Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:29:37 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:28:40 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

Why do you lie so much, George?

>
Why do you project so much, Michael?
>

In the statement you are quoting, I was describing your behavior and
practices -- not mine.

>
As I told you at the time, that was also an example of projection on
your part; that you were in fact both slurping and publishing your
allies, and calling your perceived adversaries illiterates. As this
thread shows, you're still doing both.

>
IKYABWAI is neither an argument nor a rebuttal.

OMG! You're gonna try the preemption game: "You can't say that about me,
because I said it about you FIRST."

>
Nor does this thread show that I am doing anything of the sort.  FYI: I
have no "allies" here.  They've all left Usenet AAPC, and are now
posting on The Official AAPC page at FB.

I'm not sure that's true; I think I've seen both Jim and NancyGene
posting on aapc here:
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253102&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253102
But even if it were true, it's not relevant: you're still publishing
their work, and still slurping their work here.

Do I have "enemies" here?  That's a strong word.

Every member of your "Team Donkey" enemies list - Will, Zod, Jordy,
Rachel, and myself - is posting here on aapc.

As this thread
demonstrates, I have a permanently butt-hurt poet who is reopening old
threads to shout "Jerk Store!" at me.  That's all.

And that statement holds true.
>
You requested Jim's poetry for your blog.

>
I asked everyone on the group for poetry for an annual literary journal,
April, that I was publishing as an ezine on the blog. I asked everyone
in posts to the group. Anyone could submit a poem; April was meant as a
journal for aapc, not for "allies" and "adversaries". IMO,

>
No.  Your blog may have been open to anyone,

That's not what I just said. Once again: "I asked everyone on the group
for
poetry for an annual literary journal, April, that I was publishing as
an
ezine on the blog."

but you specifically asked
Jim if you could use one of his poems.

IIRC, he responded to my post to the group by sending me a link and
telling
me to pick a poem. I picked "The Whitening" and sent him a text for
approval
(like I did for all the contributors). Is that what you're going on
about?

You had previously requested one
of mine in the same manner shortly after I joined the group.

"Previously," eh? You could have been on aapc in 2010 (which you've
claimed before) using another sock, , but if you'd put a poem in
/April/ then, you would have demanded I remove it, too. Which
means your sock would have to have been either "Heironymous Corey"
or "Robert Burrows". That makes things more interesting.

Jim agreed to let you post
it.

>
Jim submitted one poem for the first year (2010), and two for the second
(2011).

>
Again, the first "submission" had been in answer to your request.

My post to the entire group, "allies" and "adversaries" alike.

You posted it to your blog.

>
All of the submitted poems were published, including Jim's three.

>
But Jim was still a potential ally to you at the time.  Jim only soured
on you when you continually supported your Donkey, even though he was
trolling, disrupting, and eventually shutting down Jim's "Sunday
Sampler" thread.

FTM: I also requested poetry from your mentor, Piggy Ross, who was
a definite "adversary". "Allies" and "adversaries" had nothing to do
(on my part) with whom I published.

Your support of a pedophile (and, briefly, of NAMBLA) was the final
straw for him.

What are you going on about?

When Jim asked to have his poetry removed from your blog (I forget how
long, but it was at least a year after you posted it)

>
(Seven years later, in 2017.)

>
Don't you think that an author's allowing his poetry to be tied up for
seven years on a non-paying blog is extremely generous?

No, Michael; submitting poetry to a journal, and then demanding that
they change that issue by removing it 7 years later is not what I'd
call "generous".

As I've explained to you in the past, the few poetry journals that
accept reprints insist that the submitted poems are not currently
available online.

And as I've explained to you, that's completely irrelevant, since
Jim didn't want to pubish his poems in a journal, and apparently
never did.

, you started

launching attacks on him.

>
No, Lying Michael; I told him I wanted to keep his poems in the journal,
so we disagreed; but it wouldn't have made sense to attack for that. (I
did take them off line, so they couldn't be seen, until I figured out
what to do.)

>
You told him you wanted to keep his poems on your blog (and out of
circulation), *because* he'd asked you to remove them.

Well, d-uh! Why would I have told I wanted to keep his poems in /April/
if he weren't demanding I take them out?

And why did he
ask you to remove them, George?

The immediate cause was: he demanded I remove them because I'd called
him out for posting something libelous about another group member,
on one of my threads, multiple times. You remember that: NancyGene
wrote it, and you and JIm were flooding the group with it.  If that
was anything more than just a hissy-fit on his part, one can only
speculate. My speculation is that you told him to; you'd got the idea
of removing poems from a journal from Corey Connor (or told it to him),
and decided you'd get all the poets who contributed to /April/ to take
their poems out.

Answer: When I saw that your Donkey was not the victim that he pretends
to be, I stopped supporting him in his troll wars. Desperately in need
of another ally, your Donkey recruited a deranged pedophile into the
group. The pedophile's job was to a) back your Donkey in arguments, and
b) draw some of the fire away from him.
>
When the pedophile started revealing himself, Jim (who found his
pedophilic statements sickening) got sucked into a flame war with him.
>
Because you knew that the pedophile was your Donkey's ally, you chose to
support him: attacking Jim, myself and others, and even going so far as
to erroneously claim that NAMBLA had done more for LGBT rights than any
other organization.
>

Yes, I'm sure you do remember the libelous stuff NancyGene was writing,
and you and Jim were flooding the group with. This pedophile stuff was
your own add-on later, of course.

It was only *after* you'd begun attacking Jim (and supporting NAMBLA)
that he asked to have his poetry removed from your blog.

I don't think so, Lying Michael. As I recall, you began posting about
NAMBLA only afterward. In any case, I didn't get involved in your
NAMBLA discussion until afterward.

It is a fact that Jim cannot write anything that someone like you, for
instance, would even call poetry. That's not an attack, just fact. But
it's not something I told him at the time; that wouldn't have made any
sense.
>
I'm afraid you're confusing unconnected events that happened years
apart.

>
No, George.  I was merely providing a two examples of your behavior
toward Jim.  I am not in any way attempting to place your numerous
examples on a timeline.

You're certainly contradicting the actual timeline.

>
Allow me to rephrase that to your satisfaction: Over the course of the
7+ years you've been fighting with Jim, you launched numerous attacks on
him.  One example, was when you called him illiterate.

Look, I'm sorry that the snowflake is offended, but it's simple fact
that
Jim cannot write poetry, of any kind; and, as this thread also
demonstrates,
he can't even punctuate properly.

Another example
was when you challenged him to write a triolet and to pit it against one
of yours.

I've challenged him to write many forms - triolets, centos, ballad
meter,
even haiku - but he hasn't been willing to make an effort. He's just too
stupid (too wilfully ignorant) to learn. Once again, that's just a fact.

Happy?
>
As to your claim that I wouldn't call Jim's writing "poetry," you are
intentionally falsifying my meaning by referring to my words out of
context (unfortunately this is another of your standard practices).

It's the definition of "poetry" you proposed and we both agreed to,
earlier on this thread. I understand that you realize you fucked up
and want to switch definitions, but - nope.

In your above statement, you make it appear as if I had been making a
value judgment regarding Jim's work.  Such was not the case.  I have
always defined "poetry" as "a literary form comprising rhymed-metered
verse."  The majority of Jim's works do not use rhyme or meter, so they
fall outside of my definition of poetry.

Not just his work: The majority of wwhat you publish in AYOS falls
outside
your definition of poetry. You publish his non-verse (and NancyGene's
doggerel) because they're your allies.

They are, however, excellent
literary works -- and works which contemporary critics would define as
"Modern Poetry."
>
And, FYI, Jim's work is still receiving compliments from other Modern
poets on The Official AAPC FB page.
>
I am a fan of Jim's writing.  I just consider it to be extremely well
written prose.

I understand perfectly. You (the anonymous person inside thw socks don't
think
Jim's work (and most of what you post on AYOS) is even poetry, but you
(as your "Michael Pendragon" sock) have to praise his work and request
it for your journal, because he's your ally. Which I've repeatedly
pointed out.
Which brings us back to where we began this digression, so it's a good
place to end it, too.
snip