Re: The Lime sock on Stephan Pickering and NAMBLA

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

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:07:50 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 16:51:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:52:18 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 13:38:34 +0000, MichaelMonkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:41:04 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
>

That's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say
about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in
this thread.
>
HTH and HAND.

>
Based on George's reaction to the previous comments of my colleague, Dr.
NancyGene and myself, I should think that he would want to stick a "No
Trespassing" sign on his father's lawn.

>
I see HarryLiar is still miffed that I called the comments of him and
"Dr." NastyGoon psychobabble (which is why he's started calling our
psychoanalysis of him "psychobabble"),

Neither one is qualified to make a diagnosis of any kind, physical or
mental.
And so it goes.

I honestly don't recall your having previously used the term, George.

>
I certainly can't call you a liar for that. Both Will and I have
commented on your selective memory.

True, Harry/Pendragon's poor memory is infamous and legendary in the
Usenet newsgroup archives.

But that of course belongs in the
"Psycho-epistemology" thread; you're only bringing it up here

I noticed that thread has been conveniently buried lately, perhaps it
needs a slight bump.

I suspect that all (me, NancyGene, and yourself) used it when we were
discussing your poem in the past...

>
I seriously doubt that either "Doctor" Peabrain or "Doctor" NastyGoon
referred to their own efforts as psychobabble.

Definitely sounds too self effacing for them to do anything like that.

but I really don't care enough to
bother looking it up.

Exactly, because the Usenet newsgroup archives will most likely prove
you wrong, Harry/Pendragon.

Of course you don't care to look anything up before talking about it.

And then when the archived evidence is provided, Pendragon/Harry (or
Nancy Gene) simply shuts the fuck up about it until it "goes away."

But that, too, belongs on the "Psycho-Epistemology" thread.

Indeed, that thread is currently buried.
No surprise there.

I'm calling yours "psychobabble" because your misuse of psychology-based
terms like "transference" make it clear that you have little to no
knowledge of the subject.

As if the armchair psychiatrists Pendragon and Nancy Gene are qualified
to make such a diagnosis.
They're not.

Thank you for giving me something I *can* call you a liar for, Lying
Michael. In point of fact, you were copying the term "psychobabble"
before you accused me of misusing the term "transference" (which I may
well be; it looks like psychological jargon for what's commonly called
"projection")

Nailed it.

Okay, we've heard your misrepresentation, Pendragon, I said George Dance
might have something to say about his poem.

I still think this is true ^^^

Of course I'd prefer that readers read my poem, and my own comments on
it, rather than HarryLiar's psychobabble about it. So I'll be happy to
post and talk about it again when I have time.

Excellent.

You're becoming as attention hungry as your Donkey, George.

>
HarryLiar, try to make some sense. You've noted correctly that
post-google there are hardlly any people reading aapc; I'm certainly not
seeking "attention" for the poem from a non-existent audience.
>
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 conversation 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)."
>

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.
>
>
>

--