February / George J. Dance

[George Dance]

February

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

- George J. Dance, 2023


Commentary for those who need it:

This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.

My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express ws not clearly expressed.

That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.

This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).

[George Dance]

PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.

[NancyGene]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:

> PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.

George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you.

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>

Again, good one, and good edit.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> February
>
> Unnoticed beauty:
> ocean waves in winter,
> the curve of your cheek.
>
> - George J. Dance, 2023
>
>
> Commentary for those who need it:
>
> This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
>
> My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express ws not clearly expressed.
>
> That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
>

The definition of "profound" that we'd agreed on in the thread you moved this from ("Georgie Porgy ran away"... again), was "intellectually deep or insightful."

Realizing that one is failing to notice the beauty around him would certainly qualify as "insightful."

Running away from the truth won't change it, George. Nor have you managed to offer an explanation as to *why* you would have posted a 3-line poem if you hadn't thought it to be in any way profound.

You can't run away from that question either (unless you cross-post this discussion to a group that no one else involved goes to, like RAP). Dollars to donuts you already have.

> This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).
>

The fact that you would feel compelled to write poetry by the rules only further demonstrates my oft-expressed observation that you are a craftsman rather than a naturally talented (inspired) poet. It also supports my similarly often expressed claim that your poetry, though often skillfully written, fails to rise above the level of the mundane.

[Will Dockery]

You attend poetry readings now?

[Michael Pendragon]

Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

WAAAAY over his fat drunken head.

[George Dance]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:

I was actually talking about my wife, but I have to admit you (and your fellow troll) did help me, by calling the original poem "mindless" (your word) and saying that ""the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole" (his). When a midwit says that something is meaningless, it usually means that they can't see the meaning; just as when a midwit says that something doesn't make sense, it usually means they can't see the sense. Even if the midwit is a troll, it's a good idea to "listen to" their posts, as even a troll can accidentally say something constructive.

[Ash Wurthing]

sorry Dance, I was cajoled to read this...
looks pretty and probably went over well with your wife, which is fine, that's why we do this thing called poetry...
but to a third party, like me, it seems incomplete and unfinished and the subject not cohesive.
(this is merely a neutral impression of a reader)

[W.Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.

>> > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you..

>> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
>> You attend poetry readings now?

> Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!

Why else would George Dance meet with Jim Senetto in New York City to check out a poem?

Right, Senetto is having those violent fantasies again?

🙂

[Ash Wurthing]

Your statement is another of your bumbled classics. But then who needs proper writing to troll.
And it is right to say, sWilly is obsessive in his ego's need to cover up and deflect commentary that doesn't stroke his and his gang's egos...

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:

You're a drunk, live with it.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> > >> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
> > >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.

>..
> > >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > >> You attend poetry readings now?

> You're a drunk, live with it.

You're an obsessive lying old fart, live with that, Senetto.

:)

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Poor drunk....see you at graveside

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:57:50 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > >..
> > > > >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > > > >> You attend poetry readings now?
> > > You're a drunk, live with it.
> > You're an obsessive lying old fart, live with that, Senetto.
> >
>

> Poor drunk....see you at graveside

Your death fantasy is noted, Senetto.

;)

[George Dance]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > February
> >
> > Unnoticed beauty:
> > ocean waves in winter,
> > the curve of your cheek.
> >
> > - George J. Dance, 2023
> >
> >
> > Commentary for those who need it:
> >
> > This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
> >

> > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.

> >
> > That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
> >
> The definition of "profound" that we'd agreed on in the thread you moved this from ("Georgie Porgy ran away"... again), was "intellectually deep or insightful."

No, Michael, that's two lies. First, I did not move anything from that other thread. I posted a revision of my poem in a new thread, and added the "commentary" you're always begging for as well. You're the one trying to start the same fight you were trolling about in that other thread.

Second, the definition we agreed on in that thread was (in your words):
<quote>
">> > > > "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
</q>

You're trying to switch definitions, hoping that your bringing it up in a new thread would keep anyone from noticing. Too bad; it didn't work.

> Realizing that one is failing to notice the beauty around him would certainly qualify as "insightful."

But not in any way "intellectually deep" -- so it doesn't satisfy the definition.

> Running away from the truth won't change it, George.

> Nor have you managed to offer an explanation as to *why* you would have posted a 3-line poem if you hadn't thought it to be in any way profound.

That's a third lie, Michael: I just explained that in this very thread:
'Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.'

I'll be happy to go back to that other thread and post it there when I feel like it.

> You can't run away from that question either (unless you cross-post this discussion to a group that no one else involved goes to, like RAP).

> Dollars to donuts you already have.

> > This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).

> The fact that you would feel compelled to write poetry by the rules only further demonstrates my oft-expressed observation that you are a craftsman rather than a naturally talented (inspired) poet.

As I've always said, I'm a writer, not a poet. My "natural talent" is for non-fiction. Indeed I had to learn to write good poetry

> It also supports my similarly often expressed claim that your poetry, though often skillfully written, fails to rise above the level of the mundane.

<yawn>

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

That's life, bubba.

[George Dance]

Given that Chimp Obsesso is almost as obsessed with my ass as he is with you, I'm afraid that his "poem" is a childishly gross metaphor.

[W-Dockery]

Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:12:50 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
>> > > > > >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
>> > > >..
>> > > > > >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
>> > > > > >> You attend poetry readings now?
>> > > > You're a drunk, live with it.
>> > > You're an obsessive lying old fart, live with that, Senetto.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Poor drunk....see you at graveside
>> Your death fantasy is noted, Senetto.
>>
>> ;)


> That's life, bubba.

True, something we all face eventually.

You being what, 77 years old, you know better than I, probably.

And so it goes.

[Will Dockery]

I see what you mean, George.

:)

[George Dance]

That was a fair crit. It actually reminded me of the negative part of Manwolf's crit of the 2009 version:

"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."

I never replied to him, partly because I didn't know the best way to put it. Same this time.

[George Dance]

Heh! It reminded me of Hammy Hog's notorious phrase about "their pink poetitudes."

[Michael Pendragon]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > February
> > >
> > > Unnoticed beauty:
> > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > the curve of your cheek.
> > >
> > > - George J. Dance, 2023
> > >
> > >
> > > Commentary for those who need it:
> > >
> > > This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
> > >
> > > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.
> > >
> > > That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
> > >
> > The definition of "profound" that we'd agreed on in the thread you moved this from ("Georgie Porgy ran away"... again), was "intellectually deep or insightful."
> No, Michael, that's two lies. First, I did not move anything from that other thread. I posted a revision of my poem in a new thread, and added the "commentary" you're always begging for as well. You're the one trying to start the same fight you were trolling about in that other thread.
>

You did not just post a revision of your poem (not that a revision should have required a separate thread). Your commentary was a list of unsupported accusations taken from the original thread.

Like I said, you're a lying p.o.s.

> Second, the definition we agreed on in that thread was (in your words):
> <quote>
> ">> > > > "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
> </q>
>
> You're trying to switch definitions, hoping that your bringing it up in a new thread would keep anyone from noticing. Too bad; it didn't work.

This, too, is a lie.

When I first offered that definition, you claimed that I was merely restating one that you'd already posted.

Were you lying then? Are you lying now? Do you ever make a post without lying?

You should have been a politician.

> > Realizing that one is failing to notice the beauty around him would certainly qualify as "insightful."
> But not in any way "intellectually deep" -- so it doesn't satisfy the definition.

It's deep enough. One could even compare it to the Zen practice of living completely in the moment.

> > Running away from the truth won't change it, George.
>
> > Nor have you managed to offer an explanation as to *why* you would have posted a 3-line poem if you hadn't thought it to be in any way profound.
> That's a third lie, Michael: I just explained that in this very thread:
> 'Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.'

And how is a "revelation" not deep, insightful, or profound? How is an "epiphany" not deep, insightful, or profound?

Both words signify a form of knowledge that is revealed to one. If the knowledge has to be revealed, it is not readily known to others. It is, therefore, profound.

> I'll be happy to go back to that other thread and post it there when I feel like it.

You and your Donkey are the only imbeciles who think that they have to carry out each of their arguments on multiple threads.

> > You can't run away from that question either (unless you cross-post this discussion to a group that no one else involved goes to, like RAP).
>
> > Dollars to donuts you already have.
>
> > > This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).
>
> > The fact that you would feel compelled to write poetry by the rules only further demonstrates my oft-expressed observation that you are a craftsman rather than a naturally talented (inspired) poet.
> As I've always said, I'm a writer, not a poet. My "natural talent" is for non-fiction. Indeed I had to learn to write good poetry

I hate to break it to you, George, but your posts here speak otherwise.

[Michael Pendragon]

"Chimp Obsesso," "Hammy Hog"... please try to act your age.

[Will Dockery]

Manwolf and I go back a long way, we collaborated with Lillian Owl on a "Feardevil" novel back in 2003.

[Michael Pendragon]

Oh... so much for Manwolf's opinion then.

[W.Dockery]

Pretty much the same as I say about your opinions on poetry, actually, Pendragon.

[Will Dockery]

Look who's talking.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:30:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:05:49 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:29:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>

> > > The negative part of Manwolf's crit of the 2009 version:

> > >
> > > "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."
> > >
> > > I never replied to him, partly because I didn't know the best way to put it. Same this time.
> > Manwolf and I go back a long way, we collaborated with Lillian Owl on a "Feardevil" novel back in 2003.
> Oh... so much for Manwolf

Some of my collaboration with Manwolf and Lillian Owl from around twenty years ago, the Feardevil novel, are online:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Playgrounds Magazine / March 2005
Published on Feb 28, 2005

https://issuu.com/willdockery/docs/032005playgroundsall
March 2005 edition of Playgrounds Magazine
Page 23: "To The Magic Store" column by Will Dockery
Page 19: Feardevil Chapter 6 (written with Manwolf and Lillian Owl)

October 2004 edition of Playgrounds Magazine
https://issuu.com/willdockery/docs/102004playgroundsall
Page 23: "To The Magic Store" column by Will Dockery
Page 23: Wil Dockery poem
Page 17: Feardevil / Chapter 3 (written with Manwolf and Lillian Owl)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

Local yokels join up with Will Hillbilly in the local listings, a.k.a., "fishwrap."

Yee-Haw!!!

[George Dance]

I didn't know that.

[W.Dockery]

Neither Lillian Owl or Manwolf lived in this area.


HTH and HAND.

[Will Dockery]

Here's a couple of chapters of the Feardevil novel:

> Some of my collaboration with Manwolf and Lillian Owl from around twenty years ago, the Feardevil novel, are online:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Playgrounds Magazine / March 2005
> Published on Feb 28, 2005
>
> https://issuu.com/willdockery/docs/032005playgroundsall
> March 2005 edition of Playgrounds Magazine
> Page 23: "To The Magic Store" column by Will Dockery
> Page 19: Feardevil Chapter 6 (written with Manwolf and Lillian Owl)
>
> October 2004 edition of Playgrounds Magazine
> https://issuu.com/willdockery/docs/102004playgroundsall
> Page 23: "To The Magic Store" column by Will Dockery
> Page 23: Wil Dockery poem
> Page 17: Feardevil / Chapter 3 (written with Manwolf and Lillian Owl)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ping: George J. Dance ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^°^^^^^^^

[Conley Brothers]

I believe he is. Duncy is in his 70s and several have noted he appears to be losing it. His second childhood may be upon him and senility is tightening its grip. Not every septuagenarian can age as gracefully as Mr. Rochester.

[Will Dockery]

I'll have to look that up, I don't remember most of the Hammes-isms.

🙂

[George Dance]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > February
> > > >
> > > > Unnoticed beauty:
> > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > >
> > > > - George J. Dance, 2023
> > > >
> > > > Commentary for those who need it:
> > > >
> > > > This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
> > > >
> > > > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.
> > > >
> > > > That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
> > > >
> > > The definition of "profound" that we'd agreed on in the thread you moved this from ("Georgie Porgy ran away"... again), was "intellectually deep or insightful."
> > No, Michael, that's two lies. First, I did not move anything from that other thread. I posted a revision of my poem in a new thread, and added the "commentary" you're always begging for as well. You're the one trying to start the same fight you were trolling about in that other thread.
> >
> You did not just post a revision of your poem (not that a revision should have required a separate thread).

That's another stupid lie from you, Michael.The revision is still in the backthread. Since it tooks like you missed it, her it is again for you:

> > > > February
> > > >
> > > > Unnoticed beauty:
> > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > >
> > > > - George J. Dance, 2023

Your commentary was a list of unsupported accusations taken from the original thread.

That's a second stupid lie from you, Michael; the commentary is all still in the backthread, too, though you've chopped it up:

<q>

This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.

My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express ws not clearly expressed.

That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.

This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).

</quote>

Nothing moved from the "other thread" -- and no "list of unsupported accusations". You lied again, and you got caught again. Now, do you want to double down on your lies, or would you rather lie about somethng else?

>
> Like I said, you're a lying p.o.s.

Keep saying it, troll, if that's all you're capable of.

> > Second, the definition we agreed on in that thread was (in your words):
> > <quote>
> > ">> > > > "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
> > </q>
> >
> > You're trying to switch definitions, hoping that your bringing it up in a new thread would keep anyone from noticing. Too bad; it didn't work.

> This, too, is a lie.

> When I first offered that definition, you claimed that I was merely restating one that you'd already posted.

Which is true: I'd previously given you this definition:
1a: having intellectual depth and insight
b: difficult to fathom or understand

You agreed to use 1a: "having intellectual depth and insight."

Now, since you're trolling in a different thread, you decided to switch the the definition to: "intellectually deep or insightful."

If you want to have an honest discussion, use the definition we agreed to. No more definition-switching.

> Were you lying then? Are you lying now? Do you ever make a post without lying?
> You should have been a politician.

> > > Realizing that one is failing to notice the beauty around him would certainly qualify as "insightful."
> > But not in any way "intellectually deep" -- so it doesn't satisfy the definition.
> It's deep enough. One could even compare it to the Zen practice of living completely in the moment.

You can compare it to whatever you feel like.

> > > Running away from the truth won't change it, George.
> >
> > > Nor have you managed to offer an explanation as to *why* you would have posted a 3-line poem if you hadn't thought it to be in any way profound.
> > That's a third lie, Michael: I just explained that in this very thread:
> > 'Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.'
> And how is a "revelation" not deep, insightful, or profound? How is an "epiphany" not deep, insightful, or profound?

Michael, you said i never "managed to offer an explanation" as to why I posted a poem -- when in factyou'd just read an explanation in my commentary (that you also lied about). You lied again, and you're just trying to cover it up by deflecting.

That noted, let's move on to your deflection:

> Both words signify a form of knowledge that is revealed to one. If the knowledge has to be revealed, it is not readily known to others. It is, therefore, profound.

No, Michael profound does not mean "not readily known to others". As I told you, if you wish to have an honest discussion, stop trying to switch definitions.

> > I'll be happy to go back to that other thread and post it there when I feel like it.
> You and your Donkey are the only imbeciles who think that they have to carry out each of their arguments on multiple threads.

Yet once again, as the backthread shows, it's been Michael Monkey who decided to start moving his "argument " to a new thread. Which makes me have to ask again:

Why do you project so much, Michael?

<snip>

> > > You can't run away from that question either (unless you cross-post this discussion to a group that no one else involved goes to, like RAP).

There's a fourth lie from you in this thread, Michael. We know you've gone to RAP because you've reposting discussions from RAP here on aapc. You couldn't do that unless you'd gone there.

> > > Dollars to donuts you already have.
> >
> > > > This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).
> >
> > > The fact that you would feel compelled to write poetry by the rules only further demonstrates my oft-expressed observation that you are a craftsman rather than a naturally talented (inspired) poet.
> > As I've always said, I'm a writer, not a poet. My "natural talent" is for non-fiction. Indeed I had to learn to write good poetry

> I hate to break it to you, George, but your posts here speak otherwise.

"You're a piece of shit -- and I don't like your writing too!"
Wow, Michael, that certainly stung (not).

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > February
> > > > >
> > > > > Unnoticed beauty:
> > > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > > >
> > > > > - George J. Dance, 2023
> > > > >
> > > > > Commentary for those who need it:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
> > > > >
> > > > > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.
> > > > >
> > > > > That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
> > > > >
> > > > The definition of "profound" that we'd agreed on in the thread you moved this from ("Georgie Porgy ran away"... again), was "intellectually deep or insightful."
> > > No, Michael, that's two lies. First, I did not move anything from that other thread. I posted a revision of my poem in a new thread, and added the "commentary" you're always begging for as well. You're the one trying to start the same fight you were trolling about in that other thread.
> > >
> > You did not just post a revision of your poem (not that a revision should have required a separate thread).
> That's another stupid lie from you, Michael.The revision is still in the backthread. Since it tooks like you missed it, her it is again for you:
>

WTF are you yammering on about now, George?

You posted *two* threads for your "February" poem.

Why?

Was it just to clutter up AAPC with multiple copies of your poem, as your Donkey is fond of doing with his?

Or was it to state your false accusations at the start of a new thread (a lame attempt to place your adversaries on the defensive)?

The answer, AFAIC, is self-evident.

> > > > > February
> > > > >
> > > > > Unnoticed beauty:
> > > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > > >
> > > > > - George J. Dance, 2023
> Your commentary was a list of unsupported accusations taken from the original thread.
> That's a second stupid lie from you, Michael; the commentary is all still in the backthread, too, though you've chopped it up:

Why are you repeating yourself, George?

Here's my repeated answer:


WTF are you yammering on about now, George?

You posted *two* threads for your "February" poem.

Why?

Was it just to clutter up AAPC with multiple copies of your poem, as your Donkey is fond of doing with his?

Or was it to state your false accusations at the start of a new thread (a lame attempt to place your adversaries on the defensive)?

The answer, AFAIC, is self-evident.

> <q>
> This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
> My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express ws not clearly expressed.
> That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
> This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).
> </quote>
>
> Nothing moved from the "other thread" -- and no "list of unsupported accusations". You lied again, and you got caught again. Now, do you want to double down on your lies, or would you rather lie about somethng else?
> >

You are accusing NancyGene and myself of having been unable to understand your poem. That is bald-faced lie.

Your poem made no sense, because you'd misused the word "dreams."

As noted in the original thread:

1) Dreams cannot be unnoticed;
2) Ocean waves are real, not dreams;
3) Your wife's cheek is real, not a dream.

In your original poem, your speaker listed items 2) and 3) as examples of "unrealized dreams." This made no sense.

Its lack of sense was entirely due to your misuse of the word "dreams," and not to any lack of understanding on either my own, or NancyGene's, part.

In short, you made a stupid mistake, and are attempting to salve your ego by pretending that its lack of sense was due to the intellectual shortcomings of your readers, and not to your own as a writer.

> > Like I said, you're a lying p.o.s.
> Keep saying it, troll, if that's all you're capable of.

It captures your essence. And, no, I cannot think of any other word or phrase ("dunce" included) that embodies "George Dance" so perfectly.

> > > Second, the definition we agreed on in that thread was (in your words):
> > > <quote>
> > > ">> > > > "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > You're trying to switch definitions, hoping that your bringing it up in a new thread would keep anyone from noticing. Too bad; it didn't work.
>
> > This, too, is a lie.
>
> > When I first offered that definition, you claimed that I was merely restating one that you'd already posted.
> Which is true: I'd previously given you this definition:
> 1a: having intellectual depth and insight
> b: difficult to fathom or understand
>
> You agreed to use 1a: "having intellectual depth and insight."
>
> Now, since you're trolling in a different thread, you decided to switch the the definition to: "intellectually deep or insightful."

WTF is wrong with you, George? It's the same exact thing.

> If you want to have an honest discussion, use the definition we agreed to. No more definition-switching.

Please explain how "intellectually deep or insightful" is different from "having intellectual depth and insight."

Once again, the word "nitpicker" raises its ugly head (bad haircut and all).

> > Were you lying then? Are you lying now? Do you ever make a post without lying?
> > You should have been a politician.
>
> > > > Realizing that one is failing to notice the beauty around him would certainly qualify as "insightful."
> > > But not in any way "intellectually deep" -- so it doesn't satisfy the definition.
> > It's deep enough. One could even compare it to the Zen practice of living completely in the moment.
> You can compare it to whatever you feel like.

Is Georgie Porgy trying to run away, yet again?

Address the point: how is the realization that one fails to notice the beauty that surrounds him in his daily life not intellectually deep and insightful?

> > > > Running away from the truth won't change it, George.
> > >
> > > > Nor have you managed to offer an explanation as to *why* you would have posted a 3-line poem if you hadn't thought it to be in any way profound.
> > > That's a third lie, Michael: I just explained that in this very thread:
> > > 'Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.'
> > And how is a "revelation" not deep, insightful, or profound? How is an "epiphany" not deep, insightful, or profound?
> Michael, you said i never "managed to offer an explanation" as to why I posted a poem -- when in factyou'd just read an explanation in my commentary (that you also lied about). You lied again, and you're just trying to cover it up by deflecting.
>

Stop acting dense, Dance.

NancyGene said that you posted a poem that you thought said something profound.

I seconded here statement on the grounds that I cannot conceive of any other motivation you might have had for posting this 3-line poem.

You you didn't think it was profound, but have repeatedly failed to offer an alternative reason for your having posted it..

So, for the nth time: Why did you post it?

> That noted, let's move on to your deflection:
> > Both words signify a form of knowledge that is revealed to one. If the knowledge has to be revealed, it is not readily known to others. It is, therefore, profound.
> No, Michael profound does not mean "not readily known to others". As I told you, if you wish to have an honest discussion, stop trying to switch definitions.
>

If something has "intellectual depth and insight" it requires a special understanding. "Insight" particularly denotes something that is not readily known.

If you wish to have an honest discussion, you'll have to stop dancing around every question that asked of you.

Your poem is about an epiphany -- a moment of clarity, insight, understand, and wisdom. It attempts to capture that realization, and to pass it on to your readers. It is, according to our agreed on definition, profound.

What makes you think that your poem isn't profound?

If this realization isn't intellectually deep and insightful enough for you, what would be?

> > > I'll be happy to go back to that other thread and post it there when I feel like it.
> > You and your Donkey are the only imbeciles who think that they have to carry out each of their arguments on multiple threads.
> Yet once again, as the backthread shows, it's been Michael Monkey who decided to start moving his "argument " to a new thread. Which makes me have to ask again:
>

The backthread shows, as noted above, that you started the new thread under false pretense that NancyGene and I had misunderstood your poem; when, in fact, you poem did not make sense due to *your* misuse of a key word.

> Why do you project so much, Michael?

Why are you trying to divert the attention away from your second thread, George?

> <snip>
> > > > You can't run away from that question either (unless you cross-post this discussion to a group that no one else involved goes to, like RAP).
> There's a fourth lie from you in this thread, Michael. We know you've gone to RAP because you've reposting discussions from RAP here on aapc. You couldn't do that unless you'd gone there.
>

If I have reposted any discussions, it was because they came up in a archive search. That doesn't mean that I read, or even visit, the group.

Georgie Porgy feels relatively safe in posting a RAP, because the odds of his slanders turning up in an archive search are fairly slim.

> > > > Dollars to donuts you already have.
> > >
> > > > > This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).
> > >
> > > > The fact that you would feel compelled to write poetry by the rules only further demonstrates my oft-expressed observation that you are a craftsman rather than a naturally talented (inspired) poet.
> > > As I've always said, I'm a writer, not a poet. My "natural talent" is for non-fiction. Indeed I had to learn to write good poetry
>
> > I hate to break it to you, George, but your posts here speak otherwise.
> "You're a piece of shit -- and I don't like your writing too!"
> Wow, Michael, that certainly stung (not).

I'm not a bee, George.

I'm merely pointing out that if you believe that non-fictional writing is where your talent lies, you are sorely (very sorely indeed) mistaken.

[W.Dockery]

Yes, your discussion with Zod which Pendragon copy and pasted here, for some reason.

>> > > Dollars to donuts you already have.
>> >
>> > > > This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).
>> >
>> > > The fact that you would feel compelled to write poetry by the rules only further demonstrates my oft-expressed observation that you are a craftsman rather than a naturally talented (inspired) poet.
>> > As I've always said, I'm a writer, not a poet. My "natural talent" is for non-fiction. Indeed I had to learn to write good poetry

>> I hate to break it to you, George, but your posts here speak otherwise.

> "You're a piece of shit -- and I don't like your writing too!"
> Wow, Michael, that certainly stung (not).

As for posting the revised version of the poem on a new thread, pretty much everyone does that, since the beginning of the newsgroup.

HTH and HAND.

[George Dance]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> WTF are you yammering on about now, George?
>
> You posted *two* threads for your "February" poem.

Correct: in 2009,. and one in 2023.

> Why?

Because I revised the poem 14 years after I'd last posted it.

> Was it just to clutter up AAPC with multiple copies of your poem, as your Donkey is fond of doing with his?

Are you really complaining about me posting two different versions of a poem 14 years apart?

> Or was it to state your false accusations at the start of a new thread (a lame attempt to place your adversaries on the defensive)?

Obviously not that one, since I did't make any "false accusations."

> The answer, AFAIC, is self-evident.

It sure is I reposted a poem years after I'd written it because I'd revised it.

> > > > > > February
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unnoticed beauty:
> > > > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - George J. Dance, 2023

<snip>

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>
> > WTF are you yammering on about now, George?
> >
> > You posted *two* threads for your "February" poem.
> Correct: in 2009,. and one in 2023.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because I revised the poem 14 years after I'd last posted it.
> > Was it just to clutter up AAPC with multiple copies of your poem, as your Donkey is fond of doing with his?
> Are you really complaining about me posting two different versions of a poem 14 years apart?

Whining seems to be the agenda of the day for Team Monkey.

> > Or was it to state your false accusations at the start of a new thread (a lame attempt to place your adversaries on the defensive)?
> Obviously not that one, since I did't make any "false accusations."
> > The answer, AFAIC, is self-evident.
> It sure is I reposted a poem years after I'd written it because I'd revised it.
> > > > > > > February
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unnoticed beauty:
> > > > > > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - George J. Dance, 2023
> <snip>

Exactly.

[George Dance]

Of course people have posted revisions as OPs. They want people to read the poem as they've written it.

If they just reposted it in the original thread where they'd posted an earlier draft, it wouldn't even be seen. If anyone tried to search for the poem, or discovered it through browsing, what they'd find is the OP in that thread, the earlier draft. They wouldn't even be aware that the poem had been revised.

[Will Dockery]

Yes, just another example of Pendragon's whining hypocrisy and double standards.

[George Dance]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:03:52 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > Heh! It reminded me of Hammy Hog's notorious phrase about "their pink poetitudes."
> "Chimp Obsesso," "Hammy Hog"... please try to act your age.

Oh, I think you're just butt-hurt about being dubbed "Michael Monkey."

[W-Dockery]

While it was actually Pendragon himself who revived the old "animal kingdom" gambit.

:)

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > WTF are you yammering on about now, George?
> >
> > You posted *two* threads for your "February" poem.
> Correct: in 2009,. and one in 2023.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because I revised the poem 14 years after I'd last posted it.
> > Was it just to clutter up AAPC with multiple copies of your poem, as your Donkey is fond of doing with his?
> Are you really complaining about me posting two different versions of a poem 14 years apart?
> > Or was it to state your false accusations at the start of a new thread (a lame attempt to place your adversaries on the defensive)?
> Obviously not that one, since I did't make any "false accusations."

Damn but you're in Yukon Gold mood today, George.

You started a new thread and said that you were revising your poem because NancyGene and I had difficulty understanding it.

That, as I have explained to you several times, is a lie.

Your poem was unintelligible because you misused the word "dreams."

Dreams are not unnoticed as your poem's first line claimed.

Nor are the examples of "unnoticed dreams" that your poem listed; ocean waves in winter (line two) and the curvature of your wife's cheek (line three) are both physically real and do not qualify as dreams.

When you followed NancyGene's advice and corrected your mistake, it made sense.

Words matter.

Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.

[Michael Pendragon]

A seventy-something year-old man calling people by childish names like Michael Monkey and Hammy Hog is only making himself look like a dolt.

[George Dance]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > WTF are you yammering on about now, George?
> > >
> > > You posted *two* threads for your "February" poem.
> > Correct: in 2009,. and one in 2023.
> >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because I revised the poem 14 years after I'd last posted it.
> > > Was it just to clutter up AAPC with multiple copies of your poem, as your Donkey is fond of doing with his?
> > Are you really complaining about me posting two different versions of a poem 14 years apart?
> > > Or was it to state your false accusations at the start of a new thread (a lame attempt to place your adversaries on the defensive)?
> > Obviously not that one, since I did't make any "false accusations."
> Damn but you're in Yukon Gold mood today, George.

> You started a new thread and said that you were revising your poem because NancyGene and I had difficulty understanding it.

No, Michael. Here's what I actually said:
> >> > > > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.</q>

I didn't even mention your name. Kindly stop misrepresenting.

> That, as I have explained to you several times, is a lie.

First, I never mentioned you. Second, even if I had, it would not have been a lie. From what you both said about the poem - that it was "mindless" (NG) and that "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole" (implies that neither of you understood it.

> Your poem was unintelligible because you misused the word "dreams."

You didn't claim that it was "unitelligible" (not understandable), Michael. You claimed that you understood it perfectly, and that it actually "meaningless gibberish".

>
> Dreams are not unnoticed as your poem's first line claimed.

What are you trying to say? That the phrase "Unnoticed dreams" isn't just "meaningless gibberish" (as you claimed), but actually says something?

> Nor are the examples of "unnoticed dreams" that your poem listed; ocean waves in winter (line two) and the curvature of your wife's cheek (line three) are both physically real and do not qualify as dreams.

Are you now trying to say that the lines "ocean waves in winter" and "the curve of your cheek" are not just "meaningless gibberish" (as you claimed), but actually say something?

That's a big switch.

> When you followed NancyGene's advice and corrected your mistake, it made sense.

First, NastyGoon did not 'advise' me to change anything in the poem. Please stop lying.

Second, you previously claimed that the lines -

ocean waves in winter,
the curve of your cheek.

- had no meaning, but were just "meaningless gibberish". Since I haven't changed those lines, they should still be "meaningless gibberish". Yet you're claiming that, since I changed a different line, those two lines now mean something. In fact, they're the same lines, with the same meaning.

[George Dance]

Then stop complaining, and be happy that I'm calling you that.

[ME]

Man up, if that’s possible for you, dance.

I mean really….
You call ME meat puppet. How juvenile and misogynistic is that?
Grow up or get lost.

[George Dance]

It's a name that perfectly describes you:
"meatpuppet (plural meatpuppets)
n:
(derogatory, Internet slang) One whose sole reason for participating in a discussion or forum is to support, or express agreement with, a friend.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meatpuppet

[ME]

You just gave it up, dance!!

Hahahaha!!!


You are will’s meat puppet!!!

That was so informative and so very educational on your relationship with will.

Ewwwwe…

[W.Dockery]

Definitely applies to "ME".

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > WTF are you yammering on about now, George?
> > > >
> > > > You posted *two* threads for your "February" poem.
> > > Correct: in 2009,. and one in 2023.
> > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Because I revised the poem 14 years after I'd last posted it.
> > > > Was it just to clutter up AAPC with multiple copies of your poem, as your Donkey is fond of doing with his?
> > > Are you really complaining about me posting two different versions of a poem 14 years apart?
> > > > Or was it to state your false accusations at the start of a new thread (a lame attempt to place your adversaries on the defensive)?
> > > Obviously not that one, since I did't make any "false accusations."
> > Damn but you're in Yukon Gold mood today, George.
>
> > You started a new thread and said that you were revising your poem because NancyGene and I had difficulty understanding it.
> No, Michael. Here's what I actually said:
> > >> > > > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.</q>
>
> I didn't even mention your name. Kindly stop misrepresenting.

Stop playing the Dunce.

We all know that you were referring to NancyGene and me.

We also know that your poem, and not our understanding, was at fault.

Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.

> > That, as I have explained to you several times, is a lie.
> First, I never mentioned you. Second, even if I had, it would not have been a lie. From what you both said about the poem - that it was "mindless" (NG) and that "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole" (implies that neither of you understood it.
> > Your poem was unintelligible because you misused the word "dreams."
> You didn't claim that it was "unitelligible" (not understandable), Michael. You claimed that you understood it perfectly, and that it actually "meaningless gibberish".
> >
> > Dreams are not unnoticed as your poem's first line claimed.
> What are you trying to say? That the phrase "Unnoticed dreams" isn't just "meaningless gibberish" (as you claimed), but actually says something?
> > Nor are the examples of "unnoticed dreams" that your poem listed; ocean waves in winter (line two) and the curvature of your wife's cheek (line three) are both physically real and do not qualify as dreams.
> Are you now trying to say that the lines "ocean waves in winter" and "the curve of your cheek" are not just "meaningless gibberish" (as you claimed), but actually say something?
>
> That's a big switch.

No, George.

Try to stay focused.

Perhaps scrunching up your brow might help.

I said that they were meaningless gibberish *in the original version of your poem.*

Once NancyGene *corrected* your poem, they actually made sense.

Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.

> > When you followed NancyGene's advice and corrected your mistake, it made sense.
> First, NastyGoon did not 'advise' me to change anything in the poem. Please stop lying.
>
> Second, you previously claimed that the lines -
> ocean waves in winter,
> the curve of your cheek.
> - had no meaning, but were just "meaningless gibberish". Since I haven't changed those lines, they should still be "meaningless gibberish". Yet you're claiming that, since I changed a different line, those two lines now mean something. In fact, they're the same lines, with the same meaning.
>

You're as dumb as a Donkey, Dance.

In the first poem, you wrote:

Unnoticed dreams:

ocean waves in winter,
the curve of your cheek.

In the version NancyGene corrected for you, your poem became:

Unnoticed beauty:

ocean waves in winter,
the curve of your cheek.

In the original the first line ends in a colon, signifying that the second and third lines are examples of "unnoticed dreams." That makes no sense.

In the version that NancyGene corrected for you, the first line, which still ends in a colon, signifies that the second and third lines are examples of "unnoticed beauty." That makes perfect sense.

The second and third lines remain the same, but they are no longer being proffered as examples of dreams. In short, your incorrect first line, *modifies* the following lines, and turns them into gibberish as a result.

Once NancyGene corrected you, your emended first line correctly cited the following lines as examples of beauty, thereby modifying them in an intelligent, and intelligible, manner.

Words matter. Learn what they mean, how to use them correctly; and stop trying to pass off your incompetence under the pretense that others do not understand your writing.

If you had written you poem intelligibly, it would have been understood.

The burden of clearly expressing oneself lies on the writer. If you express your self correctly, others will naturally understand.

When you list ocean waves and the curvature of a cheek as examples of dreams, you've written what is commonly referred to as palpable nonsense, and your readers will take you for a semi-literate fool.

[Will Dockery]

Actually, George was referring to you.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

Yet when you do the same thing it's somehow different, you delusional fuckwit?

[ME]

He tried to.

[Will Dockery]

Looks like he did.

🙂

[ME]

Nah, it backfired on him.
Deflection does that, a lot.

But you’re too ignorant and delusional to realize that, will.

So glad I could educate you on that.

[W-Dockery]

ME wrote:

> On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 22:22:40 UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:19:28 PM UTC-4, ME wrote:
>> > On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 22:13:33 UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 9:26:48 PM UTC-4, ME wrote:
>> > > > On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 21:01:20 UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:45:49 PM UTC-4, ME wrote:
>> > > > > > On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 20:40:40 UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:13:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:53:08 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:03:52 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > Heh! It reminded me of Hammy Hog's notorious phrase about "their pink poetitudes."
>> > > > > > > > > > "Chimp Obsesso," "Hammy Hog"... please try to act your age.
>> > > > > > > > > Oh, I think you're just butt-hurt about being dubbed "Michael Monkey."
>> > > > > > > > A seventy-something year-old man calling people by childish names like Michael Monkey and Hammy Hog is only making himself look like a dolt.

>> > > > > > > Then stop complaining, and be happy that I'm calling you that..

>> > > > > > Man up, if that’s possible for you, dance.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I mean really….
>> > > > > > You call ME meat puppet. How juvenile and misogynistic is that?
>> > > > > It's a name that perfectly describes you:
>> > > > > "meatpuppet (plural meatpuppets)
>> > > > > n:
>> > > > > (derogatory, Internet slang) One whose sole reason for participating in a discussion or forum is to support, or express agreement with, a friend.
>> > > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meatpuppet
>> > > > You just gave it up, dance!!
>> > > >
>> > > > Hahahaha!!!
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > You are will’s meat puppet!!!
>> > > >
>> > > > That was so informative and so very educational on your relationship with will.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ewwwwe…
>> > > Actually, George was referring to you.
>> > >
>> >
>> > He tried to.
>> Looks like he did.
>>



> Nah, it backfired on him

In your imagination, maybe.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

Yes, you nailed it, George.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Rah! Rah!

Georgie Porgy! he's our man
If he can't do it, no one can!

Go Team Donkey!!!

[Will Dockery]

Says Michael Pendragon, the shit slinging little monkey

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Why so testy, Donkey? I was just helping you cheer.

[W-Dockery]

Not at all, just reminding you what team you're on, you delusional fuckwit.

🙂

[George Dance]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:04:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >
> > > You started a new thread and said that you were revising your poem because NancyGene and I had difficulty understanding it.
> > No, Michael. Here's what I actually said:
> > > >> > > > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.</q>
> >
> > I didn't even mention your name. Kindly stop misrepresenting.
> Stop playing the Dunce.
>
> We all know that you were referring to NancyGene and me.

You two were the ones claiming that all of "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole," were you not?

> We also know that your poem, and not our understanding, was at fault.

Don't lie, Michael -- I never said your understanding was "at fault"; simply that you did not understand what the poem meant (which is why you were insisting it didn't mean anything). You, OTOH, claimed that you understood it perfectly, and started stamping your little foot and shrieking, "STOP LYING, GEORGE!"

> Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.

> > First, I never mentioned you. Second, even if I had, it would not have been a lie. From what you both said about the poem - that it was "mindless" (NG) and that "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole" (implies that neither of you understood it.
> > > Your poem was unintelligible because you misused the word "dreams."
> > You didn't claim that it was "unitelligible" (not understandable), Michael. You claimed that you understood it perfectly, and that it actually "meaningless gibberish".

And now, as I've already noted in one of the other flame threads you've started, you're trying to change your positions to what you think is a more winning one: what's called "shifting goalposts."

> > Are you now trying to say that the lines "ocean waves in winter" and "the curve of your cheek" are not just "meaningless gibberish" (as you claimed), but actually say something?
> >
> > That's a big switch.
> No, George.
>
> Try to stay focused.
>
> Perhaps scrunching up your brow might help.
>
> I said that they were meaningless gibberish *in the original version of your poem.*

Then, since they have not been changed in any way, they should still be "meaningless gibberish" as *in the original version of your criticism.*

> Once NancyGene *corrected* your poem, they actually made sense.

Claiming that NG *corrected* my poem is your most shameless lie yet, shameless liar. There is no sign in any of the threads you've opened that NG was even aware of what you now say was the problem in the poem. Nor is there any sign that you were aware of it; you just thought of it and began writing about it after you read my revision on Tuesday.

> Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.

> > Second, you previously claimed that the lines -
> > ocean waves in winter,
> > the curve of your cheek.
> > - had no meaning, but were just "meaningless gibberish". Since I haven't changed those lines, they should still be "meaningless gibberish". Yet you're claiming that, since I changed a different line, those two lines now mean something. In fact, they're the same lines, with the same meaning.
> >
> You're as dumb as a Donkey, Dance.
>
> In the first poem, you wrote:
>
> Unnoticed dreams:
> ocean waves in winter,
> the curve of your cheek.

> In the version NancyGene corrected for you, your poem became:

That's the second time you've said that lie, Michael. Not only did NG "correct" (revise) the poem, they said nothing about the problem you're not going on about that my correction fixed. Nor did you; to repeat, you only thought this up after you had read my revision and finally understood the poem.

I've read the post, and I notice you just keep repeating that lie, so I'll just stop replying here.

<snip>

[George Dance]

"Delusional fuckwit" is correct. He's now claiming that NG wrote my revision of "February".
> 🙂

[W.Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 1:00:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >> On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >> > > > > On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 20:40:40 UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> >> > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:13:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:53:08 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:03:52 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Heh! It reminded me of Hammy Hog's notorious phrase about "their pink poetitudes."
>> >> > > > > > > > > "Chimp Obsesso," "Hammy Hog"... please try to act your age.
>> >> > > > > > > > Oh, I think you're just butt-hurt about being dubbed "Michael Monkey."
>> >> > > > > > > A seventy-something year-old man calling people by childish names like Michael Monkey and Hammy Hog is only making himself look like a dolt.
>> >> > > > > > Then stop complaining, and be happy that I'm calling you that.
>

>> >> > Rah! Rah!
>> >> >
>> >> > Georgie Porgy! he's our man
>> >> > If he can't do it, no one can!
>> >> >
>> >> > Go Team Donkey!!!
>> >> Says Michael Pendragon, the shit slinging little monkey
>>
>> > Why so testy
>> Not at all, just reminding you what team you're on, you delusional fuckwit.

> "Delusional fuckwit" is correct. He's now claiming that NG wrote my revision of "February".
>> 🙂

I noticed that.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 1:49:07 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:04:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > >
> > > > You started a new thread and said that you were revising your poem because NancyGene and I had difficulty understanding it.
> > > No, Michael. Here's what I actually said:
> > > > >> > > > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.</q>
> > >
> > > I didn't even mention your name. Kindly stop misrepresenting.
> > Stop playing the Dunce.
> >
> > We all know that you were referring to NancyGene and me.
> You two were the ones claiming that all of "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole," were you not?

Of course we were, George; and we were correct on all counts.

> > We also know that your poem, and not our understanding, was at fault.
> Don't lie, Michael -- I never said your understanding was "at fault"; simply that you did not understand what the poem meant (which is why you were insisting it didn't mean anything). You, OTOH, claimed that you understood it perfectly, and started stamping your little foot and shrieking, "STOP LYING, GEORGE!"
>

If we hadn't understood it, our understanding would necessarily have been at fault. Are you really so vapid as to not be able to see that?

> > Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.
> > > First, I never mentioned you. Second, even if I had, it would not have been a lie. From what you both said about the poem - that it was "mindless" (NG) and that "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole" (implies that neither of you understood it.
> > > > Your poem was unintelligible because you misused the word "dreams."
> > > You didn't claim that it was "unitelligible" (not understandable), Michael. You claimed that you understood it perfectly, and that it actually "meaningless gibberish".
> And now, as I've already noted in one of the other flame threads you've started, you're trying to change your positions to what you think is a more winning one: what's called "shifting goalposts."
>

What do you think I'm trying to change, George.

Your original poem was completely unintelligible. As noted, "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."

I stand by that statement here, and in the thread that I posted elsewhere.

> > > Are you now trying to say that the lines "ocean waves in winter" and "the curve of your cheek" are not just "meaningless gibberish" (as you claimed), but actually say something?
> > >
> > > That's a big switch.
> > No, George.
> >
> > Try to stay focused.
> >
> > Perhaps scrunching up your brow might help.
> >
> > I said that they were meaningless gibberish *in the original version of your poem.*
> Then, since they have not been changed in any way, they should still be "meaningless gibberish" as *in the original version of your criticism.*

That, my friend, is a perfect example of what has come to be known as "Dunce Logic." Dunce Logic is a spurious form of argumentation that presents an illogical concept in seemingly logical terms.

In the above, you base your conclusion on the false claim that the 2nd and 3rd lines of your poem "have not been changed in any way." However, as I have already pointed out to you, lines 2 and 3 are modified by line 1. When line 1 identifies lines 2 and 3 as presenting examples of dreams, it has rendered both lines unintelligible. When line 1 identifies lines 2 and 3 as examples of beauty, they make perfect sense.

Did you cut class the week they explained "modifiers" to you in 5th grade English?

> > Once NancyGene *corrected* your poem, they actually made sense.
> Claiming that NG *corrected* my poem is your most shameless lie yet, shameless liar. There is no sign in any of the threads you've opened that NG was even aware of what you now say was the problem in the poem. Nor is there any sign that you were aware of it; you just thought of it and began writing about it after you read my revision on Tuesday.
>

That is not true, George. NancyGene pointed out how you had misused the word "dreams." And you, eventually, thanked her for having brought it to your attention, and revised your poem accordingly.

> > Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.
> > > Second, you previously claimed that the lines -
> > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > the curve of your cheek.
> > > - had no meaning, but were just "meaningless gibberish". Since I haven't changed those lines, they should still be "meaningless gibberish". Yet you're claiming that, since I changed a different line, those two lines now mean something. In fact, they're the same lines, with the same meaning.
> > >
> > You're as dumb as a Donkey, Dance.
> >
> > In the first poem, you wrote:
> >
> > Unnoticed dreams:
> > ocean waves in winter,
> > the curve of your cheek.
>
> > In the version NancyGene corrected for you, your poem became:
> That's the second time you've said that lie, Michael. Not only did NG "correct" (revise) the poem, they said nothing about the problem you're not going on about that my correction fixed. Nor did you; to repeat, you only thought this up after you had read my revision and finally understood the poem.
>

She did not say that "dreams" destroyed the intelligibility of lines 2 and 3. However, she explained to you how dreams were not "unnoticed." This led you to change the offending word, thereby making lines 2 and 3 intelligible in the process.

> I've read the post, and I notice you just keep repeating that lie, so I'll just stop replying here.
>
> <snip>

If I keep repeating, it's because you keep ignoring (or denying) the crux of the argument: that your original poem was rendered entirely unintelligible by your incorrect usage of a word.

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 10:13:00 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 9:40:33 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 8:30:14 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
>> >> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:36:32 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> >> > >> On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:15:17 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> > So even Michael Pendragon can't miss it, here's the complete thread without deletions.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Just click the link and read the thread, Pendragon:
>> >> > >> > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> > >> Michael Monkey doesn't want to look at the link, because that way he can continue to pretend the evidence you found doesn't exist. He may be hoping that, if he ignores it long enough, something will happen to Narkive and the evidence will just go away; that thought occurred to me as well, which is why I made a backup copy on Internet Archive today.
>> >> > >> https://web.archive.org/web/20230421232934/https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >
>> >> > > Seriously, George, WTF is wrong with you???
>> >> > Second hand Gary Gamble much, Pendragon?
>> >> He's discovered a new source of material.
>>
>> > Gary Gamble isn't the only one
>> It's a Gary Gamble catchphrase that he asked just about everyone from time to time.
>>
>> No surprise you'd second hand Gary Gamble, though.

> I doubt he asked it of everyone

I said just about everyone.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 10:13:00 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 9:40:33 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

>> >> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 8:30:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> >> > >> > So even Michael Pendragon can't miss it, here's the complete thread without deletions.
>
>> >> > >> > Just click the link and read the thread, Pendragon:
> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>
> >> > >> Michael Monkey doesn't want to look at the link, because that way he can continue to pretend the evidence you found doesn't exist. He may be hoping that, if he ignores it long enough, something will happen to Narkive and the evidence will just go away; that thought occurred to me as well, which is why I made a backup copy on Internet Archive today.
> https://web.archive.org/web/20230421232934/https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>
>> >> > > Seriously, George, WTF is wrong with you???
>> >> > Second hand Gary Gamble much, Pendragon?
>> >> He's discovered a new source of material.
>>
>> > Gary Gamble isn't the only one
>> It's a Gary Gamble catchphrase that he asked just about everyone from time to time.
>>
>> No surprise you'd second hand Gary Gamble, though.

> I doubt he asked it of everyone

Not everyone, just those Gamble didn't agree with.

HTH and HAND.

[Ash Wurthing]

Just like you with calling everyone you don't agree with "trolls" and "whiners"*
* you make a pretty good petty bully, sWilly

[Ash Wurthing]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:29:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:53:20 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > > > > > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you.
> > > > > > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > > > > You attend poetry readings now?
> > > > Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!
> > > WAAAAY over his fat drunken head.
> > sorry Dance, I was cajoled to read this...
> > looks pretty and probably went over well with your wife, which is fine, that's why we do this thing called poetry...
> > but to a third party, like me, it seems incomplete and unfinished and the subject not cohesive.
> > (this is merely a neutral impression of a reader)
> That was a fair crit. It actually reminded me of the negative part of Manwolf's crit of the 2009 version:

Of course-- just 'cause we fight elsewhere doesn't mean I have to fight you everywhere.
I will take time out from fighting to enjoy the diversion of word craft, just like we would on the street.
I look at others work not just to enjoy, but to learn from and perhaps even to be inspired by.

> "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."
>
> I never replied to him, partly because I didn't know the best way to put it. Same this time.

I stay away from short verse or too tightly structured verse 'cause to me it always seems to produce something stilted.

[W-Dockery]

I call it as I see it, Ash, just as I suppose you do.

HTH and HAND.

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 11:29:26 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>
>
> I stay away from short verse or too tightly structured verse 'cause to me it always seems to produce something stilted

I was taught mainly in the last of the "modern poetry" days, where my two best teachers, Dan Barfield and Ahmos Zu-Bolton, felt that "rhyme is a crutch."

In later years I've been attempting to write more structured and rhyming verse, but my favorite form are still the "anything goes" forms of poetry.

:)

[Michael Pendragon]

I never said any such thing, George. I said that you'd revised it after she had pointed out your misuse of "dreams." Changing one word would hardly constitute a rewrite -- even in this case where "so much depends upon" a single word.

[George Dance]

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:30:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 1:49:07 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:04:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You started a new thread and said that you were revising your poem because NancyGene and I had difficulty understanding it.
> > > > No, Michael. Here's what I actually said:
> > > > > >> > > > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.</q>
> > > >
> > > > I didn't even mention your name. Kindly stop misrepresenting.
> > > Stop playing the Dunce.
> > >
> > > We all know that you were referring to NancyGene and me.
> > You two were the ones claiming that all of "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole," were you not?
> Of course we were, George; and we were correct on all counts.

You agree with yourself. Whoop-de-doo!

> > Don't lie, Michael -- I never said your understanding was "at fault"; simply that you did not understand what the poem meant (which is why you were insisting it didn't mean anything). You, OTOH, claimed that you understood it perfectly, and started stamping your little foot and shrieking, "STOP LYING, GEORGE!"
> >
> If we hadn't understood it, our understanding would necessarily have been at fault. Are you really so vapid as to not be able to see that?

I have seen your posts in which you admit you didn't understand it (but of course blame me). Are you really so drunk that you've forgotten them?

> > And now, as I've already noted in one of the other flame threads you've started, you're trying to change your positions to what you think is a more winning one: what's called "shifting goalposts."
> >
> What do you think I'm trying to change, George.

Originally you were claiming that all the lines in the poem were meaningless gibberish: "Unnoticed dreams" was meaningless gibberish, "ocean waves in winter" was meaningless gibberish, and "the curve of your cheek" was meaningless gibberish. After I revised the poem and you understood it, you've been arguing that all those lines suddenly have meanings; but that for (some reason you haven't made clear) their meanings are incoherent. You simply made up a new argument when your old one failed.

> Your original poem was completely unintelligible. As noted, "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."
>
> I stand by that statement here, and in the thread that I posted elsewhere.

So you're back to your original position:
"Unnoticed dreams" was meaningless gibberish, "ocean waves in winter" was meaningless gibberish, and "the curve of your cheek" was meaningless gibberish.

Stay there. Don't try to shift the goalposts again.

> > > I said that they were meaningless gibberish *in the original version of your poem.*
> > Then, since they have not been changed in any way, they should still be "meaningless gibberish" as *in the original version of your criticism.*
> That, my friend, is a perfect example of what has come to be known as "Dunce Logic." Dunce Logic is a spurious form of argumentation that presents an illogical concept in seemingly logical terms.

The logic is simple.
1) You claim that every line in the poem is meaningless gibberish.
2) "ocean waves in winter" is a line in the poem.
3) You claim that "ocean waves in winter" is meaningless gibberish.
QED

> In the above, you base your conclusion on the false claim that the 2nd and 3rd lines of your poem "have not been changed in any way." However, as I have already pointed out to you, lines 2 and 3 are modified by line 1. When line 1 identifies lines 2 and 3 as presenting examples of dreams, it has rendered both lines unintelligible.

Once again, Michael, you have not been claiming that line 2 ("ocean waves in winter") was unintelligible (unable . You have been claiming it they were perfectly intelligible (since you understood it perfectly), and that it was in fact meaningless gibberish.

> When line 1 identifies lines 2 and 3 as examples of beauty, they make perfect sense.

Michael: Either "ocean waves in winter" makes sense, or it is meaningless gibberish. Not both.

> Did you cut class the week they explained "modifiers" to you in 5th grade English?

Michael: no one in my 5th grade, or any year afterward, has ever claimed that a phrase like "ocean waves in winter" can lose all meaning (become meaningless gibberish) by the placement of a modifier.

> > Claiming that NG *corrected* my poem is your most shameless lie yet, shameless liar. There is no sign in any of the threads you've opened that NG was even aware of what you now say was the problem in the poem. Nor is there any sign that you were aware of it; you just thought of it and began writing about it after you read my revision on Tuesday.
> >
> That is not true, George. NancyGene pointed out how you had misused the word "dreams."

No, Michael that is not true. NG (thinking that by "dreams" I meant -
1: a series of thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dream
- asked how a dream could be "unnoticed.". They "explained" nothing.

> And you, eventually, thanked her for having brought it to your attention, and revised your poem accordingly.

No, Michael, your first conjunct is not true either. Your second is; at least you didn't lie about everything this time.

> > That's the second time you've said that lie, Michael. Not only did NG [NOT] "correct" (revise) the poem, they said nothing about the problem you're not going on about that my correction fixed. Nor did you; to repeat, you only thought this up after you had read my revision and finally understood the poem.

> >
> She did not say that "dreams" destroyed the intelligibility of lines 2 and 3. However, she explained to you how dreams were not "unnoticed."

No, Michael, you're simply repeating a lie. NG did not explain anything. They asked a question: how can a dream be unnoticed?

This led you to change the offending word, thereby making lines 2 and 3 intelligible in the process.

Once again, Michael, you were not claiming that L2 and L3 were "unintelligible" before I revised the poem. You claimed that they were perfectly intelligible before I revised it -- because you were claiming that you understood them perfectly.

> If I keep repeating, it's because you keep ignoring (or denying) the crux of the argument: that your original poem was rendered entirely unintelligible by your incorrect usage of a word.

Michael, once again, you were not arguing that the poem was "unintelligible". If it had been unintelligible, then you could not have understood it perfectly, and you were claiming that you did understand it perfectly. Stop trying to change your position.

[George Dance]

Stop lying, Michael; it's all in the backthread.

You claimed not only that NG "corrected" the revision I posted, but that I "thanked" her for it. If you believe either of those claims, you are delusional.

> I said that you'd revised it after she had pointed out your misuse of "dreams."

Once again, Michael: NG did not "point out" anything. They asked how dreams could be unnoticed; and dropped out of the thread after I'd explained how they could be.

> Changing one word would hardly constitute a rewrite -- even in this case where "so much depends upon" a single word.

Yet according to your argument, that word change in L1 turned all the other lines in the poem from meaningless gibberish to descriptions of physical objects. If my revision changed the meaning of every line in the poem, then it was indeed a rewrite; if it wasn't a rewrite, then it didn't change the meaning of every line in the poem.

[Will Dockery]

Like I said, all you have is your opinion, Pendragon, which has been proven to be that of a delusional fucktard.

After all, you're the one who foolishly believes he's a better poet than William Carlos Williams, T.S. Eliot and ee cummings, to name three.

In other words, your opinion is pretty much worthless, Pendragon, you delusional fuckwit.

HTH and HAND.

[George Dance]

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:30:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 1:49:07 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:04:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > Stop playing the Dunce.
> > >
> > > We all know that you were referring to NancyGene and me.
> > You two were the ones claiming that all of "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole," were you not?
> Of course we were, George; and we were correct on all counts.

So now you're back to claiming that you understood the poem perfectly, both before and after I revised it.

> > > We also know that your poem, and not our understanding, was at fault.
> > Don't lie, Michael -- I never said your understanding was "at fault"; simply that you did not understand what the poem meant (which is why you were insisting it didn't mean anything). You, OTOH, claimed that you understood it perfectly, and started stamping your little foot and shrieking, "STOP LYING, GEORGE!"
> >
> If we hadn't understood it, our understanding would necessarily have been at fault. Are you really so vapid as to not be able to see that?

Because it's simply not true, Michael. Once again: if a reader tells a writer he can't understand a poem, that problem can lie with either the reader or the writer, or with both.

> > > Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.
> > > > First, I never mentioned you. Second, even if I had, it would not have been a lie. From what you both said about the poem - that it was "mindless" (NG) and that "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole" (implies that neither of you understood it.
> > > > > Your poem was unintelligible because you misused the word "dreams."
> > > > You didn't claim that it was "unitelligible" (not understandable), Michael. You claimed that you understood it perfectly, and that it actually "meaningless gibberish".
> > And now, as I've already noted in one of the other flame threads you've started, you're trying to change your positions to what you think is a more winning one: what's called "shifting goalposts."
> >
> What do you think I'm trying to change, George.

Well, for instance, you're now claiming that L2, "ocean waves in winter," is a description of 'physical objects'; whereas your original claim was that "ocean waves in winter" was meaningless gibberish. Obviously it can't be both, so that's one change in position.

> Your original poem was completely unintelligible.

And that's another change. Originally you claimed that my poem was perfectly intelligible to you, and that you understood it perfectly.

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

That's what you claimed, all righty. Not that (eg.) the line "ocean waves in winter" meant a type of physical object, but that it had "no meaning" at all.

> > > I said that they were meaningless gibberish *in the original version of your poem.*
> > Then, since they have not been changed in any way, they should still be "meaningless gibberish" as *in the original version of your criticism.*
> That, my friend, is a perfect example of what has come to be known as "Dunce Logic." Dunce Logic is a spurious form of argumentation that presents an illogical concept in seemingly logical terms.
>

Once again: You claimed that the line "ocean waves in winter" had no meaning. I did not change that line; it reads the same as it did in the earlier version. Yet now you're claiming that it now means a type of physical object.

> In the above, you base your conclusion on the false claim that the 2nd and 3rd lines of your poem "have not been changed in any way."

> However, as I have already pointed out to you, lines 2 and 3 are modified by line 1. When line 1 identifies lines 2 and 3 as presenting examples of dreams, it has rendered both lines unintelligible.

You're tryng to shift goalposts again. You did not claim that "ocean waves in winter" was unintelligible. You claimed the opposite, that it was perfectly intelligible and that you understood it perfectly: it was meaningless gibberish. .

When line 1 identifies lines 2 and 3 as examples of beauty, they make perfect sense.

After you read my revision, you realized that "ocean waves in winter" had a meaning. Your understanding of the line changed; the meaning of the line did not.

> Did you cut class the week they explained "modifiers" to you in 5th grade English?

> > > Once NancyGene *corrected* your poem, they actually made sense.
> > Claiming that NG *corrected* my poem is your most shameless lie yet, shameless liar. There is no sign in any of the threads you've opened that NG was even aware of what you now say was the problem in the poem. Nor is there any sign that you were aware of it; you just thought of it and began writing about it after you read my revision on Tuesday.
> >
> That is not true, George.

> NancyGene pointed out how you had misused the word "dreams."

No, you're lying again. NG asked me a question -- how could a dream be unnoticed? -- and dropped out of the thread when I answered their question.

> And you, eventually, thanked her for having brought it to your attention, and revised your poem accordingly.

No, liar, I did not "thank" NG or revise my poem because of their question.

> > > > - had no meaning, but were just "meaningless gibberish". Since I haven't changed those lines, they should still be "meaningless gibberish". Yet you're claiming that, since I changed a different line, those two lines now mean something. In fact, they're the same lines, with the same meaning.
> > > >
> > > You're as dumb as a Donkey, Dance.

Back to the name-calling, are you? Let's see; what should I start calling you in return? How about "as stupid as a Senetto"? Hey, that's not bad.

You're as stupid as a Senetto, Michael.

> > > In the version NancyGene corrected for you, your poem became:

> > That's the second time you've said that lie, Michael. Not only did NG NOT "correct" (revise) the poem, they said nothing about the problem you're now going on about that my correction fixed. Nor did you; to repeat, you only thought this up after you had read my revision and finally understood the poem.

> >
> She did not say that "dreams" destroyed the intelligibility of lines 2 and 3. However, she explained to you how dreams were not "unnoticed."

"They did not say ..."

No, you're simply repeating lies you've already been called out on in this very thread, Michael. NG did not explain anything about dreams. They asked me how dreams could be unnoticed, and then left the thread after I'd explained how they could be.

> This led you to change the offending word, thereby making lines 2 and 3 intelligible in the process.

To give NG their due credit, their question told me they didn't understand L1, which led to my deciding to revise it. Their question did not tell me which word to change in the line, much less what to change it to. To give them even more credit, they did not jump back into the discussion to claim that my revision was a "version [they] corrected" -- that's your lie alone, not theirs.

> If I keep repeating, it's because you keep ignoring (or denying) the crux of the argument: that your original poem was rendered entirely unintelligible by your incorrect usage of a word.

No, Michael, you're lying again. That's your standard tactic you use in every troll "argument" you start: Constant repetition of the same points, no matter how discredited, no matter how dishonest, no matter how nonsensical. What you're doing is called "propaganda", no different from that Goebbels guy you like to cite.

[George Dance]

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:40:10 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Like I said, all you have is your opinion, Pendragon, which has been proven to be that of a delusional fucktard.
>
> After all, you're the one who foolishly believes he's a better poet than William Carlos Williams, T.S. Eliot and ee cummings, to name three.
>

Add Shakespeare to the list.
"That said, I do write better IP than Mr. Shakespeare."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/fBW0gz1mERA/m/MOP389OyAgAJ?hl=en

[George Dance]

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:15:04 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

> On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:

> > Rah! Rah!
> >
> > Georgie Porgy! he's our man
> > If he can't do it, no one can!
> >
> > Go Team Donkey!!!
> Says Michael Pendragon, the shit slinging little monkey

Michael Monkey! He throws poo!
That is all that he can do!

Go Team Monkey!!!

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:52:20 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:30:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 1:49:07 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:04:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > Stop playing the Dunce.
> > > >
> > > > We all know that you were referring to NancyGene and me.
> > > You two were the ones claiming that all of "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole," were you not?
> > Of course we were, George; and we were correct on all counts.
> So now you're back to claiming that you understood the poem perfectly, both before and after I revised it.

I understood the unrevised poem perfectly for what it was -- gibberish.

> > > > We also know that your poem, and not our understanding, was at fault.
> > > Don't lie, Michael -- I never said your understanding was "at fault"; simply that you did not understand what the poem meant (which is why you were insisting it didn't mean anything). You, OTOH, claimed that you understood it perfectly, and started stamping your little foot and shrieking, "STOP LYING, GEORGE!"
> > >
> > If we hadn't understood it, our understanding would necessarily have been at fault. Are you really so vapid as to not be able to see that?
> Because it's simply not true, Michael. Once again: if a reader tells a writer he can't understand a poem, that problem can lie with either the reader or the writer, or with both.
>

It lies with one or the other. In this case, the fault lay in your faulty use of "dreams."

> > > > Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.
> > > > > First, I never mentioned you. Second, even if I had, it would not have been a lie. From what you both said about the poem - that it was "mindless" (NG) and that "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole" (implies that neither of you understood it.
> > > > > > Your poem was unintelligible because you misused the word "dreams."
> > > > > You didn't claim that it was "unitelligible" (not understandable), Michael. You claimed that you understood it perfectly, and that it actually "meaningless gibberish".
> > > And now, as I've already noted in one of the other flame threads you've started, you're trying to change your positions to what you think is a more winning one: what's called "shifting goalposts."
> > >
> > What do you think I'm trying to change, George.
> Well, for instance, you're now claiming that L2, "ocean waves in winter," is a description of 'physical objects'; whereas your original claim was that "ocean waves in winter" was meaningless gibberish. Obviously it can't be both, so that's one change in position.
>

It is meaningless gibberish when cited as an example of a dream.

Please look up the word "context," and stop making a Donkey Junior of yourself.

> > Your original poem was completely unintelligible.
> And that's another change. Originally you claimed that my poem was perfectly intelligible to you, and that you understood it perfectly.

Again, I understood it perfectly -- as gibberish.

Your poem is the sum total of the words you've chosen, and manner in which you've arranged them. When you use the words improperly, your poem has no meaning.

Since I understood what the words you chose actually meant, I also understood that your misuse of them rendered your poem meaningless.

> > As noted, "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."
> That's what you claimed, all righty. Not that (eg.) the line "ocean waves in winter" meant a type of physical object, but that it had "no meaning" at all.

Again, they were meaningless when cited as examples of "unnoticed dreams."

Context matters.

> > > > I said that they were meaningless gibberish *in the original version of your poem.*
> > > Then, since they have not been changed in any way, they should still be "meaningless gibberish" as *in the original version of your criticism.*
> > That, my friend, is a perfect example of what has come to be known as "Dunce Logic." Dunce Logic is a spurious form of argumentation that presents an illogical concept in seemingly logical terms.
> >
> Once again: You claimed that the line "ocean waves in winter" had no meaning. I did not change that line; it reads the same as it did in the earlier version. Yet now you're claiming that it now means a type of physical object.
>

You're as willfully stubborn in your ignorance as your Donkey.

When you list the a wave (or the ocean, or nature at large) as a dream, your are writing unintelligible gibberish. A wave-ocean-nature is obviously not a dream.

When you *change* the subject of your list to "beauty," the meaning of the second line changes as a result.

In your first draft, line two said that an ocean wave was an unnoticed dream.
In your revision, line two said that an ocean wave was an example of unnoticed beauty.

The words of line two did not change, but the meaning of those words did.

Again I advise you to look up the meaning of "context" -- and contact Dr. Schwimmer for an explanation just to ensure that you've gotten it right.

> > In the above, you base your conclusion on the false claim that the 2nd and 3rd lines of your poem "have not been changed in any way."
>
> > However, as I have already pointed out to you, lines 2 and 3 are modified by line 1. When line 1 identifies lines 2 and 3 as presenting examples of dreams, it has rendered both lines unintelligible.
> You're tryng to shift goalposts again. You did not claim that "ocean waves in winter" was unintelligible. You claimed the opposite, that it was perfectly intelligible and that you understood it perfectly: it was meaningless gibberish. .
>

You're babbling, George.

When line two was used as an example of an "unnoticed dream," I understood it for the nonsense that it was.

> When line 1 identifies lines 2 and 3 as examples of beauty, they make perfect sense.
> After you read my revision, you realized that "ocean waves in winter" had a meaning. Your understanding of the line changed; the meaning of the line did not.

No, George. Line 1 changed. And since line 1 determined whether lines 2 and 3 were examples of "dreams" or of "beauty," lines 2 and 3 were changed (contextually) as well.

Please consult Dr. Schwimmer and stop making a monkey of yourself.

> > Did you cut class the week they explained "modifiers" to you in 5th grade English?
>
> > > > Once NancyGene *corrected* your poem, they actually made sense.
> > > Claiming that NG *corrected* my poem is your most shameless lie yet, shameless liar. There is no sign in any of the threads you've opened that NG was even aware of what you now say was the problem in the poem. Nor is there any sign that you were aware of it; you just thought of it and began writing about it after you read my revision on Tuesday.
> > >
> > That is not true, George.
>
> > NancyGene pointed out how you had misused the word "dreams."
> No, you're lying again. NG asked me a question -- how could a dream be unnoticed? -- and dropped out of the thread when I answered their question.

And you don't consider that to be "pointing out your error"?

> > And you, eventually, thanked her for having brought it to your attention, and revised your poem accordingly.
> No, liar, I did not "thank" NG or revise my poem because of their question.

You thanked an unknown woman. And since NancyGene was the only woman who'd commented on your poem (thereby causing you to change it), one feels safe in assuming that it was she you were addressing.

BTW: She still won't go out with you.

> > > > > - had no meaning, but were just "meaningless gibberish". Since I haven't changed those lines, they should still be "meaningless gibberish". Yet you're claiming that, since I changed a different line, those two lines now mean something. In fact, they're the same lines, with the same meaning.
> > > > >
> > > > You're as dumb as a Donkey, Dance.
> Back to the name-calling, are you? Let's see; what should I start calling you in return? How about "as stupid as a Senetto"? Hey, that's not bad.

A Donkey is known for its stubbornness, George.

"A mule is an animal with long, funny ears
He kicks up at everything he hears.
His back is brawny, but his brain is weak,
He's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak."
-- Johnny Burke

I'm pointing out to you that you are behaving like the stereotypical mule.

> You're as stupid as a Senetto, Michael.

Is that supposed to be an insult?

> > > > In the version NancyGene corrected for you, your poem became:
> > > That's the second time you've said that lie, Michael. Not only did NG NOT "correct" (revise) the poem, they said nothing about the problem you're now going on about that my correction fixed. Nor did you; to repeat, you only thought this up after you had read my revision and finally understood the poem.
> > >
> > She did not say that "dreams" destroyed the intelligibility of lines 2 and 3. However, she explained to you how dreams were not "unnoticed."
> "They did not say ..."
>
> No, you're simply repeating lies you've already been called out on in this very thread, Michael. NG did not explain anything about dreams. They asked me how dreams could be unnoticed, and then left the thread after I'd explained how they could be.
>

A wiser man would have recognized that as an explanation.

> > This led you to change the offending word, thereby making lines 2 and 3 intelligible in the process.
> To give NG their due credit, their question told me they didn't understand L1, which led to my deciding to revise it. Their question did not tell me which word to change in the line, much less what to change it to. To give them even more credit, they did not jump back into the discussion to claim that my revision was a "version [they] corrected" -- that's your lie alone, not theirs.
>

Are you really that dense, Dance?

> > If I keep repeating, it's because you keep ignoring (or denying) the crux of the argument: that your original poem was rendered entirely unintelligible by your incorrect usage of a word.
> No, Michael, you're lying again. That's your standard tactic you use in every troll "argument" you start: Constant repetition of the same points, no matter how discredited, no matter how dishonest, no matter how nonsensical. What you're doing is called "propaganda", no different from that Goebbels guy you like to cite.
>

I'm pointing out an obvious fact that you (in you Donkey mode) are refusing to address.

Oh, and BTW, if you hate to go to school, you may grow up to be a mule. (ibid.)

Looks like you hated going to school.

[Michael Pendragon]

And so I do.

IP was rarely executed well in the Elizabethan Era. And Mr. Shakespeare's poetry was no exception.

[Michael Pendragon]

"Last scene of all,/that ends this strange eventful history,/is second childishness..." -- William Shakespeare.

Pity.

[W-Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:40:10 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> Like I said, all you have is your opinion, Pendragon, which has been proven to be that of a delusional fucktard.
>>
>> After all, you're the one who foolishly believes he's a better poet than William Carlos Williams, T.S. Eliot and ee cummings, to name three.
>>
> Add Shakespeare to the list.
> "That said, I do write better IP than Mr. Shakespeare."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/fBW0gz1mERA/m/MOP389OyAgAJ?hl=en

What an ignorant fuckwit Pendragon is.

>> In other words, your opinion is pretty much worthless, Pendragon, you delusional fuckwit.
>> HTH and HAND.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[W.Dockery]

Look who's talking.

🙂

[NancyGene]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:33:01 AM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:52:20 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:30:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 1:49:07 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:04:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > Stop playing the Dunce.
> > > > >
> > > > > We all know that you were referring to NancyGene and me.
> > > > You two were the ones claiming that all of "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole," were you not?
> > > Of course we were, George; and we were correct on all counts.

Yes, we were. The poem is just a throwaway of words that have no meaning.

> > So now you're back to claiming that you understood the poem perfectly, both before and after I revised it.
> I understood the unrevised poem perfectly for what it was -- gibberish.
> > > > > We also know that your poem, and not our understanding, was at fault.
> > > > Don't lie, Michael -- I never said your understanding was "at fault"; simply that you did not understand what the poem meant (which is why you were insisting it didn't mean anything). You, OTOH, claimed that you understood it perfectly, and started stamping your little foot and shrieking, "STOP LYING, GEORGE!"
> > > >
> > > If we hadn't understood it, our understanding would necessarily have been at fault. Are you really so vapid as to not be able to see that?
> > Because it's simply not true, Michael. Once again: if a reader tells a writer he can't understand a poem, that problem can lie with either the reader or the writer, or with both.
> >
> It lies with one or the other. In this case, the fault lay in your faulty use of "dreams."

It also lies with the title. "February" tells the reader nothing about what to expect to get from the poem.

> > > > > Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.
> > > > > > First, I never mentioned you. Second, even if I had, it would not have been a lie. From what you both said about the poem - that it was "mindless" (NG) and that "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole" (implies that neither of you understood it.
> > > > > > > Your poem was unintelligible because you misused the word "dreams."
> > > > > > You didn't claim that it was "unitelligible" (not understandable), Michael. You claimed that you understood it perfectly, and that it actually "meaningless gibberish".
> > > > And now, as I've already noted in one of the other flame threads you've started, you're trying to change your positions to what you think is a more winning one: what's called "shifting goalposts."

We all know what moving the goalposts means, George Dance. You do that all the time.

> > > >
> > > What do you think I'm trying to change, George.
> > Well, for instance, you're now claiming that L2, "ocean waves in winter," is a description of 'physical objects'; whereas your original claim was that "ocean waves in winter" was meaningless gibberish. Obviously it can't be both, so that's one change in position.

It is also a cliche. Also, how often have you seen ocean waves in winter?

> >
> It is meaningless gibberish when cited as an example of a dream.
>
> Please look up the word "context," and stop making a Donkey Junior of yourself.
> > > Your original poem was completely unintelligible.
> > And that's another change. Originally you claimed that my poem was perfectly intelligible to you, and that you understood it perfectly.
> Again, I understood it perfectly -- as gibberish.
>
> Your poem is the sum total of the words you've chosen, and manner in which you've arranged them. When you use the words improperly, your poem has no meaning.
>
> Since I understood what the words you chose actually meant, I also understood that your misuse of them rendered your poem meaningless.
> > > As noted, "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole."
> > That's what you claimed, all righty. Not that (eg.) the line "ocean waves in winter" meant a type of physical object, but that it had "no meaning" at all.
> Again, they were meaningless when cited as examples of "unnoticed dreams."
>
> Context matters.
> > > > > I said that they were meaningless gibberish *in the original version of your poem.*
> > > > Then, since they have not been changed in any way, they should still be "meaningless gibberish" as *in the original version of your criticism.*
> > > That, my friend, is a perfect example of what has come to be known as "Dunce Logic." Dunce Logic is a spurious form of argumentation that presents an illogical concept in seemingly logical terms.

In the immortal words of Aratzio: "George 'No Battle Too Ridiculous' Dance."

> > >
> > Once again: You claimed that the line "ocean waves in winter" had no meaning. I did not change that line; it reads the same as it did in the earlier version. Yet now you're claiming that it now means a type of physical object.
> >
> You're as willfully stubborn in your ignorance as your Donkey.
>
> When you list the a wave (or the ocean, or nature at large) as a dream, your are writing unintelligible gibberish. A wave-ocean-nature is obviously not a dream.
>
> When you *change* the subject of your list to "beauty," the meaning of the second line changes as a result.
>
> In your first draft, line two said that an ocean wave was an unnoticed dream.
> In your revision, line two said that an ocean wave was an example of unnoticed beauty.
>
> The words of line two did not change, but the meaning of those words did.
>
> Again I advise you to look up the meaning of "context" -- and contact Dr. Schwimmer for an explanation just to ensure that you've gotten it right.
> > > In the above, you base your conclusion on the false claim that the 2nd and 3rd lines of your poem "have not been changed in any way."
> >
> > > However, as I have already pointed out to you, lines 2 and 3 are modified by line 1. When line 1 identifies lines 2 and 3 as presenting examples of dreams, it has rendered both lines unintelligible.
> > You're tryng to shift goalposts again. You did not claim that "ocean waves in winter" was unintelligible. You claimed the opposite, that it was perfectly intelligible and that you understood it perfectly: it was meaningless gibberish. .
> >
> You're babbling, George.
>
> When line two was used as an example of an "unnoticed dream," I understood it for the nonsense that it was.
> > When line 1 identifies lines 2 and 3 as examples of beauty, they make perfect sense.
> > After you read my revision, you realized that "ocean waves in winter" had a meaning. Your understanding of the line changed; the meaning of the line did not.
> No, George. Line 1 changed. And since line 1 determined whether lines 2 and 3 were examples of "dreams" or of "beauty," lines 2 and 3 were changed (contextually) as well.
>
> Please consult Dr. Schwimmer and stop making a monkey of yourself.
> > > Did you cut class the week they explained "modifiers" to you in 5th grade English?
> >
> > > > > Once NancyGene *corrected* your poem, they actually made sense.
> > > > Claiming that NG *corrected* my poem is your most shameless lie yet, shameless liar. There is no sign in any of the threads you've opened that NG was even aware of what you now say was the problem in the poem. Nor is there any sign that you were aware of it; you just thought of it and began writing about it after you read my revision on Tuesday.
> > > >
> > > That is not true, George.
> >
> > > NancyGene pointed out how you had misused the word "dreams."

Yes, we did.

> > No, you're lying again. NG asked me a question -- how could a dream be unnoticed? -- and dropped out of the thread when I answered their question.
> And you don't consider that to be "pointing out your error"?
> > > And you, eventually, thanked her for having brought it to your attention, and revised your poem accordingly.
> > No, liar, I did not "thank" NG or revise my poem because of their question.
> You thanked an unknown woman. And since NancyGene was the only woman who'd commented on your poem (thereby causing you to change it), one feels safe in assuming that it was she you were addressing.
>
> BTW: She still won't go out with you.

Heavens, we could never be that desperate!

> > > > > > - had no meaning, but were just "meaningless gibberish". Since I haven't changed those lines, they should still be "meaningless gibberish". Yet you're claiming that, since I changed a different line, those two lines now mean something. In fact, they're the same lines, with the same meaning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You're as dumb as a Donkey, Dance.
> > Back to the name-calling, are you? Let's see; what should I start calling you in return? How about "as stupid as a Senetto"? Hey, that's not bad.
> A Donkey is known for its stubbornness, George.
>
> "A mule is an animal with long, funny ears
> He kicks up at everything he hears.
> His back is brawny, but his brain is weak,
> He's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak."
> -- Johnny Burke
>
> I'm pointing out to you that you are behaving like the stereotypical mule.
> > You're as stupid as a Senetto, Michael.
> Is that supposed to be an insult?
> > > > > In the version NancyGene corrected for you, your poem became:
> > > > That's the second time you've said that lie, Michael. Not only did NG NOT "correct" (revise) the poem, they said nothing about the problem you're now going on about that my correction fixed. Nor did you; to repeat, you only thought this up after you had read my revision and finally understood the poem.

We completely rewrote the three lines and then threw it away.

> > > >
> > > She did not say that "dreams" destroyed the intelligibility of lines 2 and 3. However, she explained to you how dreams were not "unnoticed."
> > "They did not say ..."
> >
> > No, you're simply repeating lies you've already been called out on in this very thread, Michael. NG did not explain anything about dreams. They asked me how dreams could be unnoticed, and then left the thread after I'd explained how they could be.
> >
> A wiser man would have recognized that as an explanation.
> > > This led you to change the offending word, thereby making lines 2 and 3 intelligible in the process.
> > To give NG their due credit, their question told me they didn't understand L1, which led to my deciding to revise it. Their question did not tell me which word to change in the line, much less what to change it to. To give them even more credit, they did not jump back into the discussion to claim that my revision was a "version [they] corrected" -- that's your lie alone, not theirs.
> >
> Are you really that dense, Dance?

Yes, he is. Dreams, dreams, dreams.

> > > If I keep repeating, it's because you keep ignoring (or denying) the crux of the argument: that your original poem was rendered entirely unintelligible by your incorrect usage of a word.
> > No, Michael, you're lying again. That's your standard tactic you use in every troll "argument" you start: Constant repetition of the same points, no matter how discredited, no matter how dishonest, no matter how nonsensical. What you're doing is called "propaganda", no different from that Goebbels guy you like to cite.
> >
> I'm pointing out an obvious fact that you (in you Donkey mode) are refusing to address.
>
> Oh, and BTW, if you hate to go to school, you may grow up to be a mule. (ibid.)
>
> Looks like you hated going to school.

Another problem we have with George Dance's original three line poem is that it has no point. It needs a fourth line to tie the other lines together. It has a colon at the end of the first line, which says there is a list coming, but then there are only two entries.

Still another problem is that George Dance writes that the "ocean wave" and "the curve of your cheek" are actually synedoches. He hasn't proven within his poem that the ocean wave represents all of nature's beauty/dreams or that his wife's cheek is her whole being. It is a failure to communicate.

[Will Dockery]

NancyGene wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:33:01 AM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:52:20 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:30:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 1:49:07 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:04:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>
>> > > > > Stop playing the Dunce.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We all know that you were referring to NancyGene and me.
>> > > > You two were the ones claiming that all of "the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole," were you not?
>> > > Of course we were, George; and we were correct on all counts.
> Yes, we were. The poem is just a throwaway of words that have no meaning.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NancyGene admits that she didn't understand the poem.

> In the immortal words of Aratzio: "George 'No Battle Too Ridiculous' Dance.."

>> > > > > > - had no meaning, but were just "meaningless gibberish". Since I haven't changed those lines, they should still be "meaningless gibberish".. Yet you're claiming that, since I changed a different line, those two lines now mean something. In fact, they're the same lines, with the same meaning.

>> > > > > >
>> > > > > You're as dumb as a Donkey, Dance.
>> > Back to the name-calling, are you? Let's see; what should I start calling you in return? How about "as stupid as a Senetto"? Hey, that's not bad.
>> A Donkey is known for its stubbornness, George.
>>
>> "A mule is an animal with long, funny ears
>> He kicks up at everything he hears.
>> His back is brawny, but his brain is weak,
>> He's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak."
>> -- Johnny Burke
>>

>> I'm pointing out to you that you are behaving like the stereotypical mule..

[Will Dockery]

Exactly, and Pendragon seems to forget about the fact that the team thing was his idea.

HTH and HAND.

[Will Dockery]

That's hilarious, Michael Pendragon, as Zod said, "A control freak on an ego trip."

And so it goes.

:)

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
> > > > February
> > > > >
> > > > > Unnoticed beauty:

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

> > > > > - George J. Dance, 2023
> > > > >
> > > > > Commentary for those who need it:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.

> > > > >
> > > > > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.
> > > > >

> > > > > That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
> > > > >
> > > > The definition of "profound" that we'd agreed on in the thread you moved this from ("Georgie Porgy ran away"... again), was "intellectually deep or insightful."
> > > No, Michael, that's two lies. First, I did not move anything from that other thread. I posted a revision of my poem in a new thread, and added the "commentary" you're always begging for as well. You're the one trying to start the same fight you were trolling about in that other thread.
> > >
> > You did not just post a revision of your poem (not that a revision should have required a separate thread).
> That's another stupid lie from you, Michael.The revision is still in the backthread. Since it tooks like you missed it, her it is again for you:
> > > > > February
> > > > >
> > > > > Unnoticed beauty:

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

> > > > > - George J. Dance, 2023
> Your commentary was a list of unsupported accusations taken from the original thread.
> That's a second stupid lie from you, Michael; the commentary is all still in the backthread, too, though you've chopped it up:
>
> <q>
> This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
> My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express ws not clearly expressed.
> That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
> This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).
> </quote>
>
> Nothing moved from the "other thread" -- and no "list of unsupported accusations". You lied again, and you got caught again. Now, do you want to double down on your lies, or would you rather lie about somethng else?
> >
> > Like I said, you're a lying p.o.s.
> Keep saying it, troll, if that's all you're capable of.
> > > Second, the definition we agreed on in that thread was (in your words):
> > > <quote>
> > > ">> > > > "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > You're trying to switch definitions, hoping that your bringing it up in a new thread would keep anyone from noticing. Too bad; it didn't work.
>
> > This, too, is a lie.
>
> > When I first offered that definition, you claimed that I was merely restating one that you'd already posted.
> Which is true: I'd previously given you this definition:
> 1a: having intellectual depth and insight
> b: difficult to fathom or understand
>
> You agreed to use 1a: "having intellectual depth and insight."
>
> Now, since you're trolling in a different thread, you decided to switch the the definition to: "intellectually deep or insightful."
>
> If you want to have an honest discussion, use the definition we agreed to. No more definition-switching.
> > Were you lying then? Are you lying now? Do you ever make a post without lying?
> > You should have been a politician.
>
> > > > Realizing that one is failing to notice the beauty around him would certainly qualify as "insightful."
> > > But not in any way "intellectually deep" -- so it doesn't satisfy the definition.
> > It's deep enough. One could even compare it to the Zen practice of living completely in the moment.
> You can compare it to whatever you feel like.
> > > > Running away from the truth won't change it, George.
> > >
> > > > Nor have you managed to offer an explanation as to *why* you would have posted a 3-line poem if you hadn't thought it to be in any way profound.
> > > That's a third lie, Michael: I just explained that in this very thread:
> > > 'Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.'
> > And how is a "revelation" not deep, insightful, or profound? How is an "epiphany" not deep, insightful, or profound?
> Michael, you said i never "managed to offer an explanation" as to why I posted a poem -- when in factyou'd just read an explanation in my commentary (that you also lied about). You lied again, and you're just trying to cover it up by deflecting.
>
> That noted, let's move on to your deflection:
> > Both words signify a form of knowledge that is revealed to one. If the knowledge has to be revealed, it is not readily known to others. It is, therefore, profound.
> No, Michael profound does not mean "not readily known to others". As I told you, if you wish to have an honest discussion, stop trying to switch definitions.
> > > I'll be happy to go back to that other thread and post it there when I feel like it.
> > You and your Donkey are the only imbeciles who think that they have to carry out each of their arguments on multiple threads.
> Yet once again, as the backthread shows, it's been Michael Monkey who decided to start moving his "argument " to a new thread. Which makes me have to ask again:
>
> Why do you project so much, Michael?
>
> <snip>
> > > > You can't run away from that question either (unless you cross-post this discussion to a group that no one else involved goes to, like RAP).
> There's a fourth lie from you in this thread, Michael. We know you've gone to RAP because you've reposting discussions from RAP here on aapc. You couldn't do that unless you'd gone there.
> > > > Dollars to donuts you already have.
> > >
> > > > > This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).
> > >
> > > > The fact that you would feel compelled to write poetry by the rules only further demonstrates my oft-expressed observation that you are a craftsman rather than a naturally talented (inspired) poet.
> > > As I've always said, I'm a writer, not a poet. My "natural talent" is for non-fiction. Indeed I had to learn to write good poetry
>
> > I hate to break it to you, George, but your posts here speak otherwise.
> "You're a piece of shit -- and I don't like your writing too!"
> Wow, Michael, that certainly stung (not).

Pendragon's hypocrisy is a pathetic joke.

And so it goes.

[Conley Brothers]

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:44:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 11:29:26 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >
> >
> > I stay away from short verse or too tightly structured verse 'cause to me it always seems to produce something stilted
> I was taught mainly in the last of the "modern poetry" days, where my two best teachers, Dan Barfield and Ahmos Zu-Bolton, felt that "rhyme is a crutch."
>

Zu-Bolton was never your teacher. Stop lying, Fatso,

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 1:59:46 AM UTC-4, fake Conley Brothers forged:

I learned a lot about writing poetry from him, and became serious about writing poetry and self publishing poetry chapbooks from his example.

https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Niggered_Amen.html?id=uM6QAAAAIAAJ

[W-Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:13:12 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:33:01 AM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:52:20 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:30:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 1:49:07 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:04:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:10:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> We all know what moving the goalposts means, George Dance. You do that all the time.

> Hi, NG; thanks for rejoining the discussion. But that's simply IKYBWAI.

>> > > Well, for instance, you're now claiming that L2, "ocean waves in winter," is a description of 'physical objects'; whereas your original claim was that "ocean waves in winter" was meaningless gibberish. Obviously it can't be both, so that's one change in position.
>> It is also a cliche.

> No it isn't. Besides, if it were meaningless gibberish, it could not be a cliche.

>> Also, how often have you seen ocean waves in winter?

> Well, that's the point. Ocean waves are as beautiful in winter, as in summer, but no one notices them; they're taken for granted and ignored. In the same way, an older woman can be in her own way as beautiful as a young one, but that can also go unnoticed or ignored.

>> > > > NancyGene pointed out how you had misused the word "dreams."
>> Yes, we did.

> NG: All you did was ask a question about L1 -- How can a dream be unnoticed?" -- and nothing else, as you left the thread. You did not say that either "Unnoticed" or "dreams" was "misused". Nor did Michael at the time, of course.

>> We completely rewrote the three lines and then threw it away.

> To bad the Chimp didn't do the same with his rewrites.

>>
>> Still another problem is that George Dance writes that the "ocean wave" and "the curve of your cheek" are actually synedoches. He hasn't proven within his poem that the ocean wave represents all of nature's beauty/dreams or that his wife's cheek is her whole being. It is a failure to communicate.

> NG: I've noticed that you are very literal-minded and have a problem with figurative language; excessively so, which is one reason I used to think you were a bot. That's a handicap when reading poetry, where it's used a lot. But it's not that hard to pick up.

> Take the concept of 'synecdoche'. Let's say you need help in this thread, so you ask Michael to give you "a hand." That doesn't mean you're asking him to type with only one hand. You're not just asking for held from one of his hands, but help from Michael. You were using 'hand' to represent the whole person: That's a 'synecdoche'. And you should not have to prove that's last is what you really meant.

Well put, George, again, you nailed it.

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
>

> > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>
> > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand
> > The link to the thread has been posted, now go have a look.
> What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand?
>
> If you know where the post is, you can
>
> 1) click on the link
> 2) highlight the post that you claim was deleted from this thread
> 3) copy the post
> 4) repost it here.
>
> Since I don't no what the original post said, or who allegedly posted it, I won't be able to identify it without a lot of unnecessary cross-checking.
> Since you claim to know which one it is -- and since you're the one who's interested in proving it -- it's up to you to repost it here.
>
> Once you do, I'll check it against the thread in the link and see if it matches.
>
> Got it?

Again, the entire thread is here:

https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance

Why are you so afraid to click the link and read it for yourself, Pendragon?

(Re-posted for continuity)

:)

[Michael Pendragon]

I'm not the one who's got something to prove, Donkey.

If you want to figure out which post was deleted, and copy/paste it here, I'll read it.

But don't ask me to do your work for you.

Now put up, or shut up.

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:41:01 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >
>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand
>> > > The link to the thread has been posted, now go have a look.
>> > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand?
>> >
>> > If you know where the post is, you can
>> >
>> > 1) click on the link
>> > 2) highlight the post that you claim was deleted from this thread
>> > 3) copy the post
>> > 4) repost it here.
>> >
>> > Since I don't no what the original post said, or who allegedly posted it, I won't be able to identify it without a lot of unnecessary cross-checking.
>> > Since you claim to know which one it is -- and since you're the one who's interested in proving it -- it's up to you to repost it here.
>> >
>> > Once you do, I'll check it against the thread in the link and see if it matches.
>> >
>> > Got it?
>>
>> Again, the entire thread is here:
>>
>> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>>
>> Why are you so afraid to click the link and read it for yourself, Pendragon?
>>
>> (Re-posted for continuity)

> I'm not the one who's got something to prove

Yes you do, you lying delusional monkey.

Nancy Gene made a false claim and you backed her up.

The thread linked to proves that.

HTH and HAND.