Re: The Lime sock on Stephan Pickering and NAMBLA

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 19:21:14 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 16:49:20 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:39:15 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:15:50 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:23:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime"aka "HarryLime" wrote:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

>

My reason for opening a new thread would be because you're constantly
bringing up my poem in unrelated threads, as per your M.O. which I
already noted. (As that contained a few typos), I'll copy it in here:
>
"That's been your regular M.O. since you showed up. Whenever I try to
have
a conversations with Will, about anything, you jump in and start spewing
false claims about something else, in the mistaken belief that I'd only
have two options:
(1) try to refute your false claims, in which case you've successfully
disrupted the conversation; or
(2) ignore them (in which some people might think those false claims of
yours are actually true)."

>
When you're having a conversation *about me*, you mean to say, deceitful
George.
>
If you make false statements about me on a social media platform
(libel), you should expect, at very least, a refutation.

>
I opened this thread to respond to false statements you were making
about your flame war on Stephan, Will, myself, and others on other
threads. No one has said it wasn't about you.

>
Yet you have accused me of jumping into what was intended to be a
conversation with Will.

I accused you of "spewing false claims about something else" than the
topic of the thread. Since you're constantly whining about your
"context," I can only conclude that you're deliberately trying to change
mine.

If you open a discussion *about me*, you should expect me to join in.

Fine with me, as long as you stay on topic. If you try to change the
topic by making false claims about something else, expect me to move
those to a new thread.

If you open a discussion *about me* in which you refer to me by one of
your childish names ("Lime Sock"), then proceed to make libelous
statements about me, you can be damn sure that I'm going to "jump in."

As long as you don't "jump in and start spewing false claims about
something else" for deflection purposes, then your comments can stay in
the thread.

>
And when you do all of the above with the foreknowledge that I am going
to "jump in," one can only conclude that you are doing so specifically
to troll me into a flame war in which I am placed in a defensive
position (which is not the position one wants to be in during a flame
war).
>
But that's your m.o. at its duplicitous best.

Oh, my. Now "duplicitous" means trying to keep a thread on topic.

To save time, why don't you just bump the old thread up to the top of
the feed?
>
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating
the same points that we'd made at the time.

>
HarryLiar, no one is asking you to comment on that thread (or any of the
other threads I've opened FTM). If you have nothing to say on the poem,
you're more than welcome to sit that one out.

>
Since the Subject of this thread is "Re: The Lime sock on Stephan
Pickering and NAMBLA" (and since "The Lime sock[sic]" is the latest
childish name you have come up with to call me

>
Ever the hypocrite here's Michael Pendragon whining about childish name
calling when he's the one who began that practice here years ago.

>
I'm not complaining about the name-calling, Donkey.
>
I'm merely pointing out that "The Lime sock[sic]" is George Dance's
latest name for me.

>
Get with the program. Precisely because of the whining about your
petname that Will mentioned, I changed it several days ago.

>
My Username is HarryLime.

that's the name of your current sock.

 My professional penname is Michael Pendragon.

That's the name of one of your old socks. I do not plan to pretend that
your socks are real people. There's a real person behind all the socks,
and until and unless I learn his name (don't worry, I'm not trying to
find out), I'll call you whatever serves to identify you.

 You are free to address and/or refer to me as either of the above.  Any
other name will be treated as the childish name-calling that it is.

IOW, you'll whine like a little baby about being called a name, in one
breath,  while calling your your own perceived enemies the same types of
names in the next breath. A paradigm example of duplicity.

The reason I am pointing this out is because it appears in the Subject
header for this thread -- indicating that this thread is about me; and
that it purportedly presents my opinions (reworded by Mr. Dance, of
course) on the topics of Pickles Pickering and NAMBLA.

>
No, Lying Michael; this thread was a response to comments that you were
making about your flaming of Stephan (in another thread for deflection
purposes, as per your M.O.) You comments were quoted fairly and
accurately, not "reworded" in the slightest.
>
You're welcome to talk about them here; but be warned that going
forward, if you attempt to deflect by talking about something else, your
comments will be snipped here, and moved to the appropriate thread where
necessary.

>
Since my comments appeared in the context of another thread, I cannot
directly assess the validity of your claim.

Why the hell not? You know what thread your comments appeared in; you
can check to see whether I "reworded" any of them or not.

I can only conclude that your reason for opening a new thread in
response to my statements (made in another thread) was to disguise the
context in which they originally arose, and to make it difficult for me
to check on the accuracy of the statement that you quoted.

Whatever. I've already told you why I keep reposting your statements in
new threads. You can choose to believe it or not.

Mr. Dance was whining that I am butting in on what was intended to be a
conversation between the two of you.

>
No, Lying Michael. I am "whining" about you (once again) immediately
trying to change the subject of the discussion to something else. Your
first comment in this thread was to call me a liar (presumably just for
preemption).

>
I have called you a liar, because your opening statement was patently
false.
>
Here is what you wrote: "Since MMP is trying to disrupt his
psychoanalysis by attempting[sic] to change the subject..."
>
1) You are not a psychologist, I am not your patient, and no
"psychoanalysis" ever occurred.

I'm as much of an armchair psychologist as you are, you're as much my
patient as I was yours, and my psychoanalysis had as much validity as
yours.

2) I was not "disrupting" any thread, but responding to Will Donkey's
false accusations of having driven Pickles away.  I neither attempted,
nor succeeded in driving the Late Unlamented Pickles away from AAPC.  I
killed him.

You know, if you'd made that reply to Will in the thread, I'd probably
have left your post alone. Knowing your sense of humor, I'd have flagged
it immediately as one of our "funny" lies.

3) Since your Donkey brought up Pickles as an example of my having
driven members away from AAPC, I could not be seen as changing the
subject by responding to his claims.

In short, your opening statement contained three lies.  Three lies in
half of a sentence.  For anyone else that would have to be a record, but
for you it's just par for the course.

Your second was a misrepresentation of something I'd said
in the "Psychology of MPP" thread which I'd already dealt with on that
thread, so you simply repeated it here.

>
Since you don't say what "something" my second comment was made in
response to, I cannot address the supposed "misrepresentation."  Since
you don't even bother to repeat what my "second comment" was, I can't
even make an educated guess.

You could try reading this thread. Since we've discussed it in other
threads,

But then that's typical George Dance tactics as well: to put forth
accusations in such general terms, and in reference to unspecified
comments in unspecified threads, that they appear to be in relation to
specific offenses, when no such offenses exist.

You don't know what statement of yours I'm talking about, but you're
sure you never said it. That sounds like a typical MPP tactic. Deny
everything, just for the sake of denial.

Your third comment contained
both a lie and a faked quote about my poem "My Father's House". (Both
the latter two have been moved to the "My Father's House" thread Will
opened, if you're willing to talk about them there.)

>
Again, you have made it extremely difficult for me to identify and/or
address your charges in this thread.  I can say that have never lied
about your poem.  As to the alleged "faked quote," such would have been
paraphrased from memory, and would either have been identified as such,
either with a specific label, or from the context of the discussion.

I do not have a copy of your poem in front of me, but I remember it
quite well.  Not because it was a good poem (it wasn't), but because my
colleague, Dr. NancyGene, and I had examined so thoroughly in the past.

Oh, well, it's there if you want to look at it. If you don't, fine with
me.

I am pointing out that this
so-called conversation is a one-sided affair in which Mr. Dance attempts
to put forth libelous statements about me.

>
It's hardly a one-sided conversation, HarryLiar, when [most of] my posts
in it (including the OP) have been replies to you, and you've written
more posts in it than I have,  Please stop whining about being excluded
from it, since you obviously are not.

>
Um... you're the one who'd claimed that I was "jumping into" and

Once again you try to change context. I'd claimed that you were "

"disrupting" a conversation between you and your Donkey.  And since your
Donkey's contributions invariably amount to nothing more than "Well
said, George," it is fair to call your "conversations" with him
"one-sided at best."
>

If Mr. Dance had not wanted me to "butt in" on his "conversation," he
would not have included my name (his latest name for me, that is) in the
Subject header.

>
Now you're supporting your earlier lie with fake quotes, which did not
come from anything I said, but came from you.

>
Now, you're just being your typical petty self.
>
I mistakenly said "butt in" when you had actually said "Jump in."

"Jump in and start spewing false statements about something else." How
many times are you planning to misstate that? Until you believe it?

Mea
Culpea.  Although the meanings of the two phrases are interchangeable.

Tit for Tat is a concept that still seems to go over his head.
>
And so it goes.

>
Tit for Tat is a concept that I abandoned somewhere before having
attended Kindergarten.  Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you and
George.

>
No, Lying Michael. You continually rely on the concept. You may not
believe in govern your own behavior by reciprocal ethics - there's no
sign that your behavior is governed by any ethics - but you clearly pay
lip service to T4T to try to justify your behavior.

>
Tit for Tat is only a system of ethics (reciprocal or otherwise) to a
5-year old child (give or take a few years in either direction).
>
It boils down to this: Do unto others as they do unto you.
>
That is not a matter of ethics, but a system of rewards and punishments.

Ethics should not be dependent upon the actions of others.  Ethics
should be based upon your own beliefs regarding the concepts of "right"
and "wrong," "fair" and "unfair," "just" and "unjust," etc.

Your second statement is true. Your first one doesn't even sound
sensible. Take some examples: Is it right or wrong to shoot other
people? Hurt other people? Lie to other people?

I certainly do not pay lip service to your childish "system," which I
find to be morally abominable, childish, petty, and having no purpose
beyond that of endlessly perpetuating hostilities.  In short, it's a cop
out justification for fighting.

To repeat; as far as I know, you have no actual ethics at all. So your
complaints really don't bother me.

>

For instance, every time that you "attack" (troll and flame) someone,
you try to justify it with a story (sometimes true, sometimes not) that
they attacked you first.

>
That is *not* what I do, George.
>
I have pointed out the reasons for my flame wars with each of the
individuals your Donkey named.  To wit:
>
1) My flame war with your Donkey began in earnest (although my opinion
of him had suffered considerably prior to this time) when he supported
Pickles' accusation that I was a "paedophile."
2) My flame war with Pickles began when he and Jim were discussing
Ginsberg's preference for 13-year old boys as sex partners.  It's really
irrelevant as to which one of us first attacked the other (HINT: It was
Pickles who'd attacked me when I'd innocently questioned one of his
posts some time earlier.)  Our different stances on the questions of
legal age, incest, and NAMBLA automatically cast us in a confrontational
position.  Which is why poetry group discussions should be about poetry,
not pedophilia or politics.
3) Antti flew off the handle with me because I'd made derogatory
comments about General Zid, started trying to dig up personal
information on me (stalking), and so on.  I remained calm and,
reasonably, polite through out.  You'll note that I didn't call him any
childish names like Lobotomy Boy.
>
And so on.

Three stories that someone else you were got into flame wars with done
something to start them. What was the point of your writing all that, if
whether you  got into a flame war with them or not really had nothing to
do with what they'd done?

As to you, while we had engaged in many minor skirmishes off and on over
the course of the Donkey War, I continually tried to negotiate peace
treaties between us, and between you and the rest of the group. I
invited you to participate in the Official AAPC FB Group, published your
poetry in AYoS, and constantly defended you against my pretended
"allies."

My break with you came when you falsely accused me of having an
editorial policy based on personal alliances.

I have always published
the best poems for each and every one of our contributors -- without
exception. And for you to have made such accusations (even after I had
published your own poetry), was simply unforgiveable.  And, yes, AFAICS,
you started it.

Have I ever started a flame war with anyone?
>
Yes.  When I first came here, I picked fights with PJR and his friends
because I mistakenly saw them as trolls who were attacking other members
of the group.

No mistake there. They were trolls who were attacking other members of
the group.

I have picked fights with others who I saw as trolls --
including NancyGene when she first arrived.
>

That's been the gist of every one of your
on-topic statements about the Team Monkey flamewar; that you and your
team went after Stephan, Will, and myself because they "attacked" you
first.

>
Aha!  Now I see what you're up to.
>
You want to sweep all of the statements that I'd made in other threads
under the carpet, and relabel them as examples of T4T.

Don't be such a Peabrain. Labelling a statement as an example of T4T has
no bearing on whether it's true or not; any more than, say, labelling
one as an example of IKYABWAI or preemption does.

No, George.  That isn't happening.
>
There is no "Team Monkey," and those of us you label as such have our
own reasons for our own fights.

So you've said. This is already too long, without you repeating
yourself.
snip