Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

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:
>

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

>
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
>
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:

>

MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members.  The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
>
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.

>
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.

>
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased
behavior.

>
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remember that statement of his that I called
a statement of his editorial philosophy:
>
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential
adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
>
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.
When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
>
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,
but it can't be said often enough.

>
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.

>
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,
>

Jim agreed to let you post
it.

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

You posted it to your blog.

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

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.
>
, 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.)
>

Your attacks included unfounded claims that he can't write, and idiotic
challenges for him to pit his triolets (which he doesn't write) against
your own.

>
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.
>

There was a reason why PJR referred to you and your allies as "Team
Dunce."

>
The same reason, I suspect, that you refer to Will and his alleged
allies as "Team Donkey". You do like to copy that old troll, Piggy Ross.
>

You view AAPC as "teams," and will support your untalented
teammates, while attacking your betters.

>
"Attacking your betters" sounds like you're copying Piggy Ross again.
But how was that supposed to be my view, when it was Piggy who made up
the term?
>

Nor has this practice of yours ever been remotely secret.  You have
detailed it numerous times in your posts regarding your "system of
ethics" known as "Tit for Tat."

>

Basically, if someone praises your
poetry, you will return the praise.

>
Now, that's not true, Lying Michael. I don't want mindless praise any
more than mindless criticism, so I don't give those to anyone else --
that's reciprocal ethics (or "tit for Tat if you want, which it seems
you do) in action.
>

If someone belittles your poetry,
you will belittle theirs.

>
No, Lying Michael, that is not true, either. You know that very well, as
you constantly try to belittle my poetry, while I don't belittle yours;
for the most part, I don't comment on it.
>

OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry
posted to AAPC.  Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers."

>
Michael, I vaguely remember your reviews of my poems; I had no problem
with those, but you wrote them years before you put me on your "Team
Donkey" list of perceived adversaries. They should be compared with
reviews of my poetry that you've given afterward.
>
snip