Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

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:
>

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.

IKYABWAI is neither an argument nor a rebuttal.
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.
Do I have "enemies" here?  That's a strong word.  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, but you specifically asked
Jim if you could use one of his poems.  You had previously requested one
of mine in the same manner shortly after I joined the group.

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.

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

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?
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.

, 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.  And why did he
ask you to remove them, George?
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.
It was only *after* you'd begun attacking Jim (and supporting NAMBLA)
that he asked to have his poetry removed from your blog.

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.

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

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're mistaken, George.  Mr. Ross is an intelligent individual, and as
such, was able to see through your "gamesmanship."  It took me a while
to understand what was going on because Mr. Ross appeared to be the
aggressor in your ongoing flame war.
Once I discovered that your Donkey had driven off all of the old AAPC
members (exactly as he was driving off all of the, then, current ones),
the situation became clear.
Since I am stating the truth, just as Mr. Ross had, you claim that I am
copying him.  But anyone who sees you for what you are, would come to
the same conclusions.

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?

No, George.  I was quoting Mr. Ross.  I was explaining precisely *what*
Mr. Ross accused you of.
BTW: Why are you calling Mr. Ross "Piggy" when he hasn't posted here in
years?

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.

You're the one who openly *stated* that you practiced "Tit for Tat" as a
"system of ethics" here.

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.

I don't belittle your poetry, George. I have repeatedly stated (often
defending your poetry to my "allies") that you are a very skilled
writer.  I have repeated this statement more than once in this thread.
The truth is that I don't praise your poetry as highly as you think I
should.

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.

You vaguely remember something I wrote last week in this thread?
If so, you need to see a doctor, ASAP.
As always, HtH & HAND
--