Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 9:15:35 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:58:13 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
>

Earth to George Dance:

>
Sorry, "Earth", but whatever socks you use, you're still going to be
MMP.

That's a popular expression, George.  Have you really been ignorant of
it for the past 40+ years?

You can't change the content of my statements
simply by snipping them prior to replying.

>
Good; nothing's changed. And since you repeat it all it wouldn't matter
if it were; it makes more sense to snip it all, and deal with your
repeat posting of it.

It's what's called a "straw man" argument, George.  You intentionally
take my statements out of context, delete said context from the quoted
passages, then recast my actually words to mean something other than I'd
intended; simply so you can successfully argue against it.
That's hardly any way to conduct a civil, and/or mature, discussion, but
sadly it's the only thing you've got.

You may *think* you can,

>
- or it may be that I don't think that, and you're simply being
paranoid. That's more likely, since I'm not aware that I think that
(which is a good sign I don't). How about if you stop trying to tell me
what I think, and say something about the subject.

The subject was that you present "straw man" arguments by intentionally
taking my words out of context.
I have been led to the conclusion that you think that restating
something I've said out of context somehow changes my original statement
as well, because I cannot find any other reason for your behavior.
Since my original statement is always preserved in its proper context
just a post or two above, only someone with the intellect of a turnip
would think that he could get away with it.  And when he has been caught
doing it every time, and still persists in doing so, it follows that
according him a turnip level IQ may have been a wee bit generous.

but anyone who has been reading the thread (or
who is savvy enough to scroll up to check the original post) will see
through your duplicity.

>
I doubt that anyone besides the three of us is reading the thread -
you've garbaged it up quite thoroughly in the few days I've been dealing
with your last screed. And I note that you're still using the term
"duplicity" incorrectly.

Well, if there are no readers here to fool, and you're certainly not
going to fool me, what's the point of your constant attempts to change
the meaning of everything I say?
If you're just playing dense as a means of trolling me (to what end,
I've not the slightest idea), it isn't working. Having been raised to be
an honest man, I find your find your little deceits and duplicities to
be extremely interesting.

You keep pretending that my statement pertained solely to "The Sunday
Sampler."  And it appears to do just that -- when you cut the second and
third paragraphs and quote it out of context.

>
It looks like I've already read and replied to all of it at some point,
but knowing that you're in love with your own words, I guess we'll have
to go through it all again.
>

Here's what I *actually wrote*:
>
[START QUOTE]
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."  I provided in depth critiques on all of the poems,
and pointed out when poems submitted by my so-called "allies" didn't
work.

>
The "context" there was that you were trying to establish yourself as a
fair and impartial critic; so you tried to offer fair and balanced
criticism. But that, as I pointed out, was 7 years ago, before you
formed Team Monkey, and your "context' has changed, of course, so your
opinions of all those poems have probably changed as well. It's stupid
to point to that to show how "fair and balanced" you are now.

LOL!  By George, you done it again!
You are addressing a statement before I've completed making my point. The contextual relevance of the first paragraph of my statement only
reveals its full meaning at the conclusion of the third.
And, no, I was not saying any such thing.  I have continued to offer
impartial critiques of both Jim's and NancyGene's poetry, pointing out
errors and flaws when applicable long after the supposed "Team Monkey"
was allegedly formed.

The only "bias" in my reviews was that when critiquing an incompetent
"poem" by an incompetent, illiterate buffoon like Mr. Donkey, I adopted
a humorous tone.

>
All you do here in that paragraph is attack Will, which I've been
reading for the past 7 years and must have replied to when I thought you
believed it; and
(2) go back to playing Monkey/Donkey, which means I'll have to play it
with you (since Will is not interested in your games).

That is not what I am doing, George.  I am pointing out the
*differences* between my appraisals of your work and Mr. Donkey's.  Both
you and your Donkey have always been allies (at least for as long as I
have been coming to Usenet AAPC.  If I simply attacked the poetry of my
perceived enemies (as you maintain), my critiques of your poetry would
necessarily be as damning as my critiques of Will's.
PJR, for example, would use the same stock phrases to peremptorily
dismiss the poetry of anyone he didn't like.  I, otoh, consider your
poetry to be of a much higher quality than Will's and have *always*
maintained that position.
I will also readily admit that I prefer your poetry to that of PJR's --
in spite of the fact that I like PJR much better as a person.

And, FWIW, I have provided my feelings regarding yours and Mr. Donkey's
poetry in my previous post in this thread.  Again, I feel that my
evaluation is both fair and balanced.  Anyone seeking proof of said
fairness need only scroll up a bit in this thread.
[END QUOTE]

>
I may wade through the thread and try to find it, but I'm sure it's
nothing I
haven't read and replied to before. It is funny, though, that you'd
repost a quote telling me to reread and reply to something else on the
thread; why not just repost that something else instead? As I said, WTF
is wrong with you, Michael Monkey?

Once again, you have failed to address the relevant portion of my
statement.  Since you seem to need it rubbed in your face in order to
recognize it, here it is again: "And, FWIW, I have provided my feelings
regarding yours and Mr. Donkey's poetry in my previous post in this
thread."
And, in case you missed it, again: "And, FWIW, I have provided my
feelings regarding yours and Mr. Donkey's poetry in my previous post in
this thread."
Why was it necessary for me to repeat this? Because you keep insisting
that I was referring to my critiques in the Sunday Sampler "7 years ago,
before you
formed Team Monkey," when I was specifically referring to my comments in
*this* thread which I had made, not 7 years ago, but only the day
before.

As you can see, I was referring you to what was then "my previous post"
-- which I kindly reposted for you above.
>
As to said quote, it is not just a "rehash" of my comments regarding the
illiterate nature of your triolet.  It is a statement regarding your
work in general.

>
What you just quoted says nothing about my "work" - it's just you
patting yourself on the back about how "fair and balanced" you used to
be, and claiming that you still are.

Please tell my that you're play the dunce strictly for the sake of
trolling me!
For the 7th time: "And, FWIW, I have provided my feelings regarding
yours and Mr. Donkey's poetry in my previous post in this thread."
Allow me to add some ALL CAPS to the above to make it clearer to you:
"And, FWIW, I have provided my feelings regarding yours and Mr. Donkey's
poetry IN MY PREVIOUS POST IN THIS THREAD."
That means that you have to scroll up (what was at the time only one
post) in order to see my critique of your poetry.

And, as I said, a close reading will show you that
this is true. I praise your technical skill, but find your content
commonplace, maudlin, sentimental, and generally uninspired.

>
Oh, that again. That 3-line summary is clear enough, so there's no need
to read the detailed "critique".

A three-line summary is not the same as a more in-depth critique,
George.  However, I am not the least surprised to hear you admit that
one negative comment about your poetry automatically negates any
positive comments that might have accompanied it.

As you know, you've said that before,
when commenting on specific poems. At least in those cases we could
discuss the actual meaning of the poem, but in a criticism of my "work
in general" there's nothing to discuss.

Yes, George, I've said that before.  I tend to be consistent in my
critiques.

What you write, you usually write very well.  Unfortunately, your poems
fail to hold my interest.

>
Fine; if you're not interested you're not interested. End of discussion.

"Fine" is the reaction of a butt-hurt five-year old, and should always
be said with the lower lip jutting forward and accented with the
stamping of a foot.
I have said that "you usually write very well."  That is hardly an
antagonistic stance to take.

So what are you after by reposting this? Would you like a similar
"critique" of your "work in general"? Do you want me to get all
defensive and give you what's called a "revenge crit"?

A "revenge crit" would be pointless, as your object would be to belittle
my writing.  This can be easily accomplished by heaping a lot of
disparaging adjectives in its direction without taking the time to point
out relevant examples and explaining *why* such adjectives apply.
If you would like to provide an in-depth critique of one or more of my
poems, pointing out specific examples that either work or fail to do so,
and *explaining* precisely *why* they work or fail, I would be
exceedingly grateful.  However, I am neither asking you, nor attempting
to goad you into, providing one.

Or do you want me
to pretend to agree with you, and praise you for finding "truths" about
my poetry that for some reason the writer was blind to? Or do you just
want a thank-you?

I would like you to stop pretending that my critiques are positive or
negative base on my current "alliances."  I think you are a very
skillful poet. I have always held this position.  I also believe that
your poetry lacks emotion, and find the "messages" to be commonplace and
often cloying
You can take that as a "put-down," stomp your foot, stick out your lower
lip, and mutter insults like "monkey" and "peabrain," or you can take
that as constructive criticism and figure out a way to write more with
your emotions and less with your head.

One person's opinion is all well and good, and at least I didn't have to
pay for it, but that's all it is; one person's opinion. Thank you for
giving it.

Every opinion matters as long as it is offered with sincerity.  Opinions
are not proclamations carved in stone.  They are windows through which
you can see how your writing appears to your readers.
--