Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:03:29 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 5:39:18 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

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.

>
It was obvious before you removed the part where I said who I was
speaking about.

That was never in what I quoted, Lying Michael.
Once you removed it, it appears as if I'm stating my

own m.o.  Which is precisely what you deceitfully presented it as.

No, Lying Michael. It was obvious that you were speaking to someone else
(who was not named in your quote), and obvious that I'd said it
describes your critical philosophy.

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.

>
No, Lying Michael. Quoting of your statement was "proof" of nothing
(except that you said it), and I
never claimed it was. You falsely accused me of printing [o]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.

>
No, George, *this* is what you said, and I quote:
>
"I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
adversary. As he says: 'When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write.'"

No, Lying Michael. Here's the actual post that got you flaming in this
thread:
[QUOTE]
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber 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.
[/QUOTE]

You make no mention that my words were originally about you.
>
Rather, you present it as if I were explaining that I'd dismissed Will's
writing ability because I dislike him as a person.

You do flame Will about both Will's writing and his private life, and
even about his family (who don't even post here), because you perceive
him as your adversary: as I've phrased it, because he's on your
"enemies' list."

You really take the art of duplicity to a whole level.

"Duplicity" has  already been added to the words you use incorrectly,
MMP (along with "illiterate" of course).

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

>
You do not say that I'm projecting, George.

Wrong , Lying Michael. I've told you that at least twice back when you
said it about me, and I repeated that when you began flaming about it
here in this discussion.
Let's take another look at

what you wrote:

Yes, but let's use my statement that actually set you off on your
present tantrum:
[QUOTE]
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber 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.
[/QUOTE]

"I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
 shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
 adversary. As he says: 'When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
 assign a childish name to him and claim he
 can't write.'"

Again, here's the statement that you've actually been flamind:
[QUOTE]
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber 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
[/QUOTE]

When are you going to learn that it is pointless to lie on Usenet where
one need only scroll up a few posts to uncover your actual post?

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. (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.

>
>
Let's have a third look at what you said.

Once again, let's look at the actual statement you're throwing your
tantrum over:
[QUOTE]
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber 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.
[/QUOTE]

Please point out where you made it "obvious that [I] was accusing
another person."

Once again, you wouldn't use the second person to talk about yourself.

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.

By all means.  I think that you *should* refer to Will as "Donkey."
He's earned that cognomen.

Tnank your, Mr. Monkey; not that I or anyone needs it to call anyone
what they like here. (As you know very well.) And the same for flunkies,
since they deserve their MMP-style nicknames as much as you deserve
yours.

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

>
Sure it would be; it it were true.

>
Here, for the fourth time, is your statement:
>
"I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
 shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
 adversary. As he says: 'When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
 assign a childish name to him and claim he
 can't write.'"

And here, for the fourth time, is the actual statement you've been
flaming about:
[QUOTE]
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber 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.
[/QUOTE]

Please explain how that isn't true.
>

Silly Monkey; you're the one claiming my statement isn't 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.

>
I have proven my point several times over in this post.

No, Mr. Goebblels-Monkey: one does not "prove" a point simply by
repeating it four times.