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, 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."
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.
You present my statement as if I were describing my own practices;
whereas I was describing (my understanding of) your own.
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.
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.
Whether I publish his work is irrelevant.
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.
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.
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.* You felt that it
would be better used as a forum wherein members could exchange greetings
with "Jordy" twenty times a day, every day. Since Google abandoned the
platform, you won out by default.
BTW: Hello Jordy!
2) I believe that I have always been on good terms with Rachel.
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.
Not only are Team Donkey's members not my enemies, but I see no reason
why anyone should need allies to engage with them.
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."
I'm afraid that's exactly what you've just not only said, but
reiterated.
FYI: A "literary journal" that is "published" on a blog is still just a
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?
I fail to see how my having noted that you'd requested poetry from Jim
constitutes "going on about" it. But feel free to couch your argument
in any terms as you find advantageous.
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.
What you might have done prior to my arrival at AAPC is of little to
interest to me.
It is, however, telling that Robert, Corey, Jim, and I have all
requested that our poetry be removed from your blog. Thank you for
pointing that out.
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.
Again, I know nothing about your shenanigans prior to my having joined
the group, and have no interest in learning of them now.
I was referring to the poems you'd both requested and published *after*
my having joined.
>
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.
LOL. You unwittingly requested an intentionally inept piece of poetry
from one of Mr. Ross' socks, and were soundly ridiculed for it.
Your support of a pedophile (and, briefly, of NAMBLA) was the final
straw for him.
>
What are you going on about?
I'm not about to search the archives to repost a thread that I've
already reposted dozens of times in the past.
The basic scenario ran as follows:
1) The late, unlamented Pickles openly supported NAMBLA, and mentioned
that he'd dined with NAMBLA members and listened to speeches at NAMBLA
conventions.
2) I criticized him for supporting a group that wishes to legalize
statutory rape.
3) You then criticized me for attacking what you described as "the
organization that has done the most to support LGBT rights" (quotation
paraphrased from memory).
>
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".
For what must be the 50th time, I'm going to attempt to explain this to
you:
Both amateur and established poets want to get the poetry published in
as many venues as possible. They also prefer to be remunerated for
their work.
Publishers, otoh, prefer to include only previously unpublished material
in their literary journals.
This means that when a poet allows you to post one of their poems on
your blog, they are invalidating that poem for consideration in an
established literary publication.
IOW: When a poet grants you first time publication rights to their poem,
gratis, they are doing you a huge favor.
If you were the editor of an established literary journal like Poetry,
or AGNI, the prestige from having their poem appear in your publication
would be compensation enough -- with the payment being icing on the
cake.
But you are not the editor/publisher of Poetry Magazine. You are a just
a blogger who is using their poetry to boost the visibility of his blog.
Fortunately, for authors, some literary journals will accept reprints
(and a few even offer payment for them). Most of these stipulate that
the poem must have been out of circulation (social media/blogs included)
for a period of at least 5 years.
Traditional (print) journals may keep back issues of their publication
in stock, but past issues are considered "out of circulation" the moment
that the next issue comes out. This makes it convenient for authors,
who don't have to tie their poetry up indefinitely, by having published.
Most writers expect one-time publication rights to mean that an "issue"
will only remain in print for a given amount of time: weekly, monthly,
quarterly, etc.
When you asked to include my poem, "Demeter's Tears" in your "April
issue," I assumed that you publication was a monthly forum, and that my
poem would be freed up again in May. That is the normal expectation any
writer would have under such circumstances.
Unfortunately, "first publication rights" insofar as you are concerned
translates to "in perpetuity."
Suffice to say that writers don't appreciate their poetry being
published in perpetuity by a non-paying blogger.
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.
How do you presume to know where Jim wanted to publish his poetry?
I certainly wanted to publish my poetry in other venues. I just crossed
my fingers and hoped that your blog content wouldn't turn up on Google
searches.
In my case, I considered you to be a friend, and allowed you to keep my
poem active out of friendship. I did this under the assumption that,
should I ever need to have it removed for publication elsewhere, you
would be glad to do so in return.
Oh well. Live and learn.
>
, 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?
What you were trying to do is 1) a violation of an author's rights to
their work, and 2) considered a highly disreputable practice.
In fact, it was only when I discovered that you were attempting to hold
perpetual publication rights to Jim's poetry that I demanded my own
poetry be removed as well.
Strangely, you're still incapable of understanding how what you did
constituted an attempt at literary theft. As someone who has been
published extensively in the small press, and who has had some success
as a small press publisher, I can tell you that such practices are
inexcusable.
Since you refuse to comprehend this, I strongly suggest that you limit
yourself to public domain poetry in the future.
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.
Your paranoia is well established within this group, George.
No one got Jim to do anything.
Again, it is considered unscrupulous for publishers to claim publication
right in perpetuity (especially without offering substantial
remuneration). Jim and I allowed you to keep our poetry "active"
because we considered you to be our friend. When you started attacking
us online, our loyalties were no longer a consideration.
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.
I don't remember any "libelous stuff" coming from NancyGene, Jim, or
myself. The late, unlamented Pickles was shown to be a pathological
liar, a thief, and a NAMBLA supporter.
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's your recollection vs mine, George -- not that it makes one iota of
difference either way.
IIRC, Jim was in the middle of heated argument with Pickles regarding
Ginsberg's alleged sexual encounters with minors. NancyGene posted
quotes the late, unlamented one had made elsewhere, wherein he
championed sex with both children and family members. Pickles admitted
to, and defended, said quotations, and you supported him (as well as his
despicable position).
It was then that Jim, thoroughly disgusted by your arguments, opted to
have his poetry removed from you blog.
Again, not that it makes the least bit of difference. They were Jim's
poems -- not yours. Jim has a right to resubmit his poetry elsewhere. First publication rights do not grant you the right to publish his poem
in perpetuity.
Your refusal to remove his poetry from your blog (for whatever reason)
constituted an act of literary theft.
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.
Again, I have neither mentioned, nor implied any timeline.
That is an example of one of your "straw man" arguments. You are
attempting to "disprove" my accusations by claiming that I failed to
list them sequentially.
You've behaved abominably to Jim countless times over the course of the
past 10 years (give or take) -- and to NancyGene, Robert, Ash, Corey,
and myself as well.
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.
The simple fact is that *I* consider free verse to be a misnamed form of
prose. Virtually everyone else on the planet considers it to be a valid
poetic form.
Jim writes free verse extremely well. He is one of the best free verse
poets I have ever read. His poetry was extremely popular here, and
remains so in The Official AAPC FB group.
I also feel that Jim is a much better writer than you.
You've made quite a few typos in this thread, George. I have merely
chosen not to point them out. And I'm sure that I've made my share of
errors as well.
It's Usenet -- typos come with the territory.
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.
That's funny. He's posted several Haikus to The Official AAPC page.
But do you seriously believe that everyone should be willing to make an
effort to write poetry in an established form simply because you've
challenged them to?
Jim excels at free verse. In fact, the more prosaic Jim's poems are,
the better they actually read. Jim's power as a writer is in his
ability to capture a sense of reality in his words. Why should he be
expected to change his form and or style to suit your whim?
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.
Seriously?
My definition of "poetry" is my own. If you choose to agree to it, that
makes two of us. Most readers, publishers, scholars, professors, etc.,
would vehemently disagree.
But be that as it may. My definition of what constitutes "poetry"
should have no bearing on Jim's talent as a writer.
Regardless of whether you call it "poetry" or "prose," Jim remains an
extremely talented author.
The fact that you are seeking to use my very limited definition out of
context as an implied dismissal of Jim's work, is yet another example of
the duplicity I'd mentioned at the start of today's post.
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.
Again: AAPC was conceived to be a "sampler" of the writings of the
various poets who participate in the group. Anyone in the group can
write in any style they choose. That's the whole point of it.
You know this very well, because you had attempted to take over Jim's
"Sunday Sampler" (unsuccessfully) after one of Jim's sabbaticals from
the Usenet AAPC.
I publish Jim and NancyGene, and everyone else, *because* they are
members of the group.
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.
That's not even remotely true, George.
AYoS is a sampler. It was created to show off the poetry of *all* of
AAPC's members. It has nothing to do with my definition of poetry. It
has nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes. It merely shows
off the poetry of our group's members.
PJR used to post a link to a web page that described each of AAPC's
members (nearly all of whom were long gone by the time I joined). Jim
created the "Sampler" (among other reasons) to show readers who the
current members were. "A Year of Sundays" is merely picking up where
the "Sunday Sampler" left off.
I like both Jim and NancyGene's poetry, and am glad that I'm able to
include it in AYoS. But I don't publish it because I like it. I
publish it because they are members of AAPC and AYoS is a "sampler" for
AAPC poets to display their work in.
Which brings us back to where we began this digression, so it's a good
place to end it, too.
>
snip
You are obviously jealous of Jim and NancyGene. Your jealousy of them
has been obvious for many years.
I'm sorry that you feel that way; but it is to your continued discredit
that you insist on belittling their poetry here, long after they have
been regular participating members.
As always, HtH & HAND
-- 
The Return of Michael Monkey
Re: The Return of Swamp Ass Georgie Dance
