical TM bullshit propaganda. You don't know whether Will knew the
answer to the question or not.

[Zod]

Nancy G. mentioned us all three specifically, when it is a FACT that I'm one of the better read poetry fans on this board....

[Ash Wurthing]

Quit being a comedian-- I was trying to drink my coffee and now it's sprayed all over my monitor!

[Zod]

Pen is very much like Peter, he makes up his lies as he goes along.... ha ha.

[Ash Wurthing]

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 3:16:10 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

Inquisition exhibit #999:
"to attack me, and others"
Notice other people, even his so called friends are an afterthought...

[Zod]

Typical scumbag move by the Voodoo Boy...!

[Ash Wurthing]

But it now has been, but not by George. If you haven't notice from his political commentary and how that alt Right/QAnon catch phrases have infiltrated his normal discourse-- he's been huffing bleach.

[Ash Wurthing]

Soon, so soon, you'll be going off with your trademark "motherfucker"...
As someone said, you have been made into a troll.

[Zod]

Well put, G.D....!

[W-Dockery]

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:30:10 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

>> On 2022-11-04 11:09 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
>> >>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
>> >>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
>> >>>>> vel
>> >>>>>>> l’s
>> >>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
>> >>>>> 3."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
>> >>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I iz teh shockiest.
>> >>>
>> >>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.

>> >> You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge

>> >> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>> >> right there.

>> >>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>> >> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew

>> >> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey.."

>> >>
>> >> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
>> >

>> > Jesus fuck, George, wtf is your problem?
>> Why the personal attack, Corey? Are the facts too much for you to handle?
>>
>> (1) I believed this 'Jeopardy' thread of NG's was a propaganda attack on
>> "Team Donkey".
>> (2) Given NG's past 'Jeopardy' threads, I was justified in believing it
>> was an attack on "Team Donkey".
>> (3) In fact, NG's has turned out to be a propaganda attack on "Team
>> Donkey" -- so (1) is true.
>>
>> Therefore,
>> (4) I knew this thread was a propaganda attack on Team Donkey.
>>
>> Those are facts. Deal with them.

> I’m not attacking you, George.

> I’m making fun of you. See?

Like I said, you look like an unfunny Groucho Marx.

HTH and HAND.

[Ash Wurthing]

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:46:51 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 11:26 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:

> >>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> >> Jesus fuck, George, wtf is your problem?
> >

> > Lo7!!!
> > It seems that the tat armchair master's ass seems to be tat sore and burning for another game of tatting asses...
> It seems that another Team Monkey member in denial has decided to come
> in and defend NG.

I know you and your dupes give no heed about facts, but I don't see me saying anything about NG, so you're making shit up as usual. Nah, I saw my foes fighting and I'm swooping in for my share of the fight.
You or one of your dupes said something about gaslighting-- screw that shit, that's your specialty- politician, political talking head. No, gas ain't good enough, I play with napalm!

> > Alas! The ignominy of this impasse
> > Of someone having to act like an ass
> > Braying so boldly and behaving so crass
> > A jack ass so smug in his house of glass
> > And those his ass editor rate as low class
> > he harasses to create a hypocritical morass
> > a "real poetry" shitsty that shows "real class"
> > in shit slinging by a "victim", yet crass as ass
> And, as usual, the Ashtroll's response has nothing to do with the
> subject, but is just ad hom attack (though he'll probably pretend he was
> "making fun").

Neither was yours, yours was about some whacked bullshit about propaganda, not Longfellow.
And my verse is definitely making fun of you and your cash cow, just like your Ashtroll poem, and is very relevant to what is happening now that you're here. Only if you would quit spinin', disinformin' and huffing the bleach; and understand the message...
So you're saying that those so called poems you that so proudly posted about Mr Burrows, Mr Rochester and me were "just ad hom attack" then? Especially when you knew your goons would bump them every day to attack us. Thank you for your admission.

[Spam-I-Am]

I know, but do you understand how that doesn’t make sense?
You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.

[Will Dockery]

Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> You may think that I’m not funny, and that I look like Groucho Marx,
> but I can’t “look like an unfunny Groucho Marx”, because there is no
> such thing as an unfunny Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx is funny.

But you rarely are.

:)

[Spam-I-Am]

Okay, so say I look like Groucho Marx without the sense of humor.
That makes more sense. Express yourself clearly and meaningfully.

[Will Dockery]

Okay, thanks.

:)

[Spam-I-Am]

You’re welcome.

[George J. Dance]

It's all too typical, both of trolls and those who fight propaganda
wars; the attacker always tries to blame the victim for the attacks.

But this has to be silliest use of it I've seen. If Team Monkey had
attacked one of us us because we'd posted on a TM thread, that would be
worth debating; but attacking TD because we didn't post into their
trollthread is just scumbag behavior.

No wonder NG dropped out to let a couple of other TM players defend them.

[George J. Dance]

Why shouldn't he call MMP a motherfucker? What's your problem with that?

> As someone said, you have been made into a troll.

True: I said that, and I'll be glad to repeat it. Zod wasn't a troll
when he joined the group. Jim Senetto made him into one; just as he made
you into one.

[Ash Wurthing]

Only to you and your social support lackeys, because you don't like what or even understand it half the time. I'm surprised you haven't started accusing him of gibberish.
I find humor in his writing- sometimes even when it's directed at me. But then I don't have an insecure ego ruling over me.

sWilly, why must you be such a LAMe hill-billy
it's not my fault, so don't get so chilly
that your ego rides you like a filly
and makes your sorry ass look so silly

[Spam-I-Am]

Thank you. It’s nice to know somebody gets it.

[Ash Wurthing]

You will never get it and will continue suffer for another 5 years for it, which your superior ass will fully deserve for being so idiotic about it. Your tee for tee strategy doesn't foresee the real world consequences of grudges and pay back and the vicious cycle. Plus you rely on the norm of mutual respect that gets destroyed by the vicious cycle of tit for tat. You don't have anyone's respect anymore for them to fall back to.
HINT, HINT: 5 solid months of laming EVERY DAY over a typo in a separate thread...

[Ash Wurthing]

He can, it's his right to expression just like it's my right to express my criticism of him for it. You guys are the ones crying bully, claiming to be the so called "good guys" and victims. thinking the rest of us will stupid enough to believe you and excuse you for doing exactly what is wrong. You know nothing of principles do you?

> > As someone said, you have been made into a troll.
> True: I said that, and I'll be glad to repeat it. Zod wasn't a troll
> when he joined the group. Jim Senetto made him into one; just as he made
> you into one.

Actually I made myself a "troll" *(your definition of troll is anyone who doesn't speak positively of you or your crew, no matter who hypocrisy you do), I was this way-- outspoken-- long before coming here. Senetto is on the record for being dismayed about me jumping into the fighting-- he feared that I was drugged into and it would corrupt me like it has to you, Will and Zod...
But you fools are nothing compared to what I have had to spar with in the past. You're a bunch of coddled suburbanites running your mouths and flaunting your ass egos online from your safe places...

[ME]

On Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 08:33:34 UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lovell’s Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 13."
>
> None of the contestants guessed the correct "answer." Guesses were: Who is Pendragon, who is NancyGene, and who is Benders.
>
> No Googling! We will know and you will be disqualified.


Good morning NG.
I didn’t chime in on this one. I wanted to give the others a chance to win.
But I see rhat it turned into a goat rodeo.
Sorry about that. But it happens when you’ve got paranoia running rampant here.
Please keep up the good work.

[W-Dockery]

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 1:43:34 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-04 12:58 p.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:

>> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:52:07 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
>> >>>>>>>>> vel
>> >>>>>>>>>>> l’s

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
>> >>>>>>>>> 3."
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
>> >>>>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.

>> >>>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge

>> >>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
>> >>>>>> right there.

>> >>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>> >>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
>> >>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
>> >>>>>>

>> >>>>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
>> >>>>>

>> >>>>> Jesus fuck, George, wtf is your problem?
>> >>>> Why the personal attack, Corey? Are the facts too much for you to handle?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (1) I believed this 'Jeopardy' thread of NG's was a propaganda attack on
>> >>>> "Team Donkey".
>> >>>> (2) Given NG's past 'Jeopardy' threads, I was justified in believing it
>> >>>> was an attack on "Team Donkey".

>> >>>> (3) In fact, NG's thread has turned out to be a propaganda attack on "Team

>> >>>> Donkey" -- so (1) is true.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Therefore,
>> >>>> (4) I knew this thread was a propaganda attack on Team Donkey.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Those are facts. Deal with them.
>> >>>
>> >>> I’m not attacking you, George.

>> >> Wrong. You resorted to an ad hom attack.

>> >>> I’m making fun of you. See?

>> >> So you decided to act like a smug asshole, rather than deal with the
>> >> facts. No surprise there.
>> >
>> > Your facts aren’t factual.
>>
>>
>> > I’m sorry you perceive
>> > me as a smug asshole.
>> That's unfortunate. Learning how others perceive your behavior can be an
>> opportunity to change, not just to feel sorry for yourself.
>> > We could be having fun.
>> So let's have fun.
>>
>>
>> Why do you think you come across as a smug asshole?

> You previously perceived me as a homophobe and anti-Semite

I missed that, can you post a link to that thread?


TIA.

[Spam-I-Am]

https://web.archive.org/web/20180410161735/http://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/J._Corey_Connor

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 6:33:08 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 6:06:39 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-04 4:45 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:36:08 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > >> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> > >>> On 2022-11-04 1:10 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca

> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4,
> > >>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>

> > >>>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> > >>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> > >>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> > >>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.
> > >>>>>>> You're lying again, NastyGene.
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> > >>> just bitchiness.
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>>>>> right there.
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>> A blog is an information repository, George. Knowledge is stored in
> > >>> one's mind.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You could have searched your blog for the answer, just as I had
> > >>> searched Google for the answer. Had you done so, it wouldn't have made
> > >>> you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than you already are.
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> > >>>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> > >>> knew
> > >>>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> > >>> Donkey."
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> > >>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> That's all.
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>> If you think it has become so, it is of your own making.
> > >>>>> On 2022-11-04 11:16 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo
> > >>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo
> > >>> DeSockpuppet
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> > >>>>>>>>>> vel
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> l’s
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> > >>>>>>>>>> 3."
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> > >>>>>>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance,
> > >>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless
> > >>>>> they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it.
> > >>>>> There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.>>> You're lying
> > >>>>> again, NastyGene.
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>> Wrong. She's basing her statement on your lack of response.>
> > >>>>>> You can disagree with her conclusion, but to accuse her of lying is
> > >>>>> just bitchiness.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> I hope you have more than name-calling to back up your defense of NG.
> > >>>>> Let's see.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I didn't call you a name, George.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I described the nature of petty accusation.
> > >>>>
> > >>> I disagree. You specifically accused me of "bitchiness" and, now,
> > >>> "pettiness."

> > >>>>>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> > >>>>>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> > >>>>>>> right there.
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> > >>> knew
> > >>>>>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> > >>> Donkey."
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> > >>>>> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> That's all.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> > >>>>> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> > >>> correct response.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> > >>> "gang's" lack of response.
> > >>> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> > >>> want to quibble about when they did that. You also admit they were
> > >>> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> > >>> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> > >>> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.
> > >> Typical scumbag move by the Voodoo Boy...!
> > >
> > > Soon, so soon, you'll be going off with your trademark "motherfucker"...
> > Why shouldn't he call MMP a motherfucker? What's your problem with that?
> He can, it's his right to expression just like it's my right to express my criticism of him for it. You guys are the ones crying bully, claiming to be the so called "good guys" and victims. thinking the rest of us will stupid enough to believe you and excuse you for doing exactly what is wrong. You know nothing of principles do you?
> > > As someone said, you have been made into a troll.
> > True: I said that, and I'll be glad to repeat it. Zod wasn't a troll
> > when he joined the group. Jim Senetto made him into one; just as he made
> > you into one.
> Actually I made myself a "troll"

No shit, Sherlock.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Exactly. Those are descriptions of your perceived behavior -- not names.

I didn't, for example, address you a "George Bitch" or "Petty Dunce."

As I often tell your Donkey: words matter. Learn what they mean and use them correctly.

> >>>> In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge
> >>>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>>> right there.
> >>>
> >>> A [wiki] is an information repository, George.
> >> I'm just going to automatically change 'blog' to 'wiki' when you
> >> mislabel PPP. I've tried other ways to deal with it, and they've all
> >> failed, so let's try that.
> >
> > Deflection noted.
> No 'deflection'. I just explained why I have to change your text --
> because you continue to use the wrong word. Correcting your text is
> easier than writing, over and over, "You're incorrectly calling PPP a
> blog." That would probably lead to deflections, every time.

Yes 'deflection.'

The topic of discussion (at this place in the thread) was regarding whether an inanimate blog (or wiki) could have knowledge of anything.

As in the above "name-calling" exchange, you used the word "knowledge" incorrectly, and are attempting to deflect attention from your obviously embarrassing error.

And even that topic was the result of another deflection on your part (as an attempt to divert attention from your bitchy behavior regarding NancyGene).

> >>> Knowledge is stored in one's mind.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. If knowledge was stored only in minds, then the only way it
> >> could be transmitted from one mind to another would be is telepathy.
> >
> > Really? Are sentient beings somehow unable to express their
> knowledge through words?
> >
> Not according to you, since the words "aren't in their minds" -- meaning
> that can't contain any "knowledge", either. If they can't contain
> knowledge, they can't be used to transmit it.

I never said that the words weren't in their minds, George. You're projecting.

The knowledge regarding HWL's poem was in neither of our minds. But our lack of knowledge on a given subject has no bearing on the knowledge of sentient beings in general.

This is an example of the second type of "strawman" argument you're fond of: falsely claiming that someone made an easily disproved statement, and immediately proceeding to disprove it.

> >> Knowledge is information that is (1) believed (2) with justification and
> >> (3) true. It doesn't matter whether it's 'stored'.
> >
> > If it is "believed," it must necessarily be stored within one's mind.
> Don't be ridiculous. People can believe things other people say or
> write, which are not "stored in [a] mind" but in words and books.

First:

They could not believe it if it had not first been communicated to them.

If it had been communicated to them, they therefore possess a knowledge of it.

If they possess a knowledge of it, it is stored in their brain.

Second:

Information is recorded, and stored, in books. The inanimate books do not possess any knowledge of said information.

Third:

Words possess neither knowledge nor information. They are tools with which knowledge and information are passed on from one sentient being to the next.

> > Now, if you're done with your second attempt at deflection
> Are you going to call everything you disagree with, or can't understand,
> a "deflection"? I'd have thought you'd be bright enough to vary your ad
> homs.

If it diverts from the actual topic being discussed... yes, I'm going to call it what it is.

Let's face it, George; you really put your foot in it this time. I would advise you to bow out as gracefully as you still can... but, true to your surname, you prefer to keep on dancing.

And your wiki does not possess this ability.

> But let's stick to the definition of knowledge that those who study it
> (epistemologists) use.

I'm sorry, George, but I don't know any epistemologists; nor have I any understanding of how they supposedly define things.

Merriam-Webster is arguable the most reputable (and certainly the best known) source of English definitions, and I insist that as writers we stick with them.

> Knowledge consists of proposition that are (1) true, (2) believed, and
> (3) justified.

And even your epistemologists' definition presupposes sentience -- as one must be sentient in order to have belief!

> > Penny's Plagiarized Pages (PPP) is not sentient, and, consequently,
> does not possess knowledge.
> So you're saying that no one can read PPP (or anything else) and acquire
> any knowledge from it -- because there's no knowledge there to acquire.
> That's what we're discussing.

I see we've pulled out Strawman #2 again.

No, George, I'm not saying that -- or anything remotely resembling that.

I'm saying that PPP does not possess any knowledge. What PPP possesses is information. One can read the information on PPP and increase his knowledge as a result.

Again, words matter. Learn what they mean and use them correctly.

> PPP's article on Longfellow says that "At age 13 he had his earliest
> publication – a patriotic and historical 4-stanza poem called "The
> Battle of Lovell's Pond" – in the Portland Gazette of November 17, 1820.[7]
>
> That's a proposition that's (1) true, (2) believed, and (3) justified.

Is it believed by Penny's Pages or by George Dance?

If George Dance believes it, it is knowledge. If you're arguing that Penny's Pages believes it, it (your argument) is nonsense.

> > Can we now proceed to the topic at hand, or do I have to embarrass
> you further?
> >
> If you think you're embarrassing me, and that gives you some pleasure,
> you go right ahead.

It gives me no pleasure to embarrass you, George.

Quite the reverse.

I have spent the past five years in a vain attempt to convince my friends at AAPC that you are an intelligent and reasonable human being. When you embarrass yourself by putting forth such Donkey-level nonsense, you embarrass me in the process.

> >> NG lied about that.
> >>
> >>> You could have searched your [wiki] for the answer, just as I had
> >> searched Google for the answer.
> >> And of course that would have been allowed, since NG allowed searches
> >> except for Google.
> >
> > You have just post-edited my statement, and in doing so, have altered
> its meaning. This is yet another example of your disingenuous practice
> of creating "strawman" arguments.
> I just explained why I was doing that -- because you keep incorrectly
> calling PPP a "blog". Didn't you even read my explanation before you
> called it a 'deflection'?

Yes, George, I did.

Did you even read my statement before you took it upon yourself to break it into two unrelated pieces?

> > Here is what I actually said: "You could have searched your blog for
> the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you done
> so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable than
> you already are."
> That's identical to what I quoted, except for the correction to your
> incorrect description of PPP.

That is not identical to what you quoted. You changed the meaning of my statement from "Looking up information has nothing to do with your knowledge" to an accusation that you'd cheated (looked up) the answer.

> > As you can see (or, rather, as everyone else can see), I am not
> saying that it would have been okay for you to search your wiki for the
> answer.
> I didn't say you did, Mr. Strawman I told you that it would have been
> "okay" under NG's rule: "No Googling".

And, again, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I had said.

> I am saying that pulling information from an outside source has no
> bearing on the amount of knowledge that you possess.
> So you're saying no one could learn who wrote "The Battle of Lowell
> Pond" unless they already knew it?

Strawman #2 makes raises his head for the third time.

No, George, I said nothing of the sort.

You can increase your knowledge by looking up answers. But an answer obtained by that method does not reflect your knowledge (prior to having looked it up).

> Not from PPP, not from the sources
> PPP quoted, not from "Jeopardy," and of course not from this thread.

Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?

> >> But, as I said, I didn't have to, as I not only knew the answer but
> >> remembered it.
> >
> > Strawman conclusion summarily dismissed.
> It's just a statement of fact. I knew the answer, and (unlike you)
> remembered that I knew it.

Again, I am forced to ask: Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?

> >> I'd say that you knew the answer, too, but weren't sure since you
> >> couldn't remember all the details (when you learned it, and from whom).
> >
> > I disagree. I have knowledge of enough basic facts about HWL to make
> an educated guess. Had I been a contestant on Jeopardy, I would have
> given the correct question. Had I been asked "Who wrote 'Battle of
> Lovell's Pond'?" I would probably have guessed Scott.
> >
> I'd say that's just because you couldn't remember it; not because you
> didn't know the answer at all. "Jeopardy" is a game involving knowlege
> *and* memory, not just the former.

You would be wrong.

I may have known that HWL wrote it at some point in the past. In fact, based on the extent and content of my reading, it is extremely likely that I had.

But I had no knowledge of it until I looked up the answer online.

> >>> Had you done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less,
> >> knowledgeable than you already are.
> There's the rest of the statement you dishonestly claimed I post-edited.

There is nothing dishonest in my claim, George.

You chopped my statement into two parts -- thereby altering the meaning of both.

> >> In this case, since I (and I suspect you) already had that
> knowledge. But, once
> >> again, I didn't since (unlike you) I remembered that I knew it.
> >
> > And, again, had you not post-edited my statement, your above
> observation would not apply.
> >
> Your claim of post-editing was dishonest, since I quoted your statement
> in full and only corrected one word you keep getting wrong.

Wrong.

The meaning of my statement is not contained in either half, but in its entirety.

When you post-edited it into two pieces, you changed the meaning of it.

You then "refuted" each piece of the post-edited statement -- neither of which even remotely reflected my statement in its truncated form.

And, yes -- I believe that it was done both knowingly and dishonestly.

> And my observation does apply: since I knew the answer, and remembered
> it (as I'd just read it again 3 days previously) I didn't have to search
> anything. You just went off on a tangent about something that didn't
> happen (all while accusing me of "deflecting").

How does your answer apply to my unedited question?

If you knew the answer three days previously, looking it up would not have had any impact on your knowledge at the time it was asked.

Conversely, if you hadn't known the answer three days previously, looking it up would not have had any impact on your knowledge at the time it was asked.

Either way, your knowledge has *nothing* to do with any information garnered from an outside source.

> > I made a general observation that "You could have searched your blog
> for the answer, just as I had searched Google for the answer. Had you
> done so, it wouldn't have made you any more, or any less, knowledgeable
> than you already are" -- more specifically, that the amount of one's
> knowledge is not measured (or affected by) the amount of information one
> has access to.
> But, as I told you, that's only because I already knew the at answer. As
> did you, at least after you looked it up.

Jesus fuck, George. What’s your problem?

No one is challenging your precious claim to knowledge.

> OTOH, those who didn't know it, and read Cuckoo the Meatpuppet's
> statement, and independently verified it, would now

Yes, they would have learned something from NancyGene's post.

Again, that has nothing to do with what my unedited statement said.

> >>>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
>
> >>>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I
> knew
> >>>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team
> Donkey."
> >>>
> >>> This thread is a "Jeopardy" question regarding poetry. It also
> >> provides some interesting background information on HWL.
> >>>
> >>> That's all.
> >>>
> >> No; as the backthread shows, it 'started' that way, but it had turned
> >> into an attack on the "gang of three" (your "Team Donkey") the same day.
> >
> > The "gang of three" were not mentioned until after Cujo provided the
> correct response.
> >
> > And, as previously noted, NancyGene's observation was based upon said
> "gang's" lack of response.
> So you agree that NG did turn the thread into an attack on me, and just
> want to quibble about when they did that.

Strawman #2 puts in a fourth appearance.

No, George, I did not say any such thing.

Is it too much to ask that you actually address one of my statements *as written*?

When you rephrase a statement, changing its meaning in the process, you are no longer addressing what was said. This makes your answer a waste of both of our time.

Just stop it.

> trolling -- launching an attack on me in a thread I wasn't even
> participating in. And your excuse for NG's trolling and personal attacks
> was that was that I'd left their thread alone.

I never said that NancyGene was trolling you, George.
I said that your lack of response led NancyGene to believe that you did not know the answer (and based on your unwarranted protestation to the contrary, above, I strongly suspect that she is right). I also said that her remark was a playfully contentious way to get you to participate in future Jeopardy rounds.

Why must you constantly perceive slights, insults, and attacks where none exist?

Were you bullied on a daily basis by your high school classmates? Girls included?

[Michael Pendragon]

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:21:20 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 3:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 3:16:10 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>> On 2022-11-02 7:44 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:35:27 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>> news:b2e76db2-49e5-4209...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:24:10 PM UTC, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>> news:26de32ca-3d06-408f...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 10:13:32 PM UTC, Cujo
> >>>>>>>> DeSockpuppet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> NancyGene <nancygene...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>> news:5e52f80a-d653-429b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Inspired by stories from his grandfather, his “Battle of Lo
> >>>>>> vel
> >>>>>>>> l’s
> >>>>>>>>>> Pond” appeared in the Portland Gazette in 1820 when he was 1
> >>>>>> 3."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You mean to tell me that of all the distinguished poets like Dance,
> >>>>> Dreckweasel and The Drunk hadn't gotten the answer?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I iz teh shockiest.
> >>>>
> >>>> Spam-I-Am could have won but he dared not say the name. Dance, Dreckweasel and The Drunk would not be able to answer anything unless they Wikipediaed or Googled the answer, so they could then quote it. There is no knowledge repository in the gang of three.

> >>> You're lying again, NastyGene. In fact I have an excellent 'knowledge

> >>> repository' in the form of Penny's Poetry Pages, and the "answer" is
> >>> right there.

> >>>> Dance would not have known unless the answer was George Dance.
> >>> In fact, I knew the correct answer, but I didn't comment because I knew
> >>> the thread was just an excuse for a Team Monkey attack on "Team Donkey."
> >>>

> >>> Thank you for confirming that I was right about that, too.

> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >> I stayed out of the thread myself until I noticed it was being used by NancyGene to attack me, and others.
> >>

> >> Typical example of the malicious agenda of NancyGene.
> >

> > You stayed out of the thread because Longfellow was never quoted by Batman, Popeye, or the Archies.
> Typical TM bullshit propaganda. You don't know whether Will knew the
> answer to the question or not.

I know more than enough about Will Donkey to know that he doesn't know jack about anything:

"I was influenced by the poetry of Edgar Allan Poland other poets but I don't consider that a topic to debate."
"You may be thinking of Henry David Theroux, who lived On Walden Pond."
"Jeeze, just my opinion, but Spencer's poetry definitely could improve by casting it with modern language and spelling."

Case closed.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 3:35:48 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

> Actually, some of the first poems I heard recited to me were Longfellow poems.

Did these include his "Battle of Lovell's Pond"?

[That's a rhetorical question -- don't strain yourself.]