It's "Jerk store!" time, again. George Dance re-responds to a post I
made almost two years ago (because he thinks I'm no longer here to smack
him around).
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 4:13:51 +0000, Michael Pendragon wrote:
The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid
predetermined formats at all costs. The "sentence" is incomplete.
GD: That's because it wasn't a "sentence" until "Edward" added the full
stop. Which demonstrates only that so-so poets should avoid
repunctuating their betters' poetry.
MMP: GD is now aping PJR (because PJR is no longer here to slap him
around).
Years conspire to decrease possibilities.
GD: Exactly what the poem says, which Michael would have discovered if
he
had bothered to look it up. He didn't even need to look it up on line;
he could have found it in his own "literary journal" (AYOS 2021, 10).
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
These too lines don't form a coherent sentence.
GD: I think you mean those *two* lines. They are not a sentence, even in Edward's edit, and neither of them are a sentence in the actual poem.
Once again, Edward added a full stop that's not in the original (as
Michael would have known, if he'd bothered to read the original).
MMP: It seems that Mr. Dance's purpose in reopening this thread is to re-state that Mr. Rochester mistakenly added end punctuation to his
lines, thereby making his poem appear to be more illiterate than it
actually is.
The fact that Mr. Dance feels compelled to do so nearly two years after
both the original post *and* after his original refutation demonstrates
an alarming degree of obsessive pettiness on his part.
GD: Having children restores the lost possibilities; you no longer have
them, but your children do.
MMP: No, they don't. If the poem is expressing a universal principle,
then the children's possibilities will necessarily be decreased as they mature as well.
This, again, is not a coherent sentence.
GD: Once again, that is solely due to Edward's editing.
MMP: "Once again,..." Quite. And one supposes that will be repeating it
yet a third time two years from now.
You really spend way too much
time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.
GD: It figures that you'd try to blame Will; but I don't see how you can blame him for Edward's sloppy editing.
MMP: Mr. Donkey serves as proof of the old adage concerning the "one bad apple."
In this case, the presence of one illiterate member of a group causes
the other members to relax their standards.
Or, in the words of another adage, any group will inevitably settle to
the level of its lowest participant.
How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to
irrelevancy by years?
GD: As I already explained: they're restored in the next generation.
MMP: And as I've already explained, the next generation's possibilities
are as limited as those of their forebears. Since time and circumstance
will *always* conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they
reach adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities at birth are necessarily an illusion.
Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences),
GD: I do hope we've spent enough time on Edward's pseudo-sentences.
MMP: LOL! If Mr. Dance actually meant what he said, he wouldn't have
reopened a two-year old thread in order to bitch about Mr. Rochester's "edits" to his poem a second time.
your
poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that
the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to
achieve it.
As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take
solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential
will be as unrealized as our own.
GD: Nothing in the poem about "compensation" - the word I used was "justification". A person who has children has not completely wasted his
or her own life, no matter how much he or she hasn't done.
MMP: Sentimental hogwash.
I point to the example of "Joey" <snip>- and I'll snip it, because it looks like another attempt to flame Will
That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem. Unfortunately, your
attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines
any possibilities ;-) it might have had.
GD: It's sad that Michael's opinion of the poem (which, as noted, he previously published in his "literary journal") has fallen so much since
he put me on his enemy's list. I'm sure that was just a coincidence,
though.
MMP: Again, Mr. Dance is confusing the purpose of The Sunday Sampler,
and A Year of Sundays which is its current incarnation.
A Year of Sundays was created to provide a showcase for the best poetry
of each of AAPC's members. My opinion regarding Mr. Dance's poem has not changed: it is without doubt one of Mr. Dance's better works.
Nor is Mr. Dance on my imaginary "enemies list."
*****Speaking of A Year of Sundays... I'm currently compiling our 2024
print volume, which features the work of such (usenet) AAPC favorites as
J.D. Senetto, NancyGene, Ash Wurthing, Kevin Fries, Bob Burrows,
Hieronymous Corey, Karen Tellefsen, Richard Oakley, Wenceslas Kabeba,
and my oh-so-humble self; along with FB AAPC favorites, Louise Charlton Webster, Scott Thomas, Bruce Boston, Robert Payne Cabeen, Paul Cordeiro,
ruth housman, Trinity-memyandi Venter, Jefferson Carter, Joseph Danoski, Stephen Brooke, & Devin Anderson.*****
But I digress
(backthread snipped)
1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any
given form. One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a
triolet. All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the
format.
GD: It certainly seems to be too hard for some people.
MMP: What a childish and petty thing to say!
2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms.
See above.
If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me.
Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit
themselves to someone else's rules.
GD: The "Muse" is a charming idea, which I've heard of; but I don't
remember ever seeing Her invoked to evade responsibility for one's
writing until
now.
MMP: Why do you lie so much, Mr. Dance?
There is not even a hint of evading poetic responsibility in my
statement.
Quite the contrary, it stresses the importance of *not*
sacrificing inspiration by forcing it into a preconceived format.
3) Jim is a far better poet than you. Jim's poems strike the reader as
being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality.
Your
poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.
GD: Interestingly, MMP concludes by once again praising the work of
an
ally Jim ("Edward") while insulting the work of an adversary. If he were still here, I'm sure he'd shrug that off as just a coincidence.
MMP: J.D. Senetto is an exceptionally talented poet. In fact, my
greatest difficulty in selecting which poems to include in AYoS' year
end print journal, is in deciding which of Jim's poems to leave out.
Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.
GD: Well, we can ask the readers who won this round: Michael's
adversary,
whose poem was edited by an illiterate; or Michael's ally, the
illiterate who did the editing.
MMP: I think it abundantly clear that Mr. Rochester is the winner, since
his "edit" of your poem has weighed so heavily on your consciousness
that you felt compelled to address it a second time... nearly two years
after the fact.
OTOH, I doubt Jim has given it a single thought.
Jim is a far better poet than me.
from https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
Yes, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) has returned, as Will and I
suspected. Even the name of his new sock, "HarryLime", looked like an
obvious clue to the "third man" on Team Monkey (the other two being Jim/Edward and NancyGene). So we devised a way to have him out himself:
Will would bump up an old thread, I'd reply to it, and if "Harry" were
MMP, he wouldn't be able to resist replying. And it worked.
(Since the backthread has served its purpose, I've snipped most of it.)
It's "Jerk store!" time, again. George Dance re-responds to a post I
made almost two years ago (because he thinks I'm no longer here to smack
him around).
If further proof that this is MMP were needed, here it is: he walked
right into the trap, and he's still clueless that it even happened.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 4:13:51 +0000, Michael Pendragon wrote:
The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid
predetermined formats at all costs. The "sentence" is incomplete.
GD: That's because it wasn't a "sentence" until "Edward" added the full
stop. Which demonstrates only that so-so poets should avoid
repunctuating their betters' poetry.
MMP: GD is now aping PJR (because PJR is no longer here to slap him
around).
Years conspire to decrease possibilities.
GD: Exactly what the poem says, which Michael would have discovered if
he
had bothered to look it up. He didn't even need to look it up on line;
he could have found it in his own "literary journal" (AYOS 2021, 10).
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
These too lines don't form a coherent sentence.
GD: I think you mean those *two* lines. They are not a sentence, even in
Edward's edit, and neither of them are a sentence in the actual poem.
Once again, Edward added a full stop that's not in the original (as
Michael would have known, if he'd bothered to read the original).
MMP: It seems that Mr. Dance's purpose in reopening this thread is to
re-state that Mr. Rochester mistakenly added end punctuation to his
lines, thereby making his poem appear to be more illiterate than it
actually is.
MMP seems completely clueless about my actual "purpose" but that's par
for the course. So let's focus on what's important:
(1) He claimed my poem was "illiterate";
(2) I pointed out that every example of "illiteracy" he found was added
by his ally Jim;
(3) Now he's claiming my poem is still "illiterate".
Remember, again, that three years ago, when he still hoped to talk me
into becoming his ally, he considered it one of "the best poems" on aapc
that year. Now that he considers me his adversary, it's "illiterate."
"When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to
him and claim he can't write."
The fact that Mr. Dance feels compelled to do so nearly two years after
both the original post *and* after his original refutation demonstrates
an alarming degree of obsessive pettiness on his part.
LOL! Will picked the thread - and it's a good one - but there were many
other possibilities. (heh!) Suffice it to say, Jim is a fool and no one
in their right mind would judge their poetry by what he says about it.
GD: Having children restores the lost possibilities; you no longer have
them, but your children do.
MMP: No, they don't. If the poem is expressing a universal principle,
then the children's possibilities will necessarily be decreased as they
mature as well.
Sure, onr's children will fail to realize some of their possibilities,
too; but they will also realize some that their parents did not. Just
because MMP or Jim failed to reach your own goals, for example, it does
not follow that your children will fail at their goals as well.
This, again, is not a coherent sentence.
GD: Once again, that is solely due to Edward's editing.
MMP: "Once again,..." Quite. And one supposes that will be repeating it
yet a third time two years from now.
If MMP shows up two years from now with a new sock, we might try the
same thing. But not probably with a different thread; the archives are
full of threads like this.
You really spend way too much
time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.
GD: It figures that you'd try to blame Will; but I don't see how you can
blame him for Edward's sloppy editing.
MMP: Mr. Donkey serves as proof of the old adage concerning the "one bad
apple."
In this case, the presence of one illiterate member of a group causes
the other members to relax their standards.
Or, in the words of another adage, any group will inevitably settle to
the level of its lowest participant.
MMP repeatedly complains about me repeating this point, but it doesn't
seem to have sunk in yet, so:
The only examples of "illiteracy" that have been shown in this thread
came from Jim. (Better yet, let's "settle" to MMP's level and start
calling Jim Mr. Chimp again.)
I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's adversary. As he says: "When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write."
How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to
irrelevancy by years?
GD: As I already explained: they're restored in the next generation.
MMP: And as I've already explained, the next generation's possibilities
are as limited as those of their forebears. Since time and circumstance
will *always* conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they
reach adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities at birth are
necessarily an illusion.
Nonsense; people can and do realize possibilities in their lives,
including those their ancestors never did. No one can do everything, of course, but plenty of people have done enough to justify their existence {many of whose ancestors did nothing to justify theirs, beyond - wait
for it - having families).
Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences),
GD: I do hope we've spent enough time on Edward's pseudo-sentences.
MMP: LOL! If Mr. Dance actually meant what he said, he wouldn't have
reopened a two-year old thread in order to bitch about Mr. Rochester's
"edits" to his poem a second time.
LOL right back. I've already explained why I commented on the thread
Will reopened. But I'm serious; we've advanced the debate. MMP has not disputed that all "illiteracy" he discovered was caused by Mr. Chimp,
but he's sticking to his story that the poem is still "illiterate"
anway, as per his editorial philosophy: "When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."
your
poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that
the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to
achieve it.
What is "it"? No one realizes "unlimited" possibilites, but plenty of
people realize some, including ones their parents failed to realize.
As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take
solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential
will be as unrealized as our own.
GD: Nothing in the poem about "compensation" - the word I used was
"justification". A person who has children has not completely wasted his
or her own life, no matter how much he or she hasn't done.
MMP: Sentimental hogwash.
Nothing sentimental about it. You or I have no idea what those children,
or their children, or their children will do. That gives one a reason to value other people, to judge them to be at least worth not harming - but
it's a reason based purely on self-interest, not sentiment.
I point to the example of "Joey" <snip>- and I'll snip it, because it looks like another attempt to flame Will and/or to change the subject. Instead, I'll give an example of my own.
One justifies one's life by adding value to the world.
Did Edgar Allan Poe add value to the world? I'd say yes, by his writing.
Did John M. Poe add value to the world? I'm not aware of anything he
did, but I'd say yes for him as well, because he was EAP's
great-grandfather - without him, there'd have been no EAP.
That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem. Unfortunately, your
attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines
any possibilities ;-) it might have had.
GD: It's sad that Michael's opinion of the poem (which, as noted, he
previously published in his "literary journal") has fallen so much since
he put me on his enemy's list. I'm sure that was just a coincidence,
though.
MMP: Again, Mr. Dance is confusing the purpose of The Sunday Sampler,
and A Year of Sundays which is its current incarnation.
A Year of Sundays was created to provide a showcase for the best poetry
of each of AAPC's members. My opinion regarding Mr. Dance's poem has not
changed: it is without doubt one of Mr. Dance's better works.
Really? MMP claimed just days ago (in the post I'm replying to) that the
poem was "illiterate". Now he's saying that he thought it was
"illiterate" when he published it in AYOS? Why would he publish an "illiterate" poem? And why, FTM, what is holding him back from showing
why he allegedly thought it was illiterate?
(Those are rhetorical questions, of course. I think MMP is bullshitting,
and that his stated opinions did change, when he switched me from
potential ally to open adversary. But he is free to prove me wrong by supplying credible answers.)
Nor is Mr. Dance on my imaginary "enemies list."
There is no need to even look for a quote. There is no other reason why
MMP jumped into this discussion, two years ago or now, other than to
protect Mr. Chimpfrom me? Or why his Mr. Chimp even started it? One
that's better than this Team Monkey vs. Team Donkey thing you now claim
to have no memory of?
*****Speaking of A Year of Sundays... I'm currently compiling our 2024
print volume, which features the work of such (usenet) AAPC favorites as
J.D. Senetto, NancyGene, Ash Wurthing, Kevin Fries, Bob Burrows,
Hieronymous Corey, Karen Tellefsen, Richard Oakley, Wenceslas Kabeba,
and my oh-so-humble self; along with FB AAPC favorites, Louise Charlton
Webster, Scott Thomas, Bruce Boston, Robert Payne Cabeen, Paul Cordeiro,
ruth housman, Trinity-memyandi Venter, Jefferson Carter, Joseph Danoski,
Stephen Brooke, & Devin Anderson.*****
Congratulations; that's at least 19 people who'll buy a copy. Make that
20; I'll probably get one to see what Bruce Boston wrote.
But I digress
(backthread snipped)
1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any
given form. One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a
triolet. All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the
format.
GD: It certainly seems to be too hard for some people.
MMP: What a childish and petty thing to say!
MMP and his Mr. Chimp may believe they can write really wonderful
triolets if they felt like it. There is absolutely no reason for me to
humor them, of course.
2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms.
See above.
If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me. >>> Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit
themselves to someone else's rules.
GD: The "Muse" is a charming idea, which I've heard of; but I don't
remember ever seeing Her invoked to evade responsibility for one's
writing until
now.
MMP: Why do you lie so much, Mr. Dance?
There is not even a hint of evading poetic responsibility in my
statement.
It's clear here that MMP is saying no one can blame him or Mr. Chimp for
what they write, because it's not their choice; their "muses" made them
write it that way. You just take dictation.
Quite the contrary, it stresses the importance of *not*
sacrificing inspiration by forcing it into a preconceived format.
3) Jim is a far better poet than you. Jim's poems strike the reader as
being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality.
This is the other side of MMP's editorial philosophy: "When Jim is seen
as a potential ally, you request his poetry." That's raw, unadulterated reality.
Your
poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.
GD: Interestingly, MMP concludes by once again praising the work of
an
ally Jim ("Edward") while insulting the work of an adversary. If he were
still here, I'm sure he'd shrug that off as just a coincidence.
MMP: J.D. Senetto is an exceptionally talented poet. In fact, my
greatest difficulty in selecting which poems to include in AYoS' year
end print journal, is in deciding which of Jim's poems to leave out.
Now, that's as adulatory as if the Chimp wrote it himself - and just as meaningful, I'm afraid. As I've said, and not just to MMP and his team:
If a poet consistently praised his own and only his own work, that
wouldn't be seen as a comment on the work but on the poet. Do you agree
so far?
If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.
Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.
GD: Well, we can ask the readers who won this round: Michael's
adversary,
whose poem was edited by an illiterate; or Michael's ally, the
illiterate who did the editing.
MMP: I think it abundantly clear that Mr. Rochester is the winner, since
his "edit" of your poem has weighed so heavily on your consciousness
that you felt compelled to address it a second time... nearly two years
after the fact.
That should be "clear" to anyone. Rereading the thread and thinking of
new things to say would be enough to explain why I'd comment again.
There's no no reason to think that I'd thought of Mr. Chimp's edit in
the intervening time, and I certainly can't say that I have. For
another, I did not address his edit in my reply; I tried to keep the
focus consistently on MMP's "third man" intervention into the flame war
Mr. Chimp had begun; and the new points I made in that respect were
enough to merit a new reply.
OTOH, I doubt Jim has given it a single thought.
That's possibly true. It's questionable whether Mr. Chimp gives anything
he does much thought.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
Yes, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) has returned, as Will and I
suspected. Even the name of his new sock, "HarryLime", looked like an
obvious clue to the "third man" on Team Monkey (the other two being
Jim/Edward and NancyGene). So we devised a way to have him out himself:
Will would bump up an old thread, I'd reply to it, and if "Harry" were
MMP, he wouldn't be able to resist replying. And it worked.
(Since the backthread has served its purpose, I've snipped most of it.)
It's "Jerk store!" time, again. George Dance re-responds to a post I
made almost two years ago (because he thinks I'm no longer here to smack >>> him around).
If further proof that this is MMP were needed, here it is: he walked
right into the trap, and he's still clueless that it even happened.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 4:13:51 +0000, Michael Pendragon wrote:
The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid
predetermined formats at all costs. The "sentence" is incomplete.
GD: That's because it wasn't a "sentence" until "Edward" added the full
stop. Which demonstrates only that so-so poets should avoid
repunctuating their betters' poetry.
MMP: GD is now aping PJR (because PJR is no longer here to slap him
around).
Years conspire to decrease possibilities.
GD: Exactly what the poem says, which Michael would have discovered if
he
had bothered to look it up. He didn't even need to look it up on line;
he could have found it in his own "literary journal" (AYOS 2021, 10).
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces >>> on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased behavior.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces >>> on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased behavior.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of >>>> poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces >>>> on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased
behavior.
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called
a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.
When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
source text: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,
but it can't be said often enough.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:28:40 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of >>>>> poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does >>>>> not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces >>>>> on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back >>>> in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased
behavior.
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remember that statement of his that I called
a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential
adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.
When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,
but it can't be said often enough.
Why do you lie so much, George?
In the statement you are quoting, I was describing your behavior and practices -- not mine.
And that statement holds true.
You requested Jim's poetry for your blog.
Jim agreed to let you post
it.
You posted it to your blog.
When Jim asked to have his poetry removed from your blog (I forget how
long, but it was at least a year after you posted it)
launching attacks on him.
Your attacks included unfounded claims that he can't write, and idiotic challenges for him to pit his triolets (which he doesn't write) against
your own.
There was a reason why PJR referred to you and your allies as "Team
Dunce."
You view AAPC as "teams," and will support your untalented
teammates, while attacking your betters.
Nor has this practice of yours ever been remotely secret. You have
detailed it numerous times in your posts regarding your "system of
ethics" known as "Tit for Tat."
Basically, if someone praises your
poetry, you will return the praise.
If someone belittles your poetry,
you will belittle theirs.
OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry
posted to AAPC. Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers."
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
put me on your "Team Donkey"
Same here
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:28:40 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased >>>> behavior.MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of >>>>>> poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does >>>>>> not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces >>>>>> on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by >>>>> now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back >>>>> in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC. >>>>
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remember that statement of his that I called >>> a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential >>> adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. >>> When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said, >>> but it can't be said often enough.
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.
And that statement holds true.
You requested Jim's poetry for your blog.
I asked everyone on the group for poetry for an annual literary journal, April, that I was publishing as an ezine on the blog. I asked everyone
in posts to the group. Anyone could submit a poem; April was meant as a journal for aapc, not for "allies" and "adversaries". IMO,
Jim agreed to let you post
it.
Jim submitted one poem for the first year (2010), and two for the second (2011).
You posted it to your blog.
All of the submitted poems were published, including Jim's three.
When Jim asked to have his poetry removed from your blog (I forget how
long, but it was at least a year after you posted it)
(Seven years later, in 2017.
, you started
launching attacks on him.
No, Lying Michael; I told him I wanted to keep his poems in the journal,
so we disagreed; but it wouldn't have made sense to attack for that. (I
did take them off line, so they couldn't be seen, until I figured out
what to do.)
Your attacks included unfounded claims that he can't write, and idiotic
challenges for him to pit his triolets (which he doesn't write) against
your own.
It is a fact that Jim cannot write anything that someone like you, for instance, would even call poetry. That's not an attack, just fact. But
it's not something I told him at the time; that wouldn't have made any
sense.
I'm afraid you're confusing unconnected events that happened years
apart.
There was a reason why PJR referred to you and your allies as "Team
Dunce."
The same reason, I suspect, that you refer to Will and his alleged
allies as "Team Donkey". You do like to copy that old troll, Piggy Ross.
You view AAPC as "teams," and will support your untalented
teammates, while attacking your betters.
"Attacking your betters" sounds like you're copying Piggy Ross again.
But how was that supposed to be my view, when it was Piggy who made up
the term?
Nor has this practice of yours ever been remotely secret. You have
detailed it numerous times in your posts regarding your "system of
ethics" known as "Tit for Tat."
Basically, if someone praises your
poetry, you will return the praise.
Now, that's not true, Lying Michael. I don't want mindless praise any
more than mindless criticism, so I don't give those to anyone else --
that's reciprocal ethics (or "tit for Tat if you want, which it seems
you do) in action.
If someone belittles your poetry,
you will belittle theirs.
No, Lying Michael, that is not true, either. You know that very well, as
you constantly try to belittle my poetry, while I don't belittle yours;
for the most part, I don't comment on it.
OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry
posted to AAPC. Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers."
Michael, I vaguely remember your reviews of my poems; I had no problem
with those, but you wrote them years before you put me on your "Team
Donkey" list of perceived adversaries. They should be compared with
reviews of my poetry that you've given afterward.
George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of >>>>> poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does >>>>> not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces >>>>> on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back >>>> in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased
behavior.
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called
a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential
adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.
When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,
but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar.
And so it goes.
🙂
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:snip
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry
posted to AAPC. Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers."
Michael, I vaguely remember your reviews of my poems; I had no problem
with those, but you wrote them years before you put me on your "Team
Donkey" list of perceived adversaries. They should be compared with
reviews of my poetry that you've given afterward.
You vaguely remember something I wrote last week in this thread?
"Sunday Samplers" just 'last week in this thread'. You wrote them more
than 7 years ago.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:28:40 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, W.Dockery 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.
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.
Do I have "enemies" here? That's a strong word.
As this thread
demonstrates, I have a permanently butt-hurt poet who is reopening old threads to shout "Jerk Store!" at me. That's all.
And that statement holds true.
You requested Jim's poetry for your blog.
I asked everyone on the group for poetry for an annual literary journal,
April, that I was publishing as an ezine on the blog. I asked everyone
in posts to the group. Anyone could submit a poem; April was meant as a
journal for aapc, not for "allies" and "adversaries". IMO,
No. Your blog may have been open to anyone,
but you specifically asked
Jim if you could use one of his poems.
You had previously requested one
of mine in the same manner shortly after I joined the group.
Jim agreed to let you post
it.
Jim submitted one poem for the first year (2010), and two for the second
(2011).
Again, the first "submission" had been in answer to your request.
You posted it to your blog.
All of the submitted poems were published, including Jim's three.
But Jim was still a potential ally to you at the time. Jim only soured
on you when you continually supported your Donkey, even though he was trolling, disrupting, and eventually shutting down Jim's "Sunday
Sampler" thread.
Your support of a pedophile (and, briefly, of NAMBLA) was the final
straw for him.
When Jim asked to have his poetry removed from your blog (I forget how
long, but it was at least a year after you posted it)
(Seven years later, in 2017.)
Don't you think that an author's allowing his poetry to be tied up for
seven years on a non-paying blog is extremely generous?
As I've explained to you in the past, the few poetry journals that
accept reprints insist that the submitted poems are not currently
available online.
, you started
launching attacks on him.
No, Lying Michael; I told him I wanted to keep his poems in the journal,
so we disagreed; but it wouldn't have made sense to attack for that. (I
did take them off line, so they couldn't be seen, until I figured out
what to do.)
You told him you wanted to keep his poems on your blog (and out of circulation), *because* he'd asked you to remove them.
And why did he
ask you to remove them, George?
Answer: When I saw that your Donkey was not the victim that he pretends
to be, I stopped supporting him in his troll wars. Desperately in need
of another ally, your Donkey recruited a deranged pedophile into the
group. The pedophile's job was to a) back your Donkey in arguments, and
b) draw some of the fire away from him.
When the pedophile started revealing himself, Jim (who found his
pedophilic statements sickening) got sucked into a flame war with him.
Because you knew that the pedophile was your Donkey's ally, you chose to support him: attacking Jim, myself and others, and even going so far as
to erroneously claim that NAMBLA had done more for LGBT rights than any
other organization.
It was only *after* you'd begun attacking Jim (and supporting NAMBLA)
that he asked to have his poetry removed from your blog.
It is a fact that Jim cannot write anything that someone like you, for
instance, would even call poetry. That's not an attack, just fact. But
it's not something I told him at the time; that wouldn't have made any
sense.
I'm afraid you're confusing unconnected events that happened years
apart.
No, George. I was merely providing a two examples of your behavior
toward Jim. I am not in any way attempting to place your numerous
examples on a timeline.
Allow me to rephrase that to your satisfaction: Over the course of the
7+ years you've been fighting with Jim, you launched numerous attacks on
him. One example, was when you called him illiterate.
Another example
was when you challenged him to write a triolet and to pit it against one
of yours.
Happy?
As to your claim that I wouldn't call Jim's writing "poetry," you are intentionally falsifying my meaning by referring to my words out of
context (unfortunately this is another of your standard practices).
In your above statement, you make it appear as if I had been making a
value judgment regarding Jim's work. Such was not the case. I have
always defined "poetry" as "a literary form comprising rhymed-metered
verse." The majority of Jim's works do not use rhyme or meter, so they
fall outside of my definition of poetry.
They are, however, excellent
literary works -- and works which contemporary critics would define as "Modern Poetry."
And, FYI, Jim's work is still receiving compliments from other Modern
poets on The Official AAPC FB page.
I am a fan of Jim's writing. I just consider it to be extremely well
written prose.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:29:37 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:snip
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry
posted to AAPC. Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers."
Michael, I vaguely remember your reviews of my poems; I had no problem
with those, but you wrote them years before you put me on your "Team
Donkey" list of perceived adversaries. They should be compared with
reviews of my poetry that you've given afterward.
You vaguely remember something I wrote last week in this thread?
Michael: you did not write your ''comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers" just 'last week in this thread'. You wrote them more >>>> than 7 years ago.
It's evident that you have problems with dating, chronology, and the
whole concept of time, but this is your most egregious example yet.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:27:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime" >>>>>> wrote:
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased >>>>> behavior.MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of >>>>>>> poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does >>>>>>> not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by >>>>>> now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back >>>>>> in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC. >>>>>
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called >>>> a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential >>>> adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack >>>> those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. >>>> When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he >>>> can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said, >>>> but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar.
Well, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a
two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that I
should open a new threat where we can talk about that.
Sounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'll
just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime.
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, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:28:40 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, W.Dockery 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."
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.
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 on aapc.
As this thread
demonstrates, I have a permanently butt-hurt poet who is reopening old
threads to shout "Jerk Store!" at me. That's all.
And that statement holds true.
You requested Jim's poetry for your blog.
I asked everyone on the group for poetry for an annual literary journal, >>> April, that I was publishing as an ezine on the blog. I asked everyone
in posts to the group. Anyone could submit a poem; April was meant as a
journal for aapc, not for "allies" and "adversaries". IMO,
No. Your blog may have been open to anyone,
That's not what I just said. Once again: "I asked everyone on the group
for
poetry for an annual literary journal, April, that I was publishing as
an
ezine on the blog."
but you specifically asked
Jim if you could use one of his poems.
IIRC, he responded to my post to the group by sending me a link and
telling
me to pick a poem. I picked "The Whitening" and sent him a text for
approval
(like I did for all the contributors). Is that what you're going on
about?
You had previously requested one
of mine in the same manner shortly after I joined the group.
"Previously," eh? You could have been on aapc in 2010 (which you've
claimed before) using another sock, , but if you'd put a poem in
/April/ then, you would have demanded I remove it, too. Which
means your sock would have to have been either "Heironymous Corey"
or "Robert Burrows". That makes things more interesting.
Jim agreed to let you post
it.
Jim submitted one poem for the first year (2010), and two for the second >>> (2011).
Again, the first "submission" had been in answer to your request.
My post to the entire group, "allies" and "adversaries" alike.
You posted it to your blog.
All of the submitted poems were published, including Jim's three.
But Jim was still a potential ally to you at the time. Jim only soured
on you when you continually supported your Donkey, even though he was
trolling, disrupting, and eventually shutting down Jim's "Sunday
Sampler" thread.
FTM: I also requested poetry from your mentor, Piggy Ross, who was
a definite "adversary". "Allies" and "adversaries" had nothing to do
(on my part) with whom I published.
Your support of a pedophile (and, briefly, of NAMBLA) was the final
straw for him.
What are you going on about?
When Jim asked to have his poetry removed from your blog (I forget how >>>> long, but it was at least a year after you posted it)
(Seven years later, in 2017.)
Don't you think that an author's allowing his poetry to be tied up for
seven years on a non-paying blog is extremely generous?
No, Michael; submitting poetry to a journal, and then demanding that
they change that issue by removing it 7 years later is not what I'd
call "generous".
As I've explained to you in the past, the few poetry journals that
accept reprints insist that the submitted poems are not currently
available online.
And as I've explained to you, that's completely irrelevant, since
Jim didn't want to pubish his poems in a journal, and apparently
never did.
, you started
launching attacks on him.
No, Lying Michael; I told him I wanted to keep his poems in the journal, >>> so we disagreed; but it wouldn't have made sense to attack for that. (I
did take them off line, so they couldn't be seen, until I figured out
what to do.)
You told him you wanted to keep his poems on your blog (and out of
circulation), *because* he'd asked you to remove them.
Well, d-uh! Why would I have told I wanted to keep his poems in /April/
if he weren't demanding I take them out?
And why did he
ask you to remove them, George?
The immediate cause was: he demanded I remove them because I'd called
him out for posting something libelous about another group member,
on one of my threads, multiple times. You remember that: NancyGene
wrote it, and you and JIm were flooding the group with it. If that
was anything more than just a hissy-fit on his part, one can only
speculate. My speculation is that you told him to; you'd got the idea
of removing poems from a journal from Corey Connor (or told it to him),
and decided you'd get all the poets who contributed to /April/ to take
their poems out.
Answer: When I saw that your Donkey was not the victim that he pretendsYes, I'm sure you do remember the libelous stuff NancyGene was writing,
to be, I stopped supporting him in his troll wars. Desperately in need
of another ally, your Donkey recruited a deranged pedophile into the
group. The pedophile's job was to a) back your Donkey in arguments, and
b) draw some of the fire away from him.
When the pedophile started revealing himself, Jim (who found his
pedophilic statements sickening) got sucked into a flame war with him.
Because you knew that the pedophile was your Donkey's ally, you chose to
support him: attacking Jim, myself and others, and even going so far as
to erroneously claim that NAMBLA had done more for LGBT rights than any
other organization.
and you and Jim were flooding the group with. This pedophile stuff was
your own add-on later, of course.
It was only *after* you'd begun attacking Jim (and supporting NAMBLA)
that he asked to have his poetry removed from your blog.
I don't think so, Lying Michael. As I recall, you began posting about
NAMBLA only afterward. In any case, I didn't get involved in your
NAMBLA discussion until afterward.
It is a fact that Jim cannot write anything that someone like you, for
instance, would even call poetry. That's not an attack, just fact. But
it's not something I told him at the time; that wouldn't have made any
sense.
I'm afraid you're confusing unconnected events that happened years
apart.
No, George. I was merely providing a two examples of your behavior
toward Jim. I am not in any way attempting to place your numerous
examples on a timeline.
You're certainly contradicting the actual timeline.
Allow me to rephrase that to your satisfaction: Over the course of the
7+ years you've been fighting with Jim, you launched numerous attacks on
him. One example, was when you called him illiterate.
Look, I'm sorry that the snowflake is offended, but it's simple fact
that
Jim cannot write poetry, of any kind; and, as this thread also
demonstrates,
he can't even punctuate properly.
Another example
was when you challenged him to write a triolet and to pit it against one
of yours.
I've challenged him to write many forms - triolets, centos, ballad
meter,
even haiku - but he hasn't been willing to make an effort. He's just too stupid (too wilfully ignorant) to learn. Once again, that's just a fact.
Happy?
As to your claim that I wouldn't call Jim's writing "poetry," you are
intentionally falsifying my meaning by referring to my words out of
context (unfortunately this is another of your standard practices).
It's the definition of "poetry" you proposed and we both agreed to,
earlier on this thread. I understand that you realize you fucked up
and want to switch definitions, but - nope.
In your above statement, you make it appear as if I had been making a
value judgment regarding Jim's work. Such was not the case. I have
always defined "poetry" as "a literary form comprising rhymed-metered
verse." The majority of Jim's works do not use rhyme or meter, so they
fall outside of my definition of poetry.
Not just his work: The majority of wwhat you publish in AYOS falls
outside
your definition of poetry. You publish his non-verse (and NancyGene's doggerel) because they're your allies.
They are, however, excellent
literary works -- and works which contemporary critics would define as
"Modern Poetry."
And, FYI, Jim's work is still receiving compliments from other Modern
poets on The Official AAPC FB page.
I am a fan of Jim's writing. I just consider it to be extremely well
written prose.
I understand perfectly. You (the anonymous person inside thw socks don't think
Jim's work (and most of what you post on AYOS) is even poetry, but you
(as your "Michael Pendragon" sock) have to praise his work and request
it for your journal, because he's your ally. Which I've repeatedly
pointed out.
Which brings us back to where we began this digression, so it's a good
place to end it, too.
snip
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:44:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:29:37 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:snip
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry
posted to AAPC. Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old >>>>> "Sunday Samplers."
Michael, I vaguely remember your reviews of my poems; I had no problem >>>> with those, but you wrote them years before you put me on your "Team
Donkey" list of perceived adversaries. They should be compared with
reviews of my poetry that you've given afterward.
You vaguely remember something I wrote last week in this thread?
Michael: you did not write your ''comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers" just 'last week in this thread'. You wrote them more >>>>> than 7 years ago.
It's evident that you have problems with dating, chronology, and the
whole concept of time, but this is your most egregious example yet.
I realize that you're incapable of scrolling through a thread, but if
you were to scroll up (in *this* thread) to a post I'd made on January
10 (2025), you would have read the following:
George's triolet is a classic example of a *formal* poem. It has a
fixed set of rules, and it adheres to them diligently.
As a poet, George has always been a skillful craftsman; and his poem is
a well-executed example of the triolet form.
In this regard, you and George may be viewed as complete opposites, as
your "poetry" is embarrassingly inept (painfully so) -- even when one
takes into account that it is "free verse," and therefore has no rules.
Where George has a strong understanding of poetic form, and fairly
strong understanding of the English language, you are unable to compose
in complete sentences, constantly mix tenses, misuse words, and randomly refer to names and places from your personal life without providing any explanation to your supposed readers.
That said, George's main problem as a poet is that he lacks inspiration, imagination, and style. George's poems, at their best, are as memorable
as Hallmark cards. His thoughts and themes are maudlin and mundane, and
when he ventures into didacticism, he's merely parroting Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. IOW: He is the epitome of mediocrity.
AAPC is a usenet group that is currently monopolized by a high school
drop out turned songwriter whose years of drug and alcohol abuse have
taken their toll on his intellect (assuming that he ever possessed one);
a homeless drunk arrested for indecent exposure, belligerence, and God
know what else, whose "poetry" rhymes everything with "red" and "blue";
and a retard who SCREAMS about President Trump and masturbates over his nephew, who has never written a poem in his life. George Dance is far
and away the best poet still posting there.
As to George's triolet: his word choice, unfortunately, renders it self-contradictory (although one easily understands his intent). Understanding an author's intent is *not* an excuse for poorly expressed thoughts. His message starts out well (everyone starts out with
unlimited possibilities, which life chisels away over the course of
time), only to end with the cringingly maudlin idea of justifying one's
own failed potential by looking to the unlimited possibilities of one's offspring.
I had originally thought that George was trying to say that while we (as examples of unfulfilled possibility) look to our children's potential to justify our failure, we are only kidding ourselves, because life will inevitably destroy their possibilities as well. Regrettably, George has since stated that such was not his intent. I have since adjusted my own views on his poem accordingly.
[END QUOTE]
As always, HtH & HAND
--
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:02:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:44:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:29:37 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:snip
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry >>>>>> posted to AAPC. Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old >>>>>> "Sunday Samplers."
Michael, I vaguely remember your reviews of my poems; I had no problem >>>>> with those, but you wrote them years before you put me on your "Team >>>>> Donkey" list of perceived adversaries. They should be compared with
reviews of my poetry that you've given afterward.
You vaguely remember something I wrote last week in this thread?
Michael: you did not write your ''comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers" just 'last week in this thread'. You wrote them more >>>>>> than 7 years ago.
It's evident that you have problems with dating, chronology, and the
whole concept of time, but this is your most egregious example yet.
I realize that you're incapable of scrolling through a thread, but if
you were to scroll up (in *this* thread) to a post I'd made on January
10 (2025), you would have read the following:
George's triolet is a classic example of a *formal* poem. It has a
fixed set of rules, and it adheres to them diligently.
As a poet, George has always been a skillful craftsman; and his poem is
a well-executed example of the triolet form.
In this regard, you and George may be viewed as complete opposites, as
your "poetry" is embarrassingly inept (painfully so) -- even when one
takes into account that it is "free verse," and therefore has no rules.
Where George has a strong understanding of poetic form, and fairly
strong understanding of the English language, you are unable to compose
in complete sentences, constantly mix tenses, misuse words, and randomly
refer to names and places from your personal life without providing any
explanation to your supposed readers.
That said, George's main problem as a poet is that he lacks inspiration,
imagination, and style. George's poems, at their best, are as memorable
as Hallmark cards. His thoughts and themes are maudlin and mundane, and
when he ventures into didacticism, he's merely parroting Ayn Rand's
Objectivist philosophy. IOW: He is the epitome of mediocrity.
AAPC is a usenet group that is currently monopolized by a high school
drop out turned songwriter whose years of drug and alcohol abuse have
taken their toll on his intellect (assuming that he ever possessed one);
a homeless drunk arrested for indecent exposure, belligerence, and God
know what else, whose "poetry" rhymes everything with "red" and "blue";
and a retard who SCREAMS about President Trump and masturbates over his
nephew, who has never written a poem in his life. George Dance is far
and away the best poet still posting there.
As to George's triolet: his word choice, unfortunately, renders it
self-contradictory (although one easily understands his intent).
Understanding an author's intent is *not* an excuse for poorly expressed
thoughts. His message starts out well (everyone starts out with
unlimited possibilities, which life chisels away over the course of
time), only to end with the cringingly maudlin idea of justifying one's
own failed potential by looking to the unlimited possibilities of one's
offspring.
I had originally thought that George was trying to say that while we (as
examples of unfulfilled possibility) look to our children's potential to
justify our failure, we are only kidding ourselves, because life will
inevitably destroy their possibilities as well. Regrettably, George has
since stated that such was not his intent. I have since adjusted my own
views on his poem accordingly.
[END QUOTE]
That's just a rehash of things you've already said, in defence of your calling yet another poem of mine "illiterate" this week. I koow you're
in love with your own words, so it's understandable you'e like to post
them over and over. But not only does it have nothing to do with
literacy, it has nothing to do with the Sunday Sampler. So let me ask a follow-up question:
WTF is wrong with you, MMP?
Interesting that none of "Harry Lime"'s fellow thugs seem to be able to continue posting on Usenet.
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.
You present my statement as if I were describing my own practices;
whereas I was describing (my understanding of) your own.
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.
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.
Whether I publish his work is irrelevant.
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.
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.*
You felt that it
would be better used as a forum wherein members could exchange greetings
with "Jordy" twenty times a day, every day.
Since Google abandoned the
platform, you won out by default.
BTW: Hello Jordy!
2) I believe that I have always been on good terms with Rachel.
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.
Not only are Team Donkey's members not my enemies, but I see no reason
why anyone should need allies to engage with them.
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:
Allow me to rephrase that to your satisfaction: Over the course of the
7+ years you've been fighting with Jim, you launched numerous attacks on >>> him. One example, was when you called him illiterate.
Look, I'm sorry that the snowflake is offended, but it's simple fact
that Jim cannot write poetry, of any kind; and, as this thread also
demonstrates, he can't even punctuate properly.
The simple fact is that *I* consider free verse to be a misnamed form of prose. Virtually everyone else on the planet considers it to be a valid poetic form.
Jim writes free verse extremely well. He is one of the best free verse
poets I have ever read.
His poetry was extremely popular here, and
remains so in The Official AAPC FB group.
I also feel that Jim is a much better writer than you.
You've made quite a few typos in this thread, George. I have merely
chosen not to point them out. And I'm sure that I've made my share of
errors as well.
It's Usenet -- typos come with the territory.
Another example
was when you challenged him to write a triolet and to pit it against one >>> of yours.
I've challenged him to write many forms - triolets, centos, ballad
meter,
even haiku - but he hasn't been willing to make an effort. He's just too
stupid (too wilfully ignorant) to learn. Once again, that's just a fact.
That's funny. He's posted several Haikus to The Official AAPC page.
But do you seriously believe that everyone should be willing to make an effort to write poetry in an established form simply because you've challenged them to?
Jim excels at free verse. In fact, the more prosaic Jim's poems are,
the better they actually read. Jim's power as a writer is in his
ability to capture a sense of reality in his words.
Why should he be
expected to change his form and or style to suit your whim?
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) akaAs to your claim that I wouldn't call Jim's writing "poetry," you are
"HarryLime" wrote:
intentionally falsifying my meaning by referring to my words out of
context (unfortunately this is another of your standard practices).
It's the definition of "poetry" you proposed and we both agreed to,
earlier on this thread. I understand that you realize you fucked up
and want to switch definitions, but - nope.
Seriously?
My definition of "poetry" is my own. If you choose to agree to it, that makes two of us. Most readers, publishers, scholars, professors, etc.,
would vehemently disagree.
But be that as it may. My definition of what constitutes "poetry"
should have no bearing on Jim's talent as a writer.
Regardless of whether you call it "poetry" or "prose," Jim remains an extremely talented author.
The fact that you are seeking to use my very limited definition out of context as an implied dismissal of Jim's work, is yet another example of
the duplicity I'd mentioned at the start of today's post.
In your above statement, you make it appear as if I had been making a
value judgment regarding Jim's work Such was not the case. I have
always defined "poetry" as "a literary form comprising rhymed-metered
verse." The majority of Jim's works do not use rhyme or meter, so they
fall outside of my definition of poetry.
Not just his work: The majority of wwhat you publish in AYOS falls
outside
your definition of poetry. You publish his non-verse (and NancyGene's
doggerel) because they're your allies.
Again: AAPC was conceived to be a "sampler" of the writings of the
various poets who participate in the group. Anyone in the group can
write in any style they choose. That's the whole point of it.
You know this very well, because you had attempted to take over Jim's
"Sunday Sampler" (unsuccessfully) after one of Jim's sabbaticals from
the Usenet AAPC.
I publish Jim and NancyGene, and everyone else, *because* they are
members of the group.
They are, however, excellent
literary works -- and works which contemporary critics would define as
"Modern Poetry."
And, FYI, Jim's work is still receiving compliments from other Modern
poets on The Official AAPC FB page.
I am a fan of Jim's writing. I just consider it to be extremely well
written prose.
I understand perfectly. You (the anonymous person inside thw socks don't
think
Jim's work (and most of what you post on AYOS) is even poetry, but you
(as your "Michael Pendragon" sock) have to praise his work and request
it for your journal, because he's your ally. Which I've repeatedly
pointed out.
That's not even remotely true, George.
AYoS is a sampler. It was created to show off the poetry of *all* of
AAPC's members.
It has nothing to do with my definition of poetry. It
has nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes. It merely shows
off the poetry of our group's members.
PJR used to post a link to a web page that described each of AAPC's
members (nearly all of whom were long gone by the time I joined).
Jim
created the "Sampler" (among other reasons) to show readers who the
current members were. "A Year of Sundays" is merely picking up where
the "Sunday Sampler" left off.
I like both Jim and NancyGene's poetry, and am glad that I'm able to
include it in AYoS. But I don't publish it because I like it. I
publish it because they are members of AAPC and AYoS is a "sampler" for
AAPC poets to display their work in.
Which brings us back to where we began this digression, so it's a good
place to end it, too.
snip
You are obviously jealous of Jim and NancyGene. Your jealousy of them
has been obvious for many years.
I'm sorry that you feel that way; but it is to your continued discredit
that you insist on belittling their poetry here, long after they have
been regular participating members.
As always, HtH & HAND
--
Earth to George Dance:
You can't change the content of my statements
simply by snipping them prior to replying.
You may *think* you can,
but anyone who has been reading the thread (or
who is savvy enough to scroll up to check the original post) will see
through your duplicity.
You keep pretending that my statement pertained solely to "The Sunday Sampler." And it appears to do just that -- when you cut the second and third paragraphs and quote it out of context.
Here's what I *actually wrote*:
[START QUOTE]
OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry
posted to AAPC. Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers." I provided in depth critiques on all of the poems,
and pointed out when poems submitted by my so-called "allies" didn't
work.
The only "bias" in my reviews was that when critiquing an incompetent
"poem" by an incompetent, illiterate buffoon like Mr. Donkey, I adopted
a humorous tone.
And, FWIW, I have provided my feelings regarding yours and Mr. Donkey's poetry in my previous post in this thread. Again, I feel that my
evaluation is both fair and balanced. Anyone seeking proof of said
fairness need only scroll up a bit in this thread.
[END QUOTE]
As you can see, I was referring you to what was then "my previous post"
-- which I kindly reposted for you above.
As to said quote, it is not just a "rehash" of my comments regarding the illiterate nature of your triolet. It is a statement regarding your
work in general.
And, as I said, a close reading will show you that
this is true. I praise your technical skill, but find your content commonplace, maudlin, sentimental, and generally uninspired.
What you write, you usually write very well. Unfortunately, your poems
fail to hold my interest.
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.
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:
Allow me to rephrase that to your satisfaction: Over the course of the >>>> 7+ years you've been fighting with Jim, you launched numerous attacks on >>>> him. One example, was when you called him illiterate.
Look, I'm sorry that the snowflake is offended, but it's simple fact
that Jim cannot write poetry, of any kind; and, as this thread also
demonstrates, he can't even punctuate properly.
The simple fact is that *I* consider free verse to be a misnamed form of
prose. Virtually everyone else on the planet considers it to be a valid
poetic form.
Jim writes free verse extremely well. He is one of the best free verse
poets I have ever read.
Jim's stuff is not just devoid of rhyme and meter, but of imagery and
sonics as well. He writes what I call "diary poetry" - simple accounts
of
what he did that day, chopped into lines to make it look "poetic."
He reminds me of Rod McKuen, except that McKuen's poetry does not
contain
spelling and grammar errors, while Jim's does even after they're pointed
out to him, as he never revises. But you go right on slurping him.
His poetry was extremely popular here, and
remains so in The Official AAPC FB group.
Jim was popular here, irrespective of his poetic talent. Until you took
him under your wing, he was a friendly person who got along with
everyone,
and offered only constructive praise and encouragement. He was nice to people, so people were nice to him. I'm sure that's still the case
in your Facebook group.
I also feel that Jim is a much better writer than you.
You've made quite a few typos in this thread, George. I have merely
chosen not to point them out. And I'm sure that I've made my share of
errors as well.
I'm back to typing on Notepad, which means I don't have "wavy read
lines"
to find typos. If it prevents you from understanding what I'm writing,
I could look for another WP to use. Otherwise, there's no reason to
mention it.
It's Usenet -- typos come with the territory.
That's what I told you when you began typo-laming here in assorted flame wars.
But there's a difference between making typos on Usenet, and making
spelling or
grammar mistakes in poems.
There's an even bigger difference between
making
typos on Usenet, and reposting a poem with mistakes that were previously pointed out.
Another example
was when you challenged him to write a triolet and to pit it against one >>>> of yours.
I've challenged him to write many forms - triolets, centos, ballad
meter,
even haiku - but he hasn't been willing to make an effort. He's just too >>> stupid (too wilfully ignorant) to learn. Once again, that's just a fact.
That's funny. He's posted several Haikus to The Official AAPC page.
You mean on your facebook page? I'll believe that when I see them -
which
of course I won't be able to do.
But do you seriously believe that everyone should be willing to make an
effort to write poetry in an established form simply because you've
challenged them to?
I do seriously believe that everyone who calls himself a poet
should be willing to make an effort to write poetry. Which does not
mean poetry by your purported definition, of course.
A poet does not have to write in rhyme or meter, or use imagery or
sonics,
but IMO he should at least know how. And every poet, regardless of how
they
write, should be able to impartially judge their own work, and revise as necessary, fixing the bad lines and inappropriate words that
inevitably mar a first draft. Jim doesn't do any of that - not because
he can't, but because he thinks all his work is just perfect when he
spews
it out. Which is why I would say he doesn't write poems; he write first drafts
and stops there.
Jim excels at free verse. In fact, the more prosaic Jim's poems are,
the better they actually read. Jim's power as a writer is in his
ability to capture a sense of reality in his words.
Why should he be
expected to change his form and or style to suit your whim?
Why indeed should he learn to write poetry, when you slurp him like
this no matter what he writes? Why should he try to improve, when
you tell him his work is perfect already?
I used to challenge him to do better, as you know, but why
should he listen to criticism when you've convinced him that
anyone who offers criticism of his work is attacking or belittling him?
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:As to your claim that I wouldn't call Jim's writing "poetry," you are
intentionally falsifying my meaning by referring to my words out of
context (unfortunately this is another of your standard practices).
It's the definition of "poetry" you proposed and we both agreed to,
earlier on this thread. I understand that you realize you fucked up
and want to switch definitions, but - nope.
Seriously?
My definition of "poetry" is my own. If you choose to agree to it, that
makes two of us. Most readers, publishers, scholars, professors, etc.,
would vehemently disagree.
I didn't say I agreed with it, Lying Michael; I said I'd accept it as
the
definition for this thread (though, since you now want to dispense with
it,
let's do so).
I'm quite happy to accept free verse as poetry (and have even written a
few
poems in free verse). I do think, though, that a would-be
poet should know how poetry is written. Even someone who uses free verse should have some understanding of rhyme, meter, imagery, and sonics.
Jim,
as I mentioned, has none; and he's too stupid (too wilfully ignorant)
to learn any. And every poet should be willing and able to critically
reread and revise his work; which he cannot do either. So, as far as
But be that as it may. My definition of what constitutes "poetry"
should have no bearing on Jim's talent as a writer.
Regardless of whether you call it "poetry" or "prose," Jim remains an
extremely talented author.
I won't debate "talent" with you, because that's completely
subjective - you call him talented because you like his writing.
What is objective fact is that Jim has no skill at writing. Skill
has to be acquired, and Jim has no interest in
acquiring it; he's happy with whatever he churns out. Which is fine with
me;
if he doesn't want to learn to develop his talents, by
learning some writing skills, he doesn't have to.
The fact that you are seeking to use my very limited definition out of
context as an implied dismissal of Jim's work, is yet another example of
the duplicity I'd mentioned at the start of today's post.
Good; that brings us back full circle - I began by saying that you were
using that word "duplicitous" incorrectly.
In this case, your "definition" was just something you brought up to
excuse your publishing a poem you're now trashing. So you told me
that Jim doesn't write poetry. Next time you talk to Jim, you'll be
telling him he does write poetry, using some other definition. Your definitions, like all your beliefs, are contextual; they depend on
whom you're talking to, what you think of that person at the time,
and what you want to accomplish. You'll say one thing one day, and
the opposite the next day, because the "context" has changed. The
word for that is two-faced, or (as it's called in Latin) duplicitous.
If you truly believed that poetry was formal verse, then you wouldn't
even be reading either Jim's chopped-up prose, or FTM NG's doggerel,
much
less praising it or publishing it in your journal.
Do you believe your
definition or not? The answer: it depends on "context".
If you can
"win an argument" using the above definition, you believe it; but if you can't "win an argument" with it, you don't. Your purported beliefs are whatever you think will give you that win.
In your above statement, you make it appear as if I had been making a
value judgment regarding Jim's work Such was not the case. I have
always defined "poetry" as "a literary form comprising rhymed-metered
verse." The majority of Jim's works do not use rhyme or meter, so they >>>> fall outside of my definition of poetry.
Not just his work: The majority of wwhat you publish in AYOS falls
outside
your definition of poetry. You publish his non-verse (and NancyGene's
doggerel) because they're your allies.
Again: AAPC was conceived to be a "sampler" of the writings of the
various poets who participate in the group. Anyone in the group can
write in any style they choose. That's the whole point of it.
By "AAPC" you probably mean AYOS. It's interesting to hear that AYOS
is not longer a sample of "The Year's Best Poetry" (as you say both in
the chapbook and your advertising for it), but only for your "poets"
to write whatever they want. That's a good example of how the "context"
-
changes what you think or say.
You know this very well, because you had attempted to take over Jim's
"Sunday Sampler" (unsuccessfully) after one of Jim's sabbaticals from
the Usenet AAPC.
Aside from being a lie, Lying Michael, your sentence makes no sense. How would my running the former Sampler (at Jim's request) for a couple of
weeks
effect, in any way, whether AYOS ppublished poetry or just any writing? Reading my issues, I'd say the latter; but WTF does the Sampler have to
do with that?
I publish Jim and NancyGene, and everyone else, *because* they are
members of the group.
Neither Jim nor NG are currently members of aapc, Lying Michael.
I could remind you that you've said yourself that they haven't been here
for
months, but you'll just say that's a different "context"; they're aapc members
when you want them to be, and not aapc members when you don't want them
to be.
They are, however, excellent
literary works -- and works which contemporary critics would define as >>>> "Modern Poetry."
And, FYI, Jim's work is still receiving compliments from other Modern
poets on The Official AAPC FB page.
I am a fan of Jim's writing. I just consider it to be extremely well
written prose.
I understand perfectly. You (the anonymous person inside thw socks don't >>> think
Jim's work (and most of what you post on AYOS) is even poetry, but you
(as your "Michael Pendragon" sock) have to praise his work and request
it for your journal, because he's your ally. Which I've repeatedly
pointed out.
That's not even remotely true, George.
AYoS is a sampler. It was created to show off the poetry of *all* of
AAPC's members.
I know that's what it was created for, and what it's sold as. It's a
direct copy of /April/ magazine that I've told you about (except I
didn't sell mine).
It has nothing to do with my definition of poetry. It
has nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes. It merely shows
off the poetry of our group's members.
AYOS is being marketed as a sampler to show off the poetry of *all* of
aapc's members,
but as I've told you it's turned into a vanity project for Team Monkey
and assorted
trolls, none of which are writing anything on aapc. Except you, of
course, under
a new sock, but I don't think you'd publish any of that on aapc.
PJR used to post a link to a web page that described each of AAPC's
members (nearly all of whom were long gone by the time I joined).
I don't think it was his list, or that it was specifically aapc.
Jim
created the "Sampler" (among other reasons) to show readers who the
current members were. "A Year of Sundays" is merely picking up where
the "Sunday Sampler" left off.
The big difference with AYOS, of course, is that it has nothing to do
with aapc.
I like both Jim and NancyGene's poetry, and am glad that I'm able to
include it in AYoS. But I don't publish it because I like it. I
publish it because they are members of AAPC and AYoS is a "sampler" for
AAPC poets to display their work in.
No, lying Michael. Neither have participated in AAPC since google
stopped
carrying it, except for one possible troll post each. they're members of
your Facebook group; you just use the name of the usenet group for advertising purposes.
Which brings us back to where we began this digression, so it's a good
place to end it, too.
snip
You are obviously jealous of Jim and NancyGene. Your jealousy of them
has been obvious for many years.
Now, that is funny. What am I supposed to be jealous of? That you're
their
online "friend" (ie, their ally)? That you praise and publish their "writings"?
I'm afraid that's all I can think of.
I'm sorry that you feel that way; but it is to your continued discredit
that you insist on belittling their poetry here, long after they have
been regular participating members.
Interesting. So it's "obvious" to you that anyone who belittles a poet's
work is jealous of that poet? Or does that depend on "context," too?
As always, HtH & HAND
--
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:As to your claim that I wouldn't call Jim's writing "poetry," you are
intentionally falsifying my meaning by referring to my words out of
context (unfortunately this is another of your standard practices).
It's the definition of "poetry" you proposed and we both agreed to,
earlier on this thread. I understand that you realize you fucked up
and want to switch definitions, but - nope.
Seriously?
My definition of "poetry" is my own. If you choose to agree to it, that
makes two of us. Most readers, publishers, scholars, professors, etc.,
would vehemently disagree.
I didn't say I agreed with it, Lying Michael; I said I'd accept it as
the
definition for this thread (though, since you now want to dispense with
it,
let's do so).
I'm quite happy to accept free verse as poetry (and have even written a
few
poems in free verse). I do think, though, that a would-be
poet should know how poetry is written. Even someone who uses free verse should have some understanding of rhyme, meter, imagery, and sonics.
Jim,
as I mentioned, has none; and he's too stupid (too wilfully ignorant)
to learn any. And every poet should be willing and able to critically
reread and revise his work; which he cannot do either. So, as far as
But be that as it may. My definition of what constitutes "poetry"
should have no bearing on Jim's talent as a writer.
Regardless of whether you call it "poetry" or "prose," Jim remains an
extremely talented author.
I won't debate "talent" with you, because that's completely
subjective - you call him talented because you like his writing.
What is objective fact is that Jim has no skill at writing. Skill
has to be acquired, and Jim has no interest in
acquiring it; he's happy with whatever he churns out. Which is fine with
me;
if he doesn't want to learn to develop his talents, by
learning some writing skills, he doesn't have to.
The fact that you are seeking to use my very limited definition out of
context as an implied dismissal of Jim's work, is yet another example of
the duplicity I'd mentioned at the start of today's post.
Good; that brings us back full circle - I began by saying that you were
using that word "duplicitous" incorrectly.
In this case, your "definition" was just something you brought up to
excuse your publishing a poem you're now trashing. So you told me
that Jim doesn't write poetry. Next time you talk to Jim, you'll be
telling him he does write poetry, using some other definition. Your definitions, like all your beliefs, are contextual; they depend on
whom you're talking to, what you think of that person at the time,
and what you want to accomplish. You'll say one thing one day, and
the opposite the next day, because the "context" has changed. The
word for that is two-faced, or (as it's called in Latin) duplicitous.
If you truly believed that poetry was formal verse, then you wouldn't
even be reading either Jim's chopped-up prose, or FTM NG's doggerel,
much
less praising it or publishing it in your journal. Do you believe your definition or not? The answer: it depends on "context". If you can
"win an argument" using the above definition, you believe it; but if you can't "win an argument" with it, you don't. Your purported beliefs are whatever you think will give you that win.
In your above statement, you make it appear as if I had been making a
value judgment regarding Jim's work Such was not the case. I have
always defined "poetry" as "a literary form comprising rhymed-metered
verse." The majority of Jim's works do not use rhyme or meter, so they >>>> fall outside of my definition of poetry.
Not just his work: The majority of wwhat you publish in AYOS falls
outside
your definition of poetry. You publish his non-verse (and NancyGene's
doggerel) because they're your allies.
Again: AAPC was conceived to be a "sampler" of the writings of the
various poets who participate in the group. Anyone in the group can
write in any style they choose. That's the whole point of it.
By "AAPC" you probably mean AYOS. It's interesting to hear that AYOS
is not longer a sample of "The Year's Best Poetry" (as you say both in
the chapbook and your advertising for it), but only for your "poets"
to write whatever they want. That's a good example of how the "context"
-
changes what you think or say.
You know this very well, because you had attempted to take over Jim's
"Sunday Sampler" (unsuccessfully) after one of Jim's sabbaticals from
the Usenet AAPC.
Aside from being a lie, Lying Michael, your sentence makes no sense. How would my running the former Sampler (at Jim's request) for a couple of
weeks
effect, in any way, whether AYOS ppublished poetry or just any writing? Reading my issues, I'd say the latter; but WTF does the Sampler have to
do with that?
I publish Jim and NancyGene, and everyone else, *because* they are
members of the group.
Neither Jim nor NG are currently members of aapc, Lying Michael.
I could remind you that you've said yourself that they haven't been here
for
months, but you'll just say that's a different "context"; they're aapc members
when you want them to be, and not aapc members when you don't want them
to be.
They are, however, excellent
literary works -- and works which contemporary critics would define as >>>> "Modern Poetry."
And, FYI, Jim's work is still receiving compliments from other Modern
poets on The Official AAPC FB page.
I am a fan of Jim's writing. I just consider it to be extremely well
written prose.
I understand perfectly. You (the anonymous person inside thw socks don't >>> think
Jim's work (and most of what you post on AYOS) is even poetry, but you
(as your "Michael Pendragon" sock) have to praise his work and request
it for your journal, because he's your ally. Which I've repeatedly
pointed out.
That's not even remotely true, George.
AYoS is a sampler. It was created to show off the poetry of *all* of
AAPC's members.
I know that's what it was created for, and what it's sold as. It's a
direct copy of /April/ magazine that I've told you about (except I
didn't sell mine).
It has nothing to do with my definition of poetry. It
has nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes. It merely shows
off the poetry of our group's members.
AYOS is being marketed as a sampler to show off the poetry of *all* of
aapc's members,
but as I've told you it's turned into a vanity project for Team Monkey
and assorted
trolls, none of which are writing anything on aapc. Except you, of
course, under
a new sock, but I don't think you'd publish any of that on aapc.
PJR used to post a link to a web page that described each of AAPC's
members (nearly all of whom were long gone by the time I joined).
I don't think it was his list, or that it was specifically aapc.
Jim
created the "Sampler" (among other reasons) to show readers who the
current members were. "A Year of Sundays" is merely picking up where
the "Sunday Sampler" left off.
The big difference with AYOS, of course, is that it has nothing to do
with aapc.
I like both Jim and NancyGene's poetry, and am glad that I'm able to
include it in AYoS. But I don't publish it because I like it. I
publish it because they are members of AAPC and AYoS is a "sampler" for
AAPC poets to display their work in.
No, lying Michael. Neither have participated in AAPC since google
stopped
carrying it, except for one possible troll post each. they're members of
your Facebook group; you just use the name of the usenet group for advertising purposes.
Which brings us back to where we began this digression, so it's a good
place to end it, too.
snip
You are obviously jealous of Jim and NancyGene. Your jealousy of them
has been obvious for many years.
Now, that is funny. What am I supposed to be jealous of? That you're
their
online "friend" (ie, their ally)? That you praise and publish their "writings"?
I'm afraid that's all I can think of.
I'm sorry that you feel that way; but it is to your continued discredit
that you insist on belittling their poetry here, long after they have
been regular participating members.
Interesting. So it's "obvious" to you that anyone who belittles a poet's
work is jealous of that poet? Or does that depend on "context," too?
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:58:13 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Earth to George Dance:
Sorry, "Earth", but whatever socks you use, you're still going to be
MMP.
You can't change the content of my statements
simply by snipping them prior to replying.
Good; nothing's changed. And since you repeat it all it wouldn't matter
if it were; it makes more sense to snip it all, and deal with your
repeat posting of it.
You may *think* you can,
- or it may be that I don't think that, and you're simply being
paranoid. That's more likely, since I'm not aware that I think that
(which is a good sign I don't). How about if you stop trying to tell me
what I think, and say something about the subject.
but anyone who has been reading the thread (or
who is savvy enough to scroll up to check the original post) will see
through your duplicity.
I doubt that anyone besides the three of us is reading the thread -
you've garbaged it up quite thoroughly in the few days I've been dealing
with your last screed. And I note that you're still using the term "duplicity" incorrectly.
You keep pretending that my statement pertained solely to "The Sunday
Sampler." And it appears to do just that -- when you cut the second and
third paragraphs and quote it out of context.
It looks like I've already read and replied to all of it at some point,
but knowing that you're in love with your own words, I guess we'll have
to go through it all again.
Here's what I *actually wrote*:
[START QUOTE]
OTOH, I have always been fair and balanced in my reviews of poetry
posted to AAPC. Go back and browse through the "comments" on the old
"Sunday Samplers." I provided in depth critiques on all of the poems,
and pointed out when poems submitted by my so-called "allies" didn't
work.
The "context" there was that you were trying to establish yourself as a
fair and impartial critic; so you tried to offer fair and balanced
criticism. But that, as I pointed out, was 7 years ago, before you
formed Team Monkey, and your "context' has changed, of course, so your opinions of all those poems have probably changed as well. It's stupid
to point to that to show how "fair and balanced" you are now.
The only "bias" in my reviews was that when critiquing an incompetent
"poem" by an incompetent, illiterate buffoon like Mr. Donkey, I adopted
a humorous tone.
All you do here in that paragraph is attack Will, which I've been
reading for the past 7 years and must have replied to when I thought you believed it; and
(2) go back to playing Monkey/Donkey, which means I'll have to play it
with you (since Will is not interested in your games).
And, FWIW, I have provided my feelings regarding yours and Mr. Donkey's
poetry in my previous post in this thread. Again, I feel that my
evaluation is both fair and balanced. Anyone seeking proof of said
fairness need only scroll up a bit in this thread.
[END QUOTE]
I may wade through the thread and try to find it, but I'm sure it's
nothing I
haven't read and replied to before. It is funny, though, that you'd
repost a quote telling me to reread and reply to something else on the thread; why not just repost that something else instead? As I said, WTF
is wrong with you, Michael Monkey?
As you can see, I was referring you to what was then "my previous post"
-- which I kindly reposted for you above.
As to said quote, it is not just a "rehash" of my comments regarding the
illiterate nature of your triolet. It is a statement regarding your
work in general.
What you just quoted says nothing about my "work" - it's just you
patting yourself on the back about how "fair and balanced" you used to
be, and claiming that you still are.
And, as I said, a close reading will show you that
this is true. I praise your technical skill, but find your content
commonplace, maudlin, sentimental, and generally uninspired.
Oh, that again. That 3-line summary is clear enough, so there's no need
to read the detailed "critique".
As you know, you've said that before,
when commenting on specific poems. At least in those cases we could
discuss the actual meaning of the poem, but in a criticism of my "work
in general" there's nothing to discuss.
What you write, you usually write very well. Unfortunately, your poems
fail to hold my interest.
Fine; if you're not interested you're not interested. End of discussion.
So what are you after by reposting this? Would you like a similar
"critique" of your "work in general"? Do you want me to get all
defensive and give you what's called a "revenge crit"?
Or do you want me
to pretend to agree with you, and praise you for finding "truths" about
my poetry that for some reason the writer was blind to? Or do you just
want a thank-you?
One person's opinion is all well and good, and at least I didn't have to
pay for it, but that's all it is; one person's opinion. Thank you for
giving it.
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.
Are you really that dense that you fail to comprehend how you've misrepresented a statement I'd made about you as being about myself?
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."
You falsely use my statement as "proof" of your claims *without*
specifying that I'd made it about you.
In doing so, you make it appear
as if I am stating my own beliefs and practices -- which they are
decidedly not.
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.
Again, I stated that I was talking about you.
When you misquoted me, you intentionally made it appear as if I had been talking about myself.
And, yes, I feel that anyone (other than your Donkey
and his socks)
would consider that to be a form 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.
One of us certainly misunderstands it.
As someone who bleats so much about "context", it's rather stupid of you* not *
to try to take "the present discussion" out of context, and pretend it's
just an isolated thread. It's nice that I don't have to fight all three
of you for once, but I am not going to pretend that the other two are
still your allies, still probably lurking, and ready to jump in when you signal for help.
snip
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:
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.
Jim doesn't turn into a neutral bystander when he isn't around to
witness the event/s in question. Jim has no knowledge of our current discussions, is not participating in said discussions, and cannot
possibly be considered as an ally insofar as said discussions are
concerned.
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.
1) Whether *I* publish Jim's work is irrelevant. I publish the work of *everyone* who contributes to the AAPC group's FB page. Again, that's *EVERYONE* -- no exceptions.
2) You, otoh, do not publish everyone who takes part in the AAPC Usenet forum.
3) Your conclusion (that your misrepresentation of my description of
your practices is irrelevant) does not follow from anything in the
above. To wit: I publish *everything* that is posted to the AAPC FB
group, whereas you only publish the work of Usenet AAPC members of your choosing.
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.
To be an ally, one must be involved in the present conflict.
From a
linguistic standpoint, anyone can be a "potential" ally.
However, as
applied to this present discussion in which Jim has not taken part (and
to the best of my knowledge is unaware of), nothing either of us says
can be realistically seen as having any effect on Jim's allegiances.
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:
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".
FACT: My posts to AAPC FB, do nothing of the sort.
If the majority of my posts here are combative, we need to determine why
I should behave one way in the FB group, and the opposite way in the
Usenet one.
The obvious conclusion is that the members of the FB group limit their discussions to poetry, whereas certain members of the Usenet group
insist on burying any poetry-related conversations under their own self-serving spam.
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.
Anyone still following Usenet AAPC is well aware that Jordy makes far
more than two posts a months -- they simply aren't directed to your attention.
As to whether I'm "obsessing" over him, I no longer care what he does.
My greeting to him should show you that I'm perfectly fine with his
continued disruption of your group. It only annoyed me while I was
still a member.
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.
What do you want, George? I have conceded Usenet AAPC to you.
I only drop by to monitor your posts, because I am well aware of your attempts to rewrite Usenet AAPC's history to your liking.
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.
I have praised Rachel's poetry when I felt it was good; and I have
negatively commented on her poetry when it degenerated into a long, nonsensical rant on, and to, Bob.
Nevertheless I have remained on good terms with her, and still
occasionally exchange personal emails 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.
Uh... PJR introduced the idea of "Teams," George.
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:
I have studied poetry for over 40 years, and have a better understanding
of it that most people who never study it at all (outside of what their required to do in high school English courses).
My familiarity with Modern verses is less extensive than my familiarity
of earlier poetic forms, so I would hardly apply a term like
"encyclopedic." As to my feelings toward anyone who would challenge my knowledge, PJR often did -- and I have far more respect for him than for
many other members here.
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.
I left the 50s group for numerous reasons, the most significant being
that it had become a thoroughly unproductive time sap. I had learned
all that I could from it, and the arguments were becoming repetitive
rehashes that served no valuable purpose for me to pursue. Since
leaving, I have completed and published numerous books (including a 50s
music book), and a monthly poetry magazine.
And, if I felt that I needed a team to participate in this group, I
would have sided with PJR, Horatio, and Gwyneth, who were infinitely
more knowledgeable, and better educated than those of "Team Dunce"
(which at the time consisted of you and your Donkey).
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 9:15:35 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:58:13 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Earth to George Dance:
Sorry, "Earth", but whatever socks you use, you're still going to be
MMP.
That's a popular expression, George. Have you really been ignorant of
it for the past 40+ years?
You can't change the content of my statements
simply by snipping them prior to replying.
Good; nothing's changed. And since you repeat it all it wouldn't matter
if it were; it makes more sense to snip it all, and deal with your
repeat posting of it.
It's what's called a "straw man" argument, George. You intentionally
take my statements out of context, delete said context from the quoted passages, then recast my actually words to mean something other than I'd intended; simply so you can successfully argue against it.
That's hardly any way to conduct a civil, and/or mature, discussion, but sadly it's the only thing you've got.
You may *think* you can,
- or it may be that I don't think that, and you're simply being
paranoid. That's more likely, since I'm not aware that I think that
(which is a good sign I don't). How about if you stop trying to tell me
what I think, and say something about the subject.
The subject was that you present "straw man" arguments by intentionally taking my words out of context.
I have been led to the conclusion that you think that restating
something I've said out of context somehow changes my original statement
as well, because I cannot find any other reason for your behavior.
Since my original statement is always preserved in its proper context
just a post or two above, only someone with the intellect of a turnip
would think that he could get away with it. And when he has been caught doing it every time, and still persists in doing so, it follows that according him a turnip level IQ may have been a wee bit generous.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka "HarryLime" wrote:
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.
Are you really that dense that you fail to comprehend how you've
misrepresented a statement I'd made about you as being about myself?
Don't play the Peabrain, MMP. It was obvious that your statement was not about you; I didn't change that.
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."
You falsely use my statement as "proof" of your claims *without*
specifying that I'd made it about you.
Nonsense, Lying Michael. Your statement was proof of nothing, and I
never claimed it was. You falsely accused me of printing nly perceived
allies in /April/ magazine and on my blog in general. I've pointed out
that, while it
does not describe what I've done there, it does describe you.
In doing so, you make it appear
as if I am stating my own beliefs and practices -- which they are
decidedly not.
No, Lying Michael. Once again, I quoted your statement and noted that,
while it does not describe me, it fits your practice on aapc to a T.
Your response was to falsely accused me of lying, by pretending I'd said
you were describing yourself.
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's adversary. As he says: "When [someone] is seen as an adversary, youwhereas 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.
Again, I stated that I was I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will
an illiterate that's been
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." talking about you.
And I stated that you were describing yourself - you were projecting.
Rather than deal with that, you began lying about what I'd said.
When you misquoted me, you intentionally made it appear as if I had been
talking about myself.
No, Lying Michael. It was obvious from what I'd said that you were
accusing another person of that. (You would not use "you" to describe
your own practices.) You lied when you projected it on me, and now
you're trying to defend that with another lie.
And, yes, I feel that anyone (other than your Donkey
Permission to use childish nicknames noted. Please don't start crying
when I do the same.
and his socks)
would consider that to be a form of lying.
Sure it would be; it it were true.
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.
One of us certainly misunderstands it.
Indeed one of us does. But you misuse it because it sounds good.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
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:
snip
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.
Jim doesn't turn into a neutral bystander when he isn't around to
witness the event/s in question. Jim has no knowledge of our current
discussions, is not participating in said discussions, and cannot
possibly be considered as an ally insofar as said discussions are
concerned.
There is absolutely no reason to believe you. There is reason to think
your Chimp and your Goon have both posted here (especially since your
only rebuttal was "that was two months ago"), and every reason to think they're still lurking.
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.
1) Whether *I* publish Jim's work is irrelevant. I publish the work of
*everyone* who contributes to the AAPC group's FB page. Again, that's
*EVERYONE* -- no exceptions.
So you're say you're doing the same thing with /AYOS/ as I was doing
with /April/. Of course, there are difference.
For one, aapc was open to
everyone, whereas your facebook group is closed; you decide who can
publish there and who can't.
For another: you declare that AYOS
publishes "everyone" who publishes in your facebook group, whereas in
/April/ and on my blog later I published "everyone who agrees to let me publish them." See the differences?
2) You, otoh, do not publish everyone who takes part in the AAPC Usenet
forum.
Yes; as noted, I publish only the people who explicitly consents to
their poem's publication; whereas you claim that everyone who posts to
your facebook group has tacitly concented to go into AYOS.
3) Your conclusion (that your misrepresentation of my description of
your practices is irrelevant) does not follow from anything in the
above. To wit: I publish *everything* that is posted to the AAPC FB
group, whereas you only publish the work of Usenet AAPC members of your
choosing.
I certainly do not publish the work of anyone who explicitly denied me permission to publish their stuff.
He is not engaging in any flame wars (or what pass for discussionsOf course he is your "potential" ally. He's been reading and posting
here), and is therefore not a potential "ally" -- for me or anyone else. >>>
here
as your ally, and there's nothing stopping him from doing it in the
future.
Same for your other Team Monkey flunky, NG.
To be an ally, one must be involved in the present conflict.
Don't play the Peabrain. The "present conflict" has been going on since
2017.
As you've noted previously, it's an ongoing war. Originally it was
a war you began to seize control of aapc from the people posting here;
now it appears to be just a war to wreck it as much as possible. (That's
so much like Putin's war in the Ukraine, that I might start calling you "Putindragon" again.)
From a
linguistic standpoint, anyone can be a "potential" ally.
Indeed; which is why, when you couldn't show that your Chimp was my ally
or my perceived ally, you switched terms and started calling him a
"potential ally."
However, as
applied to this present discussion in which Jim has not taken part (and
to the best of my knowledge is unaware of), nothing either of us says
can be realistically seen as having any effect on Jim's allegiances.
As someone who bleats so much about "context", it's rather stupid of you
to try to take "the present discussion" out of context, and pretend it's
just an isolated thread. It's nice that I don't have to fight all three
of you for once, but I am not going to pretend that the other two are
still your allies, still probably lurking, and ready to jump in when you signal for help.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
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:
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.
They aren't the only people you've marked as "enemies" of course - but
you drove all the others away before you made up "Team Donkey".
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".
FACT: My posts to AAPC FB, do nothing of the sort.
Who cares what you post to your facebook group? We are discussing your
posts here, in aapc. There are multiple examples in this thread alone.
Even in that "critique" of my poetry that you keep reposting, you manage
to call Will an illiterate, Zod homeless, and Jordy a pedophile. that's
what you post here, that's what your NastyGoon used to post, and that's
what your Chimp ended up posting here.
If the majority of my posts here are combative, we need to determine why
I should behave one way in the FB group, and the opposite way in the
Usenet one.
That's easy enough to answer. In your faceook group:
(1) the core membership is your Team Monkey allies;
(2) anyone new who joins the group believes that, and looks up to you
as, the learned poet you've tried to pass yourself off as, and as
newbies they aren't likely to challenge you
(3) if despite (2) anyone does happen to challenge you, on anything, you don't even have to discuss it; you can simply kick them off the group.
The obvious conclusion is that the members of the FB group limit their
discussions to poetry, whereas certain members of the Usenet group
insist on burying any poetry-related conversations under their own
self-serving spam.
Sort of the reverse of Sherlock Holmes: "when you eliminate all which is
both possible and likely, then whatever remains must be the truth."
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.
Anyone still following Usenet AAPC is well aware that Jordy makes far
more than two posts a months -- they simply aren't directed to your
attention.
And WTF does that have to do with my "feelings" about the group? If I
felt that the group was the place to post greetings 20 times a day, I'd
be posting greetings 20 times a day. Stop trying to tell me what I think
or feel, when it's obvious bullshit (or, FTM, on the rare occasion that
it isn't).
As to whether I'm "obsessing" over him, I no longer care what he does.
My greeting to him should show you that I'm perfectly fine with his
continued disruption of your group. It only annoyed me while I was
still a member.
Whether you're "obsessing' over him can be shown by how many times you
keep entioning him, even though he's stayed out of this discussion completely.
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.
What do you want, George? I have conceded Usenet AAPC to you.
Unlike you, I have never wanted to run aapc. I have two blogs, and one
active wiki, where I can do what I want (despite your Team's best
efforts to close them down). I used to see value to aapc, but your Team
and PJR's Team have hollowed it out, so it's no more than Will, Jordy,
and (occasionally) Rachel. Since I like all three, I'm still here; but
it's in no way, shape, or form my group.
I only drop by to monitor your posts, because I am well aware of your
attempts to rewrite Usenet AAPC's history to your liking.
I am the self-appinted group historian, you know; that's one role I
don't mind assuming.
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.
I have praised Rachel's poetry when I felt it was good; and I have
negatively commented on her poetry when it degenerated into a long,
nonsensical rant on, and to, Bob.
Nevertheless I have remained on good terms with her, and still
occasionally exchange personal emails with her.
Rachel has probably not seen, or forgotten, your threads about her
claiming that Bob Dylan raped her, and about Bob Dylan suing her for
those claims; but, as the self-appointed group historian, I am not going
to let posterity forget them.
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.
Uh... PJR introduced the idea of "Teams," George.
True; but at least he had the decency to label his enemies "Team Dunce."
You, OTOH, thought that if you simply started attacking me off aapc, I'd simply slink off (like what happened to Vinyl Cat after you went after
her business). You miscalculated.
Hey, Will, do you remember when yuu formed the aapc facebook group? I'm
going to take a look myself, but I know if it's listed there.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:05:15 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:32:52 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:27:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime" >>>>>>>> wrote:
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased >>>>>>> behavior.MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does >>>>>>>>> not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by >>>>>>>> now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back >>>>>>>> in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he >>>>>>>> considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC. >>>>>>>
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called >>>>>> a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential >>>>>> adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack >>>>>> those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. >>>>>> When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he >>>>>> can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said, >>>>>> but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar.
Well, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a
two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that I >>>> should open a new threat where we can talk about that.
Sounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'll
just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime.
Referring to one by their chosen alias is the considerate thing to do.
Much appreciated.
--
You're welcome, and you can call me by my chosen name, "Will Dockery,"
yes?
🙂
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 2:59:51 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hey, Will, do you remember when yuu formed the aapc facebook group? I'm
going to take a look myself, but I know if it's listed there.
What's your point?
We've still got rights on the "Official" name. Will called his group
the "Facebook Edition."
And, let's face it; Will's FB group is as devoid of active members as
Usenet AAPC.
The bulk of Usenet AAPC's members now use the Official AAPC page that I started.
When are you going to understand that the reason for all of the
bitterness and animosity at AAPC was Will Donkey?
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 5:39:18 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
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.
Are you really that dense that you fail to comprehend how you've
misrepresented a statement I'd made about you as being about myself?
Don't play the Peabrain, MMP. It was obvious that your statement was not
about you; I didn't change that.
It was obvious before you removed the part where I said who I was
speaking about.
own m.o. Which is precisely what you deceitfully presented it as.
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."
You falsely use my statement as "proof" of your claims *without*
specifying that I'd made it about you.
No, Lying Michael. Quoting of your statement was "proof" of nothing
(except that you said it), and I
never claimed it was. You falsely accused me of printing [o]nly
perceived
allies in /April/ magazine and on my blog in general. I've pointed out
that, while it does not describe what I've done there, it does describe
you.
In doing so, you make it appear
as if I am stating my own beliefs and practices -- which they are
decidedly not.
No, Lying Michael. Once again, I quoted your statement and noted that,
while it does not describe me, it fits your practice on aapc to a T.
Your response was to falsely accused me of lying, by pretending I'd said
you were describing yourself.
No, George, *this* is what you said, and I quote:
"I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's adversary. As he says: 'When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write.'"
You make no mention that my words were originally about you.
Rather, you present it as if I were explaining that I'd dismissed Will's writing ability because I dislike him as a person.
You really take the art of duplicity to a whole level.
I stated that you were describing yourself - you were projecting.
Rather than deal with that, you began lying about what I'd said.
You do not say that I'm projecting, George.
what you wrote:
"I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
adversary. As he says: 'When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write.'"
When are you going to learn that it is pointless to lie on Usenet where
one need only scroll up a few posts to uncover your actual post?
When you misquoted me, you intentionally made it appear as if I had been >>> talking about myself.
No, Lying Michael. It was obvious from what I'd said that you were
accusing another person. (You would not use "you" to describe
your own practices.) You lied when you projected it on me, and now
you're trying to defend that with another lie.
Let's have a third look at what you said.
Please point out where you made it "obvious that [I] was accusing
another person."
And, yes, I feel that anyone (other than your Donkey
Permission to use childish nicknames noted. Please don't start crying
when I do the same.
By all means. I think that you *should* refer to Will as "Donkey."
He's earned that cognomen.
and his socks)
would consider that to be a form of lying.
Sure it would be; it it were true.
Here, for the fourth time, is your statement:
"I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
adversary. As he says: 'When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write.'"
Please explain how that isn't true.
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.
One of us certainly misunderstands it.
Indeed one of us does. But you misuse it because it sounds good.
I have proven my point several times over in this post.
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 20:10:44 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka "HarryLime " wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 2:59:51 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hey, Will, do you remember when yuu formed the aapc facebook group? I'm
going to take a look myself, but I know if it's listed there.
What's your point?
Sorry, MMP, but that isn's your concern.
We've still got rights on the "Official" name. Will called his group
the "Facebook Edition."
Actually, it's called "alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook
Edition." But don't worry about that; no one is going to sue you for the "rights" to the name. You can call your facebook group whatever you
wanted.
And, let's face it; Will's FB group is as devoid of active members as
Usenet AAPC.
As Will said, alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook Edition was
started at least 13 years ago. It's not unommnn for facebook groups to
become less active over time.
The bulk of Usenet AAPC's members now use the Official AAPC page that I
started.
I know of three former aapc members ho use your facebook group: you,
Jim, and NG (Team Monkey), Since I can't see who's on our facebook
group, I have no idea how many other former aapc members are there.
When are you going to understand that the reason for all of the
bitterness and animosity at AAPC was Will Donkey?
Since the rest of this post of yours post is just more of your usual
flaming of Will, with the same old stories, there's no reason to waste
any more time on it.
snip
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:27:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime" >>>>>> wrote:
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased >>>>> behavior.MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of >>>>>>> poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does >>>>>>> not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by >>>>>> now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back >>>>>> in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC. >>>>>
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called >>>> a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential >>>> adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack >>>> those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. >>>> When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he >>>> can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said, >>>> but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar.
Well, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a
two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that I
should open a new threat where we can talk about that.
Sounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'll
just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime.
And so it goes.
🙂
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:45:15 +0000, HarryLime aka Michael Green Monkey Pendragon wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 2:06:15 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 20:10:44 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime " wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 2:59:51 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hey, Will, do you remember when you formed the aapc facebook group? I'm >>>>> going to take a look myself, but I know if it's listed there.
What's your point?
Sorry, MMP, but that isn't your concern.
We've still got rights on the "Official" name. Will called his group
the "Facebook Edition."
Actually, it's called "alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook
Edition." But don't worry about that; no one is going to sue you for the >>> "rights" to the name. You can call your facebook group whatever you
wanted.
And, let's face it; Will's FB group is as devoid of active members as
Usenet AAPC.
As Will said, alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook Edition was
started at least 13 years ago. It's not uncommon for facebook groups to
become less active over time.
So it's merely a coincidence that both Usenet AACP and your FB Edition
of AAPC have seen their membership decline -- whereas the Official AAPC
FB Group has seen its membership steadily rise?
I don't think so.
Usenet AAPC and its FB Edition are both dominated by Will Donkey;
whereas the Official AACP FB Group has a "No Donkeys allowed policy."
IMHO, the presence/absence of Will Donkey is the determining factor.
The bulk of Usenet AAPC's members now use the Official AAPC page that I >>>> started.
I know of three former aapc members ho use your facebook group: you,
Jim, and NG (Team Monkey), Since I can't see who's on our facebook
group, I have no idea how many other former aapc members are there.
You can look at the back cove
Why waste my time looking at your vanity press rubbish?
When are you going to understand that the reason for all of the
bitterness and animosity at AAPC
It began when you and you troll thugs tried to drive Stephan Pickering
and Rachel from the group.
Case closed.
Since the rest of this post of yours post is just more of your usual
flaming of Will, with the same old stories, there's no reason to waste
any more time on it.
snip
--
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:08:34 +0000, my Michael monkey boy Pendragon aka HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:39:25 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:45:15 +0000, HarryLime aka Michael Green Monkey
Pendragon wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 2:06:15 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 20:10:44 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka >>>>> "HarryLime " wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 2:59:51 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hey, Will, do you remember when you formed the aapc facebook group? I'm >>>>>>> going to take a look myself, but I know if it's listed there.
What's your point?
Sorry, MMP, but that isn't your concern.
We've still got rights on the "Official" name. Will called his group >>>>>> the "Facebook Edition."
Actually, it's called "alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook
Edition." But don't worry about that; no one is going to sue you for the >>>>> "rights" to the name. You can call your facebook group whatever you
wanted.
And, let's face it; Will's FB group is as devoid of active members as >>>>>> Usenet AAPC.
As Will said, alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook Edition was >>>>> started at least 13 years ago. It's not uncommon for facebook groups to >>>>> become less active over time.
So it's merely a coincidence that both Usenet AACP and your FB Edition >>>> of AAPC have seen their membership decline -- whereas the Official AAPC >>>> FB Group has seen its membership steadily rise?
I don't think so.
Usenet AAPC and its FB Edition are both dominated by Will Donkey;
whereas the Official AACP FB Group has a "No Donkeys allowed policy."
IMHO, the presence/absence of Will Donkey is the determining factor.
The bulk of Usenet AAPC's members now use the Official AAPC page that I >>>>>> started.
I know of three former aapc members ho use your facebook group: you, >>>>> Jim, and NG (Team Monkey), Since I can't see who's on our facebook
group, I have no idea how many other former aapc members are there.
You can look at the back cove
Why waste my time looking at your vanity press rubbish?
Jealous much, Donkey?
When are you going to understand that the reason for all of the
bitterness and animosity at AAPC
It began when you and you troll thugs tried to drive Stephan Pickering
and Rachel from the group.
Case closed.
It started long before Pickles, Rachel, and I were even here
Not really.
Your gang of thugs tried a hostile takeover.
It didn't succeed.
Case closed.
You've driven several "generation
Not at all, they can come and go as they please.
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 7:30:46 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakbrain akdYou nailed it again, George.
"HarryLime" wrote:
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:
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.
I left the 50s group for numerous reasons, the most significant being
that it had become a thoroughly unproductive time sap. I had learned
all that I could from it, and the arguments were becoming repetitive
rehashes that served no valuable purpose for me to pursue. Since
leaving, I have completed and published numerous books (including a 50s
music book), and a monthly poetry magazine.
You made the right decision; it is better to put your efforts into
something more permanent. Please do the same for aapc.
And, if I felt that I needed a team to participate in this group, I
would have sided with PJR, Horatio, and Gwyneth, who were infinitely
more knowledgeable, and better educated than those of "Team Dunce"
(which at the time consisted of you and your Donkey).
Like Corey, you did; but PJR, the elitist snob that he was, wanted
nothing to do with either of you; so it was either leave or join the
opposition. So you joined the opposition, and helped get rid of him,
then tried to replace him.
Unfortunately, you misunderstood and thought the opposition wanted to
run aapc themselves. I can't speak for the other two, but I don't want
anyone to run it.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 1:37:20 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:42:48 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:08:34 +0000, my Michael monkey boy Pendragon aka
HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:39:25 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:45:15 +0000, HarryLime aka Michael Green Monkey >>>>> Pendragon wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 2:06:15 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 20:10:44 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka >>>>>>> "HarryLime " wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 2:59:51 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hey, Will, do you remember when you formed the aapc facebook group? I'mWhat's your point?
going to take a look myself, but I know if it's listed there. >>>>>>>>
Sorry, MMP, but that isn't your concern.
We've still got rights on the "Official" name. Will called his group >>>>>>>> the "Facebook Edition."
Actually, it's called "alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook >>>>>>> Edition." But don't worry about that; no one is going to sue you for the
"rights" to the name. You can call your facebook group whatever you >>>>>>> wanted.
And, let's face it; Will's FB group is as devoid of active members as >>>>>>>> Usenet AAPC.
As Will said, alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook Edition was >>>>>>> started at least 13 years ago. It's not uncommon for facebook groups to >>>>>>> become less active over time.
So it's merely a coincidence that both Usenet AACP and your FB Edition >>>>>> of AAPC have seen their membership decline -- whereas the Official AAPC >>>>>> FB Group has seen its membership steadily rise?
I don't think so.
Usenet AAPC and its FB Edition are both dominated by Will Donkey;
whereas the Official AACP FB Group has a "No Donkeys allowed policy." >>>>>>
IMHO, the presence/absence of Will Donkey is the determining factor. >>>>>>
You can look at the back coveThe bulk of Usenet AAPC's members now use the Official AAPC page that I
started.
I know of three former aapc members ho use your facebook group: you, >>>>>>> Jim, and NG (Team Monkey), Since I can't see who's on our facebook >>>>>>> group, I have no idea how many other former aapc members are there. >>>>>>
Why waste my time looking at your vanity press rubbish?
Jealous much, Donkey?
When are you going to understand that the reason for all of the >>>>>>>> bitterness and animosity at AAPC
It began when you and you troll thugs tried to drive Stephan Pickering >>>>> and Rachel from the group.
Case closed.
It started long before Pickles, Rachel, and I were even here
Not really.
Your gang of thugs tried a hostile takeover.
It didn't succeed.
Case closed.
We didn't try to take over anything, Donkey. We only wanted you to stop
the spam posts.
You've driven several "generation
Not at all, they can come and go as they please.
Really?
Of course.
Show me some posts by them from the past 10 years
Well, they come and go as they please, and apparently they haven't
decided to return.
🙂
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:48:09 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 7:30:46 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakbrain akdYou nailed it again, George.
"HarryLime" wrote:
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:
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.
I left the 50s group for numerous reasons, the most significant being
that it had become a thoroughly unproductive time sap. I had learned
all that I could from it, and the arguments were becoming repetitive
rehashes that served no valuable purpose for me to pursue. Since
leaving, I have completed and published numerous books (including a 50s >>>> music book), and a monthly poetry magazine.
You made the right decision; it is better to put your efforts into
something more permanent. Please do the same for aapc.
And, if I felt that I needed a team to participate in this group, I
would have sided with PJR, Horatio, and Gwyneth, who were infinitely
more knowledgeable, and better educated than those of "Team Dunce"
(which at the time consisted of you and your Donkey).
Like Corey, you did; but PJR, the elitist snob that he was, wanted
nothing to do with either of you; so it was either leave or join the
opposition. So you joined the opposition, and helped get rid of him,
then tried to replace him.
Unfortunately, you misunderstood and thought the opposition wanted to
run aapc themselves. I can't speak for the other two, but I don't want
anyone to run it.
Thanks. PJR's team was quite happy to take in both Corey and Michael as allies, but PJR wanted nothing to do with them.
So he decided to play
elitist snob. Of course, he didn't reject them because they weren't
"good" or "amsart" enough to be on his team - if he only wanted good
writers and smart thinkers, he wouldn't have had nonentities like Cujo
de Sockpuppet on it.
He wanted meat puppets, yes men who'd be willing to
stay in subordinate role, not independent thinkers.
Independent thinker
wouls sooner or later disagree with him and challenge his opinions, with
the result that the fighting would move into his team, and it would
cease to act as a team.
It's the same reason that, for all his trying, Corey never made it onto
Team Mokey, either.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 2:06:15 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 20:10:44 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime " wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 2:59:51 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hey, Will, do you remember when yuu formed the aapc facebook group? I'm >>>> going to take a look myself, but I know if it's listed there.
What's your point?
Sorry, MMP, but that isn's your concern.
We've still got rights on the "Official" name. Will called his group
the "Facebook Edition."
Actually, it's called "alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook
Edition." But don't worry about that; no one is going to sue you for the
"rights" to the name. You can call your facebook group whatever you
wanted.
And, let's face it; Will's FB group is as devoid of active members as
Usenet AAPC.
As Will said, alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook Edition was
started at least 13 years ago. It's not unommnn for facebook groups to
become less active over time.
So it's merely a coincidence that both Usenet AACP and your FB Edition
of AAPC have seen their membership decline --
whereas the Official AAPC
FB Group has seen its membership steadily rise?
I don't think so.
Usenet AAPC and its FB Edition are both dominated by Will Donkey;
whereas the Official AACP FB Group has a "No Donkeys allowed policy."
IMHO, the presence/absence of Will Donkey is the determining factor.
The bulk of Usenet AAPC's members now use the Official AAPC page that I
started.
I know of three former aapc members ho use your facebook group: you,
Jim, and NG (Team Monkey), Since I can't see who's on our facebook
group, I have no idea how many other former aapc members are there.
You can look at the back cover of our AYoS 2023 ed., on Amazon, and/or
you can wait for the 2024 ed. to print, and view its back cover there as well.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 13:07:49 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:48:09 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 7:30:46 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakbrain akdYou nailed it again, George.
"HarryLime" wrote:
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:
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.
I left the 50s group for numerous reasons, the most significant being >>>>> that it had become a thoroughly unproductive time sap. I had learned >>>>> all that I could from it, and the arguments were becoming repetitive >>>>> rehashes that served no valuable purpose for me to pursue. Since
leaving, I have completed and published numerous books (including a 50s >>>>> music book), and a monthly poetry magazine.
You made the right decision; it is better to put your efforts into
something more permanent. Please do the same for aapc.
And, if I felt that I needed a team to participate in this group, I
would have sided with PJR, Horatio, and Gwyneth, who were infinitely >>>>> more knowledgeable, and better educated than those of "Team Dunce"
(which at the time consisted of you and your Donkey).
Like Corey, you did; but PJR, the elitist snob that he was, wanted
nothing to do with either of you; so it was either leave or join the
opposition. So you joined the opposition, and helped get rid of him,
then tried to replace him.
Unfortunately, you misunderstood and thought the opposition wanted to
run aapc themselves. I can't speak for the other two, but I don't want >>>> anyone to run it.
Thanks. PJR's team was quite happy to take in both Corey and Michael as
allies, but PJR wanted nothing to do with them. So he decided to play
elitist snob. Of course, he didn't reject them because they weren't
"good" or "amsart" enough to be on his team - if he only wanted good
writers and smart thinkers, he wouldn't have had nonentities like Cujo
de Sockpuppet on it. He wanted meat puppets, yes men who'd be willing to
stay in subordinate role, not independent thinkers. Independent thinker
wouls sooner or later disagree with him and challenge his opinions, with
the result that the fighting would move into his team, and it would
cease to act as a team.
It's the same reason that, for all his trying, Corey never made it onto
Team Mokey, either.
An update, Corry is alive and apparently well and posting on Facebook
again.
I'm not sure if he understands how to get here and post from here,
though.
No, Pendragon, you're either confused, delusional or simply
bullshitting.
alt.arts.poetry.comments is and always has been a Usenet newsgroup.
a.a.p.c. can be found at Nova BBS:
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/thread.php?group=alt.arts.poetry.comments
Or at JLA Forums:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewforum.php?f=655
HTH and HAND.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:45:15 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 2:06:15 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 20:10:44 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime " wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 2:59:51 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hey, Will, do you remember when yuu formed the aapc facebook group? I'm >>>>> going to take a look myself, but I know if it's listed there.
What's your point?
Sorry, MMP, but that isn's your concern.
We've still got rights on the "Official" name. Will called his group
the "Facebook Edition."
Actually, it's called "alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook
Edition." But don't worry about that; no one is going to sue you for the >>> "rights" to the name. You can call your facebook group whatever you
wanted.
And, let's face it; Will's FB group is as devoid of active members as
Usenet AAPC.
As Will said, alt.arts.poetry.comments: Official Facebook Edition was
started at least 13 years ago. It's not unommnn for facebook groups to
become less active over time.
So it's merely a coincidence that both Usenet AACP and your FB Edition
of AAPC have seen their membership decline --
No, Lying Michael. I said that it happens to all groups, no matter where
they are; people develop other interests and go on to do other things.
On aapc, of course, there's the further complications that it's an open group, that keeps getting infested by trolls, and that it lost its main
web portal, so the decline in active participants was more dramatic; but
just because facebook doesn't have either problem, doesn't mean that
everyone who posts on a group there is going to keep posting on that
group forever.
whereas the Official AAPC
FB Group has seen its membership steadily rise?
MMP: I have no reason to think that the number of active participants on
your facebook group is rising or falling or staying the same; I have no
way of seeing for myself, and I'm certainly not going to take your word
for it, just as I don't take your word for anything.
I don't think so.
I wouldn't either it's an obvious "straw man" - which is why you tried
to pretend it's what I thought.
Usenet AAPC and its FB Edition are both dominated by Will Donkey;
whereas the Official AACP FB Group has a "No Donkeys allowed policy."
Sure; Will Dockery has a "No Team Monkey" policy. That's the nature of facebook; the groups on it are closed, moderated groups (unlike the alt. groups here).
IMHO, the presence/absence of Will Donkey is the determining factor.
That's silly. Test your opinion by comparing aapc to any other alt group
that Will Dockery doesn't post on: you'll see the same slow decline over
the years, and the same rapid decline after the loss of google support.
It's fun to think your main adversary caused it all, but (as I said)
silly).
The bulk of Usenet AAPC's members now use the Official AAPC page that I >>>> started.
I know of three former aapc members ho use your facebook group: you,
Jim, and NG (Team Monkey), Since I can't see who's on our facebook
group, I have no idea how many other former aapc members are there.
You can look at the back cover of our AYoS 2023 ed., on Amazon, and/or
you can wait for the 2024 ed. to print, and view its back cover there as
well.
Fair enough, if you wish to argue the point - you claim that everyone
who posts on your fb group is included in your chapbook, whether they
want to be or not, so that's a good way of
but that would take me a day or two, to make the lists of members for
each year, and in the meantime you'd have written dozens of trollposts, disrupting dozens of threads here, which I wouldn't be able to deal with
- and when I come back with my results, you and Will would have both
moved on to something else. If you give me your word that you'll stop
flaming until I've completed my research, then I could go take the time
and effort; I'll trust you on that point, as I'm sure you think the
results will support you.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 13:07:49 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:48:09 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 7:30:46 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakbrain akdYou nailed it again, George.
"HarryLime" wrote:
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:
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.
I left the 50s group for numerous reasons, the most significant being >>>>> that it had become a thoroughly unproductive time sap. I had learned >>>>> all that I could from it, and the arguments were becoming repetitive >>>>> rehashes that served no valuable purpose for me to pursue. Since
leaving, I have completed and published numerous books (including a 50s >>>>> music book), and a monthly poetry magazine.
You made the right decision; it is better to put your efforts into
something more permanent. Please do the same for aapc.
And, if I felt that I needed a team to participate in this group, I
would have sided with PJR, Horatio, and Gwyneth, who were infinitely >>>>> more knowledgeable, and better educated than those of "Team Dunce"
(which at the time consisted of you and your Donkey).
Like Corey, you did; but PJR, the elitist snob that he was, wanted
nothing to do with either of you; so it was either leave or join the
opposition. So you joined the opposition, and helped get rid of him,
then tried to replace him.
Unfortunately, you misunderstood and thought the opposition wanted to
run aapc themselves. I can't speak for the other two, but I don't want >>>> anyone to run it.
Thanks. PJR's team was quite happy to take in both Corey and Michael as
allies, but PJR wanted nothing to do with them.
You're delusional, George.
PJR never had a team (unless one counts his friends from his
alt.net.kooks --but that's a different matter which I'll discuss below).
PJR considered himself to be one of "the regulars." The regulars were
actual poets that Will Donkey had not yet driven away. They were not a
tean, and he was not their leader.
PJR coined the term "Team Dunce" to signify you and Will - who he
considered to be illiterate trolls.
The "kook" site was created to expose Usenet kooks in a humorous manner.
"Wranglers" would engage in discussions with people in various Usenet groups, searching for racists and assorted nutjobs whose buttons were
easily pressed. They would goad these "kooks" into having a "meltdown" online, then cross-post their meltdown to alt.kooks. The other members
would then join in, creating further meltdowns. They would also give
out various "awards" to the various "kooks."
Since you and Will were considered to be "kooks," PJR cross-posted your "meltdowns" to alt.kooks, which brought some of his fellow members (like
Cujo and Aratzio) here.
So he decided to play
elitist snob. Of course, he didn't reject them because they weren't
"good" or "amsart" enough to be on his team - if he only wanted good
writers and smart thinkers, he wouldn't have had nonentities like Cujo
de Sockpuppet on it.
Whether PJR would have been willing to take Corey and I as allies is a
moot point, as only PJR would know whether it was true.
He did attempt to steer me away from "Team Dunce," wondering aloud how I would feel when I realized that my "teammates" were illiterate buffoons.
Unfortunately, I mistook PJR's behavior as abusive, whereas he was he
was actually retaliating against the group trolls.
I have since offered a public apology to PJR.
He wanted meat puppets, yes men who'd be willing to
stay in subordinate role, not independent thinkers.
Again, a moot point, as only PJR would know what PJR wanted.
I can, however, state with certainty that he did not want anyone to be defending, supporting, and further enabling the trolls -- which is what
I had unwittingly done.
Independent thinker
wouls sooner or later disagree with him and challenge his opinions, with
the result that the fighting would move into his team, and it would
cease to act as a team.
Again, PJR never had a "team." He considered Gwyneth and Horatio to be "regulars," but they were obviously independent thinkers, and largely
ignored the trolls (Team Dunce).
PJR lumped me in with "Team Dunce" because I was openly trolling him and
his friends from alt.kooks. (Again, I had swallowed your story that alt.kooks were a group of Usenet "thugs" who bullied and harassed Usenet posters for fun. You'd actually claimed that they did it to blackmail
them, but even I was never *that* gullible.)
As to "playing the snob," I fully believe that PJR is a literary snob
who peppers his verses with snippets of Greek and Latin, and continually alludes to classical music. Not that I have any problem with such
snobbery. Poetry is no longer a popular artform, but one that plays to intellectuals and academics -- such "elitist" allusions are merely a
form of catering to one's audience.
It's the same reason that, for all his trying, Corey never made it onto
Team Mokey, either.
Were there such a thing as "Team Monkey".
Corey would have been welcomed > as a member.
But there was never any such thing as "Team Monkey." What
you call "Team Monkey" was simply the latest group of "regulars" -- a
group of individuals who acted independently of one another.
The only
thing the so-called "Team" had in common was their dislike of the
practices of Will Donkey and his socks, who buried any legitimate, poetry-related conversations under an endless barrage of mutual
slurp-posts and spam.
Corey, btw, is a participating member of the Official AAPC FB Group, andhas several poems appearing in our forthcoming year-end issue.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 14:50:07 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 13:07:49 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:48:09 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 7:30:46 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakbrain akdYou nailed it again, George.
"HarryLime" wrote:
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:
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.
I left the 50s group for numerous reasons, the most significant being >>>>>> that it had become a thoroughly unproductive time sap. I had learned >>>>>> all that I could from it, and the arguments were becoming repetitive >>>>>> rehashes that served no valuable purpose for me to pursue. Since
leaving, I have completed and published numerous books (including a 50s >>>>>> music book), and a monthly poetry magazine.
You made the right decision; it is better to put your efforts into
something more permanent. Please do the same for aapc.
And, if I felt that I needed a team to participate in this group, I >>>>>> would have sided with PJR, Horatio, and Gwyneth, who were infinitely >>>>>> more knowledgeable, and better educated than those of "Team Dunce" >>>>>> (which at the time consisted of you and your Donkey).
Like Corey, you did; but PJR, the elitist snob that he was, wanted
nothing to do with either of you; so it was either leave or join the >>>>> opposition. So you joined the opposition, and helped get rid of him, >>>>> then tried to replace him.
Unfortunately, you misunderstood and thought the opposition wanted to >>>>> run aapc themselves. I can't speak for the other two, but I don't want >>>>> anyone to run it.
Thanks. PJR's team was quite happy to take in both Corey and Michael as
allies, but PJR wanted nothing to do with them.
You're delusional, George.
PJR never had a team (unless one counts his friends from his
alt.net.kooks --but that's a different matter which I'll discuss below).
Nonsense, MMP. At that time he still had two alt.koos - Aratzio, who
finally moved on, and Cujo de Sockpupput, who moved with you to your
facebook group - but he also had the "Shit People" - Gamble, Houstman, sherman, and Evans - and the three women they recruited onto aapc:
Karla, Gwyneth, and Cythera. (Out of deference to your tender
sensibilities, I'm using their chosen identifiers rather than my own.)
PJR considered himself to be one of "the regulars." The regulars were
actual poets that Will Donkey had not yet driven away. They were not a
tean, and he was not their leader.
Some of his "regulars" were actual poets (like all the ones I've given
above) - some of them were
They weren't his flunkies, in the way Jim and NG were your flunkies; but
they were his echo chamber and his back-up flamers. It isn't necessary
that a team be composed only of flunkies. It's probably true that they
would have preferred to play poet and let PJR protect them from their
PJR coined the term "Team Dunce" to signify you and Will - who he
considered to be illiterate trolls.
He also put Chuck Lysaght and Tom Bishop on that list, before their
deaths; and various other people over the years. But it's ridiculous; we never never acted as a team in any way. Will, for instance, doesn't do back-up flaming; he only responds to attacks on his own threads.
The
only person I know whom I can remember doing back-up flaming for me is
you; othwerwise I've been on my own here. "Team Dunce" was just PJR's "enemies list" and nothing else.
The "kook" site was created to expose Usenet kooks in a humorous manner.
"Wranglers" would engage in discussions with people in various Usenet
groups, searching for racists and assorted nutjobs whose buttons were
easily pressed. They would goad these "kooks" into having a "meltdown"
online, then cross-post their meltdown to alt.kooks. The other members
would then join in, creating further meltdowns. They would also give
out various "awards" to the various "kooks."
I'm aware of that, and I've written about the same thing; it's in their archives. By the time I arrived, though, members of the group were
priaarily doing the same thing to non-kooss (like the lawyer who later
took them to court and ended the group as a significant player).
What PJR did, when he got control of the group as FNVW, was bring them
into RAP and aapc, and use them against anyone he considered an enemy -
his "enemies list" as I said.
Since you and Will were considered to be "kooks," PJR cross-posted your
"meltdowns" to alt.kooks, which brought some of his fellow members (like
Cujo and Aratzio) here.
Maybe he did consider everyone he used alt.kooks against to be a "kook,"
but that includes a lot of people who obviously weren't. Either he was
the delusional one, or he was misusing the group.
So he decided to play
elitist snob. Of course, he didn't reject them because they weren't
"good" or "amsart" enough to be on his team - if he only wanted good
writers and smart thinkers, he wouldn't have had nonentities like Cujo
de Sockpuppet on it.
Whether PJR would have been willing to take Corey and I as allies is a
moot point, as only PJR would know whether it was true.
All one has to do is read his posts to and about both of you; he
considered the two of you as equally illiterate and kooky. That's how he treated anyone who wasn't an ally. Most of the people he treated that
way left - he "drove them away" as Will puts it. Will, of course, never
left, which is why he attracted more and more of their heat.
He did attempt to steer me away from "Team Dunce," wondering aloud how I
would feel when I realized that my "teammates" were illiterate buffoons.
Unfortunately, I mistook PJR's behavior as abusive, whereas he was he
was actually retaliating against the group trolls.
Of course he was deliberately abusive to you: he called you names,
flamed your poetry, and even called you an illiterate buffoon when it
suited him. Hw sis nor xonaiswe you (or Corey) to be a poet, and he did
not want you as an ally. Deal with it.
I have since offered a public apology to PJR.
And his reply was? __________________________
He wanted meat puppets, yes men who'd be willing to
stay in subordinate role, not independent thinkers.
Again, a moot point, as only PJR would know what PJR wanted.
It's stupid to say you can't judge a person's thoughts by what they do.
You, for instance, inferred from his flaming of Will and me that he was giving you friendly advice (which is silly, as he was in no way your
friend). Judging a person's thoughts by their actions is in fact more reliable than judging them by what they tell you about them.
I can, however, state with certainty that he did not want anyone to be
defending, supporting, and further enabling the trolls -- which is what
I had unwittingly done.
Of course a team of trolls, like he successfully aseembled and you
copied with your Team Monkey, don't want rival teams. Their preferred
M.O. is to attack one person at a time.
Independent thinker
wouls sooner or later disagree with him and challenge his opinions, with >>> the result that the fighting would move into his team, and it would
cease to act as a team.
Again, PJR never had a "team." He considered Gwyneth and Horatio to be
"regulars," but they were obviously independent thinkers, and largely
ignored the trolls (Team Dunce).
PJR lumped me in with "Team Dunce" because I was openly trolling him and
his friends from alt.kooks. (Again, I had swallowed your story that
alt.kooks were a group of Usenet "thugs" who bullied and harassed Usenet
posters for fun. You'd actually claimed that they did it to blackmail
them, but even I was never *that* gullible.)
As to "playing the snob," I fully believe that PJR is a literary snob
who peppers his verses with snippets of Greek and Latin, and continually
alludes to classical music. Not that I have any problem with such
snobbery. Poetry is no longer a popular artform, but one that plays to
intellectuals and academics -- such "elitist" allusions are merely a
form of catering to one's audience.
Good; I'm glad that our conclusions agree about something. The only disagreement I have is with your last line. Sych elitist behavior is
primarly a way to try to convince your antagonist of your superiority to
him - the effect on the audience is secondary.
It's the same reason that, for all his trying, Corey never made it onto
Team Mokey, either.
Were there such a thing as "Team Monkey".
As I said, it's as real (and as imaginary) as "Team Donkey"). Team
Monkey was you, Jim, and NG - you formed it in in 2017 to attack Stephan (whom NG was trolling) and Will (whom Jim was by then trolling). I see
that I'll have to write about it more. But there's no reason to bury it
down here in a thread no one's likely to see; I'll have to put it on a stand-alone thread, just like your misrepresenttions of /April/
magazine.
Corey would have been welcomed > as a member.
By you, I'm sure; but Jim hated him, and NG (who supported Jim) didn't
want him either. You couldn't have both of them. And, as I said, Corey
would not have been content to be a mere flunkie, but would have ended
up
But there was never any such thing as "Team Monkey." What
you call "Team Monkey" was simply the latest group of "regulars" -- a
group of individuals who acted independently of one another.
One could call you and Jim "regulars" because he'd been posting his
poetry here forever, and you'd been posting yours - but it's silly to
call NG one. They were here to troll Stephan and nothing else.
The only
thing the so-called "Team" had in common was their dislike of the
practices of Will Donkey and his socks, who buried any legitimate,
poetry-related conversations under an endless barrage of mutual
slurp-posts and spam.
Now, that may have been your own reason for disliking Will - that he was burying your "work" -- or it may have just been a story you cooked up to
give Jim a reason to troll and flame Will. I've seen you repeat is to
often that I suspect it's the latter.
Corey, btw, is a participating member of the Official AAPC FB Group, andhas several poems appearing in our forthcoming year-end issue.
As I said, I'll check the back of your book covers later, if you'll give
me the time. As is, I'm spending too much time correcting your misinformation, and don't intend to go off on any fact-checking projects while you continue your flaming of the few AAPC regulars left here.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:58 +0000, Michael Pendragon aka HarryLime
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:13:40 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
No, Pendragon, you're either confused, delusional or simply
bullshitting.
alt.arts.poetry.comments is and always has been a Usenet newsgroup.
a.a.p.c. can be found at Nova BBS:
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/thread.php?group=alt.arts.poetry.comments
Or at JLA Forums:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewforum.php?f=655
HTH and HAND.
There's no one left here, Will. You've driven them all away.
--
Stop lying, Pendragon.
It was you and your troll thugs who decided to begin running everyone
away from the newsgroup.
But you're Michael Pendragon, lying seems to be second nature for you,
as does second handing.
And so it goes.
George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
Yes, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) has returned, as Will and I
suspected. Even the name of his new sock, "HarryLime", looked like an
obvious clue to the "third man" on Team Monkey (the other two being
Jim/Edward and NancyGene). So we devised a way to have him out himself:
Will would bump up an old thread, I'd reply to it, and if "Harry" were
MMP, he wouldn't be able to resist replying. And it worked.
(Since the backthread has served its purpose, I've snipped most of it.)
It's "Jerk store!" time, again. George Dance re-responds to a post I
made almost two years ago (because he thinks I'm no longer here to smack >>> him around).
If further proof that this is MMP were needed, here it is: he walked
right into the trap, and he's still clueless that it even happened.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 4:13:51 +0000, Michael Pendragon wrote:
The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid
predetermined formats at all costs. The "sentence" is incomplete.
GD: That's because it wasn't a "sentence" until "Edward" added the full
stop. Which demonstrates only that so-so poets should avoid
repunctuating their betters' poetry.
MMP: GD is now aping PJR (because PJR is no longer here to slap him
around).
Years conspire to decrease possibilities.
GD: Exactly what the poem says, which Michael would have discovered if
he
had bothered to look it up. He didn't even need to look it up on line;
he could have found it in his own "literary journal" (AYOS 2021, 10).
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces >>> on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
These too lines don't form a coherent sentence.
GD: I think you mean those *two* lines. They are not a sentence, even in >>> Edward's edit, and neither of them are a sentence in the actual poem.
Once again, Edward added a full stop that's not in the original (as
Michael would have known, if he'd bothered to read the original).
MMP: It seems that Mr. Dance's purpose in reopening this thread is to
re-state that Mr. Rochester mistakenly added end punctuation to his
lines, thereby making his poem appear to be more illiterate than it
actually is.
MMP seems completely clueless about my actual "purpose" but that's par
for the course. So let's focus on what's important:
(1) He claimed my poem was "illiterate";
(2) I pointed out that every example of "illiteracy" he found was added
by his ally Jim;
(3) Now he's claiming my poem is still "illiterate".
Remember, again, that three years ago, when he still hoped to talk me
into becoming his ally, he considered it one of "the best poems" on aapc
that year. Now that he considers me his adversary, it's "illiterate."
"When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to
him and claim he can't write."
The fact that Mr. Dance feels compelled to do so nearly two years after
both the original post *and* after his original refutation demonstrates
an alarming degree of obsessive pettiness on his part.
LOL! Will picked the thread - and it's a good one - but there were many
other possibilities. (heh!) Suffice it to say, Jim is a fool and no one
in their right mind would judge their poetry by what he says about it.
GD: Having children restores the lost possibilities; you no longer have
them, but your children do.
MMP: No, they don't. If the poem is expressing a universal principle,
then the children's possibilities will necessarily be decreased as they
mature as well.
Sure, onr's children will fail to realize some of their possibilities,
too; but they will also realize some that their parents did not. Just
because MMP or Jim failed to reach your own goals, for example, it does
not follow that your children will fail at their goals as well.
This, again, is not a coherent sentence.
GD: Once again, that is solely due to Edward's editing.
MMP: "Once again,..." Quite. And one supposes that will be repeating it >>> yet a third time two years from now.
If MMP shows up two years from now with a new sock, we might try the
same thing. But not probably with a different thread; the archives are
full of threads like this.
You really spend way too much
time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.
GD: It figures that you'd try to blame Will; but I don't see how you can >>> blame him for Edward's sloppy editing.
MMP: Mr. Donkey serves as proof of the old adage concerning the "one bad >>> apple."
In this case, the presence of one illiterate member of a group causes
the other members to relax their standards.
Or, in the words of another adage, any group will inevitably settle to
the level of its lowest participant.
MMP repeatedly complains about me repeating this point, but it doesn't
seem to have sunk in yet, so:
The only examples of "illiteracy" that have been shown in this thread
came from Jim. (Better yet, let's "settle" to MMP's level and start
calling Jim Mr. Chimp again.)
I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
adversary. As he says: "When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/EA_gCO9_BDk/m/DWT2Fq0TBwAJ?hl=en
How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to
irrelevancy by years?
GD: As I already explained: they're restored in the next generation.
MMP: And as I've already explained, the next generation's possibilities
are as limited as those of their forebears. Since time and circumstance >>> will *always* conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they
reach adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities at birth are
necessarily an illusion.
Nonsense; people can and do realize possibilities in their lives,
including those their ancestors never did. No one can do everything, of
course, but plenty of people have done enough to justify their existence
{many of whose ancestors did nothing to justify theirs, beyond - wait
for it - having families).
Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences),
GD: I do hope we've spent enough time on Edward's pseudo-sentences.
MMP: LOL! If Mr. Dance actually meant what he said, he wouldn't have
reopened a two-year old thread in order to bitch about Mr. Rochester's
"edits" to his poem a second time.
LOL right back. I've already explained why I commented on the thread
Will reopened. But I'm serious; we've advanced the debate. MMP has not
disputed that all "illiteracy" he discovered was caused by Mr. Chimp,
but he's sticking to his story that the poem is still "illiterate"
anway, as per his editorial philosophy: "When [someone] is seen as an
adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."
your
poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that >>>> the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to
achieve it.
What is "it"? No one realizes "unlimited" possibilites, but plenty of
people realize some, including ones their parents failed to realize.
As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take
solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential >>>> will be as unrealized as our own.
GD: Nothing in the poem about "compensation" - the word I used was
"justification". A person who has children has not completely wasted his >>> or her own life, no matter how much he or she hasn't done.
MMP: Sentimental hogwash.
Nothing sentimental about it. You or I have no idea what those children,
or their children, or their children will do. That gives one a reason to
value other people, to judge them to be at least worth not harming - but
it's a reason based purely on self-interest, not sentiment.
I point to the example of "Joey" <snip>- and I'll snip it, because it looks like another attempt to flame Will
and/or to change the subject. Instead, I'll give an example of my own.
One justifies one's life by adding value to the world.
Did Edgar Allan Poe add value to the world? I'd say yes, by his writing.
Did John M. Poe add value to the world? I'm not aware of anything he
did, but I'd say yes for him as well, because he was EAP's
great-grandfather - without him, there'd have been no EAP.
That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem. Unfortunately, your
attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines >>>> any possibilities ;-) it might have had.
GD: It's sad that Michael's opinion of the poem (which, as noted, he
previously published in his "literary journal") has fallen so much since >>> he put me on his enemy's list. I'm sure that was just a coincidence,
though.
MMP: Again, Mr. Dance is confusing the purpose of The Sunday Sampler,
and A Year of Sundays which is its current incarnation.
A Year of Sundays was created to provide a showcase for the best poetry
of each of AAPC's members. My opinion regarding Mr. Dance's poem has not >>> changed: it is without doubt one of Mr. Dance's better works.
Really? MMP claimed just days ago (in the post I'm replying to) that the
poem was "illiterate". Now he's saying that he thought it was
"illiterate" when he published it in AYOS? Why would he publish an
"illiterate" poem? And why, FTM, what is holding him back from showing
why he allegedly thought it was illiterate?
(Those are rhetorical questions, of course. I think MMP is bullshitting,
and that his stated opinions did change, when he switched me from
potential ally to open adversary. But he is free to prove me wrong by
supplying credible answers.)
Nor is Mr. Dance on my imaginary "enemies list."
There is no need to even look for a quote. There is no other reason why
MMP jumped into this discussion, two years ago or now, other than to
protect Mr. Chimpfrom me? Or why his Mr. Chimp even started it? One
that's better than this Team Monkey vs. Team Donkey thing you now claim
to have no memory of?
*****Speaking of A Year of Sundays... I'm currently compiling our 2024
print volume, which features the work of such (usenet) AAPC favorites as >>> J.D. Senetto, NancyGene, Ash Wurthing, Kevin Fries, Bob Burrows,
Hieronymous Corey, Karen Tellefsen, Richard Oakley, Wenceslas Kabeba,
and my oh-so-humble self; along with FB AAPC favorites, Louise Charlton
Webster, Scott Thomas, Bruce Boston, Robert Payne Cabeen, Paul Cordeiro, >>> ruth housman, Trinity-memyandi Venter, Jefferson Carter, Joseph Danoski, >>> Stephen Brooke, & Devin Anderson.*****
Congratulations; that's at least 19 people who'll buy a copy. Make that
20; I'll probably get one to see what Bruce Boston wrote.
But I digress
(backthread snipped)
1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any >>>> given form. One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a
triolet. All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the
format.
GD: It certainly seems to be too hard for some people.
MMP: What a childish and petty thing to say!
MMP and his Mr. Chimp may believe they can write really wonderful
triolets if they felt like it. There is absolutely no reason for me to
humor them, of course.
2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms.
See above.
If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me. >>>> Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit
themselves to someone else's rules.
GD: The "Muse" is a charming idea, which I've heard of; but I don't
remember ever seeing Her invoked to evade responsibility for one's
writing until
now.
MMP: Why do you lie so much, Mr. Dance?
There is not even a hint of evading poetic responsibility in my
statement.
It's clear here that MMP is saying no one can blame him or Mr. Chimp for
what they write, because it's not their choice; their "muses" made them
write it that way. You just take dictation.
Quite the contrary, it stresses the importance of *not*
sacrificing inspiration by forcing it into a preconceived format.
3) Jim is a far better poet than you. Jim's poems strike the reader as >>>> being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality.
This is the other side of MMP's editorial philosophy: "When Jim is seen
as a potential ally, you request his poetry." That's raw, unadulterated
reality.
Your
poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.
GD: Interestingly, MMP concludes by once again praising the work of
an
ally Jim ("Edward") while insulting the work of an adversary. If he were >>> still here, I'm sure he'd shrug that off as just a coincidence.
MMP: J.D. Senetto is an exceptionally talented poet. In fact, my
greatest difficulty in selecting which poems to include in AYoS' year
end print journal, is in deciding which of Jim's poems to leave out.
Now, that's as adulatory as if the Chimp wrote it himself - and just as
meaningful, I'm afraid. As I've said, and not just to MMP and his team:
If a poet consistently praised his own and only his own work, that
wouldn't be seen as a comment on the work but on the poet. Do you agree
so far?
If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each
other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.
Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.
GD: Well, we can ask the readers who won this round: Michael's
adversary,
whose poem was edited by an illiterate; or Michael's ally, the
illiterate who did the editing.
MMP: I think it abundantly clear that Mr. Rochester is the winner, since >>> his "edit" of your poem has weighed so heavily on your consciousness
that you felt compelled to address it a second time... nearly two years
after the fact.
That should be "clear" to anyone. Rereading the thread and thinking of
new things to say would be enough to explain why I'd comment again.
There's no no reason to think that I'd thought of Mr. Chimp's edit in
the intervening time, and I certainly can't say that I have. For
another, I did not address his edit in my reply; I tried to keep the
focus consistently on MMP's "third man" intervention into the flame war
Mr. Chimp had begun; and the new points I made in that respect were
enough to merit a new reply.
OTOH, I doubt Jim has given it a single thought.
That's possibly true. It's questionable whether Mr. Chimp gives anything
he does much thought.
Since the little green monkey boy Michael Pendragon is obviously trying
to bury your correct opening post, let's bump it to the top for
/context/.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
Yes, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) has returned, as Will and I
suspected. Even the name of his new sock, "HarryLime", looked like an
obvious clue to the "third man" on Team Monkey (the other two being
Jim/Edward and NancyGene). So we devised a way to have him out himself:
Will would bump up an old thread, I'd reply to it, and if "Harry" were
MMP, he wouldn't be able to resist replying. And it worked.
Since the little green monkey boy Michael Pendragon is a delusional narcissist, of course he couldn't resist.
(Since the backthread has served its purpose, I've snipped most of it.)
If further proof that this is MMP were needed, here it is: he walked
right into the trap, and he's still clueless that it even happened.
Pretty much the same way he was caught when trying to pass himself off
as "George Dance" a few years ago.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 4:13:51 +0000, Michael Pendragon wrote:
The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid
predetermined formats at all costs. The "sentence" is incomplete.
GD: That's because it wasn't a "sentence" until "Edward" added the full
stop. Which demonstrates only that so-so poets should avoid
repunctuating their betters' poetry.
You're lucky Senile Senetto didn't add an apostrophe in some wacky
plans.
MMP: GD is now aping PJR (because PJR is no longer here
Whatever happened to PJR?
Years conspire to decrease possibilities.
GD: Exactly what the poem says, which Michael would have discovered if
he
had bothered to look it up. He didn't even need to look it up on line;
he could have found it in his own "literary journal" (AYOS 2021, 10).
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces >>> on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with
Definitely, he's screwed up on remembering things so many times that I'm surprised he even tried that track anymore
Hell, Jim Senetto is rumored to be suffering from senility and even
Jim's memory is better than the little green monkey boy Pendragon.
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally)
Also knows as when the little green monkey boy Pendragon was giving you
a you a full out slurp job, George?
We know.
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
These too lines don't form a coherent sentence.
GD: I think you mean those *two* lines. They are not a sentence, even in >>> Edward's edit, and neither of them are a sentence in the actual poem.
Once again, Edward added a full stop that's not in the original (as
Michael would have known, if he'd bothered to read the original).
With a braoniac like Jim Senetto handling it, why bother?
🥹
MMP: It seems that Mr. Dance's purpose in reopening this thread is to
re-state that Mr. Rochester mistakenly added end punctuation to his
lines
Of course George Dance wants to set the record straight.
MMP seems completely clueless about my actual "purpose" but that's par
for the course. So let's focus on what's important:
(1) He claimed my poem was "illiterate";
A typical Peter J. Ross second hand.
A person writing poetry count hardly be illiterate, as we know.
(2) I pointed out that every example of "illiteracy" he found was added
by his ally Jim;
Any hilarious apostrophes?
(3) Now he's claiming my poem is still "illiterate".
In other words another false smear attempt
Nothing new from the delusional narcissist liar Michael Pendragon aka
green monkey boy.
Remember, again, that three years ago, when he still hoped to talk me
into becoming his ally, he considered it one of "the best poems" on aapc
Typical two faced hypocrisy from the little green monkey boy Michael Pendragon.
that year. Now that he considers me his adversary, it's "illiterate."
See above.
As Michael Pendragon has admitted, he'll try any lie or dirty trick to
"win."
"When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to
him and claim he can't write."
Exactly, the little green monkey is the one who originated the childish
name calling here.
The fact that Mr. Dance feels compelled to do so nearly two years after
both the original post *and* after his original refutation
More likely George Dance simply had more time and finally got around to
it.
LOL! Will picked the thread - and it's a good one - but there were many
other possibilities. (heh!) Suffice it to say, Jim is a fool and no one
in their right mind would judge their poetry by what he says about it.
And... since Jim Senetto no longer makes public posts we don't even know
how far his brain has deteriorated over the last year or so.
Since he'll be turning about 78 years old this year, God knows what confirmation his mind is in new.
GD: Having children restores the lost possibilities; you no longer have
them, but your children do.
Excellent point.
MMP: No, they don't. If the poem is expressing a universal principle,
then the children's possibilities will necessarily be decreased as they
mature as well.
Sure, one's children will fail to realize some of their possibilities,
too; but they will also realize some that their parents did not. Just
because MMP or Jim failed to reach your own goals, for example, it does
not follow that your children will fail at their goals as well.
This, again, is not a coherent sentence.
GD: Once again, that is solely due to Edward's editing.
That's hilarious Jim Senetto, who doesn't even know how to use basic punctuation, "editing" the poetry of other people.
😏
MMP: "Once again,..." Quite. And one supposes that will be repeating it >>> yet a third time two years from now.
If MMP shows up two years from now with a new sock, we might try the
same thing. But not probably with a different thread; the archives are
full of threads like this.
At least Pendragon didn't try to pass himself off as George Dance again.
You really spend way too much
time interacting with
While your best friend is senile Jim Senetto.
That's hilarious.
GD: It figures that you'd try to blame Will; but I don't see how you can >>> blame him for Edward's sloppy editing.
Anything for his slurp buddy Jim Senetto.
In this case, the presence of one illiterate member
You don't even know the definition of illiterate, little monkey boy Pendragon.
MMP repeatedly complains about me repeating this point, but it doesn't
seem to have sunk in yet, so:
The only examples of "illiteracy" that have been shown in this thread
came from Jim. (Better yet, let's "settle" to MMP's level and start
calling Jim Mr. Chimp again.)
He'd probably like that better than Senile Senetto.
😏
I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
adversary. As he says: "When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/EA_gCO9_BDk/m/DWT2Fq0TBwAJ?hl=en
You've obviously nailed Pendragon there.
How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to
irrelevancy by years?
GD: As I already explained: they're restored in the next generation.
MMP: And as I've already explained, the next generation's possibilities
are as limited as those of their forebears. Since time and circumstance >>> will *always* conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they
reach adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities at birth are
necessarily an illusion.
Nonsense; people can and do realize possibilities in their lives,
including those their ancestors never did. No one can do everything, of
course, but plenty of people have done enough to justify their existence
{many of whose ancestors did nothing to justify theirs, beyond - wait
for it - having families).
Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences),
GD: I do hope we've spent enough time on Edward's pseudo-sentences.
MMP: LOL! If Mr. Dance actually meant what he said, he wouldn't have
reopened a two-year old thread in order to bitch about Mr. Rochester's
"edits" to his poem a second time.
LOL right back. I've already explained why I commented on the thread
Will reopened. But I'm serious; we've advanced the debate. MMP has not
disputed that all "illiteracy" he discovered was caused by Mr. Chimp,
but he's sticking to his story that the poem is still "illiterate"
anway, as per his editorial philosophy: "When [someone] is seen as an
adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."
This statement probably deserves a quote of the day thread ^^^^
your
poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that >>>> the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to
achieve it.
What is "it"? No one realizes "unlimited" possibilites, but plenty of
people realize some, including ones their parents failed to realize.
As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take
solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential >>>> will be as unrealized as our own.
GD: Nothing in the poem about "compensation" - the word I used was
"justification". A person who has children has not completely wasted his >>> or her own life, no matter how much he or she hasn't done.
MMP: Sentimental hogwash.
Nothing sentimental about it. You or I have no idea what those children,
or their children, or their children will do. That gives one a reason to
value other people, to judge them to be at least worth not harming - but
it's a reason based purely on self-interest, not sentiment.
I point to the example of "Joey" <snip>- and I'll snip it, because it looks like another attempt to flame Will
and/or to change the subject. Instead, I'll give an example of my own.
One justifies one's life by adding value to the world.
Did Edgar Allan Poe add value to the world? I'd say yes, by his writing.
Did John M. Poe add value to the world? I'm not aware of anything he
did, but I'd say yes for him as well, because he was EAP's
great-grandfather - without him, there'd have been no EAP.
That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem. Unfortunately, your
attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines >>>> any possibilities ;-) it might have had.
GD: It's sad that Michael's opinion of the poem (which, as noted, he
previously published in his "literary journal") has fallen so much since >>> he put me on his enemy's list. I'm sure that was just a coincidence,
though.
MMP: Again, Mr. Dance is confusing the purpose of The Sunday Sampler,
and A Year of Sundays which is its current incarnation.
A Year of Sundays was created to provide a showcase for the best poetry
of each of AAPC's members. My opinion regarding Mr. Dance's poem has not >>> changed: it is without doubt one of Mr. Dance's better works.
Really? MMP claimed just days ago (in the post I'm replying to) that the
poem was "illiterate". Now he's saying that he thought it was
"illiterate" when he published it in AYOS? Why would he publish an
"illiterate" poem? And why, FTM, what is holding him back from showing
why he allegedly thought it was illiterate?
(Those are rhetorical questions, of course. I think MMP is bullshitting,
and that his stated opinions did change, when he switched me from
potential ally to open adversary. But he is free to prove me wrong by
supplying credible answers.)
Nor is Mr. Dance on my imaginary "enemies list."
There is no need to even look for a quote. There is no other reason why
MMP jumped into this discussion, two years ago or now, other than to
protect Mr. Chimpfrom me? Or why his Mr. Chimp even started it? One
that's better than this Team Monkey vs. Team Donkey thing you now claim
to have no memory of?
*****Speaking of A Year of Sundays... I'm currently compiling our 2024
print volume, which features the work of such (usenet) AAPC favorites as >>> J.D. Senetto, NancyGene, Ash Wurthing, Kevin Fries, Bob Burrows,
Hieronymous Corey, Karen Tellefsen, Richard Oakley, Wenceslas Kabeba,
and my oh-so-humble self; along with FB AAPC favorites, Louise Charlton
Webster, Scott Thomas, Bruce Boston, Robert Payne Cabeen, Paul Cordeiro, >>> ruth housman, Trinity-memyandi Venter, Jefferson Carter, Joseph Danoski, >>> Stephen Brooke, & Devin Anderson.*****
Congratulations; that's at least 19 people who'll buy a copy.
Vanity press lives.
😏
Make that
20; I'll probably get one to see what Bruce Boston wrote.
But I digress
(backthread snipped)
1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any >>>> given form. One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a
triolet. All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the
format.
GD: It certainly seems to be too hard for some people.
MMP: What a childish and petty thing to say!
MMP and his Mr. Chimp may believe they can write really wonderful
triolets if they felt like it. There is absolutely no reason for me to
humor them, of course.
2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms.
See above.
If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me. >>>> Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit
themselves to someone else's rules.
GD: The "Muse" is a charming idea, which I've heard of; but I don't
remember ever seeing Her invoked to evade responsibility for one's
writing until
now.
MMP: Why do you lie so much, Mr. Dance?
There is not even a hint of evading poetic responsibility in my
statement.
It's clear here that MMP is saying no one can blame him or Mr. Chimp for
what they write, because it's not their choice; their "muses" made them
write it that way. You just take dictation.
Quite the contrary, it stresses the importance of *not*
sacrificing inspiration by forcing it into a preconceived format.
3) Jim is a far better poet than you. Jim's poems strike the reader as >>>> being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality.
This is the other side of MMP's editorial philosophy: "When Jim is seen
as a potential ally, you request his poetry." That's raw, unadulterated
reality.
Your
poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.
GD: Interestingly, MMP concludes by once again praising the work of
an
ally Jim ("Edward") while insulting the work of an adversary. If he were >>> still here, I'm sure he'd shrug that off as just a coincidence.
MMP: J.D. Senetto is an exceptionally talented poet. In fact, my
greatest difficulty in selecting which poems to include in AYoS' year
end print journal, is in deciding which of Jim's poems to leave out.
Now, that's as adulatory as if the Chimp wrote it himself - and just as
meaningful, I'm afraid. As I've said, and not just to MMP and his team:
If a poet consistently praised his own and only his own work, that
wouldn't be seen as a comment on the work but on the poet. Do you agree
so far?
If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each
other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.
Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.
GD: Well, we can ask the readers who won this round: Michael's
adversary,
whose poem was edited by an illiterate; or Michael's ally, the
illiterate who did the editing.
MMP: I think it abundantly clear that Mr. Rochester is the winner, since >>> his "edit" of your poem has weighed so heavily on your consciousness
that you felt compelled to address it a second time... nearly two years
after the fact.
That should be "clear" to anyone. Rereading the thread and thinking of
new things to say would be enough to explain why I'd comment again.
There's no no reason to think that I'd thought of Mr. Chimp's edit in
the intervening time, and I certainly can't say that I have. For
another, I did not address his edit in my reply; I tried to keep the
focus consistently on MMP's "third man" intervention into the flame war
Mr. Chimp had begun; and the new points I made in that respect were
enough to merit a new reply.
OTOH, I doubt Jim has given it a single thought.
That's possibly true. It's questionable whether Mr. Chimp gives anything
he does much thought.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:20:20 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 19:31:01 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:58 +0000, Michael Pendragon aka HarryLime
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:13:40 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
No, Pendragon, you're either confused, delusional or simply
bullshitting.
alt.arts.poetry.comments is and always has been a Usenet newsgroup.
a.a.p.c. can be found at Nova BBS:
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/thread.php?group=alt.arts.poetry.comments >>>>>
Or at JLA Forums:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewforum.php?f=655
HTH and HAND.
There's no one left here, Will. You've driven them all away.
--
Stop lying, Pendragon.
It was you and your troll thugs who decided to begin running everyone
away from the newsgroup.
But you're Michael Pendragon, lying seems to be second nature for you,
as does second handing.
And so it goes.
Then how do you explain the fact that everyone we've supposedly driven
off is now a member of our Official AAPC FB group?
If a group of "troll thugs" drive you out of one group, it doesn't make
any sense for them to join the "troll thugs" in another.
--
Is Melissa Cheshire a member of your Facebook group?
Is Antti Loude a member of your Facebook group?
Is Rachel a member of your Facebook group?
Is Mack a member of your Facebook group?
Is Peter J Ross a member of your Facebook group?
If Robert Burrows was "driven away" then so were all of the above.
Okay, these posts are in severe need of editing.
Kindly trim your response down to your newest posts.
If you're an editor... edit.
HTH and HAND.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:48:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&trchd=true
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:32:52 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:27:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime" >>>>>>>> wrote:
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased >>>>>>> behavior.MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does >>>>>>>>> not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by >>>>>>>> now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back >>>>>>>> in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he >>>>>>>> considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC. >>>>>>>
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called >>>>>> a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential >>>>>> adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack >>>>>> those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. >>>>>> When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he >>>>>> can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said, >>>>>> but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar.
Well, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a
two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that I >>>> should open a new threat where we can talk about that.
Sounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'll
just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime.
That's a good point. Personally I do not like calling socks by their
aliases puppets by their sock names; that also can be confusing, as it's
meant to be. So I've started calling the person behind all those socks
MMP for Michael Monkey Peabrain (or just Peabrain if he says something
really stupid, or Lying Michael whenever I catch him in a lie). But that
could also be confusing for new readers and casual readers, so I think
I'll have to refer to him, when talking to third parties, as something
else; something that will identify whom I mean to any new or casual
readers.
After some thought, I've settled on "the Lime sock" - what do you think?
https://www.zazzle.ca/lime_green_socks-256240956281961664?rf=238512069961476072&tc=CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&z_ca=20390696811&z_dev=c&z_nw=x&z_lp=9000899&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA-
Hilarious.
😏
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:35:21 +0000, HarryLime wrote:ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&trchd=true
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:48:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:27:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime" >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J. >>>>>>>>>>>
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he >>>>>>>>>> considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased
behavior.
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called
a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential
adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.
When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,
but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar.
Well, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a >>>>>> two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that I >>>>>> should open a new threat where we can talk about that.
Sounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'll >>>>> just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime.
That's a good point. Personally I do not like calling socks by their
aliases puppets by their sock names; that also can be confusing, as it's >>>> meant to be. So I've started calling the person behind all those socks >>>> MMP for Michael Monkey Peabrain (or just Peabrain if he says something >>>> really stupid, or Lying Michael whenever I catch him in a lie). But that >>>> could also be confusing for new readers and casual readers, so I think >>>> I'll have to refer to him, when talking to third parties, as something >>>> else; something that will identify whom I mean to any new or casual
readers.
After some thought, I've settled on "the Lime sock" - what do you think? >>>>
https://www.zazzle.ca/lime_green_socks-256240956281961664?rf=238512069961476072&tc=CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&z_ca=20390696811&z_dev=c&z_nw=x&z_lp=9000899&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA-
Hilarious.
😏
And the childish name-calling continues.
This is why you and George are the only ones here, Donkey
Speaking of childish name calling ^^^
HTH and HAND.
I stated that you and your troll thug wannabes attempted to drive
Rachel, Jordy, Zod and others away from the newsgroup, Pendragon.
Which I wouldn't expect you to try to deny.
HTH and HAND.
I stated that you and your troll thug wannabes attempted to drive
Rachel, Jordy, Zod and others away from the newsgroup.
Rachel is a nice girl
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 18:34:36 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 18:20:39 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
I stated that you and your troll thug wannabes attempted to drive
Rachel, Jordy, Zod and others away from the newsgroup, Pendragon.
Which I wouldn't expect you to try to deny.
HTH and HAND.
Jordy and Zod are trolls of the lowest variety.
No, Jim Senetto and Nancy Gene have proven they're much more malicious
than Zod or Jordy could ever be.
Who are you trying to fool, Pendragon?
Trolls should be driven away from newsgroups,
And so good riddance to Nancy Gene and her malicious ilk.
I can honestly say that I would enjoy beating the shit out of them in
some dark alley. And I'm not a violent individual.
You sound more like senile Jim Senetto now.
😏
As to Rachel, no one tried to drive her away.
Jim Senetto tried to, repeatedly.
It's in the archives.
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=633422563
Please stop trying to lump her in with Stinky G and Jordy. She's better
than that.
--
Rachel is a nice girl, agreed, but your smearing of Zod and Jordy are
lies and misrepresentations.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 18:11:57 +0000, HarryLime wrote:ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&trchd=true
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 17:33:02 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:35:21 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:48:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:27:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Well, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a >>>>>>>> two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that Ifrom
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime" >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he >>>>>>>>>>>> considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased
behavior.
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called
a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential
adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.
When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,
but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar. >>>>>>>>
should open a new threat where we can talk about that.
Sounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'll >>>>>>> just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime.
That's a good point. Personally I do not like calling socks by their >>>>>> aliases puppets by their sock names; that also can be confusing, as it's >>>>>> meant to be. So I've started calling the person behind all those socks >>>>>> MMP for Michael Monkey Peabrain (or just Peabrain if he says something >>>>>> really stupid, or Lying Michael whenever I catch him in a lie). But that >>>>>> could also be confusing for new readers and casual readers, so I think >>>>>> I'll have to refer to him, when talking to third parties, as something >>>>>> else; something that will identify whom I mean to any new or casual >>>>>> readers.
After some thought, I've settled on "the Lime sock" - what do you think? >>>>>>
https://www.zazzle.ca/lime_green_socks-256240956281961664?rf=238512069961476072&tc=CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&z_ca=20390696811&z_dev=c&z_nw=x&z_lp=9000899&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA-
Hilarious.
😏
And the childish name-calling continues.
This is why you and George are the only ones here, Donkey
Speaking of childish name calling ^^^
HTH and HAND.
At this late stage in the game, you have become Will Donkey. Addressing
you by any other name would seem false.
--
In your delusional mind perhaps, little green monkey boy
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:54:17 +0000, HarryLime wrote:CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&trchd=true
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:48:01 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 18:11:57 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 17:33:02 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:35:21 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:48:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:27:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Well, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a >>>>>>>>>> two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that Ifrom
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased
behavior.
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called
a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential
adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.
When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,
but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar. >>>>>>>>>>
should open a new threat where we can talk about that.
Sounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'll
just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime.
That's a good point. Personally I do not like calling socks by their >>>>>>>> aliases puppets by their sock names; that also can be confusing, as it's
meant to be. So I've started calling the person behind all those socks >>>>>>>> MMP for Michael Monkey Peabrain (or just Peabrain if he says something >>>>>>>> really stupid, or Lying Michael whenever I catch him in a lie). But that
could also be confusing for new readers and casual readers, so I think >>>>>>>> I'll have to refer to him, when talking to third parties, as something >>>>>>>> else; something that will identify whom I mean to any new or casual >>>>>>>> readers.
After some thought, I've settled on "the Lime sock" - what do you think?
https://www.zazzle.ca/lime_green_socks-256240956281961664?rf=238512069961476072&tc=CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&z_ca=20390696811&z_dev=c&z_nw=x&z_lp=9000899&gad_source=1&gclid=
Hilarious.
😏
And the childish name-calling continues.
This is why you and George are the only ones here, Donkey
Speaking of childish name calling ^^^
HTH and HAND.
At this late stage in the game
It's only January.
In your delusional mind perhaps, little green monkey boy
Donkey has stuck as your name
Only in your delusional imagination, Pendragon.
HTH and HAND.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:54:17 +0000, HarryLime wrote:CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&trchd=true
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:48:01 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 18:11:57 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 17:33:02 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:35:21 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:48:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:27:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Well, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a >>>>>>>>>> two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that Ifrom
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased
behavior.
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called
a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential
adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.
When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,
but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar. >>>>>>>>>>
should open a new threat where we can talk about that.
Sounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'll
just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime.
That's a good point. Personally I do not like calling socks by their >>>>>>>> aliases puppets by their sock names; that also can be confusing, as it's
meant to be. So I've started calling the person behind all those socks >>>>>>>> MMP for Michael Monkey Peabrain (or just Peabrain if he says something >>>>>>>> really stupid, or Lying Michael whenever I catch him in a lie). But that
could also be confusing for new readers and casual readers, so I think >>>>>>>> I'll have to refer to him, when talking to third parties, as something >>>>>>>> else; something that will identify whom I mean to any new or casual >>>>>>>> readers.
After some thought, I've settled on "the Lime sock" - what do you think?
https://www.zazzle.ca/lime_green_socks-256240956281961664?rf=238512069961476072&tc=CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&z_ca=20390696811&z_dev=c&z_nw=x&z_lp=9000899&gad_source=1&gclid=
Hilarious.
😏
And the childish name-calling continues.
This is why you and George are the only ones here, Donkey
Speaking of childish name calling ^^^
HTH and HAND.
At this late stage in the game
It's only January.
In your delusional mind perhaps, little green monkey boy
Donkey has stuck as your name
Only in your delusional imagination, Pendragon.
HTH and HAND.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:58 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:13:40 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
No, Pendragon, you're either confused, delusional or simply
bullshitting.
alt.arts.poetry.comments is and always has been a Usenet newsgroup.
a.a.p.c. can be found at Nova BBS:
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/thread.php?group=alt.arts.poetry.comments
Helmed by Retro Guy, Nova BBS used the classic Usenet newsgroup formula
^^^
Or at JLA Forums:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewforum.php?f=655
This Usenet portal is modelled on Google Groups and will probably take
off big time soon ^^^
HTH and HAND.
There's no one left here, Will
There's George Dance, Zod, Jordy and Rachel, to name a few.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:12:08 +0000, HarryLime wrote:CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&trchd=true
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:00:07 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:54:17 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:48:01 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 18:11:57 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 17:33:02 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:35:21 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:48:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:27:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
That's a good point. Personally I do not like calling socks by their >>>>>>>>>> aliases puppets by their sock names; that also can be confusing, as it'sWell, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a >>>>>>>>>>>> two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that Ifrom
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased
behavior.
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called
a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential
adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.
When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,
but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>
should open a new threat where we can talk about that.
Sounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'll
just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime. >>>>>>>>>>
meant to be. So I've started calling the person behind all those socks
MMP for Michael Monkey Peabrain (or just Peabrain if he says something
really stupid, or Lying Michael whenever I catch him in a lie). But that
could also be confusing for new readers and casual readers, so I think
I'll have to refer to him, when talking to third parties, as something
else; something that will identify whom I mean to any new or casual >>>>>>>>>> readers.
After some thought, I've settled on "the Lime sock" - what do you think?
https://www.zazzle.ca/lime_green_socks-256240956281961664?rf=238512069961476072&tc=CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&z_ca=20390696811&z_dev=c&z_nw=x&z_lp=9000899&gad_source=1&gclid=
Hilarious.
😏
And the childish name-calling continues.
This is why you and George are the only ones here, Donkey
Speaking of childish name calling ^^^
HTH and HAND.
At this late stage in the game
It's only January.
In your delusional mind perhaps, little green monkey boy
Donkey has stuck as your name
Only in your delusional imagination, Pendragon.
HTH and HAND.
https://www.reverbnation.com/willdonkey/videos
--
Your obsession with "Will Dockery" is noted.
George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
Yes, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) has returned, as Will and I
suspected. Even the name of his new sock, "HarryLime", looked like an
obvious clue to the "third man" on Team Monkey (the other two being
Jim/Edward and NancyGene). So we devised a way to have him out himself:
Will would bump up an old thread, I'd reply to it, and if "Harry" were
MMP, he wouldn't be able to resist replying. And it worked.
(Since the backthread has served its purpose, I've snipped most of it.)
It's "Jerk store!" time, again. George Dance re-responds to a post I
made almost two years ago (because he thinks I'm no longer here to smack >>> him around).
If further proof that this is MMP were needed, here it is: he walked
right into the trap, and he's still clueless that it even happened.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 4:13:51 +0000, Michael Pendragon wrote:
The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid
predetermined formats at all costs. The "sentence" is incomplete.
GD: That's because it wasn't a "sentence" until "Edward" added the full
stop. Which demonstrates only that so-so poets should avoid
repunctuating their betters' poetry.
MMP: GD is now aping PJR (because PJR is no longer here to slap him
around).
Years conspire to decrease possibilities.
GD: Exactly what the poem says, which Michael would have discovered if
he
had bothered to look it up. He didn't even need to look it up on line;
he could have found it in his own "literary journal" (AYOS 2021, 10).
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces >>> on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
These too lines don't form a coherent sentence.
GD: I think you mean those *two* lines. They are not a sentence, even in >>> Edward's edit, and neither of them are a sentence in the actual poem.
Once again, Edward added a full stop that's not in the original (as
Michael would have known, if he'd bothered to read the original).
MMP: It seems that Mr. Dance's purpose in reopening this thread is to
re-state that Mr. Rochester mistakenly added end punctuation to his
lines, thereby making his poem appear to be more illiterate than it
actually is.
MMP seems completely clueless about my actual "purpose" but that's par
for the course. So let's focus on what's important:
(1) He claimed my poem was "illiterate";
(2) I pointed out that every example of "illiteracy" he found was added
by his ally Jim;
(3) Now he's claiming my poem is still "illiterate".
Remember, again, that three years ago, when he still hoped to talk me
into becoming his ally, he considered it one of "the best poems" on aapc
that year. Now that he considers me his adversary, it's "illiterate."
"When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to
him and claim he can't write."
The fact that Mr. Dance feels compelled to do so nearly two years after
both the original post *and* after his original refutation demonstrates
an alarming degree of obsessive pettiness on his part.
LOL! Will picked the thread - and it's a good one - but there were many
other possibilities. (heh!) Suffice it to say, Jim is a fool and no one
in their right mind would judge their poetry by what he says about it.
GD: Having children restores the lost possibilities; you no longer have
them, but your children do.
MMP: No, they don't. If the poem is expressing a universal principle,
then the children's possibilities will necessarily be decreased as they
mature as well.
Sure, onr's children will fail to realize some of their possibilities,
too; but they will also realize some that their parents did not. Just
because MMP or Jim failed to reach your own goals, for example, it does
not follow that your children will fail at their goals as well.
This, again, is not a coherent sentence.
GD: Once again, that is solely due to Edward's editing.
MMP: "Once again,..." Quite. And one supposes that will be repeating it >>> yet a third time two years from now.
If MMP shows up two years from now with a new sock, we might try the
same thing. But not probably with a different thread; the archives are
full of threads like this.
You really spend way too much
time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.
GD: It figures that you'd try to blame Will; but I don't see how you can >>> blame him for Edward's sloppy editing.
MMP: Mr. Donkey serves as proof of the old adage concerning the "one bad >>> apple."
In this case, the presence of one illiterate member of a group causes
the other members to relax their standards.
Or, in the words of another adage, any group will inevitably settle to
the level of its lowest participant.
MMP repeatedly complains about me repeating this point, but it doesn't
seem to have sunk in yet, so:
The only examples of "illiteracy" that have been shown in this thread
came from Jim. (Better yet, let's "settle" to MMP's level and start
calling Jim Mr. Chimp again.)
I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been
shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
adversary. As he says: "When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/EA_gCO9_BDk/m/DWT2Fq0TBwAJ?hl=en
How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to
irrelevancy by years?
GD: As I already explained: they're restored in the next generation.
MMP: And as I've already explained, the next generation's possibilities
are as limited as those of their forebears. Since time and circumstance >>> will *always* conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they
reach adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities at birth are
necessarily an illusion.
Nonsense; people can and do realize possibilities in their lives,
including those their ancestors never did. No one can do everything, of
course, but plenty of people have done enough to justify their existence
{many of whose ancestors did nothing to justify theirs, beyond - wait
for it - having families).
Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences),
GD: I do hope we've spent enough time on Edward's pseudo-sentences.
MMP: LOL! If Mr. Dance actually meant what he said, he wouldn't have
reopened a two-year old thread in order to bitch about Mr. Rochester's
"edits" to his poem a second time.
LOL right back. I've already explained why I commented on the thread
Will reopened. But I'm serious; we've advanced the debate. MMP has not
disputed that all "illiteracy" he discovered was caused by Mr. Chimp,
but he's sticking to his story that the poem is still "illiterate"
anway, as per his editorial philosophy: "When [someone] is seen as an
adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."
your
poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that >>>> the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to
achieve it.
What is "it"? No one realizes "unlimited" possibilites, but plenty of
people realize some, including ones their parents failed to realize.
As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take
solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential >>>> will be as unrealized as our own.
GD: Nothing in the poem about "compensation" - the word I used was
"justification". A person who has children has not completely wasted his >>> or her own life, no matter how much he or she hasn't done.
MMP: Sentimental hogwash.
Nothing sentimental about it. You or I have no idea what those children,
or their children, or their children will do. That gives one a reason to
value other people, to judge them to be at least worth not harming - but
it's a reason based purely on self-interest, not sentiment.
I point to the example of "Joey" <snip>- and I'll snip it, because it looks like another attempt to flame Will
and/or to change the subject. Instead, I'll give an example of my own.
One justifies one's life by adding value to the world.
Did Edgar Allan Poe add value to the world? I'd say yes, by his writing.
Did John M. Poe add value to the world? I'm not aware of anything he
did, but I'd say yes for him as well, because he was EAP's
great-grandfather - without him, there'd have been no EAP.
That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem. Unfortunately, your
attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines >>>> any possibilities ;-) it might have had.
GD: It's sad that Michael's opinion of the poem (which, as noted, he
previously published in his "literary journal") has fallen so much since >>> he put me on his enemy's list. I'm sure that was just a coincidence,
though.
MMP: Again, Mr. Dance is confusing the purpose of The Sunday Sampler,
and A Year of Sundays which is its current incarnation.
A Year of Sundays was created to provide a showcase for the best poetry
of each of AAPC's members. My opinion regarding Mr. Dance's poem has not >>> changed: it is without doubt one of Mr. Dance's better works.
Really? MMP claimed just days ago (in the post I'm replying to) that the
poem was "illiterate". Now he's saying that he thought it was
"illiterate" when he published it in AYOS? Why would he publish an
"illiterate" poem? And why, FTM, what is holding him back from showing
why he allegedly thought it was illiterate?
(Those are rhetorical questions, of course. I think MMP is bullshitting,
and that his stated opinions did change, when he switched me from
potential ally to open adversary. But he is free to prove me wrong by
supplying credible answers.)
Nor is Mr. Dance on my imaginary "enemies list."
There is no need to even look for a quote. There is no other reason why
MMP jumped into this discussion, two years ago or now, other than to
protect Mr. Chimpfrom me? Or why his Mr. Chimp even started it? One
that's better than this Team Monkey vs. Team Donkey thing you now claim
to have no memory of?
*****Speaking of A Year of Sundays... I'm currently compiling our 2024
print volume, which features the work of such (usenet) AAPC favorites as >>> J.D. Senetto, NancyGene, Ash Wurthing, Kevin Fries, Bob Burrows,
Hieronymous Corey, Karen Tellefsen, Richard Oakley, Wenceslas Kabeba,
and my oh-so-humble self; along with FB AAPC favorites, Louise Charlton
Webster, Scott Thomas, Bruce Boston, Robert Payne Cabeen, Paul Cordeiro, >>> ruth housman, Trinity-memyandi Venter, Jefferson Carter, Joseph Danoski, >>> Stephen Brooke, & Devin Anderson.*****
Congratulations; that's at least 19 people who'll buy a copy. Make that
20; I'll probably get one to see what Bruce Boston wrote.
But I digress
(backthread snipped)
1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any >>>> given form. One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a
triolet. All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the
format.
GD: It certainly seems to be too hard for some people.
MMP: What a childish and petty thing to say!
MMP and his Mr. Chimp may believe they can write really wonderful
triolets if they felt like it. There is absolutely no reason for me to
humor them, of course.
2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms.
See above.
If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me. >>>> Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit
themselves to someone else's rules.
GD: The "Muse" is a charming idea, which I've heard of; but I don't
remember ever seeing Her invoked to evade responsibility for one's
writing until
now.
MMP: Why do you lie so much, Mr. Dance?
There is not even a hint of evading poetic responsibility in my
statement.
It's clear here that MMP is saying no one can blame him or Mr. Chimp for
what they write, because it's not their choice; their "muses" made them
write it that way. You just take dictation.
Quite the contrary, it stresses the importance of *not*
sacrificing inspiration by forcing it into a preconceived format.
3) Jim is a far better poet than you. Jim's poems strike the reader as >>>> being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality.
This is the other side of MMP's editorial philosophy: "When Jim is seen
as a potential ally, you request his poetry." That's raw, unadulterated
reality.
Your
poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.
GD: Interestingly, MMP concludes by once again praising the work of
an
ally Jim ("Edward") while insulting the work of an adversary. If he were >>> still here, I'm sure he'd shrug that off as just a coincidence.
MMP: J.D. Senetto is an exceptionally talented poet. In fact, my
greatest difficulty in selecting which poems to include in AYoS' year
end print journal, is in deciding which of Jim's poems to leave out.
Now, that's as adulatory as if the Chimp wrote it himself - and just as
meaningful, I'm afraid. As I've said, and not just to MMP and his team:
If a poet consistently praised his own and only his own work, that
wouldn't be seen as a comment on the work but on the poet. Do you agree
so far?
If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each
other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.
Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.
GD: Well, we can ask the readers who won this round: Michael's
adversary,
whose poem was edited by an illiterate; or Michael's ally, the
illiterate who did the editing.
MMP: I think it abundantly clear that Mr. Rochester is the winner, since >>> his "edit" of your poem has weighed so heavily on your consciousness
that you felt compelled to address it a second time... nearly two years
after the fact.
That should be "clear" to anyone. Rereading the thread and thinking of
new things to say would be enough to explain why I'd comment again.
There's no no reason to think that I'd thought of Mr. Chimp's edit in
the intervening time, and I certainly can't say that I have. For
another, I did not address his edit in my reply; I tried to keep the
focus consistently on MMP's "third man" intervention into the flame war
Mr. Chimp had begun; and the new points I made in that respect were
enough to merit a new reply.
OTOH, I doubt Jim has given it a single thought.
That's possibly true. It's questionable whether Mr. Chimp gives anything
he does much thought.
You sure have Michael Pendragon in a tizzy today.
😏
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 4:08:43 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:55:57 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
Yes, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) has returned, as Will and I
suspected. Even the name of his new sock, "HarryLime", looked like an
obvious clue to the "third man" on Team Monkey (the other two being
Jim/Edward and NancyGene). So we devised a way to have him out himself: >>>> Will would bump up an old thread, I'd reply to it, and if "Harry" were >>>> MMP, he wouldn't be able to resist replying. And it worked.
(Since the backthread has served its purpose, I've snipped most of it.) >>>>
It's "Jerk store!" time, again. George Dance re-responds to a post I >>>>> made almost two years ago (because he thinks I'm no longer here to smack >>>>> him around).
If further proof that this is MMP were needed, here it is: he walked
right into the trap, and he's still clueless that it even happened.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 4:13:51 +0000, Michael Pendragon wrote:
The above passage demonstrates why so-so poets should avoid
predetermined formats at all costs. The "sentence" is incomplete.
GD: That's because it wasn't a "sentence" until "Edward" added the full >>>>> stop. Which demonstrates only that so-so poets should avoid
repunctuating their betters' poetry.
MMP: GD is now aping PJR (because PJR is no longer here to slap him
around).
Years conspire to decrease possibilities.
GD: Exactly what the poem says, which Michael would have discovered if >>>>> he
had bothered to look it up. He didn't even need to look it up on line; >>>>> he could have found it in his own "literary journal" (AYOS 2021, 10). >>>>>
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of >>>>> poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does >>>>> not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces >>>>> on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back >>>> in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC. >>>>
These too lines don't form a coherent sentence.
GD: I think you mean those *two* lines. They are not a sentence, even in >>>>> Edward's edit, and neither of them are a sentence in the actual poem. >>>>> Once again, Edward added a full stop that's not in the original (as
Michael would have known, if he'd bothered to read the original).
MMP: It seems that Mr. Dance's purpose in reopening this thread is to >>>>> re-state that Mr. Rochester mistakenly added end punctuation to his
lines, thereby making his poem appear to be more illiterate than it
actually is.
MMP seems completely clueless about my actual "purpose" but that's par >>>> for the course. So let's focus on what's important:
(1) He claimed my poem was "illiterate";
(2) I pointed out that every example of "illiteracy" he found was added >>>> by his ally Jim;
(3) Now he's claiming my poem is still "illiterate".
Remember, again, that three years ago, when he still hoped to talk me
into becoming his ally, he considered it one of "the best poems" on aapc >>>> that year. Now that he considers me his adversary, it's "illiterate."
"When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to >>>> him and claim he can't write."
The fact that Mr. Dance feels compelled to do so nearly two years after >>>>> both the original post *and* after his original refutation demonstrates >>>>> an alarming degree of obsessive pettiness on his part.
LOL! Will picked the thread - and it's a good one - but there were many >>>> other possibilities. (heh!) Suffice it to say, Jim is a fool and no one >>>> in their right mind would judge their poetry by what he says about it. >>>>
GD: Having children restores the lost possibilities; you no longer have >>>>> them, but your children do.
MMP: No, they don't. If the poem is expressing a universal principle, >>>>> then the children's possibilities will necessarily be decreased as they >>>>> mature as well.
Sure, onr's children will fail to realize some of their possibilities, >>>> too; but they will also realize some that their parents did not. Just
because MMP or Jim failed to reach your own goals, for example, it does >>>> not follow that your children will fail at their goals as well.
This, again, is not a coherent sentence.
GD: Once again, that is solely due to Edward's editing.
MMP: "Once again,..." Quite. And one supposes that will be repeating it >>>>> yet a third time two years from now.
If MMP shows up two years from now with a new sock, we might try the
same thing. But not probably with a different thread; the archives are >>>> full of threads like this.
You really spend way too much
time interacting with the Donkey; his illiteracy is rubbing off.
GD: It figures that you'd try to blame Will; but I don't see how you can >>>>> blame him for Edward's sloppy editing.
MMP: Mr. Donkey serves as proof of the old adage concerning the "one bad >>>>> apple."
In this case, the presence of one illiterate member of a group causes >>>>> the other members to relax their standards.
Or, in the words of another adage, any group will inevitably settle to >>>>> the level of its lowest participant.
MMP repeatedly complains about me repeating this point, but it doesn't >>>> seem to have sunk in yet, so:
The only examples of "illiteracy" that have been shown in this thread
came from Jim. (Better yet, let's "settle" to MMP's level and start
calling Jim Mr. Chimp again.)
I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been >>>> shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's
adversary. As he says: "When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you
assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/EA_gCO9_BDk/m/DWT2Fq0TBwAJ?hl=en
How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to >>>>>> irrelevancy by years?
GD: As I already explained: they're restored in the next generation. >>>>>
MMP: And as I've already explained, the next generation's possibilities >>>>> are as limited as those of their forebears. Since time and circumstance >>>>> will *always* conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they >>>>> reach adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities at birth are
necessarily an illusion.
Nonsense; people can and do realize possibilities in their lives,
including those their ancestors never did. No one can do everything, of >>>> course, but plenty of people have done enough to justify their existence >>>> {many of whose ancestors did nothing to justify theirs, beyond - wait
for it - having families).
Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences),
GD: I do hope we've spent enough time on Edward's pseudo-sentences.
MMP: LOL! If Mr. Dance actually meant what he said, he wouldn't have >>>>> reopened a two-year old thread in order to bitch about Mr. Rochester's >>>>> "edits" to his poem a second time.
LOL right back. I've already explained why I commented on the thread
Will reopened. But I'm serious; we've advanced the debate. MMP has not >>>> disputed that all "illiteracy" he discovered was caused by Mr. Chimp,
but he's sticking to his story that the poem is still "illiterate"
anway, as per his editorial philosophy: "When [someone] is seen as an
adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write." >>>>
your
poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that >>>>>> the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to
achieve it.
What is "it"? No one realizes "unlimited" possibilites, but plenty of
people realize some, including ones their parents failed to realize.
As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take
solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential >>>>>> will be as unrealized as our own.
GD: Nothing in the poem about "compensation" - the word I used was
"justification". A person who has children has not completely wasted his >>>>> or her own life, no matter how much he or she hasn't done.
MMP: Sentimental hogwash.
Nothing sentimental about it. You or I have no idea what those children, >>>> or their children, or their children will do. That gives one a reason to >>>> value other people, to judge them to be at least worth not harming - but >>>> it's a reason based purely on self-interest, not sentiment.
I point to the example of "Joey" <snip>- and I'll snip it, because it looks like another attempt to flame Will >>>> and/or to change the subject. Instead, I'll give an example of my own. >>>>
One justifies one's life by adding value to the world.
Did Edgar Allan Poe add value to the world? I'd say yes, by his writing. >>>> Did John M. Poe add value to the world? I'm not aware of anything he
did, but I'd say yes for him as well, because he was EAP's
great-grandfather - without him, there'd have been no EAP.
That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem. Unfortunately, your >>>>>> attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines >>>>>> any possibilities ;-) it might have had.
GD: It's sad that Michael's opinion of the poem (which, as noted, he >>>>> previously published in his "literary journal") has fallen so much since >>>>> he put me on his enemy's list. I'm sure that was just a coincidence, >>>>> though.
MMP: Again, Mr. Dance is confusing the purpose of The Sunday Sampler, >>>>> and A Year of Sundays which is its current incarnation.
A Year of Sundays was created to provide a showcase for the best poetry >>>>> of each of AAPC's members. My opinion regarding Mr. Dance's poem has not >>>>> changed: it is without doubt one of Mr. Dance's better works.
Really? MMP claimed just days ago (in the post I'm replying to) that the >>>> poem was "illiterate". Now he's saying that he thought it was
"illiterate" when he published it in AYOS? Why would he publish an
"illiterate" poem? And why, FTM, what is holding him back from showing >>>> why he allegedly thought it was illiterate?
(Those are rhetorical questions, of course. I think MMP is bullshitting, >>>> and that his stated opinions did change, when he switched me from
potential ally to open adversary. But he is free to prove me wrong by
supplying credible answers.)
Nor is Mr. Dance on my imaginary "enemies list."
There is no need to even look for a quote. There is no other reason why >>>> MMP jumped into this discussion, two years ago or now, other than to
protect Mr. Chimpfrom me? Or why his Mr. Chimp even started it? One
that's better than this Team Monkey vs. Team Donkey thing you now claim >>>> to have no memory of?
*****Speaking of A Year of Sundays... I'm currently compiling our 2024 >>>>> print volume, which features the work of such (usenet) AAPC favorites as >>>>> J.D. Senetto, NancyGene, Ash Wurthing, Kevin Fries, Bob Burrows,
Hieronymous Corey, Karen Tellefsen, Richard Oakley, Wenceslas Kabeba, >>>>> and my oh-so-humble self; along with FB AAPC favorites, Louise Charlton >>>>> Webster, Scott Thomas, Bruce Boston, Robert Payne Cabeen, Paul Cordeiro, >>>>> ruth housman, Trinity-memyandi Venter, Jefferson Carter, Joseph Danoski, >>>>> Stephen Brooke, & Devin Anderson.*****
Congratulations; that's at least 19 people who'll buy a copy. Make that >>>> 20; I'll probably get one to see what Bruce Boston wrote.
But I digress
(backthread snipped)
1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any >>>>>> given form. One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a
triolet. All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the >>>>>> format.
GD: It certainly seems to be too hard for some people.
MMP: What a childish and petty thing to say!
MMP and his Mr. Chimp may believe they can write really wonderful
triolets if they felt like it. There is absolutely no reason for me to >>>> humor them, of course.
2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms. >>>>>See above.
If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me. >>>>>> Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit
themselves to someone else's rules.
GD: The "Muse" is a charming idea, which I've heard of; but I don't
remember ever seeing Her invoked to evade responsibility for one's
writing until
now.
MMP: Why do you lie so much, Mr. Dance?
There is not even a hint of evading poetic responsibility in my
statement.
It's clear here that MMP is saying no one can blame him or Mr. Chimp for >>>> what they write, because it's not their choice; their "muses" made them >>>> write it that way. You just take dictation.
Quite the contrary, it stresses the importance of *not*
sacrificing inspiration by forcing it into a preconceived format.
3) Jim is a far better poet than you. Jim's poems strike the reader as >>>>>> being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality.
This is the other side of MMP's editorial philosophy: "When Jim is seen >>>> as a potential ally, you request his poetry." That's raw, unadulterated >>>> reality.
YourGD: Interestingly, MMP concludes by once again praising the work of
poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats. >>>>>
an
ally Jim ("Edward") while insulting the work of an adversary. If he were >>>>> still here, I'm sure he'd shrug that off as just a coincidence.
MMP: J.D. Senetto is an exceptionally talented poet. In fact, my
greatest difficulty in selecting which poems to include in AYoS' year >>>>> end print journal, is in deciding which of Jim's poems to leave out.
Now, that's as adulatory as if the Chimp wrote it himself - and just as >>>> meaningful, I'm afraid. As I've said, and not just to MMP and his team: >>>>
If a poet consistently praised his own and only his own work, that
wouldn't be seen as a comment on the work but on the poet. Do you agree >>>> so far?
If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each
other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.
Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.
GD: Well, we can ask the readers who won this round: Michael's
adversary,
whose poem was edited by an illiterate; or Michael's ally, the
illiterate who did the editing.
MMP: I think it abundantly clear that Mr. Rochester is the winner, since >>>>> his "edit" of your poem has weighed so heavily on your consciousness >>>>> that you felt compelled to address it a second time... nearly two years >>>>> after the fact.
That should be "clear" to anyone. Rereading the thread and thinking of >>>> new things to say would be enough to explain why I'd comment again.
There's no no reason to think that I'd thought of Mr. Chimp's edit in
the intervening time, and I certainly can't say that I have. For
another, I did not address his edit in my reply; I tried to keep the
focus consistently on MMP's "third man" intervention into the flame war >>>> Mr. Chimp had begun; and the new points I made in that respect were
enough to merit a new reply.
OTOH, I doubt Jim has given it a single thought.
That's possibly true. It's questionable whether Mr. Chimp gives anything >>>> he does much thought.
You sure have Michael Pendragon in a tizzy today.
😏
Oh no! Not the dreaded tizzy!
How will I ever live it down???
--
You should be used to it by now, Pendragon.
😏
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:29:12 +0000, HarryLime wrote:CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&trchd=true
Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:12:08 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:00:07 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:54:17 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:48:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
That's a good point. Personally I do not like calling socks by theirSounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'llfrom
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime"
wrote:
MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does
not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by
now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back
in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he
considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC.
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased
behavior.
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called
a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential
adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack
those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.
When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he
can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,
but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar.
Well, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a
two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that I
should open a new threat where we can talk about that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime. >>>>>>>>>>>>
aliases puppets by their sock names; that also can be confusing, as it's
meant to be. So I've started calling the person behind all those socks
MMP for Michael Monkey Peabrain (or just Peabrain if he says something
really stupid, or Lying Michael whenever I catch him in a lie). But that
could also be confusing for new readers and casual readers, so I think
I'll have to refer to him, when talking to third parties, as something
else; something that will identify whom I mean to any new or casual
readers.
After some thought, I've settled on "the Lime sock" - what do you think?
https://www.zazzle.ca/lime_green_socks-256240956281961664?rf=238512069961476072&tc=CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&z_ca=20390696811&z_dev=c&z_nw=x&z_lp=9000899&gad_source=1&gclid=
Hilarious.
😏
And the childish name-calling continues.
This is why you and George are the only ones here, Donkey
Speaking of childish name calling ^^^
HTH and HAND.
At this late stage in the game
It's only January.
In your delusional mind perhaps, little green monkey boy
Donkey has stuck as your name
Only in your delusional imagination, Pendragon.
HTH and HAND.
https://www.reverbnation.com/willdonkey/videos
--
Your obsession with "Will Dockery" is noted.
Will Donkey is a fun character to work with. Have you checked out the
Pizza video? It's about a Delivery Boy who takes revenge on the
customers who don't tip him. You might actually enjoy it.
--
No, is the video on YouTube?
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 5:41:44 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
No, is the video on YouTube?
https://www.reverbnation.com/willdonkey/videos
This link takes you to all 7 of Will Donkey's videos. You can click on
the one titled "You Don't Know What I Done to Your Pizza" there.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:48:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&trchd=true
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:32:52 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:27:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:54:22 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253903&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253903
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:22:04 +0000, Michael Monkey aka "HarryLime" >>>>>>>> wrote:
This deserves an underscore as an example of Michael Pendragon's biased >>>>>>> behavior.MMP: My literary journal was created to highlight the best examples of
poetry from AAPC's various members. The best poetry by Member G does >>>>>>>>> not necessarily measure up to the best poetry of Member J.
As Mr. Dance has so ably demonstrated above, his own poem left no traces
on my memory.
MMP's memory lapses are something I'm sure we're all familiar with by >>>>>>>> now. But let us remember what else I just ably demonstrated: that back >>>>>>>> in 2021 (when he was still hoping to recruit me as an ally) he >>>>>>>> considered Possibilities one of "the best examples of poetry" on AAPC. >>>>>>>
Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called >>>>>> a statement of his editorial philosophy:
<quote>
"You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential >>>>>> adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack >>>>>> those of your potential adversaries."
"When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. >>>>>> When he
is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he >>>>>> can't write." </q>
source text:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5Ew/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en
That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said, >>>>>> but it can't be said often enough.
snip
In other words, Michael Pendragon is basically a two faced liar.
Well, not exactly, It means he comes across as no different from a
two-faced liar, but I think his mental state is more complex than that I >>>> should open a new threat where we can talk about that.
Sounds good, and to avoid confusion with new readers, from now on I'll
just refer to Pendragon by his new chosen alias Harry Lime.
That's a good point. Personally I do not like calling socks by their
aliases puppets by their sock names; that also can be confusing, as it's
meant to be. So I've started calling the person behind all those socks
MMP for Michael Monkey Peabrain (or just Peabrain if he says something
really stupid, or Lying Michael whenever I catch him in a lie). But that
could also be confusing for new readers and casual readers, so I think
I'll have to refer to him, when talking to third parties, as something
else; something that will identify whom I mean to any new or casual
readers.
After some thought, I've settled on "the Lime sock" - what do you think?
https://www.zazzle.ca/lime_green_socks-256240956281961664?rf=238512069961476072&tc=CjwKCAiA-ty8BhA_EiwAkyoa3_aFWzdIrL7epsnGiUBOmwWKHVyTWv2DT3XULBaoBmZv8YkfovgQhRoC6i8QAvD_BwE&z_ca=20390696811&z_dev=c&z_nw=x&z_lp=9000899&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA-
And so it goes.
🙂
George, Mummy Chunk asked where the "monkey" and "donkey" named came
from.
Don't they stretch back to the old Gary Gamble and PJR days in some
ways?
I honestly don't even remember at this point.
I know the never ending flame war began in 2017 when Jim Senetto and
Michael Pendragon decided they would drive Stephan Pickering from the
poetry newsgroup, before Nancy Gene had ever arrived here, but I'm not
sure when the childish name calling began.
Isn't there a timeline somewhere in the archives?
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:34:01 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 14:12:25 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:03:55 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 12:28:29 +0000, Will-Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael >>>>>> Pendragon?
Just curious.
Why is he called "monkey boy"???
It might come from the Pink Floyd Animals album, Lord of the Flies or >>>>> George
Orwell's Animal Farm, or possibly a mashup of all three.
I'm known as donkey, Pendleton is the monkey, Peter J. Ross was called >>>>> Piggy
(although PJR has been gone from the newsgroup for a couple of years >>>>> now).
I think George Dance has always just been referred to as "Dunce"
though.
That's the basics as I remember them.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=680817254#680817254
Again, Donkey, this is the story of how "Monkey" and "Donkey" came
about:
Since you've brought me back for one more day, Donkey, I'll answer your >>>> question here (and in the pointless duplicate thread you've created to >>>> ask it again it), as well.
The origin of "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with Gary Gamble.
Gary Gamble had left the group long before my arrival here. And as far >>>> as I know, I have never interacted with him.
In fact, "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with anything said at AAPC.
I live in a very small house that was built in the 1920s. I like to
think of it as a rustic cottage or a cozy bungalow. In order to expand >>>> the living space, one of the previous owners finished the basement, and >>>> turned it into a combination kitchen, dining room and bar. I keep my
computer down there, so when I'm online, I'm technically in the
basement.
About seven years ago (give or take), my wife sent our youngest child
downstairs to see what I was doing. He looked over my shoulder while I >>>> was posting something to Usenet AAPC, and shouted up to her "He's
talking to Will Donkey the computer."
Since the idea of someone conversing with a donkey on computer is funny, >>>> it immediately became a running joke in our house. "Daddy's talking to >>>> Will Donkey again," etc).
Since stubbornness is one of your strongest characteristics, I
immediately began addressing you as "Will Donkey" in AAPC as well.
"Monkey," otoh, came about when Karen Tellefsen wrote a satirical poem >>>> about our endless flame war here, set to the tune of "Pop Goes the
Weasel." "Pop Goes the Weasel," in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a >>>> nursery rhyme about a monkey chasing a weasel around a cobbler's bench. >>>> In her poem, she replaced "Weasel" with "Donkey" (signifying you, as I >>>> had already started calling you "Will Donkey" at that time). She
retained "Monkey" from the original because I often posted under my
backup account here as "Coco DeSockmonkey."
I remember Coco.
You and George immediately started calling me "Michael Monkey" as a
result.
No, I almost always have called you Michael Pendragon, choosing to take
the high road and not dink to your low level of childish insults and
name calling.
You've been calling me a "Little Green Monkey" for the past week or so,
Tit for Tat, look it up.
There ypu have it: "Will Donkey" came from my son's misreading of your >>>> name on my monitor, and "Michael Monkey" came from Karen's satirical
poem.
--
That sounds about right except the animal name calling really goes back
to earlier times.
Mummy Chunks asked you where the "Monkey Boy" name came from -- not when
calling people by childish animal names began.
Well, we should start at where it all begins, never mind that you second handed the idea, Pendragon.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 16:23:17 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 22:31:52 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:34:01 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 14:12:25 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:03:55 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 12:28:29 +0000, Will-Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael >>>>>>>> Pendragon?
Just curious.
Why is he called "monkey boy"???
It seems that the origin stories vary.
Tit for Tat, look it up.It might come from the Pink Floyd Animals album, Lord of the Flies or >>>>>>> George
Orwell's Animal Farm, or possibly a mashup of all three.
I'm known as donkey, Pendleton is the monkey, Peter J. Ross was called >>>>>>> Piggy
(although PJR has been gone from the newsgroup for a couple of years >>>>>>> now).
I think George Dance has always just been referred to as "Dunce" >>>>>>> though.
That's the basics as I remember them.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=680817254#680817254
Again, Donkey, this is the story of how "Monkey" and "Donkey" came >>>>>> about:
Since you've brought me back for one more day, Donkey, I'll answer your >>>>>> question here (and in the pointless duplicate thread you've created to >>>>>> ask it again it), as well.
The origin of "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with Gary Gamble.
Gary Gamble had left the group long before my arrival here. And as far >>>>>> as I know, I have never interacted with him.
In fact, "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with anything said at AAPC. >>>>>>
I live in a very small house that was built in the 1920s. I like to >>>>>> think of it as a rustic cottage or a cozy bungalow. In order to expand >>>>>> the living space, one of the previous owners finished the basement, and >>>>>> turned it into a combination kitchen, dining room and bar. I keep my >>>>>> computer down there, so when I'm online, I'm technically in the
basement.
About seven years ago (give or take), my wife sent our youngest child >>>>>> downstairs to see what I was doing. He looked over my shoulder while I >>>>>> was posting something to Usenet AAPC, and shouted up to her "He's
talking to Will Donkey the computer."
Since the idea of someone conversing with a donkey on computer is funny, >>>>>> it immediately became a running joke in our house. "Daddy's talking to >>>>>> Will Donkey again," etc).
Since stubbornness is one of your strongest characteristics, I
immediately began addressing you as "Will Donkey" in AAPC as well. >>>>>>
"Monkey," otoh, came about when Karen Tellefsen wrote a satirical poem >>>>>> about our endless flame war here, set to the tune of "Pop Goes the >>>>>> Weasel." "Pop Goes the Weasel," in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a >>>>>> nursery rhyme about a monkey chasing a weasel around a cobbler's bench. >>>>>> In her poem, she replaced "Weasel" with "Donkey" (signifying you, as I >>>>>> had already started calling you "Will Donkey" at that time). She
retained "Monkey" from the original because I often posted under my >>>>>> backup account here as "Coco DeSockmonkey."
I remember Coco.
You and George immediately started calling me "Michael Monkey" as a >>>>>> result.
No, I almost always have called you Michael Pendragon, choosing to take >>>>> the high road and not dink to your low level of childish insults and >>>>> name calling.
You've been calling me a "Little Green Monkey" for the past week or so, >>>
No kidding, Pee-wee.
It just counteracts your claim that you "almost always have called (me)
Michael Pendragon."
There ypu have it: "Will Donkey" came from my son's misreading of your >>>>>> name on my monitor, and "Michael Monkey" came from Karen's satirical >>>>>> poem.
--
That sounds about right except the animal name calling really goes back >>>>> to earlier times.
Mummy Chunks asked you where the "Monkey Boy" name came from -- not when >>>> calling people by childish animal names began.
Well, we should start at where it all begins, never mind that you second >>> handed the idea, Pendragon.
MummyChunk didn't ask when the childish name-calling began. They asked
about the origin of "Monkey Boy."
We should start by answering the actual question that was asked.
--
Okay, fair enough, let's do that.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:56:41 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:42:27 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:34:01 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:03:55 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael >>>>>>>>>> Pendragon?
Just curious.
Why is he called "monkey boy"???
It seems that the origin stories vary.
Tit for Tat, look it up.It might come from the Pink Floyd Animals album, Lord of the Flies or >>>>>>>>> George
Orwell's Animal Farm, or possibly a mashup of all three.
I'm known as donkey, Pendleton is the monkey, Peter J. Ross was called
Piggy
(although PJR has been gone from the newsgroup for a couple of years >>>>>>>>> now).
I think George Dance has always just been referred to as "Dunce" >>>>>>>>> though.
That's the basics as I remember them.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=680817254#680817254
Again, Donkey, this is the story of how "Monkey" and "Donkey" came >>>>>>>> about:
Since you've brought me back for one more day, Donkey, I'll answer your
question here (and in the pointless duplicate thread you've created to >>>>>>>> ask it again it), as well.
The origin of "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with Gary Gamble. >>>>>>>>
Gary Gamble had left the group long before my arrival here. And as far
as I know, I have never interacted with him.
In fact, "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with anything said at AAPC. >>>>>>>>
I live in a very small house that was built in the 1920s. I like to >>>>>>>> think of it as a rustic cottage or a cozy bungalow. In order to expand
the living space, one of the previous owners finished the basement, and
turned it into a combination kitchen, dining room and bar. I keep my >>>>>>>> computer down there, so when I'm online, I'm technically in the >>>>>>>> basement.
About seven years ago (give or take), my wife sent our youngest child >>>>>>>> downstairs to see what I was doing. He looked over my shoulder while I
was posting something to Usenet AAPC, and shouted up to her "He's >>>>>>>> talking to Will Donkey the computer."
Since the idea of someone conversing with a donkey on computer is funny,
it immediately became a running joke in our house. "Daddy's talking to
Will Donkey again," etc).
Since stubbornness is one of your strongest characteristics, I >>>>>>>> immediately began addressing you as "Will Donkey" in AAPC as well. >>>>>>>>
"Monkey," otoh, came about when Karen Tellefsen wrote a satirical poem >>>>>>>> about our endless flame war here, set to the tune of "Pop Goes the >>>>>>>> Weasel." "Pop Goes the Weasel," in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a
nursery rhyme about a monkey chasing a weasel around a cobbler's bench.
In her poem, she replaced "Weasel" with "Donkey" (signifying you, as I >>>>>>>> had already started calling you "Will Donkey" at that time). She >>>>>>>> retained "Monkey" from the original because I often posted under my >>>>>>>> backup account here as "Coco DeSockmonkey."
I remember Coco.
You and George immediately started calling me "Michael Monkey" as a >>>>>>>> result.
No, I almost always have called you Michael Pendragon, choosing to take >>>>>>> the high road and not dink to your low level of childish insults and >>>>>>> name calling.
You've been calling me a "Little Green Monkey" for the past week or so, >>>>>
No kidding, Pee-wee.
It just counteracts your claim that you "almost always have called (me) >>>> Michael Pendragon."
There ypu have it: "Will Donkey" came from my son's misreading of your >>>>>>>> name on my monitor, and "Michael Monkey" came from Karen's satirical >>>>>>>> poem.
--
That sounds about right except the animal name calling really goes back >>>>>>> to earlier times.
Mummy Chunks asked you where the "Monkey Boy" name came from -- not when >>>>>> calling people by childish animal names began.
Well, we should start at where it all begins, never mind that you second >>>>> handed the idea, Pendragon.
MummyChunk didn't ask when the childish name-calling began. They asked >>>> about the origin of "Monkey Boy."
We should start by answering the actual question that was asked.
--
Okay, fair enough, let's do that.
I did.
--
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon.
I'll have a look at your response and correct the lies and
misrepresentations and set the record straight.
After I make myself a cup of coffee and find your original post.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 14:29:07 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:01:42 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:56:41 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:42:27 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:34:01 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:03:55 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael >>>>>>>>>>>> Pendragon?
Just curious.
Why is he called "monkey boy"???
It seems that the origin stories vary.
It might come from the Pink Floyd Animals album, Lord of the Flies orAgain, Donkey, this is the story of how "Monkey" and "Donkey" came >>>>>>>>>> about:
George
Orwell's Animal Farm, or possibly a mashup of all three. >>>>>>>>>>>
I'm known as donkey, Pendleton is the monkey, Peter J. Ross was called
Piggy
(although PJR has been gone from the newsgroup for a couple of years
now).
I think George Dance has always just been referred to as "Dunce" >>>>>>>>>>> though.
That's the basics as I remember them.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=680817254#680817254 >>>>>>>>>>
Since you've brought me back for one more day, Donkey, I'll answer your
question here (and in the pointless duplicate thread you've created to
ask it again it), as well.
The origin of "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with Gary Gamble. >>>>>>>>>>
Gary Gamble had left the group long before my arrival here. And as far
as I know, I have never interacted with him.
In fact, "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with anything said at AAPC. >>>>>>>>>>
I live in a very small house that was built in the 1920s. I like to >>>>>>>>>> think of it as a rustic cottage or a cozy bungalow. In order to expand
the living space, one of the previous owners finished the basement, and
turned it into a combination kitchen, dining room and bar. I keep my
computer down there, so when I'm online, I'm technically in the >>>>>>>>>> basement.
About seven years ago (give or take), my wife sent our youngest child
downstairs to see what I was doing. He looked over my shoulder while I
was posting something to Usenet AAPC, and shouted up to her "He's >>>>>>>>>> talking to Will Donkey the computer."
Since the idea of someone conversing with a donkey on computer is funny,
it immediately became a running joke in our house. "Daddy's talking to
Will Donkey again," etc).
Since stubbornness is one of your strongest characteristics, I >>>>>>>>>> immediately began addressing you as "Will Donkey" in AAPC as well. >>>>>>>>>>
"Monkey," otoh, came about when Karen Tellefsen wrote a satirical poem
about our endless flame war here, set to the tune of "Pop Goes the >>>>>>>>>> Weasel." "Pop Goes the Weasel," in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a
nursery rhyme about a monkey chasing a weasel around a cobbler's bench.
In her poem, she replaced "Weasel" with "Donkey" (signifying you, as I
had already started calling you "Will Donkey" at that time). She >>>>>>>>>> retained "Monkey" from the original because I often posted under my >>>>>>>>>> backup account here as "Coco DeSockmonkey."
I remember Coco.
You and George immediately started calling me "Michael Monkey" as a >>>>>>>>>> result.
No, I almost always have called you Michael Pendragon, choosing to take
the high road and not dink to your low level of childish insults and >>>>>>>>> name calling.
You've been calling me a "Little Green Monkey" for the past week or so,
Tit for Tat, look it up.
No kidding, Pee-wee.
It just counteracts your claim that you "almost always have called (me) >>>>>> Michael Pendragon."
There ypu have it: "Will Donkey" came from my son's misreading of your
name on my monitor, and "Michael Monkey" came from Karen's satirical >>>>>>>>>> poem.
--
That sounds about right except the animal name calling really goes back
to earlier times.
Mummy Chunks asked you where the "Monkey Boy" name came from -- not when
calling people by childish animal names began.
Well, we should start at where it all begins, never mind that you second
handed the idea, Pendragon.
MummyChunk didn't ask when the childish name-calling began. They asked >>>>>> about the origin of "Monkey Boy."
We should start by answering the actual question that was asked.
--
Okay, fair enough, let's do that.
I did.
--
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael
Pendragon.
That simply isn't true
Of course I don't expect you to admit it, Pendragon.
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:03:55 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael
Pendragon?
Just curious.
Why is he called "monkey boy"???
It seems that the origin stories vary.
It might come from the Pink Floyd Animals album, Lord of the Flies orAgain, Donkey, this is the story of how "Monkey" and "Donkey" came >>>>>>>>>>>> about:
George
Orwell's Animal Farm, or possibly a mashup of all three. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm known as donkey, Pendleton is the monkey, Peter J. Ross was called
Piggy
(although PJR has been gone from the newsgroup for a couple of years
now).
I think George Dance has always just been referred to as "Dunce" >>>>>>>>>>>>> though.
That's the basics as I remember them.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=680817254#680817254 >>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you've brought me back for one more day, Donkey, I'll answer your
question here (and in the pointless duplicate thread you've created to
ask it again it), as well.
The origin of "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with Gary Gamble. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Gary Gamble had left the group long before my arrival here. And as far
as I know, I have never interacted with him.
In fact, "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with anything said at AAPC.
I live in a very small house that was built in the 1920s. I like to
think of it as a rustic cottage or a cozy bungalow. In order to expand
the living space, one of the previous owners finished the basement, and
turned it into a combination kitchen, dining room and bar. I keep my
computer down there, so when I'm online, I'm technically in the >>>>>>>>>>>> basement.
About seven years ago (give or take), my wife sent our youngest child
downstairs to see what I was doing. He looked over my shoulder while I
was posting something to Usenet AAPC, and shouted up to her "He's >>>>>>>>>>>> talking to Will Donkey the computer."
Since the idea of someone conversing with a donkey on computer is funny,
it immediately became a running joke in our house. "Daddy's talking to
Will Donkey again," etc).
Since stubbornness is one of your strongest characteristics, I >>>>>>>>>>>> immediately began addressing you as "Will Donkey" in AAPC as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>
"Monkey," otoh, came about when Karen Tellefsen wrote a satirical poem
about our endless flame war here, set to the tune of "Pop Goes the >>>>>>>>>>>> Weasel." "Pop Goes the Weasel," in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a
nursery rhyme about a monkey chasing a weasel around a cobbler's bench.
In her poem, she replaced "Weasel" with "Donkey" (signifying you, as I
had already started calling you "Will Donkey" at that time). She >>>>>>>>>>>> retained "Monkey" from the original because I often posted under my
backup account here as "Coco DeSockmonkey."
I remember Coco.
You and George immediately started calling me "Michael Monkey" as a
result.
No, I almost always have called you Michael Pendragon, choosing to take
the high road and not dink to your low level of childish insults and
name calling.
You've been calling me a "Little Green Monkey" for the past week or so,
Tit for Tat, look it up.
No kidding, Pee-wee.
It just counteracts your claim that you "almost always have called (me)
Michael Pendragon."
There ypu have it: "Will Donkey" came from my son's misreading of your
name on my monitor, and "Michael Monkey" came from Karen's satirical
poem.
--
That sounds about right except the animal name calling really goes back
to earlier times.
Mummy Chunks asked you where the "Monkey Boy" name came from -- not when
calling people by childish animal names began.
Well, we should start at where it all begins, never mind that you second
handed the idea, Pendragon.
MummyChunk didn't ask when the childish name-calling began. They asked
about the origin of "Monkey Boy."
We should start by answering the actual question that was asked. >>>>>>>>
--
Okay, fair enough, let's do that.
I did.
--
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael >>>>> Pendragon.
That simply isn't true
Of course I don't expect you to admit it, Pendragon.
You know the rules
You break the rules with your lies and misrepresentations almost every
day, Pendragon.
Any so-called "misrepresentation" you can find was based on
They're based on figments of your delusional imagination, Pendragon,
when they're not outright lies.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 19:40:08 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 19:29:28 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:03:55 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael
Pendragon?
Just curious.
Why is he called "monkey boy"???
It seems that the origin stories vary.
It might come from the Pink Floyd Animals album, Lord of the Flies orAgain, Donkey, this is the story of how "Monkey" and "Donkey" came
George
Orwell's Animal Farm, or possibly a mashup of all three. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm known as donkey, Pendleton is the monkey, Peter J. Ross was called
Piggy
(although PJR has been gone from the newsgroup for a couple of years
now).
I think George Dance has always just been referred to as "Dunce"
though.
That's the basics as I remember them.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=680817254#680817254 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
about:
Since you've brought me back for one more day, Donkey, I'll answer your
question here (and in the pointless duplicate thread you've created to
ask it again it), as well.
The origin of "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with Gary Gamble. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gary Gamble had left the group long before my arrival here. And as far
as I know, I have never interacted with him.
In fact, "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with anything said at AAPC.
I live in a very small house that was built in the 1920s. I like to
think of it as a rustic cottage or a cozy bungalow. In order to expand
the living space, one of the previous owners finished the basement, and
turned it into a combination kitchen, dining room and bar. I keep my
computer down there, so when I'm online, I'm technically in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> basement.
About seven years ago (give or take), my wife sent our youngest child
downstairs to see what I was doing. He looked over my shoulder while I
was posting something to Usenet AAPC, and shouted up to her "He's
talking to Will Donkey the computer."
Since the idea of someone conversing with a donkey on computer is funny,
it immediately became a running joke in our house. "Daddy's talking to
Will Donkey again," etc).
Since stubbornness is one of your strongest characteristics, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately began addressing you as "Will Donkey" in AAPC as well.
"Monkey," otoh, came about when Karen Tellefsen wrote a satirical poem
about our endless flame war here, set to the tune of "Pop Goes the
Weasel." "Pop Goes the Weasel," in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a
nursery rhyme about a monkey chasing a weasel around a cobbler's bench.
In her poem, she replaced "Weasel" with "Donkey" (signifying you, as I
had already started calling you "Will Donkey" at that time). She >>>>>>>>>>>>>> retained "Monkey" from the original because I often posted under my
backup account here as "Coco DeSockmonkey."
I remember Coco.
You and George immediately started calling me "Michael Monkey" as a
result.
No, I almost always have called you Michael Pendragon, choosing to take
the high road and not dink to your low level of childish insults and
name calling.
You've been calling me a "Little Green Monkey" for the past week or so,
Tit for Tat, look it up.
No kidding, Pee-wee.
It just counteracts your claim that you "almost always have called (me)
Michael Pendragon."
There ypu have it: "Will Donkey" came from my son's misreading of your
name on my monitor, and "Michael Monkey" came from Karen's satirical
poem.
--
That sounds about right except the animal name calling really goes back
to earlier times.
Mummy Chunks asked you where the "Monkey Boy" name came from -- not when
calling people by childish animal names began.
Well, we should start at where it all begins, never mind that you second
handed the idea, Pendragon.
MummyChunk didn't ask when the childish name-calling began. They asked
about the origin of "Monkey Boy."
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael >>>>>>> Pendragon.
That simply isn't true
Of course I don't expect you to admit it, Pendragon.
You know the rules
You break the rules with your lies and misrepresentations almost every
day, Pendragon.
I point out your lies and misrepresentations often, and will continue to
do so, Pendragon.
Any so-called "misrepresentation" you can find was based on
There's dozens in the archives.
They're based on figments of your delusional imagination, Pendragon,
when they're not outright lies.
You show me a "lie
We've been through this a dozen times or more since 2017, you never
admit to your lies and misrepresentations.
We all know this.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:48:43 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 14:29:07 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:01:42 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:56:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:42:27 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:34:01 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka >>>>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:03:55 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka >>>>>>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pendragon?
Just curious.
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael >>>> Pendragon.
That simply isn't true
Of course I don't expect you to admit it, Pendragon.
You know the rules, Donkey: PPSFU (Post Proof or Shut the Fuck Up).
Any so-called "misrepresentation" you can find was based on one of
*your* posts.
I only know you from what you post here, Donkey. If you write a poem
based on a "romantic interlude" where you grope a woman you barely knew,
then I'm going to say that you sexually assaulted her (because according
to your poem, that's exactly what you did).
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 16:43:24 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:48:43 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 14:29:07 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:01:42 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:56:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:42:27 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:34:01 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka >>>>>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:03:55 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka >>>>>>>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael
Pendragon?
Just curious.
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael >>>>> Pendragon.
That simply isn't true
Of course I don't expect you to admit it, Pendragon.
You know the rules, Donkey: PPSFU (Post Proof or Shut the Fuck Up).
Any so-called "misrepresentation" you can find was based on one of
*your* posts.
Oh, so HarryLiar wants proof? Let's look at his next paragraph:
I only know you from what you post here, Donkey. If you write a poem
based on a "romantic interlude" where you grope a woman you barely knew,
then I'm going to say that you sexually assaulted her (because according
to your poem, that's exactly what you did).
Harry Liar reposted an "edited" poem Will had written over 40 years ago
about a dream he'd had. You reposted part of the poem, snipping the line about it being a dream, to falsely accuse him of sexual assault.
Here's the thread, so readers can see for themselves: https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=15788&group=rec.arts.poems#15788
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 21:55:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 14:29:07 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:01:42 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:56:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:42:27 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael
Pendragon?
Just curious.
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael >>>>>> Pendragon.
That simply isn't true
Of course I don't expect you to admit it, Pendragon.
You know the rules, Donkey: PPSFU (Post Proof or Shut the Fuck Up).
Any so-called "misrepresentation" you can find was based on one of
*your* posts.
Oh, so HarryLiar wants proof? Let's look at his next paragraph:
I only know you from what you post here, Donkey. If you write a poem
based on a "romantic interlude" where you grope a woman you barely knew, >>> then I'm going to say that you sexually assaulted her (because according >>> to your poem, that's exactly what you did).
Harry Liar reposted an "edited" poem Will had written over 40 years ago
about a dream he'd had. You reposted part of the poem, snipping the line
about it being a dream, to falsely accuse him of sexual assault.
Here's the thread, so readers can see for themselves:
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=15788&group=rec.arts.poems#15788
Thanks, George.
I see that Harry Lime aka Michael Pendragon is bringing his attacks on
me here, spreading his lies and misrepresentations.
Never mind the Harry Lime bullocks, here's the original unedited version
so the readers can decide for
themselves:
***
I Met A Girl
I met a girl
she came from California.
It was in a dream
we knew each other instantly.
She was a little freckled girl
from out of
my high school past.
And she looked up at me
and talked real spacey.
I've forgotten her name
though she told it to me twice.
We talked
a really detached situation.
She said years ago
I was so shy
she thought I was gay.
At this point I kissed her
and put my finger to her hole.
And she looked up at me
and talked real spacey.
I have forgotten her name
though she told it to me twice.
I don't know why it was
that I would think of her.
I made a couple of puns
about her name that made me blush.
But her softness in tone
made me feel all right.
All I want to do
is get in contact.
-Will Dockery / May 8 1982
***
Again, this poem was written in 1982, during my time in the Atlanta
Georgia New Wave punk rock scene, while also influenced by the earlier Beatnik poets
I was reading at the time, such as Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and
Charles Bukowski among others.
Both styles employed a sort of crude swagger in the tone and content
which I also used in many of my poems.
Again, all apologies to those offended.
HTH and HAND, again.
😏
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:43:16 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:55:06 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 21:55:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 14:29:07 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:01:42 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:56:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:42:27 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael
Pendragon?
Just curious.
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael >>>>>>>> Pendragon.
That simply isn't true
Of course I don't expect you to admit it, Pendragon.
You know the rules, Donkey: PPSFU (Post Proof or Shut the Fuck Up).
Any so-called "misrepresentation" you can find was based on one of
*your* posts.
Oh, so HarryLiar wants proof? Let's look at his next paragraph:
I only know you from what you post here, Donkey. If you write a poem >>>>> based on a "romantic interlude" where you grope a woman you barely knew, >>>>> then I'm going to say that you sexually assaulted her (because according >>>>> to your poem, that's exactly what you did).
Harry Liar reposted an "edited" poem Will had written over 40 years ago >>>> about a dream he'd had. You reposted part of the poem, snipping the line >>>> about it being a dream, to falsely accuse him of sexual assault.
Here's the thread, so readers can see for themselves:
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=15788&group=rec.arts.poems#15788
Thanks, George.
I see that Harry Lime aka Michael Pendragon is bringing his attacks on
me here, spreading his lies and misrepresentations.
Never mind the Harry Lime bullocks, here's the original unedited version >>> so the readers can decide for
themselves:
***
I Met A Girl
I met a girl
she came from California.
It was in a dream
we knew each other instantly.
She was a little freckled girl
from out of
my high school past.
And she looked up at me
and talked real spacey.
I've forgotten her name
though she told it to me twice.
We talked
a really detached situation.
She said years ago
I was so shy
she thought I was gay.
At this point I kissed her
and put my finger to her hole.
And she looked up at me
and talked real spacey.
I have forgotten her name
though she told it to me twice.
I don't know why it was
that I would think of her.
I made a couple of puns
about her name that made me blush.
But her softness in tone
made me feel all right.
All I want to do
is get in contact.
-Will Dockery / May 8 1982
***
Again, this poem was written in 1982, during my time in the Atlanta
Georgia New Wave punk rock scene, while also influenced by the earlier
Beatnik poets
I was reading at the time, such as Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and
Charles Bukowski among others.
Both styles employed a sort of crude swagger in the tone and content
which I also used in many of my poems.
Again, all apologies to those offended.
HTH and HAND, again.
😏
And again, the poem is your attempt to recast what can only be seen as
an act of sexual assault (at least insofar as it's depicted in your
poem) as a "romantic interlude" from you past.
No, that's your attempt to misrepresent the meaning of my poem.
HTH and HAND.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 20:43:32 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:08:03 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:43:16 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:55:06 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 21:55:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 14:29:07 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:01:42 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:56:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka >>>>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:42:27 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael
Pendragon?
Just curious.
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael
Pendragon.
That simply isn't true
Of course I don't expect you to admit it, Pendragon.
You know the rules, Donkey: PPSFU (Post Proof or Shut the Fuck Up). >>>>>>>
Any so-called "misrepresentation" you can find was based on one of >>>>>>> *your* posts.
Oh, so HarryLiar wants proof? Let's look at his next paragraph:
I only know you from what you post here, Donkey. If you write a poem >>>>>>> based on a "romantic interlude" where you grope a woman you barely knew,
then I'm going to say that you sexually assaulted her (because according
to your poem, that's exactly what you did).
Harry Liar reposted an "edited" poem Will had written over 40 years ago >>>>>> about a dream he'd had. You reposted part of the poem, snipping the line >>>>>> about it being a dream, to falsely accuse him of sexual assault.
Here's the thread, so readers can see for themselves:
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=15788&group=rec.arts.poems#15788
Thanks, George.
I see that Harry Lime aka Michael Pendragon is bringing his attacks on >>>>> me here, spreading his lies and misrepresentations.
Never mind the Harry Lime bullocks, here's the original unedited version >>>>> so the readers can decide for
themselves:
***
I Met A Girl
I met a girl
she came from California.
It was in a dream
we knew each other instantly.
She was a little freckled girl
from out of
my high school past.
And she looked up at me
and talked real spacey.
I've forgotten her name
though she told it to me twice.
We talked
a really detached situation.
She said years ago
I was so shy
she thought I was gay.
At this point I kissed her
and put my finger to her hole.
And she looked up at me
and talked real spacey.
I have forgotten her name
though she told it to me twice.
I don't know why it was
that I would think of her.
I made a couple of puns
about her name that made me blush.
But her softness in tone
made me feel all right.
All I want to do
is get in contact.
-Will Dockery / May 8 1982
***
Again, this poem was written in 1982, during my time in the Atlanta
Georgia New Wave punk rock scene, while also influenced by the earlier >>>>> Beatnik poets
I was reading at the time, such as Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and
Charles Bukowski among others.
Both styles employed a sort of crude swagger in the tone and content >>>>> which I also used in many of my poems.
Again, all apologies to those offended.
HTH and HAND, again.
😏
And again, the poem is your attempt to recast what can only be seen as >>>> an act of sexual assault (at least insofar as it's depicted in your
poem) as a "romantic interlude" from you past.
No, that's your attempt to misrepresent the meaning of my poem.
HTH and HAND.
The meaning of your poem (or any given poem) is derived from the words
that comprise it.
The meaning of your poem is quite clear. It's just not the meaning
you'd intended it to have.
--
That's your opinion, Harry.
Others, including myself and George Dance, don't agree.
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:55:06 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 21:55:28 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 14:29:07 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka >>>>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:01:42 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:56:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka >>>>>>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:42:27 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael
Pendragon?
Just curious.
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael
Pendragon.
That simply isn't true
Of course I don't expect you to admit it, Pendragon.
You know the rules, Donkey: PPSFU (Post Proof or Shut the Fuck Up). >>>>>>>>>
Any so-called "misrepresentation" you can find was based on one of >>>>>>>>> *your* posts.
Oh, so HarryLiar wants proof? Let's look at his next paragraph: >>>>>>>>
I only know you from what you post here, Donkey. If you write a poem >>>>>>>>> based on a "romantic interlude" where you grope a woman you barely knew,
then I'm going to say that you sexually assaulted her (because according
to your poem, that's exactly what you did).
Harry Liar reposted an "edited" poem Will had written over 40 years ago
about a dream he'd had. You reposted part of the poem, snipping the line
about it being a dream, to falsely accuse him of sexual assault. >>>>>>>>
Here's the thread, so readers can see for themselves:
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=15788&group=rec.arts.poems#15788
Thanks, George.
I see that Harry Lime aka Michael Pendragon is bringing his attacks on >>>>>>> me here, spreading his lies and misrepresentations.
Never mind the Harry Lime bullocks, here's the original unedited version
so the readers can decide for
themselves:
***
I Met A Girl
I met a girl
she came from California.
It was in a dream
we knew each other instantly.
She was a little freckled girl
from out of
my high school past.
And she looked up at me
and talked real spacey.
I've forgotten her name
though she told it to me twice.
We talked
a really detached situation.
She said years ago
I was so shy
she thought I was gay.
At this point I kissed her
and put my finger to her hole.
And she looked up at me
and talked real spacey.
I have forgotten her name
though she told it to me twice.
I don't know why it was
that I would think of her.
I made a couple of puns
about her name that made me blush.
But her softness in tone
made me feel all right.
All I want to do
is get in contact.
-Will Dockery / May 8 1982
***
Again, this poem was written in 1982, during my time in the Atlanta >>>>>>> Georgia New Wave punk rock scene, while also influenced by the earlier >>>>>>> Beatnik poets
I was reading at the time, such as Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and >>>>>>> Charles Bukowski among others.
Both styles employed a sort of crude swagger in the tone and content >>>>>>> which I also used in many of my poems.
Again, all apologies to those offended.
HTH and HAND, again.
😏
And again, the poem is your attempt to recast what can only be seen as >>>>>> an act of sexual assault (at least insofar as it's depicted in your >>>>>> poem) as a "romantic interlude" from you past.
No, that's your attempt to misrepresent the meaning of my poem.
HTH and HAND.
You had a dream
That's correct.
“Yes, the poem itself is based on a dream I had 43 years ago;
Autocorrect typo fixed.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 14:29:07 +0000, HarryLime wrote:No file chosen
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:01:42 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:34:01 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:03:55 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, monkey boy Michael >>>>>>>>>>>> Pendragon?
Just curious.
Why is he called "monkey boy"???
It seems that the origin stories vary.
It might come from the Pink Floyd Animals album, Lord of the Flies orAgain, Donkey, this is the story of how "Monkey" and "Donkey" came >>>>>>>>>> about:
George
Orwell's Animal Farm, or possibly a mashup of all three. >>>>>>>>>>>
I'm known as donkey, Pendleton is the monkey, Peter J. Ross was called
Piggy
(although PJR has been gone from the newsgroup for a couple of years
now).
I think George Dance has always just been referred to as "Dunce" >>>>>>>>>>> though.
That's the basics as I remember them.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=680817254#680817254 >>>>>>>>>>
Since you've brought me back for one more day, Donkey, I'll answer your
question here (and in the pointless duplicate thread you've created to
ask it again it), as well.
The origin of "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with Gary Gamble. >>>>>>>>>>
Gary Gamble had left the group long before my arrival here. And as far
as I know, I have never interacted with him.
In fact, "Will Donkey" had nothing to do with anything said at AAPC. >>>>>>>>>>
I live in a very small house that was built in the 1920s. I like to >>>>>>>>>> think of it as a rustic cottage or a cozy bungalow. In order to expand
the living space, one of the previous owners finished the basement, and
turned it into a combination kitchen, dining room and bar. I keep my
computer down there, so when I'm online, I'm technically in the >>>>>>>>>> basement.
About seven years ago (give or take), my wife sent our youngest child
downstairs to see what I was doing. He looked over my shoulder while I
was posting something to Usenet AAPC, and shouted up to her "He's >>>>>>>>>> talking to Will Donkey the computer."
Since the idea of someone conversing with a donkey on computer is funny,
it immediately became a running joke in our house. "Daddy's talking to
Will Donkey again," etc).
Since stubbornness is one of your strongest characteristics, I >>>>>>>>>> immediately began addressing you as "Will Donkey" in AAPC as well. >>>>>>>>>>
"Monkey," otoh, came about when Karen Tellefsen wrote a satirical poem
about our endless flame war here, set to the tune of "Pop Goes the >>>>>>>>>> Weasel." "Pop Goes the Weasel," in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a
nursery rhyme about a monkey chasing a weasel around a cobbler's bench.
In her poem, she replaced "Weasel" with "Donkey" (signifying you, as I
had already started calling you "Will Donkey" at that time). She >>>>>>>>>> retained "Monkey" from the original because I often posted under my >>>>>>>>>> backup account here as "Coco DeSockmonkey."
I remember Coco.
You and George immediately started calling me "Michael Monkey" as a >>>>>>>>>> result.
No, I almost always have called you Michael Pendragon, choosing to take
the high road and not dink to your low level of childish insults and >>>>>>>>> name calling.
You've been calling me a "Little Green Monkey" for the past week or so,
Tit for Tat, look it up.
No kidding, Pee-wee.
It just counteracts your claim that you "almost always have called (me) >>>>>> Michael Pendragon."
There ypu have it: "Will Donkey" came from my son's misreading of your
name on my monitor, and "Michael Monkey" came from Karen's satirical >>>>>>>>>> poem.
--
That sounds about right except the animal name calling really goes back
to earlier times.
Mummy Chunks asked you where the "Monkey Boy" name came from -- not when
calling people by childish animal names began.
Well, we should start at where it all begins, never mind that you second
handed the idea, Pendragon.
MummyChunk didn't ask when the childish name-calling began. They asked >>>>>> about the origin of "Monkey Boy."
We should start by answering the actual question that was asked.
--
Okay, fair enough, let's do that.
I did.
--
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael
Pendragon.
That simply isn't true, Donkey.
The problem is that you lack basic vocabulary and composition skills and
are consequently incapable of expressing yourself clearly.
What you actually write is often very different from what you later
claim you'd intended to say.
You also seem to think that the bottom of the barrel, sleazy lifestyle
you present yourself as having is something to boast about.
You cannot blame me, or anyone else, for misrepresenting you. You have
painted a most unflattering picture of yourself (intentionally and
otherwise). I am just responding to the things that *you* have said.
I'll have a look at your response and correct the lies and
misrepresentations and set the record straight.
After I make myself a cup of coffee and find your original post.
What "lies" do you expect to find, Donkey?
Are you going to claim that I don't live in a small house?
I couldn't care less one way or another.
That Karen did write a "Pop Goes the Weasel"
inspired poem?
I don't really remember Karen's poem that well but probably.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 14:42:45 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
I live in a very small house that was built in the 1920s. I like to
think of it as a rustic cottage or a cozy bungalow. In order to expand
the living space, one of the previous owners finished the basement, and
turned it into a combination kitchen, dining room and bar. I keep my
computer down there, so when I'm online, I'm technically in the >>>>>>>>>>>> basement.
About seven years ago (give or take), my wife sent our youngest child
downstairs to see what I was doing. He looked over my shoulder while I
was posting something to Usenet AAPC, and shouted up to her "He's >>>>>>>>>>>> talking to Will Donkey the computer."
Since the idea of someone conversing with a donkey on computer is funny,
it immediately became a running joke in our house. "Daddy's talking to
Will Donkey again," etc).
Since stubbornness is one of your strongest characteristics, I >>>>>>>>>>>> immediately began addressing you as "Will Donkey" in AAPC as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>
"Monkey," otoh, came about when Karen Tellefsen wrote a satirical poem
about our endless flame war here, set to the tune of "Pop Goes the >>>>>>>>>>>> Weasel." "Pop Goes the Weasel," in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a
nursery rhyme about a monkey chasing a weasel around a cobbler's bench.
In her poem, she replaced "Weasel" with "Donkey" (signifying you, as I
had already started calling you "Will Donkey" at that time). She >>>>>>>>>>>> retained "Monkey" from the original because I often posted under my
backup account here as "Coco DeSockmonkey."
I remember Coco.
You and George immediately started calling me "Michael Monkey" as a
result.
No, I almost always have called you Michael Pendragon, choosing to take
the high road and not dink to your low level of childish insults and
name calling.
You've been calling me a "Little Green Monkey" for the past week or so,
Tit for Tat, look it up.
No kidding, Pee-wee.
It just counteracts your claim that you "almost always have called (me)
Michael Pendragon."
There ypu have it: "Will Donkey" came from my son's misreading of your
name on my monitor, and "Michael Monkey" came from Karen's satirical
poem.
--
That sounds about right except the animal name calling really goes back
to earlier times.
Mummy Chunks asked you where the "Monkey Boy" name came from -- not when
calling people by childish animal names began.
Well, we should start at where it all begins, never mind that you second
handed the idea, Pendragon.
MummyChunk didn't ask when the childish name-calling began. They asked
about the origin of "Monkey Boy."
We should start by answering the actual question that was asked. >>>>>>>>
--
Okay, fair enough, let's do that.
I did.
--
The problem with you is that you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael >>>>> Pendragon.
That simply isn't true, Donkey.
The problem is that you lack basic vocabulary and composition skills and >>>> are consequently incapable of expressing yourself clearly.
What you actually write is often very different from what you later
claim you'd intended to say.
You also seem to think that the bottom of the barrel, sleazy lifestyle >>>> you present yourself as having is something to boast about.
You cannot blame me, or anyone else, for misrepresenting you. You have >>>> painted a most unflattering picture of yourself (intentionally and
otherwise). I am just responding to the things that *you* have said.
I'll have a look at your response and correct the lies and
misrepresentations and set the record straight.
After I make myself a cup of coffee and find your original post.
What "lies" do you expect to find, Donkey?
Are you going to claim that I don't live in a small house?
I couldn't care less one way or another.
That Karen did write a "Pop Goes the Weasel"
inspired poem?
I don't really remember Karen's poem that well but probably.
IOW: There weren't any lies or misrepresentations for you to "set
straight."
--
The lies and misrepresentations about me that you've posted through the
years I've corrected and set the record straight on to my satisfaction, Pendragon.
If you'll refrain from adding new ones we should be good from here on
out.
HTH and HAND.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 13:07:11 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,887 |
| Posted today: | 1 |