[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> "Little George" (in scare quotes) because you were using them. But I   
   >>> never agreed to call the speaker "George" much less "George Dance" as   
   >>> you've been doing in this thread. The only reason to use those names is   
   >>> as a linguistic trick, to try to subliminally blur the distinction and   
   >>> differences between the speaker (Bob) and the author (myself).   
   >>   
   >> If you wish your speaker to be named "Bob," I suggest that you rewrite   
   >> your poem and provide him with that name.   
   >>   
   >> And, again, I am not calling your poem "autobiographical," but   
   >> "semi-autobiographical."  Of course the latter is an offshoot of the   
   >> former, so it would be permissible to refer to it as "autobiographical"   
   >> in passing; but technically, it is a "semi-autobiographical" work.   
   >>   
   >> For analytical purposes, I have chosen to approach the poem as if it   
   >> were a work of its author's subconscious (much like a dreamwork).  Since   
   >> its author is named "George," I am referring to its narrator by that   
   >> name.  This is fitting, as by examining the narrator, I am examining the   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > People can be friends without actually hanging out together all the   
   > time.   
      
   That's true, Donkey.   
      
   But if Boy George "never knew" what "mysterious" games the other   
   children were playing, It's safe to conclude that he *never* hung out   
   with them.   
      
   There are only so many games that children play out doors: Hide and   
   Seek, Tag, Mother May I?, Hopscotch, Simon Says, Blind Man's Bluff,   
   Catch, Marbles, Kick Ball, Baseball, Touch Football, basketball,   
   croquet, horseshoes, etc.  And children usually play these games *many*   
   times throughout the course of their childhood.  It's not as if you were   
   to miss a game of "Tag," they wouldn't be playing it again a day or two   
   later.   
      
   Not only did Boy George not hang out with the other children, but he   
   doesn't seem to have even spoken with them.  Had they been speaking, he   
   could have asked "What was that mysterious game you were playing   
   yesterday?" and they would have replied "Jacks." And the mystery would   
   have been solved.   
      
   Boy George had a sad and lonely childhood.   
      
   And you know what's the saddest part?  He didn't even have an AI bot to   
   keep him company back then,   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)