Stormborn posted:ronan posted:Stormborn posted:ronan posted:Stormborn posted:I did not misrepresent what Blake said. I stated that I was transposing William Blake on truth to speak of good intentions with stupidly poor results beating all the bad you can invent.Iguana posted:In so doing, you got your ass handed to you. You do not know the difference between the math formulas and what was at the back of the exercise book. In fact I highly doubt you ever saw the back of a Guyanese exercise book in the Burnham era. And you grossly misrepresented what William Blake meant and took a sound thrashing from Ronan on it.ahmmm, this is what you said:
"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent"
there is NO SUCH from William Blake!
and further, i will go as far as to suggest you google up what "transpose" means
you seem not to know, but bray anyway
as i said before . . . you deep deep inside nothing-to-lose territory in this extended effort to outrun shame
a naked fraud
smfh
I know what I said and if you knew Blake you would see it is as I said, twisting a common quote to of his to suit my purposes.
ahhhh . . . the "quote" the quote, the quote
the "common quote" that you hiding in your bt and will not share
oh wait . . . a glimmering
"twisting a common quote to of his to suit my purposes"
methinks this is wan trial balloon for an 'escape' route . . . hmmm?
lol
As I said, it was a common quote from one of the most widely known of the romantic poets.
pull it out yuh bt suh abie can see nah?
lol