[continued from previous message]   
      
   author.  "Boy George" (which you find offensive) and "Little George"   
   (which you find less so) are used to distinguish the child from the   
   "flashback" stanzas from the adult narrator.   
      
   There is no "linguistic trick, to try to subliminally blur" anything,   
   paranoid George.   
      
   I was psychoanalyzing your poem, and couched it in precisely the same   
   terminology as I would have used if I had been psychoanalyzing one of   
   your dreams.   
      
      
   >> It's telling how you remember the humorous use of "Boy George," but fail   
   >> to recollect our resolution to your objections.   
   >   
   > One thing I keep reminding you, "Dr." Peabrain, is that I do not   
   > "recollect" things that never happened. That is different from our   
   > constantly failing to remember events that did happen, so please get out   
   > of your habit of thinking that they're in any way similar.   
      
   There are numerous instances in the archives where *you* referred to the   
   character as "Little George."  That in itself entails your participation   
   in the use of that name.   
      
      
   >> It's even more telling   
   >> that you are "going to start calling him 'Bob'" as if in retaliation for   
   >> what you perceive to be an ongoing attack.   
   >   
   > I'm calling him "Bob" simply so that you cannot confuse anyone into   
   > thinking that I am Bob. Whereas if we call him "George Dance" that is   
   > confusing, since I am George Dance.   
      
   You can call him whatever you like.  However, I am psychoanalyzing   
   George Dance -- not "Bob."  And, to keep that point clear, I shall   
   continue to use your name.   
      
      
   >>>> I am   
   >>>> guessing that you'd originally written the garden stanza to come first   
   >>>> within the body of the narrative, but had later switched it with the   
   >>>> kitchen stanza based on the severity of the (potentially perceived)   
   >>>> abuses.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, you guessed wrong again; the stanzas were not switched. The poem   
   >>> switches from the kitchen to the garden because the speaker is looking   
   >>> out the window, and in the floor plan of the house (which I've told you)   
   >>> the kitchen window overlook s the garden at the back of it.   
   >>   
   >> That's structurally poor, and even more poorly expressed.  You should   
   >> start with the garden and work your way into the house.  That's just a   
   >> little constructive criticism, and not a personal attack.   
   >   
   > Noted, and dismissed. Bob is in the kitchen, looking out the window, and   
   > seeing the garden. The poem clearly says that he's looking out the   
   > window and then that he's seeing the garden. There's no reason that has   
   > to be spelled out further, even for the dumbest reader.   
      
   No reason except that it reads better to start the tour with the outside   
   of the house, and move in (increasing the intimacy room by room), ending   
   with the most intimate room of all (Little George's bedroom).   
      
      
   >>>> In this stanza, Little George is forced to spend his summers   
   >>>> working in the garden -- while enviously watching the neighborhood   
   >>>> children.  Because Little George describes their games as "mis   
   >>>   
   >>> You seem to have "frozen up", HarryLiar. That's not a big deal, of   
   >>> course; I realize that responding to a long post takes time: one often   
   >>> gets interrupted, even in mid-sentence. I mentioned it only because you   
   >>> and "Dr." NastyGoon have pointed to it, when I did it, as evidence that   
   >>> I suffered from not just psychological but various neurological   
   >>> diseases.   
   >>   
   >> In this case it's a problem related to my having to access NovaBBS on my   
   >> laptop.   
   >   
   > No one cares what really happened to you "in this case"; which is why I   
   > don't waste the reader's time with such explanations when I'm   
   > interrupted when writing something. I don't because those are just   
   > diversions (or deflections, as we call them here) that clutter up a   
   > discussion, not add to it. So let's snip that, too:   
      
   If you don't care about something, you should refrain from bringing it   
   up.   
      
      
   >> I was drawing attention to Little George's description of the games as   
   >> "mysterious" and his admission that he "never knew" what these mysteries   
   >> were.  Since the games forever remained cloaked in mystery, it is   
   >> obvious that Little George was employed in chores all day long.  He had   
   >> no free time to play with the other children (in which case their games   
   >> would no longer be mysteries to him).   
   >   
   > Sure, Bob "never knew" some games my neighbor children played; but   
   > that's no reason to think he never played with the other children. He   
   > clearly calls them his "friends" - why would he think of them as friends   
   > if he never even spent any time with them?   
      
   I don't know, George.  Why would he?   
      
      
   >>>> How autobiographical is your poem?  Let's see.   
   >   
   > I believe this is where you start repeating yourself, most likely by   
   > just pasting in something you previously wrote; so it's a good place to   
   > snip, since this is already too long.   
   >   
   > snip   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)