Re: The Lime sock on Stephan Pickering and NAMBLA

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:46:01 +0000, W.Dockery 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.)
>

(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".
>

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.
>

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.
>

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.
>

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. 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.
>
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.
>
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.
>

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, 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.
>

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.
>

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.
>

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.
>
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.
>

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.
>

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.
>

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.
>

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 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.
>
, 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.
>

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.
>

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.

>
MFH has been bumped up to the top of the newsgroup for focus and
discussion.

MFH has been discussed down to the last detail, by George, NancyGene,
and myself in the past.
Since NancyGene no longer posts here, and since I haven't changed my
opinion in the least, there is no reason for us to discuss it again,
now.
--