Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 1:56:15 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:58:18 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:20:10 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

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, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" 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."

>
No, George.  When you repost a quotation out of context, with the
deliberate intention of changing its mean, you are (to couch it in as
mild a term as possible) deceitful.

>
The "mean" of the quotation wasn't changed in the slightest, Lying
Michael.

Are you really that dense that you fail to comprehend how you've
misrepresented a statement I'd made about you as being about myself?

You present my statement as if I were describing my own practices;

>
No, Lying Michael; I distinctly said it was how I would describe your
"practices."

You falsely use my statement as "proof" of your claims *without*
specifying that I'd made it about you.  In doing so, you make it appear
as if I am stating my own beliefs and practices -- which they are
decidedly not.

whereas I was describing (my understanding of) your own.

>
So you've said; you were talking about me. I was talking about you.
You didn't like my saying it about you, so you falsely accused me
of lying.

Again, I stated that I was talking about you.
When you misquoted me, you intentionally made it appear as if I had been
talking about myself.
And, yes, I feel that anyone (other than your Donkey and his socks)
would consider that to be a form of lying.

That is an example of how duplicitous you actually are, and should serve
as a warning to readers to take anything you say with a very large grain
of salt.

>
I'm afraid we'll have to add "duplicitous" to the list of words you
misuse, MMP. But there's no need to say more about that, since you
were clearly just trying to "win an argument" by making a false
accusation.

One of us certainly misunderstands it.

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.

>
If the most recent post you can find from Jim is nearly two months old,
it's safe to say that he is no longer participating in this group.  He's
certainly not participating at the level he was a few years ago.

>
So what? Jim doesn't turn into a neutral bystander every time he
flounces off
the group; the fact that you're here slurping him in this flame war you
reignited is enough to show that you still perceive him as your ally.

Jim doesn't turn into a neutral bystander when he isn't around to
witness the event/s in question.  Jim has no knowledge of our current
discussions, is not participating in said discussions, and cannot
possibly be considered as an ally insofar as said discussions are
concerned.

Whether I publish his work is irrelevant.

>
MMP, your ONLY reason for saying that I used to see Jim as my ally
is that I used to publish his work. If that's now "irrelevant", then you
had absolutely no reason for falsely accusing me of using your M.O. in
the
first place. So, fine; let's agree that it's irrelevant, and you were
just
making up shit.

1) Whether *I* publish Jim's work is irrelevant.  I publish the work of
*everyone* who contributes to the AAPC group's FB page.  Again, that's
*EVERYONE* -- no exceptions.
2) You, otoh, do not publish everyone who takes part in the AAPC Usenet
forum.
3) Your conclusion (that your misrepresentation of my description of
your practices is irrelevant) does not follow from anything in the
above.  To wit: I publish *everything* that is posted to the AAPC FB
group, whereas you only publish the work of Usenet AAPC members of your
choosing.

He is not engaging in any flame wars (or what pass for discussions
here), and is therefore not a potential "ally" -- for me or anyone else.

>
Of course he is your "potential" ally. He's been reading and posting
here
as your ally, and there's nothing stopping him from doing it in the
future.
Same for your other Team Monkey flunky, NG.

To be an ally, one must be involved in the present conflict.  From a
linguistic standpoint, anyone can be a "potential" ally.  However, as
applied to this present discussion in which Jim has not taken part (and
to the best of my knowledge is unaware of), nothing either of us says
can be realistically seen as having any effect on Jim's allegiances.

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.

>

1) I don't view any of you as enemies, George.  We merely hold different
views as to how AAPC should operate.  I felt that a *poetry* group
should limit the bulk of its discussions to *poetry.*

>
Unfortunately, your posts bely you, MMP. The bulk of what you post here,
even of your "poetry" and your "poetry discussions" is either (1)
scurrilous
gossip about the members
of "Team Donkey" or (2) flame wars with the members of "Team Donkey".

FACT: My posts to AAPC FB, do nothing of the sort.
If the majority of my posts here are combative, we need to determine why
I should behave one way in the FB group, and the opposite way in the
Usenet one.
The obvious conclusion is that the members of the FB group limit their
discussions to poetry, whereas certain members of the Usenet group
insist on burying any poetry-related conversations under their own
self-serving spam.

You felt that it
would be better used as a forum wherein members could exchange greetings
with "Jordy" twenty times a day, every day.

>
Don't be such a peabrain, MMP. Jordy and I post to each other twice a
month,
at best. Otherwise our paths never cross; he doesn't start flame wars,
or
try to disrupt other threads. So whatever he does doesn't bother me; if
he
bothers you so much that you're still obsessing about him, bo back to
your
facebook group and gossip about him with someone who cares.

Anyone still following Usenet AAPC is well aware that Jordy makes far
more than two posts a months -- they simply aren't directed to your
attention.
As to whether I'm "obsessing" over him, I no longer care what he does. My greeting to him should show you that I'm perfectly fine with his
continued disruption of your group.  It only annoyed me while I was
still a member.

Since Google abandoned the
platform, you won out by default.

>
Yet here you are, caught sneaking back onto aapc under a new sock, and
turning to your old tricks: gossip and flame wars. As I've told Jim
before,
your people are as bad as bedbugs; it's almost impossible to get rid of
you.

What do you want, George?  I have conceded Usenet AAPC to you.
I only drop by to monitor your posts, because I am well aware of your
attempts to rewrite Usenet AAPC's history to your liking.

BTW: Hello Jordy!

>

2) I believe that I have always been on good terms with Rachel.

>
It may be true that you believe that, MMP; but it is not true that you
were. The archives have plenty of gossip you, Jim and NG have
written about her, and flame wars that you've tried to start with her.

I have praised Rachel's poetry when I felt it was good; and I have
negatively commented on her poetry when it degenerated into a long,
nonsensical rant on, and to, Bob.
Nevertheless I have remained on good terms with her, and still
occasionally exchange personal emails with her.

3) By definition, an enemy is one who poses at least a potential threat
to one in some manner.  A mentally deficient hillbilly, a drunken
pissbum, and middle aged man with the mind of a child are hardly to be
perceived of as threats.

>
MMP, as previously noted, you reject reality and live in a delusional
world of your own. It's central to your delusion that you're a genius
with encyclopedic knowledge of poetry. Anyone who doesn't buy into
that is attacking your delusion, so of course you'd see them as a
threat.
That's how you came up with your "Team Donkey" bullshit in the first
place.

Uh... PJR introduced the idea of "Teams," George.
I have studied poetry for over 40 years, and have a better understanding
of it that most people who never study it at all (outside of what their
required to do in high school English courses).
My familiarity with Modern verses is less extensive than my familiarity
of earlier poetic forms, so I would hardly apply a term like
"encyclopedic."  As to my feelings toward anyone who would challenge my
knowledge, PJR often did -- and I have far more respect for him than for
many other members here.

Not only are Team Donkey's members not my enemies, but I see no reason
why anyone should need allies to engage with them.

>
LOL! Remember what happened the last time you your act solo
rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s. You tried there to pose as the genius
with the encyplopedic knowledge of 1950s music, but (even though your
knowledge of 1950s music is more extensive than your knowledge of
poetry)
you failed miserably, got your ass kicked and had to come here to start
over.
Even if you had the brains of a chimp, you'd be smart enough to realize
you
needed a team this time.

I left the 50s group for numerous reasons, the most significant being
that it had become a thoroughly unproductive time sap.  I had learned
all that I could from it, and the arguments were becoming repetitive
rehashes that served no valuable purpose for me to pursue.  Since
leaving, I have completed and published numerous books (including a 50s
music book), and a monthly poetry magazine.
And, if I felt that I needed a team to participate in this group, I
would have sided with PJR, Horatio, and Gwyneth, who were infinitely
more knowledgeable,  and better educated than those of "Team Dunce"
(which at the time consisted of you and your Donkey).
--