Re: The Lime sock on Stephan Pickering and NAMBLA

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:29:10 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 16:31:49 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:

>

The me the problem with Stephan Pickering posting here on the poetry
newsgroup was the determination of Jim Senetto and Michael Pendragon to
drive him away at any cost, and they both tried to strongarm me into
joining them with this hostile agenda.
>
When I refused to participate, both Michael Pendragon and Jim Senetto
then turned on me with malicious attacks, even threats of violence, that
lasted for many years.
>
And so it goes.

>
I call

>
You lie and misrepresent, Pendragon.
>
As always.
>

Jim Senetto turned on you when you scammed him out of $50.00.

>
>
That's a lie and misrepresentation you created then and continue to lie
about.
>
Jim Senetto sent $50 to Zod, not me.
>
I did, however, refund the $50 to Senetto twice, meaning Senetto got
$100 back for his $50.

No, Donkey.
DONKEY LIE #!: "Jim Senetto sent $50 to Zod, not me."
Jim sent the money to you.
Zod, being homeless, had no mailbox for him to send it to.
DONKEY LIE #2: "I did, however, refund the $50 to Senetto twice, meaning
Senetto got $100 back for his $50."
You never refunded the money to Jim.  Jim never saw his $50 again.
What you did was a) write out a $50 check to your daughter, and b) send
$50 to an animal shelter that Kevin suggested.

To correct your lies and misrepresentations and set the record straight
one more time.
>

How you can even claim that his dislike of you had anything to do with
Pickering

>
That's exactly how it started.
>
You and Senetto tried to force me to join y'all in attempting to drive
Stephan Pickering from the poetry newsgroup.
>
When I refused to join you, y'all tried to kick me out of the newsgroup
as well.

1) We never asked you to attack the Pickle Man, Donkey.  In fact, I had
assured you several times that I did not expect you to turn against
someone you had considered a friend for many years.
The only thing I asked you to do was to stop responding to attack posts
where he accused me of being a "paedophile" with words like "Well
spoken" and "Well put."  Since we were supposedly friends at the time, I
didn't think that seemed too much to ask.
2) Jim was mad at you over the $50. Plain and simple.  Anyone would be
mad at you over the $50 dollars.  My opinion of you soured immeasurably
as a result of the $50.
For any readers who weren't around at the time, here's a summation of
what went down:
One day George Sulzbach introduced himself to the group.  You said that
he was a long-time friend of yours in real life.
George then proceeded to ingratiate himself with all of the AAPC members
by placing one of his dozen or so stock comments at the end of each of
our poems ("Great Poem," "Nice poem," "Interesting," "One of your best,"
etc.).
After a week or so had passed, you started a thread wherein you told us
all that George was about to be thrown out into the street.  You told us
that he was recovering from a car accident and unable to work, and that
he was waiting for a disability check from the VA (which he was
expecting hourly). In the meantime, he needed to get up the funds
necessary to keep his landlord from throwing him out.  You didn't
directly ask for any money, but ended your message on a note of: "Oh me,
oh my! Whatever shall he do?"
Jim sent you $50 (cash) with instructions that you give it to George to
help tide over his landlord until the disability check arrived.
Jim sent the money and posted a message to you that it was in the mail.
It was then (after the money had been sent) that you told Jim that the
reason you hadn't given George any of your own money was because he
would only have spent it on booze, drugs, and whores.
A few days later, you emailed Jim that the money had been received and
put to good use: treating you and your brother to steak dinners.  Since
steak dinners are more nourishing than booze and drugs, you were quite
proud of having convinced George to buy you and brother dinner instead.
Jim was justifiably upset.  However, instead of apologizing and offering
to return the money, you ungratefully informed him that George was free
to spend the money any way he saw fit.
To make matters worse, George then chimed in that he had never asked for
Jim's money, and that he do with it as he pleased.
Jim is too nice a person to have demanded the money back, but he
insisted that you had misused the money he sent, and wanted you to send
$50 of your own money to a good cause.  So you wrote your daughter a
check -- which several people, Jim included, believe your daughter never
cashed.  (IOW: You attempted to scam Jim again.)
Eventually, you sent the money to an Animal Shelter, and the sorry
affair was closed.
However, that did *NOT* restore Jim's (or anyone else's) opinion of you.
When you started calling Jim controlling (and various other things) for
having wanted you to use the money to actually *help* your
soon-to-be-homeless friend, you effectively ended your friendship with
Jim forever.
*THAT* is why Jim can't tolerate you.

Lie and deny all you want, that's what happened, Pendragon.

Right back at you, Donkey.

As for me, there's a world of difference between refusing to participate
in a flame war, and supporting Pick's claim that I was a paedophile.
>
My turning on you after that should be as easy for anyone to understand
as is Jim's turning on you after you scammed him.
>
When you scam your friends out of money, and attempt to label them as
paedophiles, you should expect them to "turn on you" in as a result.
>
--

--