Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 1:56:15 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:58:18 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

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, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" 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.

>
The "mean" of the quotation wasn't changed in the slightest, Lying
Michael.

>
Are you really that dense that you fail to comprehend how you've
misrepresented a statement I'd made about you as being about myself?

>
Don't play the Peabrain, MMP. It was obvious that your statement was not
about you; I didn't change that.
>

You present my statement as if I were describing my own practices;

>
No, Lying Michael; I distinctly said it was how I would describe your
"practices."

>
You falsely use my statement as "proof" of your claims *without*
specifying that I'd made it about you.

>
Nonsense, Lying Michael. Your statement was proof of nothing, and I
never claimed it was. You falsely accused me of printing nly perceived
allies in /April/ magazine and on my blog in general. I've pointed out
that, while it
does not describe what I've done there, it does describe you.
>

In doing so, you make it appear
as if I am stating my own beliefs and practices -- which they are
decidedly not.

>
No, Lying Michael. Once again, I quoted your statement and noted that,
while it does not describe me, it fits your practice on aapc to a T.
Your response was to falsely accused me of lying, by pretending I'd said
you were describing yourself.
>

whereas I was describing (my understanding of) your own.

>
So you've said; you were talking about me. I was talking about you.
You didn't like my saying it about you, so you falsely accused me
of lying.

>
Again, I stated that I was talking about you.

>
And I stated that you were describing yourself - you were projecting.
Rather than deal with that, you began lying about what I'd said.
>

When you misquoted me, you intentionally made it appear as if I had been
talking about myself.

>
No, Lying Michael. It was obvious from what I'd said that you were
accusing another person of that. (You would not use "you" to describe
your own practices.) You lied when you projected it on me, and now
you're trying to defend that with another lie.
>

And, yes, I feel that anyone (other than your Donkey

>
Permission to use childish nicknames noted. Please don't start crying
when I do the same.

and his socks)
would consider that to be a form of lying.

>
Sure it would be; it it were true.
>

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.

>
I'm afraid we'll have to add "duplicitous" to the list of words you
misuse, MMP. But there's no need to say more about that, since you
were clearly just trying to "win an argument" by making a false
accusation.

>
One of us certainly misunderstands it.

>
Indeed one of us does. But you misuse it because it sounds good.
>
snip