Re: The Lime sock on Stephan Pickering and NAMBLA

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:15:27 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:06:00 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

Since MMP is trying to disrupt his psychoanalysis by attemptint to
change the subject to whatever he can think of, and since I don't want
to let his attempts pass without comment, I'm being forced to open new
threads on some of it.
From: https://www.novabbs.com/arts/post.php?id=255645
>
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 12:42:11 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MPP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 5:55:00 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

It seems that Senetto took the lead in attempting to drive Stephan
Pickering from the newsgroup though, but that may have been fueled by
Senetto's obvious Antisemitism.

>
Thanks for reminding me. It was actually MMP who did that by bringing
NAMBLA to the group. That triggered Jim, just the way MFH triggered him
after he was told that it was really about child molesting.

>
Why do you lie so much, George?

>
Why do you project so much, MMP? (That's a rhetorical question. As noted
in
your psychoanalysis, you are playing the preemption game you learned
from
Peter J. Ross.)

>
As I previously noted, George, I'm merely referencing PJR's catchphrase
as a means of pointing out that your propensity for stretching the truth
is well known here.
>

(That's a rhetorical question, as you've already intimated that your
pathological lying stems from you having been abused as a child.)

>
No, Lying Michael: I have never said, or even "intimated" (!) that I was
pathological, lying, or
"abused as a child".

>
You wrote a "mostly autobiographical" poem detailing the abuses you
suffered as a child, George.  And you're demonstrating your pathological
obsession with lying in your trio of denials, listed above.
>

When Pickles joined the group, he simply posted ongoing entries in a
proposed bibliography of some Magnum Opus he had been working on for
years.  To the best of my recollection, this tome-in-progress was an
attempt to tie all of literature, culture, and history together via
Jewish themes explored in Bob Dylan songs.  Suffice to say that Pickles
had gone off the deep end decades before.

>
Anyone who engages in deep scholarship on a subject can appear to have
"gone off the deep end" to someone who knows nothing of the subject.

>
Seriously?
>
The man was a total whack job.  He invented a fake story about having
gone to Canada (and later to Israel) in order to dodge the Draft during
the Vietnam War (while surreptitiously crossing back over the border to
follow Bob Dylan's concert tours; married a 14-year old woman while in
Israel, had a baby daughter, then apparently left them in Israel to
return to the US while the Vietnam War was at its height...
>
...only to have the entire thing disproved by his correspondences with
Forrest Ackerman (archived online) which show that he'd been living in
and around Los Angeles the entire time.  Ackerman had taken him in after
his Grandmother shot his father, and his mother checked herself into the
Cuckoo's Nest... only to catch Pickles; attempting to steal two
suitcases full of his valuable movie memorabilia.  Pickles then told
Forrest that he had checked himself into the looney bin as well.
>
I mean, it doesn't get any more off the deep end than that.
>
But if you want to maintain that he was a great scholar and that his
theory that the entire world revolved around Bob Dylan songs was both
profound, and profoundly correct, then feel free to explain it to me.
AFAICS it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster without the humor.
>

I attempted to engage Pickles in several conversations regarding his
posts, but he either ignored them, or spat back some angry, and
impolite, remarks.

>
Similarly anyone who engages in deep scholarship on a subject cannot be
expected to appreciate having a total ignoramus on the subject trying to
explain it to him. So while I don't condone his impoliteness, I can
fully understand it.

>
See above.  Please explain how Pickles was anything more than a deeply
delusional Bob Dylan fan.
>

Since I didn't relish the idea of getting into a
flamewar with another nutjob (he reminded me of the 50s group's nutter,
"PhillyGuy"), I took to ignoring his posts.  Since he only posted once
or twice a week, ignoring him required little to no effort.

>
You handled that well, IMO. "Skip and ignore" the posts and posters
you don't like; as long as they stay out of your face, everyone wins.

>
The key phrase being "as long as they stay out of your face."
>
Had your Donkey accepted the proposed posting limits (which would have
applied to everyone in the group), he wouldn't have been in everyone's
face, and AAPC would still have been going strong.
>
>

At some point Jim and Pickles got into a flamewar regarding Ginsberg.  I
don't recall who started it.

>
Well, allow me to refresh your memory. Jim and Stephan first got into
flamewars after you formed Team Monkey with him and NastyGoon (NG), a
Pickering
troll.

>
You're opening sentence is a delusional lie, George.  I never formed any
team.  There was no "Team Monkey."
>
I was on a friendly basis with Jim from the first time he posted here
(that is to say, the first time after my having joined the group).
>
When NancyGene first came to the group, she was trolling Pickles -- and
since Pickles was your Donkey's ally, she soon joined Brooke, ME, Usenet
Editor, and friends in attacking the Donkey.  Since I was also an ally
of your Donkey, I joined the Donkey in attacking them.
>
When they showed that they were willing to work with me in establishing
peace at AAPC, I stopped fighting with them.  Stopping fights is the
first step to establishing peace.  Eventually I came to like and respect
NancyGene and ME, and we became friends.  This was a nature progression
of our engaging in friendly poetry-related discussions together -- and
had nothing to do with having created some made up "Team."
>
You might also recall that I was *not* attacking the Donkey at that
time.  Rather than having formed an anti-Donkey team, I had taken a
neutral position and adopted a friendly stance toward both sides.
>
The Donkey saw my increasing friendship with his enemies as a form of
betrayal on my part (a "what have you done for me lately?" type of
deal), and began openly opposing my attempts to establish peace.  (EX:
When I asked for a limit of 25 posts per day, the Donkey immediately
doubled his number of daily posts in response.)  But despite the
Donkey's increasing shenanigans (including haven successfully shut down
"The Sunday Sampler"/driven Jim away from the group several times, I
maintained my neutrality.
>
I *only* became the Donkey's (and, consequently, your) enemy in 2017 --
after I had left AAPC (temporarily, as I had just bought a house and was
in the process of settling in).  Jim had also left, and you had taken
over the "Sampler" -- and turned it into a showcase for the worst poets
in the group: The Donkey, his Stink, and Plagiarist Pickles.  In one of
his rants (that you reposted as a poem), Pickles called me a
"Paedophile."  The Donkey supported him by calling his poem "Well said"
(or something to that effect).  I warned you both that by supporting
Pickles personal attack against me you were adopting a hostile stance,
and warned you that if it happened again, we would be at war.
>
Suffice to say, you reprinted his "Paedophile" poem the following week,
and your Donkey again commented that it was "Well put" (or something to
that effect).
>
It was you and your Donkey who started this war with me, George.
>
It has never been about an "Teams."  Nor has it ever been about my
forming, or joining, any enemies of yours of Donkey's.
>
Pick called me a "paedophile," you "published" it (twice), and your
Donkey praised it as "Well put" (twice).
>
I don't take personal attacks of that sort lightly, as you've since come
to learn (that is, as you would have since come to learn were you
possessed of that capability).
>
That's it.
>
No Team.  No conspiracy.  No ulterior motive.
>
You enabled a nutjob who was calling me a "paedophile" and ignored my
demands that you stop.
>
>

The first thing you did was invite NG into Jim's Sunday Sampler,
where
they (NG's preferred pronoun) would write trollpoems about Stephan. The
result would be Stephan jumping into the Sampler, which would result in
JIm
flaming him and others (for example, Richard Oakley) also being turned
against Jim. I doubt that either Jim nor STephan realized that you were
manipulating them for that outcome.

>
I realized from the content of NancyGene's posts that they were
intelligent, well-educated, and better written than anyone here.
Naturally, I asked them to start contributing to the "Sampler."  And I
was right in doing so.
>
Here are the opening lines of NancyGene's latest poem:
>
"Yesterdays stack up like piles of read newspapers,
Cluttering my mind and obstructing my day."
>
That's poetry of the highest quality.
>
You can read it, and other recent poems by them in the online version of
AYoS:
>
https://mpsilvertone.wixsite.com/website
>
You aren't blocked from that.
>
As to my having manipulated Pickles and Jim, I can only as WTF are you
yammering about?
>
"Manipulated" them to do... what?  To fight one another?  To what end?
>
I'm well aware that you've convinced yourself that I had some secret (or
not so secret) plans of taking over AAPC, but encouraging in-fighting
certainly wouldn't have been the way to do so.
>
>

After Jim and Stephan became engaged in a prolonged flamewar, both on
and
off the Sampler, the second thing you did was start flooding the group
with
a nasty, libellous document that NG had written.

>
I'm not sure which one you're referring to, George.  NancyGene *quoted*
Pickles posts from other groups regarding the topics of "legal age" and
"incest" (and why he believed that parent-child sex was the natural way
to go)... but that wasn't anything they had written.  Those were direct
quotes from Pickles -- who admitted to, and defended, them.
>

The third thing you did, a month or so of that, when Jim and Stephan
were thoroughly
engaged with each other, you went deep diving outside the group for
information on NAMBLA, and found a quotation from Allan Ginsberg
("I have never had sex with anyone under 15" or WTTE), which you began
posting here, calling Ginsberg a "pedophile" (or predator); and then
when others objected to that (like Stephan, Will, or myself), you began
calling those people "pedophiles" as well.

>
Ginsberg was known to have been a pedophile.  He joined NAMBLA.  He
admitted to finding 13-year old boys sexually desirable, had teenaged
male sexual partners when he was in his 60s, etc.
>
By his own admission, Pickles went to NAMBLA meetings, NAMBLA
conventions, and invited NAMBLA members to dinner.  He also openly
stated his belief that adult-child sex and/or incest was not only
natural and desirable, but that it was practiced in the majority of
cultures -- those that weren't "Nazrim(sp?) dupes," that is.
>
He further stated that when he was a high school senior, he deflowered a
South American Orthodox Jewish girl (aged 14), and that while he was on
his (make-believe) exile in Israel, he married and impregnated another
14-year old Jewish girl.
>
I called Pickles a pedophile because Pickles was a pedophile.  Plain and
simple.
>
>

Most likely Jim had condemned Ginsberg as
a child molester, and Pickles (who worshipped Ginsberg) spazzed.

>
That is a fair summary of what I just said,

>
Except that I'm the one who said it, and you're the one who is
responding to it.
>

though you left out that you
(and Jim)
were calling Stephan a child molester as well. No one appreciates being
called names like that by cowardly trolls on the internet.

>
That's too funny, George.
>
The *whole* reason that you and I are enemies (at least from my side of
the battlefield) is because you "published" Pickles "poem" in which he
accused me of being a "paedophile"... twice.
>
And, I repeat (see immediately above), I called Pickles a pedophile
because that's what he was.  There were no "ifs," "ands" or "buts" about
it.  He admitted having ties to NAMBLA, and openly stated his beliefs
that adult-child sex, and incest, were natural and should both be
legalized.
>

Their
fight had been going for what had become a fairly large-sized thread
when I decided to see what all the bruhaha was about.

>

(As I said, I'd
been ignoring Pickles' threads, and having no interest in Ginsberg, had
been avoiding this thread as well.)
>
When I read Jim's accusations, I google Ginsberg and discovered that
he'd openly discussed having had sex with minors, hinted (as strongly as
possible, considering that statutory rape is a criminal offense) at
having had sex with boys aged 14 or under (he said that was the age when
boys were most desirable), was a member of NAMBLA and had been serving
as that organization's poster boy, publicly championing them and their
agenda (to legalize sex between adults and children).

>
Indeed, Ginsberg and Camille Paglia both "championed" NAMBLA's right to
free speech on that contentious subject, and in fact led their
counter-parade when they were kicked out of NY's Pride parade.
>

I was appalled that a public figure was able to be a member of NAMBLA,
and to speak about having had sex with minors, and was somehow not only
a free man, but was still considered a renowned poet and even a cultural
icon.  I therefore joined in the argument, backing Jim.

>
Actually, as I remember, you did not merely join in their flame wars,
but began disrupting every thread Stephan was on (chiefly with Will), to
flame him about it - which of course turned Will against you as well.

>
Just as no one likes being falsely accused of being a pedophile, so no
one likes having a pedophile in their group.
>
When Pickles started arguing about how adults having sex ith 13-year
olds was fine, but that they (the adults) should be careful about having
sex with children under the age of 13, as such children are incapable of
forming long term romantic attachments and the adults will get hurt, I
decided that this was someone I did not want hanging out in our group.
>

I don't know if I was the first to introduce NAMBLA into the group.

>
Not at all. That was Chuck Lysaght years before that. He was roundly
spanked by
jr sherman, who pointed out that all Ginsberg championed was their (and
Ginsberg's) right to talk about the subject, and it died off. AFAIK, you
were the first to revive it.
>

I'm
sure that it must have come up once or twice in the 15 - 20 years of
flame wars before my arrival -- but whatever.  I'm pretty sure that I
was the one who'd introduced it into that particular argument.
>
In an attempt to defend Ginsberg, Pickles told us that he had been to
NAMBLA meetings, listened to speakers at NAMBLA conventions, and taken
NAMBLA members out to dinner on several occasions, and could attest that
they were all good people.

>
Stephan said a lot of things, on memory and without check, some of which
were demonstrably untrue. (For example, his alleged dinners with NAMBLA
were said to take place during Dylan's Rolling Thunder tour, which was
years before NAMBLA was even founded.) there was no reason to trust
his memory of any ot that.

>
There's no reason to trust Pick's "memory" on any subject whatsoever.
The man was the single biggest and most delusional nutjob on the
internet, constantly lied, and was constantly being caught in his lies.
>
But whether he actually invited NAMBLA members to dine with him is not
the point.  The point is that he claimed to have invited NAMBLA members
to dine with him and that said NAMBLA members were good people who made
valid points regarding adult-child sex.
>
What's the difference if he misremembered the dates on which it
occurred?  What's the difference if he made the entire dinner (or
dinners) up?
>
Either way, he was still spouting pro-NAMBLA/pro-adult-child sex in his
posts.
>
>

NancyGene quoted posts Pickles had made in another forum, wherein he'd
argued that "legal age" was a meaningless concept, that the majority of
civilizations and cultures had no such age, that incest was not only
common in other cultures, but was a desirable thing.

>
Yes, through all this NG continued to troll Stephan, and posted a lot
of scurrilous claims about what he'd said (real, misprepresented, or
completely
made up). I didn't bother to check them, but (having been trolled by NG
myself) I would nt vouch for their accuracy.

>
Apparently they were real.  Not only did Pickles not deny them, but he
began arguing that the points he'd ("allegedly") made in those quotes
were correct.
>
>

IIRC, Ginsberg said that "legal age" was an arbitrary concept, which of
course it is (just look at the USA, where the age of consent is
different from
state to state). he did not say that there was no age of cnnsent in
other
states, just that it varies. (For example, in much of the the Moslem
world,
the age at which a girl can be married is 9.) As for incest, NG found
and
quoted a statement Stephan made ridiculing "rape" charge laid aginat  a
mother
who'd had sex with her 17-year-old son.

>
That was only some of what Pickles said, George.
>
And I still maintain that "Legal Age" is not an arbitrary concept.  It
is the age which the majority of people in a given community/environment
believe sexual activity to be appropriate.
>
The fact that the actual age changes in a different society/environment
is like comparing apples to oranges.  Children in different social
environments attain emotional maturity at different rates.  Furthermore,
different societies have different structures in place to support
children in such relationships.
>
In the U.S., it is generally held that children should start exploring
their sexuality *around* the age of 16 (it varies from child to child),
but that such activities should be limited to partners of their own age
group.
>
And when someone in the U.S. claims that adults should initiate sexual
activities with 13-year olds, they are both a pedophile and a predator,
and should be taken off of the streets and confined to a prison for the
mentally ill.
>

Pickles not only defended his stance in said quotes, but further
informed us that he'd had sex with 14-year old girls (impregnating one
of them), and told us that he felt it was perfectly fine to have sex
with a 13-year old...

>
I remember him claiming to have had sex with a 14-year-old he had
married,
he could have mentioned a second one - I did warned you not to take
his statements at face value). He did point out that such marriages were
legal under traditional Jewish law (just as they are in traditional
Musim lae).
IOW, he made the mistake of trying to respond reasonably with people who
were
trolling him.

>
Telling us that he had sex with 14-year old girls is not a reasonable
statement to make.  Nor is defending sex with 14-year olds a reasonable
response.
>
Nor should the fact that we were trolling him have any effect on its
reasonability.  It is an unreasonable stance to take, and/or to defend,
under any circumstances.
>
>

but that if you went for anyone younger, you were
risking getting hurt because children that young were unable to maintain
lasting romantic relationships.

>
As I've told you, children who haven't reached puberty don't even have a
sex drive. (You, quoting some psychologist, disagreed.) And even
teenagers
above the age of consent are usually unable to maintain lasting romantic
relationships.

>
I am quoting Pickles in the above.  If you have a problem with anything
that Pickles said, take it up with him.  Our group contact from the
spirit world, Faline, will be glad to relay your questions to him.
>
And, FWIW, the "some psychologist" I was quoting was Sigmund Freud.
>

Nice guy, that Pickles.

>

Since you have always been jealous of Jim's popularity here,

>
Now that is not true, Lying Michael. Jim and I had a great relationship
before you three formed Team Monkey and began to troll and flood the
group
with attacks on both Stefan and Will.

>
Again, there was no such "Team."
>
Your relationship with Jim began before I joined AAPC.  I know nothing
about how you got along then.  I'm only familiar with Jim's
participation in the group from when he returned (2015?).  The first
exchange between you and Jim that I remember was one in which he'd said
something to the effect that he thought you were a basically decent guy
who'd started defending the Donkey at some point in the past, and now
feels that he has to continue doing so.  He also suggested that you
reevaluate and reconsider your stance.
>
Since you didn't reconsider, I don't recall him having had any
non-confrontational discussions with you. But then again, I wasn't
keeping count.
>
And I still maintain that you have always (again, since I've been here)
come across as being jealous of Jim.  Your continual attacks and
challenges exhibit an almost obsessive desire to prove yourself better
than him.  The need to prove yourself better than someone else is
generally indicative of jealousy.
>

and since
Pickles was a friend of your lifetime ally, Will Donkey,

>
Now, that is absurd, Lying Michael. Will and I have never even met; and
while I had as good a relationship with him on the group as I did with
Jim, we were hardly conversing in those days.

>
You're hardly conversing with him now.  In fact, I don't ever remember
you two conversing (other than endlessly which of his poems you were
going to include in his book).
>
The fact that you've never met the Donkey is beside the point.  Internet
friendships and alliances are usually with people one has never met.
I've never met Jim or NancyGene, but you repeatedly insist that we have
formed a "Team."
>
When I first came to AAPC, you and the Donkey were defending each other
from attacks by PJR and his friends.  As Jim had proposed (in the first
post that I remember him addressing you in), you seem like you got roped
into supporting the Donkey, and have reached a point where you feel
compelled to remain doing so -- even when he's being a total ass.
>

you jumped into
the fray as well.

>

You not only supported both Ginsberg and Pickles

>
I agreed with both of them (and SCOTUS and most legal scholars) that
NAMBLA had a First Amendment right to talk about such things.

>
That's not something you should be boasting about, George.
>
Our rights end where another's rights begin.  That's something you've
never understood.
>
NAMBLA's rights to push for the legalization of adult-child sex end
where the rights of a 13-year old to be protected from sexual predators
begins.  IOW: That child's rights should never be taken away -- nor
should NAMBLA, or anyone else, advocate for taking those rights away.
>
Similarly, in a public group like AAPC, one's rights are contingent upon
their not violating the rights of the other members.  If Member A is
offended by Member B's boasting about how he had sex with 14-year old
girls, then Member B should limit his boasting to private emails.  If
Member C is bothered by Member D's burying everyone else's posts by
constantly reposting poems/thanking and rethanking his socks, etc., then
Member D should cut down on his posts.
>
Group rights are determined by the needs, desires, preferences, and
dislikes of the majority of the group's members.  However, it is a
matter of common courtesy to respect the feelings of each of the group's
members (even if they constitute the minority) by refraining from doing
things that they find offensive.
>
It's only when one member refuses to respect the feelings of other
members that groups, like AAPC, turn into battlegrounds.
>

, but

you mistakenly claimed that NAMBLA had done more to support LGBT rights
than any other organization.

>
No, Lying Michael. I told you that I agreed that gay sex for anyone
above the age of consent should be legal, pointed out that NAMBLA was
the only
group in Canada campaigning for that, and even called you a "homophobe"
when
you insisted that it should continue to be illegal.

>
I have your original statement on file, George, and can repost it if
necessary.
>

You later retracted that claim, but the
damage to your reputation had already been done.

>
No, Lying Michael. I still believe that gay sex between "children" above
the
age of consent should be legal, while you continue to lie and
misrepresent
that claim.

>
No one ever said that sex, gay or straight, between two people above the
age of consent should not be legal, George.
>
This is yet another attempt at a straw man argument on your part -- not
to mention a pathetic attempt to turn the discussion away from what
you'd actually said.
>
Which means that I'm going to have to repost your *actual* statement in
context:
>
MMP: As previously noted (do try to get some reading comprehension
skills, old man), I have never made an issue of the participants' sex.
>
DUNCE: Another Pedodragon lie. You've ranted and raved for a month about
the group that's done the most to fight the above discrimination.
>
MMP: NAMBLA??? Are you seriously attempting to argue that NAMBLA is
spearheading the fight against sexual discrimination???
>
[END OF QUOTED PASSAGE]
>
>
>

BTW: Who is MFH?  I'm having difficulty placing the initials.  Is it a
typo?

>
MFH = "My Father's House". That's a poem of mine you may have read.

>
--

The me sin problem with Stephan Pickering posting here on the poetry
newsgroup was the determination of Jim Senetto and Michael Pendragon to
drive him away at any cost, and they both tried to strongarm me into
joining them with this hostile agenda.
When I refused to participate, both Michael Pendragon and Jim Senetto
then turned on me with malicious attacks, even threats of violence, that
lasted for many years.
And so it goes.