Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George DancePost by Will Donkey"Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
Yes, Michael. I just gave you the definition; I'm glad to see you learned it.
That's an idiotic comment for you to make.
It was idiotic of you to pretend you were telling me what "profound" means, when I'd just quoted the definition you were reading.
Everyone knows what profound means, George.
I was trying to show as dunce that NancyGene's statement fully coincided with his definition.
Unfortunately, explaining something to a dunce is as fruitless as explaining something to a Donkey.
IOW: Potatoes are potatoes; you're Mr. Yukon Gold.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonDo you really think you can bait me into an argument over whether I knew the meaning of a word? Or that my engaging in such an argument would divert readers away from the actual point NancyGene had raised?
NG's "point" was that I and "others" disagreed on whether my poem was "profound." In fact, no one had said anything about that -- no one had even used the word -- until NG jumped in..
Wrong again.
NancyGene said that you must have believed your 3-line poem to be profound ("having intellectual depth and insight") or else you would not have posted it.
If you didn't think your 3-line poem was profound, why did you post here?
Are you like Will Donkey in that you believe every thought (or whatever passes for one) that enters your brain needs to be shared?
Post by George DancePost by Michael Pendragon(One can see why so many AAPC members past and present have seen fit to refer to you as "Dancypants.")
So far in this thread we've seen you and jr shermancall me that. I'm sure you can get NG to call me "Dancypants" too, or even call in your other 3 flunkies, too, if you think it will help you win your "argument".
A search for "Dancypants" pulls up results dating back to 2009.
Your moral cowardice turned up in these results as well, when Barbara's Cat wrote:
There once was a coward named Dance
too ball-less to take a /man's/ stance
and write the word "queer"
because he did fear
that Rik would kick him in the pants.
Post by George DancePost by Michael Pendragon"Are you denying that you thought your 3-line poem struck you as having intellectual depth and insight?"
I already told you that.
Post by Michael PendragonPost by George DancePost by Will DonkeyPost by George DanceI didn't consider it either intellectually deep or hard to understand, no. Where did you and your "colleague" get the idea that I thought it was?
Well... are you?
I did; you just failed to read it or remember it. Both you and NG have failed to answer my above question, BTW.
If you are, you need to explain why you bothered posting it at all.
As to your question, I've answered it several times. I shall now answer it again (please try paying attention): There is no conceivable reason why anyone would post a 3-line poem to a poetry group unless he felt that it had something deep or insightful to say.
Got that? Or do I need to repeat it in ALL CAPS?
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonWhat else worth sharing could a 3-line, one sentence poem possibly offer?
Well, let's see. NG posted one yesterday: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/6_n1BNGTjbY/m/pZjf2ry0AAAJ?hl=en
A) NancyGene is spoofing your poem. Once again, you are incapable of understanding the concept of humor.
B) NancyGene's poem is making an insightful commentary on your poem. Again, contextual meaning is as foreign to you as humor.
C) Attempting to divert the argument to what someone else did, amounts to an admission that you were wrong.
Post by George DanceAsk them why they shared it; I'd be surprised if even they claimed they shared because it was "profound".
I don't need to ask. The poem makes for an insightful commentary on your poem. It is therefore, in accordance with our agreed upon definition, profound.
Now explain why you posted yours.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonWhat do you think makes it "shareworthy," George?
The fact that so many have liked it, Michael.
I don't see where anyone other than FarStar liked it. I'm discounting the Donkey because A) he obviously didn't read or poem, or understand where yours ended and Jr's and Karla's began; and 2) because the Donkey has made it clear that he will call *every* post you make "interesting," "well put," etc.
One like doesn't even begin to constitute "so many."
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonAs previously noted: a *real* haiku (not the imitations posted by amateurs who fail to understand the form) uses the juxtaposition of the first two lines to create a deep and/or insightful meaning which is expressed by the third.
Your "real haiku" sound like Real Scotsman.
I've no idea what you're referring to -- but am guessing that it's yet another attempt at diversion via a strawman argument. If I bite, you'll launch into a diversionary spew about something I said 9 years ago that you thought was wrong.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonIf you don't consider that intellectually deep, then you've either never read an actual haiku, or you've failed to understand how haiku works.
I don't think you understand haiku very well, either, but I also think you're trying to deflect the discussion into a debate on haiku; so I won't rise to your bait.
I have offered a clear and concise description of how a haiku is supposed to work. You have not. You can choose not to discuss the topic, as it would take us on an only marginally related tangent; but to dismiss my description without offering one of your own, is simply blowing smoke out of your ass.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonAll of the above comments relate, either directly or indirectly, to your poem. Will Donkey confusedly mistook Sherman's additional (spoof) lines as having been part of your work.
We've been through that. Five of the 8 people in the thread didn't make any "comments" on my poem, period.
Contextually, they did.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonStop playing the dunce. I summarized each of the 8 comments earlier in this thread. I could not possibly have summarized them without first having read them, now could I?
You didn't "summarize" them accurately. That leads me to think that you may have looked at them, but nothing else.
I summarized them accurately. You didn't summarize them at all.
If you wish to offer your own summary and compare the two, be my guest. Otherwise, you're just blowing more smoke.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonWTF is wrong with you, George?
The thread is here. Scroll up and you can read every post made in it in its entirety (except for your response to ManWolf which you deleted).
I'll keep reminding you I have read the thread (except for that deleted comment, which you and NG are claiming to have seen but of course I'm not taking your word for that.
You don't need to take our word for anything. If you go to Google Groups and scroll up, you will see that one message has been deleted. I don't know what it said, but I believe that NancyGene uses a newsreader and does.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonIf I have made a lie, point it out.
I 've been doing that, and I'll continue to do so.
Post by Michael PendragonI can easily scroll up and identify the specific statement I was referring to.
And you can just as easily "scroll up" and identify which statements of yours I've already pointed out were lies.
Then do it.
I can't address your accusations until you identify them.
But we both know that you're just blowing more smoke.
You're just a smarter version of the Donkey. His troll tactic is to persist in idiotic claims an behaviors ("Hello Jordy") until everyone gets sick of responding to him and "skips and ignores" his nonsense. You make false accusations and unsupported claims, incorrectly restate what everyone says, pretend to misunderstand what others say, etc., in order to achieve the same end.
Like I said, Yukon Gold.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonYour constant unfounded accusations only show what a malicious little Goebbels-quoting liar you truly are.
"hmmm... kinda like Tinker Toys...or Legos.
or a Mr. Potato Head.
man, this poetry shit is EASY!!!"
[End Quote]
NEWSFLASH: Sherman compared your poem to playing with children's toys -- specifically Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head (a sly comment on Mensa George).
Wrong. "Tinker Toys" and "Legos" are units you assemble in different ways to make different things -- just like sherman was doing with the lines of my original poem. His comment described the "poetry shit" he'd just finished writing.
So is Mr. Potato Head, and all three are children's toys.
Sherman spanked you and you were too dense to realize it.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonSherman's statement (reproduced above) supports my own; and shows what a deceitful p.o.s. you are.
As I've noted, you were misrepresenting his statement. Maybe you should go back and reread it in context.
Contextually, Sherman said that he cold reassemble your poem as easily as playing with children's toys that "are units you assemble in different ways to make different things."
Mr. Yukon Gold Head.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonKarla' and Sherman's spoofs implicitly make such a statement.
IOW, neither Karla nor jr sherman made any such statement; you and NG just made it up.
Look up "implicit" and get back to me.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonYou're either playing the dunce again, or willfully closing your eyes to the truth.
Now it's my turn to wonder WTF is wrong with you. Even if one of those had actually said what you made up and tried to attribute to them, remember that they were both trolling here. Why would it matter if a couple of trolls had said that?
I remember no such thing, George. I wasn't here at the time. AFAIK they were both poets. That they didn't seem to think very highly of you doesn't make them trolls.
I don't think very highly of you, and I don't consider myself to be a troll. Quite the contrary: I'm actively trying to engage in poetry-based discussions, critique, comment on, and publish poetry by AAPC members.
Once again, you sound like the Donkey, braying that everyone who dislikes him is a "malicious troll."
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonAgain, that is what her spoof undeniably implies. Deal with it.
As I've told you before, in a discussion of another one of my poems, you don't understand implication at all; you constantly use the word to mean whatever you pops into your imagination when you read something.
You wish. That would allow you to keep your blinders on. Karla and Sherman were mocking you. They were laughing at your expense and everyone (except for FarStar and the Donkey) was laughing along with them.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonManwolf is laughing at you, just as everyone else in the thread (except for FarStar and your Donkey) is laughing at you.
No, Manwolf wasn't laughing at anyone. Who was else in the thread? Just the 4 trolls and msifg. I think you're lying when you say he was laughing at me, too. While the 4 trolls probably were, or at least pretending to; that's what trolls do.
Whether Manwolf was laughing at you is questionable.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonHell, I'm even laughing at you now.
Like I said; that's what trolls do.
No. That's what people who think you're a dunce do.
Unless you can find a credible source that defines "troll" as "Anyone who thinks George Dance is a dunce," you're simply sticking your fingers in your ears and calling names.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George DancePost by Will DonkeyPost by George DancePost by ManwolfWhy? Because he's actually managed to let go of his narrow conventions
and rigid ego and allow himself to play around with your words just a
tiny bit. Mere stirring the stick around in the sand, perhaps, but I'll
take that over hollow and pompous verse any day."
(Note "HE's actually managed to ... play around with YOUR words" (stress added)
Granted.
However, it is still unclear as to whether the last line refers to Sherman's poetry... or yours.
No, it isn't. He's talking about sherman's "Tinker Toy" poem throughout. He talked about my poem separately.
Funny how his description fits your poetry to a T.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonAssuming that he isn't on a "team," he could be criticizing you both.
I haven't denied that he criticized my poem. Not in the post you quoted, though.
Whatever.
A criticism is a criticism is a criticism.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonAs for Karla and Sherman, I have addressed both claims above. Sherman compared your poem to playing with Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head; and Karla's further switching around of your words *implicitly* demonstrates that they are interchangeable and therefore worthless.
As I've pointed out, you're lying or confused about Sherman's comment; he was comparing his own reassembly to "playing with Tinker Toys, Legos, and Mr. Potato Head." Karla was just playing along with him; there was no sign she had an opinion on my poem at all.
No, George. As I've pointed out, he was laughing in your face.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonStop lying, George.
I criticized your poetry accurately and fairly.
You certainly haven't been doing that in this thread.
I haven't critiqued your poem in this thread, George.
I've made comments about it as called for to explain a point, but a negative comment is hardly a critique.
And, as you've already noted, once you followed NancyGene's advice and changed your opening line from "dreams" (which made no sense, and rendered the following lines equally nonsensical) to "beauty," the poem, at least, made sense. (That doesn't mean that it's any good. But, at least, it's no longer unintelligible, interchangeable gibberish.)
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonIf you can't handle the truth, that's just too bad.
Now pull down your pajama bottoms, assume the position, and silently await your punishment.
Thanks for bringing up "My Father's House" -- another poem of mine that I see you're still lying about to this day. I think those are enough to identify "I criticized your poetry accurately and fairly" as another lie.
I have not lied about your poem, George. I honestly believe it is one of your worst. It isn't Donkey-bad, but it isn't far from it.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonYet, as NancyGene pointed out, you bitched, moaned, whined, cried, threw assorted hissyfits, and spewed out insults in exchange for every negative comment that was made.
The "negative comments" as I've said, were coming from trolls -- and they were replies in kind.
Bullshit.
The negative comments were justified. You need to learn how to take the negative comments along with the positive and/or constructive ones with some semblance of grace.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonIf you wish to claim illiteracy for yourself, I doubt that many here would argue over it.
I doubt that many would believe it; but, hey, you like calling people "illiterates" so you go right ahead.
Will Donkey and his Stink can barely read at a 4th Grade level. Calling them "illiterate" is practically a kindness.
As to you, many here have expressed their belief that you are. In fact, when I first came here, PJR said that he wondered how long it would take me to find out just how illiterate you and your Donkey actually were.
For the record, I don't think that you're illiterate -- just childish, petty, and full of yourself (without cause). But I have argued against your supposed illiteracy with enough people enough times to know of what I speak.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonIs FarStar one of General Stink's pseudonyms?
I think I've already answered that as well. Of course FarStar wsn't Zod.
Of course, nothing. FarStar sounds like Stink to me. And since Stink has come and gone and come back since I've been here, it requires no stretch of the imagination to think that he might have done so in the past.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George DanceYour "reporting" has all been wrong so far. At this point, I think NG's reason for not wanting us to read the backthread was so you two could make up your own, misleading and error-ridden, story about it.
Another of your bizarre conspiracy theories.
Oh, really? Are you claiming that it's just a "coincidence" that you two made up your own, misleading and error-ridden, story about it?
We've made nothing up, George. The entire thread (less one deleted post) is here. Right HERE. In this thread. NancyGene didn't delete any portion of the thread. Scroll up and see. What you call the "backthread" is all right HERE. WTF are you claiming is missing?
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonThe backthread necessarily exists as the entire thread (less the post that you deleted) exists.
See above.
Who is FarStar and where has his work appeared?
He's posted poems here; go and search for them.
If he posted them under his pseudonym, that won't tell me who he is or where his work was published.
If he posted them under his real name, then a search for "FarStar" won't pull them up.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonBulllshit.
PJR: Do you ever read the posts to which you reply?
WILL DOCKERY: Okay, good point.
I doubt it as well: hence my sarcasm.
Post by George DanceIt's quite clear what you were doing. Rather than deal with that Will actually said, you were just making a lame from some other thread.
Stop lying.
Your lame ("I'm surprised he didn't claim that the repetition was channeling ancient incantational poetry via the Collective Unconscious" came from a PPB thread called "March" by Mary Slade.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/c/rsCInRw4suE/m/QkxQjf6wAQAJ?hl=en
Everyone, including you and your flunkies, remembers that thread. Why would you be so stupid as to pretend it didn't exist?
Will actually complimented you on how brilliantly your rearrangement of the lines worked. YOU then explained to him that you'd only written the three original lines, and not the rearrangements.
When you pretend that Will *meant* to say something else, I say that you are lying. If Will hadn't misspoken, you'd have had no reason to correct him.
Post by George DanceYou must be getting upset. I note that you start calling everyone a liar, and every statement a lie, when you get upset.
Claiming that someone is getting upset (or butthurt, or confused, or having a meltdown, etc.) is the last, desperate tactic of a child who knows he's lost the argument. it won't wash here.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonWILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
Are you really that delusional?
As someone else recently noted, you really are Canada's version of Will Donkey.
Yep, sounds like you're breaking down into incoherence.
What do you find incoherent about that, George?
Granted Will's claim that he likes "the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective" is a tad incoherent (since he failed to explain how the perspective shifted -- or what the perspective originally was); but your statement is perfectly clear in explaining his mistake.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonThe comments are all there for all to read, and interpret, for themselves.
I know, Michael; I've spent going back and rereading them. That's why I can say with confidence that you're lying about and misrepresenting them from your first post in this thread.
Yet you cannot back up that claim with even one example.
Generalizations don't cut it. Post proof. Be specific.
Post by George DancePost by Michael PendragonStop lying.
WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
Stop lying.
WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
Stop lying.
WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.>
Stop lying.
WILL DONKEY: Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the perspective.
GEORGE DANCE: Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
MELTDOWN!
Try "canned response."
Each of your lies (which you've conveniently snipped) is proven to be such by your earlier exchange with Will (which I've quoted).
Post by George Dance-- and that's more than enough of Michael Monkey for one night.
<snip>
And... we're back to the childish name-calling.