Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

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.
>

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."
>

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.
>

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.
>

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.

>
So what? Jim doesn't turn into a neutral bystander every time he
flounces off
the group; the fact that you're here slurping him in this flame war you
reignited is enough to show that you still perceive him as your ally.
>

Whether I publish his work is irrelevant.

>
MMP, your ONLY reason for saying that I used to see Jim as my ally
is that I used to publish his work. If that's now "irrelevant", then you
had absolutely no reason for falsely accusing me of using your M.O. in
the
first place. So, fine; let's agree that it's irrelevant, and you were
just
making up shit.
>

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.

>
Of course he is your "potential" ally. He's been reading and posting
here
as your ally, and there's nothing stopping him from doing it in the
future.
Same for your other Team Monkey flunky, NG.
>

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.

>

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.*

>
Unfortunately, your posts bely you, MMP. The bulk of what you post here,
even of your "poetry" and your "poetry discussions" is either (1)
scurrilous
gossip about the members
of "Team Donkey" or (2) flame wars with the members of "Team Donkey".
>

You felt that it
would be better used as a forum wherein members could exchange greetings
with "Jordy" twenty times a day, every day.

>
Don't be such a peabrain, MMP. Jordy and I post to each other twice a
month,
at best. Otherwise our paths never cross; he doesn't start flame wars,
or
try to disrupt other threads. So whatever he does doesn't bother me; if
he
bothers you so much that you're still obsessing about him, bo back to
your
facebook group and gossip about him with someone who cares.
>

Since Google abandoned the
platform, you won out by default.

>
Yet here you are, caught sneaking back onto aapc under a new sock, and
turning to your old tricks: gossip and flame wars. As I've told Jim
before,
your people are as bad as bedbugs; it's almost impossible to get rid of
you.
>

BTW: Hello Jordy!

>

2) I believe that I have always been on good terms with Rachel.

>
It may be true that you believe that, MMP; but it is not true that you
were. The archives have plenty of gossip you, Jim and NG have
written about her, and flame wars that you've tried to start with her.
>

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.

>
MMP, as previously noted, you reject reality and live in a delusional
world of your own. It's central to your delusion that you're a genius
with encyclopedic knowledge of poetry. Anyone who doesn't buy into
that is attacking your delusion, so of course you'd see them as a
threat.
That's how you came up with your "Team Donkey" bullshit in the first
place.
>

Not only are Team Donkey's members not my enemies, but I see no reason
why anyone should need allies to engage with them.

>
LOL! Remember what happened the last time you your act solo
rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s. You tried there to pose as the genius
with the encyplopedic knowledge of 1950s music, but (even though your
knowledge of 1950s music is more extensive than your knowledge of
poetry)
you failed miserably, got your ass kicked and had to come here to start
over.
Even if you had the brains of a chimp, you'd be smart enough to realize
you
needed a team this time.
>
snip

Okay, well put.
Thanks again for setting the record straight, George
HTH and HAND.