🚀 go-pugleaf

(piggy-backing, since the original's no longer on my usenet feed.
> NancyGene <nancygene.andjayme@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:bc117ec3-886d-48d8-8472-b5e47a8ba118n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:19:37 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-18 8:25 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When you fail to pick up on literary references in the title of a
>>>> book, one wonders if you understand the book at all.
>>> Hear that, NG? Remember your review of "The Handmaid's Tale," in
>>> which you completely failed to pick up on the literary reference in
>>> the title?
>> Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we didn't
>> recognize it.  We cannot cover everything in our reviews.  The Virgin
>> Mary was a handmaid to God, and Rachel, Bilhah, and Jacob fooled
>> around in Genesis.
>>
>> George Dance, why didn't you (or Jordy's Uncle) mention the origin of
>> the title?

(1) neither of us were writing a "review".
(2) As you'd know if you've read the thread, I disagree with Michael: I
don't think knowing the reference of a title is necessary to understand
a novel or a poem. (It might add 'depth' of understanding, but it isn't
crucial for understanding the work at all).

>> From now on, all references to titles of songs, books,
>> poems, etc., must analyze from whence the title came.
>

Or you can disagree with Michael, too. Take your pick.

>
>>> Now you know what that means.
>> We always knew what it meant.
>

Well, now that you understand its implications, you have to decide
whether you agree with it or not. Have fun deciding.






> Do you have any evidence that can be backed up by a Mensa member?
> Otherwise it will be completely discredited as plagiarism, cut and paste
> or some other lame fucking excuse by the Columbus Pissbum Collective who
> must think it's important enough to spam a newsgroup over it. (TINCPC).
>