The me sin problem with Stephan Pickering posting here on the poetry newsgroup was the determination of Jim Senetto and Michael Pendragon to
drive him away at any cost, and they both tried to strongarm me into
joining them with this hostile agenda.
When I refused to participate, both Michael Pendragon and Jim Senetto
then turned on me with malicious attacks, even threats of violence, that lasted for many years.
And so it goes.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 16:31:49 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
The me the problem with Stephan Pickering posting here on the poetry
newsgroup was the determination of Jim Senetto and Michael Pendragon to
drive him away at any cost, and they both tried to strongarm me into
joining them with this hostile agenda.
When I refused to participate, both Michael Pendragon and Jim Senetto
then turned on me with malicious attacks, even threats of violence, that >>> lasted for many years.
And so it goes.
I call
You lie and misrepresent, Pendragon.
As always.
Jim Senetto turned on you when you scammed him out of $50.00.
That's a lie and misrepresentation you created then and continue to lie about.
Jim Senetto sent $50 to Zod, not me.
I did, however, refund the $50 to Senetto twice, meaning Senetto got
$100 back for his $50.
To correct your lies and misrepresentations and set the record straight
one more time.
How you can even claim that his dislike of you had anything to do with
Pickering
That's exactly how it started.
You and Senetto tried to force me to join y'all in attempting to drive Stephan Pickering from the poetry newsgroup.
When I refused to join you, y'all tried to kick me out of the newsgroup
as well.
Lie and deny all you want, that's what happened, Pendragon.
As for me, there's a world of difference between refusing to participate
in a flame war, and supporting Pick's claim that I was a paedophile.
My turning on you after that should be as easy for anyone to understand
as is Jim's turning on you after you scammed him.
When you scam your friends out of money, and attempt to label them as
paedophiles, you should expect them to "turn on you" in as a result.
--
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:06:00 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Since MMP is trying to disrupt his psychoanalysis by attemptint to
change the subject to whatever he can think of, and since I don't want
to let his attempts pass without comment, I'm being forced to open new
threads on some of it.
From: https://www.novabbs.com/arts/post.php?id=255645
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 12:42:11 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MPP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 5:55:00 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
It seems that Senetto took the lead in attempting to drive Stephan
Pickering from the newsgroup though, but that may have been fueled by >>>>> Senetto's obvious Antisemitism.
Thanks for reminding me. It was actually MMP who did that by bringing
NAMBLA to the group. That triggered Jim, just the way MFH triggered him >>>> after he was told that it was really about child molesting.
Why do you lie so much, George?
Why do you project so much, MMP? (That's a rhetorical question. As noted
in
your psychoanalysis, you are playing the preemption game you learned
from
Peter J. Ross.)
(That's a rhetorical question, as you've already intimated that your
pathological lying stems from you having been abused as a child.)
No, Lying Michael: I have never said, or even "intimated" (!) that I was
pathological, lying, or
"abused as a child".
When Pickles joined the group, he simply posted ongoing entries in a
proposed bibliography of some Magnum Opus he had been working on for
years. To the best of my recollection, this tome-in-progress was an
attempt to tie all of literature, culture, and history together via
Jewish themes explored in Bob Dylan songs. Suffice to say that Pickles
had gone off the deep end decades before.
Anyone who engages in deep scholarship on a subject can appear to have
"gone off the deep end" to someone who knows nothing of the subject.
I attempted to engage Pickles in several conversations regarding his
posts, but he either ignored them, or spat back some angry, and
impolite, remarks.
Similarly anyone who engages in deep scholarship on a subject cannot be
expected to appreciate having a total ignoramus on the subject trying to
explain it to him. So while I don't condone his impoliteness, I can
fully understand it.
Since I didn't relish the idea of getting into a
flamewar with another nutjob (he reminded me of the 50s group's nutter,
"PhillyGuy"), I took to ignoring his posts. Since he only posted once
or twice a week, ignoring him required little to no effort.
You handled that well, IMO. "Skip and ignore" the posts and posters
you don't like; as long as they stay out of your face, everyone wins.
At some point Jim and Pickles got into a flamewar regarding Ginsberg. I >>> don't recall who started it.
Well, allow me to refresh your memory. Jim and Stephan first got into
flamewars after you formed Team Monkey with him and NastyGoon (NG), a
Pickering
troll. The first thing you did was invite NG into Jim's Sunday Sampler,
where
they (NG's preferred pronoun) would write trollpoems about Stephan. The
result would be Stephan jumping into the Sampler, which would result in
JIm
flaming him and others (for example, Richard Oakley) also being turned
against Jim. I doubt that either Jim nor STephan realized that you were
manipulating them for that outcome.
After Jim and Stephan became engaged in a prolonged flamewar, both on
and
off the Sampler, the second thing you did was start flooding the group
with
a nasty, libellous document that NG had written.
The third thing you did, a month or so of that, when Jim and Stephan
were thoroughly
engaged with each other, you went deep diving outside the group for
information on NAMBLA, and found a quotation from Allan Ginsberg
("I have never had sex with anyone under 15" or WTTE), which you began
posting here, calling Ginsberg a "pedophile" (or predator); and then
when others objected to that (like Stephan, Will, or myself), you began
calling those people "pedophiles" as well.
Most likely Jim had condemned Ginsberg as
a child molester, and Pickles (who worshipped Ginsberg) spazzed.
That is a fair summary of what I just said, though you left out that you
(and Jim)
were calling Stephan a child molester as well. No one appreciates being
called names like that by cowardly trolls on the internet.
Their
fight had been going for what had become a fairly large-sized thread
when I decided to see what all the bruhaha was about.
(As I said, I'd
been ignoring Pickles' threads, and having no interest in Ginsberg, had
been avoiding this thread as well.)
When I read Jim's accusations, I google Ginsberg and discovered that
he'd openly discussed having had sex with minors, hinted (as strongly as >>> possible, considering that statutory rape is a criminal offense) at
having had sex with boys aged 14 or under (he said that was the age when >>> boys were most desirable), was a member of NAMBLA and had been serving
as that organization's poster boy, publicly championing them and their
agenda (to legalize sex between adults and children).
Indeed, Ginsberg and Camille Paglia both "championed" NAMBLA's right to
free speech on that contentious subject, and in fact led their
counter-parade when they were kicked out of NY's Pride parade.
I was appalled that a public figure was able to be a member of NAMBLA,
and to speak about having had sex with minors, and was somehow not only
a free man, but was still considered a renowned poet and even a cultural >>> icon. I therefore joined in the argument, backing Jim.
Actually, as I remember, you did not merely join in their flame wars,
but began disrupting every thread Stephan was on (chiefly with Will), to
flame him about it - which of course turned Will against you as well.
I don't know if I was the first to introduce NAMBLA into the group.
Not at all. That was Chuck Lysaght years before that. He was roundly
spanked by
jr sherman, who pointed out that all Ginsberg championed was their (and
Ginsberg's) right to talk about the subject, and it died off. AFAIK, you
were the first to revive it.
I'm
sure that it must have come up once or twice in the 15 - 20 years of
flame wars before my arrival -- but whatever. I'm pretty sure that I
was the one who'd introduced it into that particular argument.
In an attempt to defend Ginsberg, Pickles told us that he had been to
NAMBLA meetings, listened to speakers at NAMBLA conventions, and taken
NAMBLA members out to dinner on several occasions, and could attest that >>> they were all good people.
Stephan said a lot of things, on memory and without check, some of which
were demonstrably untrue. (For example, his alleged dinners with NAMBLA
were said to take place during Dylan's Rolling Thunder tour, which was
years before NAMBLA was even founded.) there was no reason to trust
his memory of any ot that.
NancyGene quoted posts Pickles had made in another forum, wherein he'd
argued that "legal age" was a meaningless concept, that the majority of
civilizations and cultures had no such age, that incest was not only
common in other cultures, but was a desirable thing.
Yes, through all this NG continued to troll Stephan, and posted a lot
of scurrilous claims about what he'd said (real, misprepresented, or
completely
made up). I didn't bother to check them, but (having been trolled by NG
myself) I would nt vouch for their accuracy.
IIRC, Ginsberg said that "legal age" was an arbitrary concept, which of
course it is (just look at the USA, where the age of consent is
different from
state to state). he did not say that there was no age of cnnsent in
other
states, just that it varies. (For example, in much of the the Moslem
world,
the age at which a girl can be married is 9.) As for incest, NG found
and
quoted a statement Stephan made ridiculing "rape" charge laid aginat a
mother
who'd had sex with her 17-year-old son.
Pickles not only defended his stance in said quotes, but further
informed us that he'd had sex with 14-year old girls (impregnating one
of them), and told us that he felt it was perfectly fine to have sex
with a 13-year old...
I remember him claiming to have had sex with a 14-year-old he had
married,
he could have mentioned a second one - I did warned you not to take
his statements at face value). He did point out that such marriages were
legal under traditional Jewish law (just as they are in traditional
Musim lae).
IOW, he made the mistake of trying to respond reasonably with people who
were
trolling him.
but that if you went for anyone younger, you were
risking getting hurt because children that young were unable to maintain >>> lasting romantic relationships.
As I've told you, children who haven't reached puberty don't even have a
sex drive. (You, quoting some psychologist, disagreed.) And even
teenagers
above the age of consent are usually unable to maintain lasting romantic
relationships.
Nice guy, that Pickles.
Since you have always been jealous of Jim's popularity here,
Now that is not true, Lying Michael. Jim and I had a great relationship
before you three formed Team Monkey and began to troll and flood the
group
with attacks on both Stefan and Will.
and since
Pickles was a friend of your lifetime ally, Will Donkey,
Now, that is absurd, Lying Michael. Will and I have never even met; and
while I had as good a relationship with him on the group as I did with
Jim, we were hardly conversing in those days.
you jumped into
the fray as well.
You not only supported both Ginsberg and Pickles
I agreed with both of them (and SCOTUS and most legal scholars) that
NAMBLA had a First Amendment right to talk about such things.
, but
you mistakenly claimed that NAMBLA had done more to support LGBT rights
than any other organization.
No, Lying Michael. I told you that I agreed that gay sex for anyone
above the age of consent should be legal, pointed out that NAMBLA was
the only
group in Canada campaigning for that, and even called you a "homophobe"
when
you insisted that it should continue to be illegal.
You later retracted that claim, but the
damage to your reputation had already been done.
No, Lying Michael. I still believe that gay sex between "children" above
the
age of consent should be legal, while you continue to lie and
misrepresent
that claim.
BTW: Who is MFH? I'm having difficulty placing the initials. Is it a
typo?
MFH = "My Father's House". That's a poem of mine you may have read.
MFH has been bumped up to the top of the newsgroup for focus and
discussion.
That's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say
about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in
this thread.
HTH and HAND.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 13:38:34 +0000, MichaelMonkey aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:41:04 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
That's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say
about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in
this thread.
HTH and HAND.
Based on George's reaction to the previous comments of my colleague, Dr.
NancyGene and myself, I should think that he would want to stick a "No
Trespassing" sign on his father's lawn.
Okay, we've heard your misrepresentation, Pendragon, I said George Dance might have something to say about his poem.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:52:18 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 13:38:34 +0000, MichaelMonkey aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:41:04 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
That's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say >>>> about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in >>>> this thread.
HTH and HAND.
Based on George's reaction to the previous comments of my colleague, Dr. >>> NancyGene and myself, I should think that he would want to stick a "No
Trespassing" sign on his father's lawn.
I see HarryLiar is still miffed that I called the comments of him and
"Dr." NastyGoon psychobabble (which is why he's started calling our psychoanalysis of him "psychobabble"),
Okay, we've heard your misrepresentation, Pendragon, I said George Dance
might have something to say about his poem.
Of course I'd prefer that readers read my poem, and my own comments on
it, rather than HarryLiar's psychobabble about it. So I'll be happy to
post and talk about it again when I have time.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:07:50 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 16:51:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:52:18 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 13:38:34 +0000, MichaelMonkey aka "HarryLime" wrote: >>>>
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:41:04 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
That's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say >>>>>> about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in >>>>>> this thread.
HTH and HAND.
Based on George's reaction to the previous comments of my colleague, Dr. >>>>> NancyGene and myself, I should think that he would want to stick a "No >>>>> Trespassing" sign on his father's lawn.
I see HarryLiar is still miffed that I called the comments of him and
"Dr." NastyGoon psychobabble (which is why he's started calling our
psychoanalysis of him "psychobabble"),
I honestly don't recall your having previously used the term, George. I
suspect that all (me, NancyGene, and yourself) used it when we were
discussing your poem in the past... but I really don't care enough to
bother looking it up.
I'm calling yours "psychobabble" because your misuse of psychology-based
terms like "transference" make it clear that you have little to no
knowledge of the subject.
Okay, we've heard your misrepresentation, Pendragon, I said George Dance >>>> might have something to say about his poem.
Of course I'd prefer that readers read my poem, and my own comments on
it, rather than HarryLiar's psychobabble about it. So I'll be happy to
post and talk about it again when I have time.
You're becoming as attention hungry
Look who's talking.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 16:51:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:52:18 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 13:38:34 +0000, MichaelMonkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:41:04 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
That's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say >>>>> about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in >>>>> this thread.
HTH and HAND.
Based on George's reaction to the previous comments of my colleague, Dr. >>>> NancyGene and myself, I should think that he would want to stick a "No >>>> Trespassing" sign on his father's lawn.
I see HarryLiar is still miffed that I called the comments of him and
"Dr." NastyGoon psychobabble (which is why he's started calling our
psychoanalysis of him "psychobabble"),
I honestly don't recall your having previously used the term, George.
I suspect that all (me, NancyGene, and yourself) used it when we were discussing your poem in the past...
but I really don't care enough to
bother looking it up.
I'm calling yours "psychobabble" because your misuse of psychology-based terms like "transference" make it clear that you have little to no
knowledge of the subject.
Okay, we've heard your misrepresentation, Pendragon, I said George Dance >>> might have something to say about his poem.
Of course I'd prefer that readers read my poem, and my own comments on
it, rather than HarryLiar's psychobabble about it. So I'll be happy to
post and talk about it again when I have time.
You're becoming as attention hungry as your Donkey, George.
To save time, why don't you just bump the old thread up to the top of
the feed?
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating
the same points that we'd made at the time.
--
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:07:50 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 16:51:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:52:18 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 13:38:34 +0000, MichaelMonkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:41:04 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
That's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say >>>>>> about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in >>>>>> this thread.
HTH and HAND.
Based on George's reaction to the previous comments of my colleague, Dr. >>>>> NancyGene and myself, I should think that he would want to stick a "No >>>>> Trespassing" sign on his father's lawn.
I see HarryLiar is still miffed that I called the comments of him and
"Dr." NastyGoon psychobabble (which is why he's started calling our
psychoanalysis of him "psychobabble"),
I honestly don't recall your having previously used the term, George.
I certainly can't call you a liar for that. Both Will and I have
commented on your selective memory. But that of course belongs in the "Psycho-epistemology" thread; you're only bringing it up her
I suspect that all (me, NancyGene, and yourself) used it when we were
discussing your poem in the past...
I seriously doubt that either "Doctor" Peabrain or "Doctor" NastyGoon referred to their own efforts as psychobabble.
but I really don't care enough to
bother looking it up.
Of course you don't care to look anything up before talking about it.
But that, too, belongs on the "Psycho-Epistemology" thread.
I'm calling yours "psychobabble" because your misuse of psychology-based
terms like "transference" make it clear that you have little to no
knowledge of the subject.
Thank you for giving me something I *can* call you a liar for, Lying
Michael. In point of fact, you were copying the term "psychobabble"
before you accused me of misusing the term "transference" (which I may
well be; it looks like psychological jargon for what's commonly called "projection")
Okay, we've heard your misrepresentation, Pendragon, I said George Dance >>>> might have something to say about his poem.
Of course I'd prefer that readers read my poem, and my own comments on
it, rather than HarryLiar's psychobabble about it. So I'll be happy to
post and talk about it again when I have time.
You're becoming as attention hungry as your Donkey, George.
HarryLiar, try to make some sense. You've noted correctly that
post-google there are hardlly any people reading aapc; I'm certainly not seeking "attention" for the poem from a non-existent audience.
My reason for opening a new thread would be because you're constantly bringing up my poem in unrelated threads, as per your M.O. which I
already noted. (As that contained a few typos), I'll copy it in here:
"That's been your regular M.O. since you showed up. Whenever I try to
have
a conversation with Will, about anything, you jump in and start spewing
false claims about something else, in the mistaken belief that I'd only
have two options:
(1) try to refute your false claims, in which case you've successfully disrupted the conversation; or
(2) ignore them (in which some people might think those false claims of
yours are actually true)."
To save time, why don't you just bump the old thread up to the top of
the feed?
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating
the same points that we'd made at the time.
HarryLiar, no one is asking you to comment on that thread (or any of the other threads I've opened FTM). If you have nothing to say on the poem, you're more than welcome to sit that one out.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:23:41 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:07:50 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 16:51:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:52:18 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 13:38:34 +0000, MichaelMonkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:41:04 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
That's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say
about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in >>>>>>>> this thread.
HTH and HAND.
Based on George's reaction to the previous comments of my colleague, Dr.
NancyGene and myself, I should think that he would want to stick a "No >>>>>>> Trespassing" sign on his father's lawn.
I see HarryLiar is still miffed that I called the comments of him and >>>>> "Dr." NastyGoon psychobabble (which is why he's started calling our
psychoanalysis of him "psychobabble"),
I honestly don't recall your having previously used the term, George.
I certainly can't call you a liar for that. Both Will and I have
commented on your selective memory. But that of course belongs in the
"Psycho-epistemology" thread; you're only bringing it up her
It is hardly a matter of selective memory to not know who first
introduced a commonly used word into a specific Usenet group over seven
years ago.
Why should *anyone* remember such a triviality?
More importantly... why do you remember it?
I suspect that all (me, NancyGene, and yourself) used it when we were
discussing your poem in the past...
I seriously doubt that either "Doctor" Peabrain or "Doctor" NastyGoon
referred to their own efforts as psychobabble.
No one said that we did, George.
(Attempted "straw man" noted.)
It does, otoh, make perfect sense that we would have used it in response
to one of your signature IKYABWAI outbursts, which our psychological
evaluations provoked.
but I really don't care enough to
bother looking it up.
Of course you don't care to look anything up before talking about it.
But that, too, belongs on the "Psycho-Epistemology" thread.
What makes you think that I have any interest in talking about it?
It is a ridiculously inconsequential point at most.
"Psychobabble" is a commonly used word used to dismiss a
psychology-based argument as worthless because the person making the
analysis is merely throwing around psychological terminology without
having a valid understanding of what they actually mean.
It's exactly the sort of word you would employ, because you act under
the childish assumption that sticking a negative label on an argument
somehow automatically negates it.
OTOH, it's exactly the sort of word which would apply to your own
attempts at psychological evaluation, as your *misuse* of clinical words
like "transference" makes embarrassingly clear.
I'm calling yours "psychobabble" because your misuse of psychology-based >>>> terms like "transference" make it clear that you have little to no
knowledge of the subject.
Thank you for giving me something I *can* call you a liar for, Lying
Michael. In point of fact, you were copying the term "psychobabble"
before you accused me of misusing the term "transference" (which I may
well be; it looks like psychological jargon for what's commonly called
"projection")
Wrong, George.
Your entire attempt at psychoanalysis is as ignorant as your misuse of
that well known psychological term. In short, your understanding of
psychology is parallel with your Donkey's understanding of English
(perhaps a slight exaggeration, but it's almost Donkey level).
Okay, we've heard your misrepresentation, Pendragon, I said George Dance >>>>>> might have something to say about his poem.
Of course I'd prefer that readers read my poem, and my own comments on >>>>> it, rather than HarryLiar's psychobabble about it. So I'll be happy to >>>>> post and talk about it again when I have time.
You're becoming as attention hungry as your Donkey, George.
HarryLiar, try to make some sense. You've noted correctly that
post-google there are hardlly any people reading aapc; I'm certainly not >>> seeking "attention" for the poem from a non-existent audience.
LOL! No, George. You're desperate for attention from me.
Not that I blame you. I'm an excellent, and often challenging,
conversationalist; and you've been stuck here for the past year with no
one but the Donkey and his socks to keep you company.
If I sent you a soccer ball at this point, you'd welcome it with open
arms.
My reason for opening a new thread would be because you're constantly
bringing up my poem in unrelated threads, as per your M.O. which I
already noted. (As that contained a few typos), I'll copy it in here:
"That's been your regular M.O. since you showed up. Whenever I try to
have
a conversation with Will, about anything, you jump in and start spewing
false claims about something else, in the mistaken belief that I'd only
have two options:
(1) try to refute your false claims, in which case you've successfully
disrupted the conversation; or
(2) ignore them (in which some people might think those false claims of
yours are actually true)."
When you're having a conversation *about me*, you mean to say, deceitful
George.
If you make false statements about me on a social media platform
(libel), you should expect, at very least, a refutation.
To save time, why don't you just bump the old thread up to the top of
the feed?
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating
the same points that we'd made at the time.
HarryLiar, no one is asking you to comment on that thread (or any of the >>> other threads I've opened FTM). If you have nothing to say on the poem,
you're more than welcome to sit that one out.
Since the Subject of this thread is "Re: The Lime sock on Stephan
Pickering and NAMBLA" (and since "The Lime sock[sic]" is the latest
childish name you have come up with to call me
Ever the hypocrite here's Michael Pendragon whining about childish name calling when he's the one who began that practice here years ago.
Tit for Tat is a concept that still seems to go over his head.
And so it goes.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:39:15 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:15:50 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:23:41 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:07:50 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka >>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 16:51:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:52:18 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
I certainly can't call you a liar for that. Both Will and I haveThat's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say
about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in
this thread.
HTH and HAND.
Based on George's reaction to the previous comments of my colleague, Dr.
NancyGene and myself, I should think that he would want to stick a "No
Trespassing" sign on his father's lawn.
I see HarryLiar is still miffed that I called the comments of him and >>>>>>> "Dr." NastyGoon psychobabble (which is why he's started calling our >>>>>>> psychoanalysis of him "psychobabble"),
I honestly don't recall your having previously used the term, George. >>>>>
commented on your selective memory. But that of course belongs in the >>>>> "Psycho-epistemology" thread; you're only bringing it up her
It is hardly a matter of selective memory to not know who first
introduced a commonly used word into a specific Usenet group over seven >>>> years ago.
Why should *anyone* remember such a triviality?
More importantly... why do you remember it?
I suspect that all (me, NancyGene, and yourself) used it when we were >>>>>> discussing your poem in the past...
I seriously doubt that either "Doctor" Peabrain or "Doctor" NastyGoon >>>>> referred to their own efforts as psychobabble.
No one said that we did, George.
(Attempted "straw man" noted.)
It does, otoh, make perfect sense that we would have used it in response >>>> to one of your signature IKYABWAI outbursts, which our psychological
evaluations provoked.
but I really don't care enough to
bother looking it up.
Of course you don't care to look anything up before talking about it. >>>>> But that, too, belongs on the "Psycho-Epistemology" thread.
What makes you think that I have any interest in talking about it?
It is a ridiculously inconsequential point at most.
"Psychobabble" is a commonly used word used to dismiss a
psychology-based argument as worthless because the person making the
analysis is merely throwing around psychological terminology without
having a valid understanding of what they actually mean.
It's exactly the sort of word you would employ, because you act under
the childish assumption that sticking a negative label on an argument
somehow automatically negates it.
OTOH, it's exactly the sort of word which would apply to your own
attempts at psychological evaluation, as your *misuse* of clinical words >>>> like "transference" makes embarrassingly clear.
I'm calling yours "psychobabble" because your misuse of psychology-based >>>>>> terms like "transference" make it clear that you have little to no >>>>>> knowledge of the subject.
Thank you for giving me something I *can* call you a liar for, Lying >>>>> Michael. In point of fact, you were copying the term "psychobabble"
before you accused me of misusing the term "transference" (which I may >>>>> well be; it looks like psychological jargon for what's commonly called >>>>> "projection")
Wrong, George.
Your entire attempt at psychoanalysis is as ignorant as your misuse of >>>> that well known psychological term. In short, your understanding of
psychology is parallel with your Donkey's understanding of English
(perhaps a slight exaggeration, but it's almost Donkey level).
Okay, we've heard your misrepresentation, Pendragon, I said George Dance
might have something to say about his poem.
Of course I'd prefer that readers read my poem, and my own comments on >>>>>>> it, rather than HarryLiar's psychobabble about it. So I'll be happy to >>>>>>> post and talk about it again when I have time.
You're becoming as attention hungry as your Donkey, George.
HarryLiar, try to make some sense. You've noted correctly that
post-google there are hardlly any people reading aapc; I'm certainly not >>>>> seeking "attention" for the poem from a non-existent audience.
LOL! No, George. You're desperate for attention from me.
Not that I blame you. I'm an excellent, and often challenging,
conversationalist; and you've been stuck here for the past year with no >>>> one but the Donkey and his socks to keep you company.
If I sent you a soccer ball at this point, you'd welcome it with open
arms.
My reason for opening a new thread would be because you're constantly >>>>> bringing up my poem in unrelated threads, as per your M.O. which I
already noted. (As that contained a few typos), I'll copy it in here: >>>>>
"That's been your regular M.O. since you showed up. Whenever I try to >>>>> have
a conversation with Will, about anything, you jump in and start spewing >>>>> false claims about something else, in the mistaken belief that I'd only >>>>> have two options:
(1) try to refute your false claims, in which case you've successfully >>>>> disrupted the conversation; or
(2) ignore them (in which some people might think those false claims of >>>>> yours are actually true)."
When you're having a conversation *about me*, you mean to say, deceitful >>>> George.
If you make false statements about me on a social media platform
(libel), you should expect, at very least, a refutation.
To save time, why don't you just bump the old thread up to the top of >>>>>> the feed?
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating >>>>>> the same points that we'd made at the time.
HarryLiar, no one is asking you to comment on that thread (or any of the >>>>> other threads I've opened FTM). If you have nothing to say on the poem, >>>>> you're more than welcome to sit that one out.
Since the Subject of this thread is "Re: The Lime sock on Stephan
Pickering and NAMBLA" (and since "The Lime sock[sic]" is the latest
childish name you have come up with to call me
Ever the hypocrite here's Michael Pendragon whining about childish name
calling when he's the one who began that practice here years ago.
I'm not complaining about the name-calling
Stop lying, Pendragon.
You've been incessantly whining about what you call childish name
calling for weeks, now.
I'm merely pointing out that "The Lime sock[sic]" is George Dance's
latest name for me.
And you've been whining incessantly about it for a couple of weeks, now, Pendragon.
And so it goes.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:15:50 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:23:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime"aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
My reason for opening a new thread would be because you're constantly
bringing up my poem in unrelated threads, as per your M.O. which I
already noted. (As that contained a few typos), I'll copy it in here:
"That's been your regular M.O. since you showed up. Whenever I try to
have
a conversation with Will, about anything, you jump in and start spewing >>>> false claims about something else, in the mistaken belief that I'd only >>>> have two options:
(1) try to refute your false claims, in which case you've successfully >>>> disrupted the conversation; or
(2) ignore them (in which some people might think those false claims of >>>> yours are actually true)."
When you're having a conversation *about me*, you mean to say, deceitful >>> George.
If you make false statements about me on a social media platform
(libel), you should expect, at very least, a refutation.
To save time, why don't you just bump the old thread up to the top of >>>>> the feed?
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating >>>>> the same points that we'd made at the time.
HarryLiar, no one is asking you to comment on that thread (or any of the >>>> other threads I've opened FTM). If you have nothing to say on the poem, >>>> you're more than welcome to sit that one out.
Since the Subject of this thread is "Re: The Lime sock on Stephan
Pickering and NAMBLA" (and since "The Lime sock[sic]" is the latest
childish name you have come up with to call me
Ever the hypocrite here's Michael Pendragon whining about childish name
calling when he's the one who began that practice here years ago.
I'm not complaining about the name-calling, Donkey.
I'm merely pointing out that "The Lime sock[sic]" is George Dance's
latest name for me.
The reason I am pointing this out is because it appears in the Subject
header for this thread -- indicating that this thread is about me; and
that it purportedly presents my opinions (reworded by Mr. Dance, of
course) on the topics of Pickles Pickering and NAMBLA.
Mr. Dance was whining that I am butting in on what was intended to be a conversation between the two of you.
I am pointing out that this
so-called conversation is a one-sided affair in which Mr. Dance attempts
to put forth libelous statements about me.
If Mr. Dance had not wanted me to "butt in" on his "conversation," he
would not have included my name (his latest name for me, that is) in the Subject header.
Tit for Tat is a concept that still seems to go over his head.
And so it goes.
Tit for Tat is a concept that I abandoned somewhere before having
attended Kindergarten. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you and George.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:39:15 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:15:50 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:23:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime"aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
My reason for opening a new thread would be because you're constantly >>>>> bringing up my poem in unrelated threads, as per your M.O. which I
already noted. (As that contained a few typos), I'll copy it in here: >>>>>
"That's been your regular M.O. since you showed up. Whenever I try to >>>>> have
a conversation with Will, about anything, you jump in and start spewing >>>>> false claims about something else, in the mistaken belief that I'd only >>>>> have two options:
(1) try to refute your false claims, in which case you've successfully >>>>> disrupted the conversation; or
(2) ignore them (in which some people might think those false claims of >>>>> yours are actually true)."
When you're having a conversation *about me*, you mean to say, deceitful >>>> George.
If you make false statements about me on a social media platform
(libel), you should expect, at very least, a refutation.
I opened this thread to respond to false statements you were making
about your flame war on Stephan, Will, myself, and others on other
threads. No one has said it wasn't about you.
To save time, why don't you just bump the old thread up to the top of >>>>>> the feed?
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating >>>>>> the same points that we'd made at the time.
HarryLiar, no one is asking you to comment on that thread (or any of the >>>>> other threads I've opened FTM). If you have nothing to say on the poem, >>>>> you're more than welcome to sit that one out.
Since the Subject of this thread is "Re: The Lime sock on Stephan
Pickering and NAMBLA" (and since "The Lime sock[sic]" is the latest
childish name you have come up with to call me
Ever the hypocrite here's Michael Pendragon whining about childish name
calling when he's the one who began that practice here years ago.
I'm not complaining about the name-calling, Donkey.
I'm merely pointing out that "The Lime sock[sic]" is George Dance's
latest name for me.
Get with the program. Precisely because of the whining about your
petname that Will mentioned, I changed it several days ago.
The reason I am pointing this out is because it appears in the Subject
header for this thread -- indicating that this thread is about me; and
that it purportedly presents my opinions (reworded by Mr. Dance, of
course) on the topics of Pickles Pickering and NAMBLA.
No, Lying Michael; this thread was a response to comments that you were making about your flaming of Stephan (in another thread for deflection purposes, as per your M.O.) You comments were quoted fairly and
accurately, not "reworded" in the slightest.
You're welcome to talk about them here; but be warned that going
forward, if you attempt to deflect by talking about something else, your comments will be snipped here, and moved to the appropriate thread where necessary.
Mr. Dance was whining that I am butting in on what was intended to be a
conversation between the two of you.
No, Lying Michael. I am "whining" about you (once again) immediately
trying to change the subject of the discussion to something else. Your
first comment in this thread was to call me a liar (presumably just for preemption).
Your second was a misrepresentation of something I'd said
in the "Psychology of MPP" thread which I'd already dealt with on that thread, so you simply repeated it here.
Your third comment contained
both a lie and a faked quote about my poem "My Father's House". (Both
the latter two have been moved to the "My Father's House" thread Will
opened, if you're willing to talk about them there.)
I am pointing out that this
so-called conversation is a one-sided affair in which Mr. Dance attempts
to put forth libelous statements about me.
It's hardly a one-sided conversation, HarryLiar, when and all my posts
in it (including the OP) have been replies to you, and you've written
more posts in it than I have, Please stop whining about being excluded
from it, since you obviously are not.
If Mr. Dance had not wanted me to "butt in" on his "conversation," he
would not have included my name (his latest name for me, that is) in the
Subject header.
Now you're supporting your earlier lie with fake quotes, which did not
come from anything I said, but came from you.
Tit for Tat is a concept that still seems to go over his head.
And so it goes.
Tit for Tat is a concept that I abandoned somewhere before having
attended Kindergarten. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you and
George.
No, Lying Michael. You continually rely on the concept. You may not
believe in govern your own behavior by reciprocal ethics - there's no
sign that your behavior is governed by any ethics - but you clearly pay
lip service to T4T to try to justify your behavior.
For instance, every time that you "attack" (troll and flame) someone,
you try to justify it with a story (sometimes true, sometimes not) that
they attacked you first.
That's been the gist of every one of your
on-topic statements about the Team Monkey flamewar; that you and your
team went after Stephan, Will, and myself because they "attacked" you
first.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 16:49:20 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:39:15 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:15:50 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:23:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime"aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
My reason for opening a new thread would be because you're constantly >>>>>> bringing up my poem in unrelated threads, as per your M.O. which I >>>>>> already noted. (As that contained a few typos), I'll copy it in here: >>>>>>
"That's been your regular M.O. since you showed up. Whenever I try to >>>>>> have
a conversations with Will, about anything, you jump in and start spewing >>>>>> false claims about something else, in the mistaken belief that I'd only >>>>>> have two options:
(1) try to refute your false claims, in which case you've successfully >>>>>> disrupted the conversation; or
(2) ignore them (in which some people might think those false claims of >>>>>> yours are actually true)."
When you're having a conversation *about me*, you mean to say, deceitful >>>>> George.
If you make false statements about me on a social media platform
(libel), you should expect, at very least, a refutation.
I opened this thread to respond to false statements you were making
about your flame war on Stephan, Will, myself, and others on other
threads. No one has said it wasn't about you.
Yet you have accused me of jumping into what was intended to be a conversation with Will.
If you open a discussion *about me*, you should expect me to join in.
If you open a discussion *about me* in which you refer to me by one of
your childish names ("Lime Sock"), then proceed to make libelous
statements about me, you can be damn sure that I'm going to "jump in."
And when you do all of the above with the foreknowledge that I am going
to "jump in," one can only conclude that you are doing so specifically
to troll me into a flame war in which I am placed in a defensive
position (which is not the position one wants to be in during a flame
war).
But that's your m.o. at its duplicitous best.
To save time, why don't you just bump the old thread up to the top of >>>>>>> the feed?
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating >>>>>>> the same points that we'd made at the time.
HarryLiar, no one is asking you to comment on that thread (or any of the >>>>>> other threads I've opened FTM). If you have nothing to say on the poem, >>>>>> you're more than welcome to sit that one out.
Since the Subject of this thread is "Re: The Lime sock on Stephan
Pickering and NAMBLA" (and since "The Lime sock[sic]" is the latest
childish name you have come up with to call me
Ever the hypocrite here's Michael Pendragon whining about childish name >>>> calling when he's the one who began that practice here years ago.
I'm not complaining about the name-calling, Donkey.
I'm merely pointing out that "The Lime sock[sic]" is George Dance's
latest name for me.
Get with the program. Precisely because of the whining about your
petname that Will mentioned, I changed it several days ago.
My Username is HarryLime.
My professional penname is Michael Pendragon.
You are free to address and/or refer to me as either of the above. Any other name will be treated as the childish name-calling that it is.
The reason I am pointing this out is because it appears in the Subject
header for this thread -- indicating that this thread is about me; and
that it purportedly presents my opinions (reworded by Mr. Dance, of
course) on the topics of Pickles Pickering and NAMBLA.
No, Lying Michael; this thread was a response to comments that you were
making about your flaming of Stephan (in another thread for deflection
purposes, as per your M.O.) You comments were quoted fairly and
accurately, not "reworded" in the slightest.
You're welcome to talk about them here; but be warned that going
forward, if you attempt to deflect by talking about something else, your
comments will be snipped here, and moved to the appropriate thread where
necessary.
Since my comments appeared in the context of another thread, I cannot directly assess the validity of your claim.
I can only conclude that your reason for opening a new thread in
response to my statements (made in another thread) was to disguise the context in which they originally arose, and to make it difficult for me
to check on the accuracy of the statement that you quoted.
Mr. Dance was whining that I am butting in on what was intended to be a
conversation between the two of you.
No, Lying Michael. I am "whining" about you (once again) immediately
trying to change the subject of the discussion to something else. Your
first comment in this thread was to call me a liar (presumably just for
preemption).
I have called you a liar, because your opening statement was patently
false.
Here is what you wrote: "Since MMP is trying to disrupt his
psychoanalysis by attempting[sic] to change the subject..."
1) You are not a psychologist, I am not your patient, and no
"psychoanalysis" ever occurred.
2) I was not "disrupting" any thread, but responding to Will Donkey's
false accusations of having driven Pickles away. I neither attempted,
nor succeeded in driving the Late Unlamented Pickles away from AAPC. I killed him.
3) Since your Donkey brought up Pickles as an example of my having
driven members away from AAPC, I could not be seen as changing the
subject by responding to his claims.
In short, your opening statement contained three lies. Three lies in
half of a sentence. For anyone else that would have to be a record, but
for you it's just par for the course.
Your second was a misrepresentation of something I'd said
in the "Psychology of MPP" thread which I'd already dealt with on that
thread, so you simply repeated it here.
Since you don't say what "something" my second comment was made in
response to, I cannot address the supposed "misrepresentation." Since
you don't even bother to repeat what my "second comment" was, I can't
even make an educated guess.
But then that's typical George Dance tactics as well: to put forth accusations in such general terms, and in reference to unspecified
comments in unspecified threads, that they appear to be in relation to specific offenses, when no such offenses exist.
Your third comment contained
both a lie and a faked quote about my poem "My Father's House". (Both
the latter two have been moved to the "My Father's House" thread Will
opened, if you're willing to talk about them there.)
Again, you have made it extremely difficult for me to identify and/or
address your charges in this thread. I can say that have never lied
about your poem. As to the alleged "faked quote," such would have been paraphrased from memory, and would either have been identified as such, either with a specific label, or from the context of the discussion.
I do not have a copy of your poem in front of me, but I remember it
quite well. Not because it was a good poem (it wasn't), but because my colleague, Dr. NancyGene, and I had examined so thoroughly in the past.
I am pointing out that this
so-called conversation is a one-sided affair in which Mr. Dance attempts >>> to put forth libelous statements about me.
It's hardly a one-sided conversation, HarryLiar, when [most of] my posts
in it (including the OP) have been replies to you, and you've written
more posts in it than I have, Please stop whining about being excluded
from it, since you obviously are not.
Um... you're the one who'd claimed that I was "jumping into" and
"disrupting" a conversation between you and your Donkey. And since your Donkey's contributions invariably amount to nothing more than "Well
said, George," it is fair to call your "conversations" with him
"one-sided at best."
If Mr. Dance had not wanted me to "butt in" on his "conversation," he
would not have included my name (his latest name for me, that is) in the >>> Subject header.
Now you're supporting your earlier lie with fake quotes, which did not
come from anything I said, but came from you.
Now, you're just being your typical petty self.
I mistakenly said "butt in" when you had actually said "Jump in."
Mea
Culpea. Although the meanings of the two phrases are interchangeable.
Tit for Tat is a concept that still seems to go over his head.
And so it goes.
Tit for Tat is a concept that I abandoned somewhere before having
attended Kindergarten. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you and >>> George.
No, Lying Michael. You continually rely on the concept. You may not
believe in govern your own behavior by reciprocal ethics - there's no
sign that your behavior is governed by any ethics - but you clearly pay
lip service to T4T to try to justify your behavior.
Tit for Tat is only a system of ethics (reciprocal or otherwise) to a
5-year old child (give or take a few years in either direction).
It boils down to this: Do unto others as they do unto you.
That is not a matter of ethics, but a system of rewards and punishments.
Ethics should not be dependent upon the actions of others. Ethics
should be based upon your own beliefs regarding the concepts of "right"
and "wrong," "fair" and "unfair," "just" and "unjust," etc.
I certainly do not pay lip service to your childish "system," which I
find to be morally abominable, childish, petty, and having no purpose
beyond that of endlessly perpetuating hostilities. In short, it's a cop
out justification for fighting.
For instance, every time that you "attack" (troll and flame) someone,
you try to justify it with a story (sometimes true, sometimes not) that
they attacked you first.
That is *not* what I do, George.
I have pointed out the reasons for my flame wars with each of the
individuals your Donkey named. To wit:
1) My flame war with your Donkey began in earnest (although my opinion
of him had suffered considerably prior to this time) when he supported Pickles' accusation that I was a "paedophile."
2) My flame war with Pickles began when he and Jim were discussing
Ginsberg's preference for 13-year old boys as sex partners. It's really irrelevant as to which one of us first attacked the other (HINT: It was Pickles who'd attacked me when I'd innocently questioned one of his
posts some time earlier.) Our different stances on the questions of
legal age, incest, and NAMBLA automatically cast us in a confrontational position. Which is why poetry group discussions should be about poetry,
not pedophilia or politics.
3) Antti flew off the handle with me because I'd made derogatory
comments about General Zid, started trying to dig up personal
information on me (stalking), and so on. I remained calm and,
reasonably, polite through out. You'll note that I didn't call him any childish names like Lobotomy Boy.
And so on.
As to you, while we had engaged in many minor skirmishes off and on over
the course of the Donkey War, I continually tried to negotiate peace
treaties between us, and between you and the rest of the group. I
invited you to participate in the Official AAPC FB Group, published your poetry in AYoS, and constantly defended you against my pretended
"allies."
My break with you came when you falsely accused me of having an
editorial policy based on personal alliances.
I have always published
the best poems for each and every one of our contributors -- without exception. And for you to have made such accusations (even after I had published your own poetry), was simply unforgiveable. And, yes, AFAICS,
you started it.
Have I ever started a flame war with anyone?
Yes. When I first came here, I picked fights with PJR and his friends because I mistakenly saw them as trolls who were attacking other members
of the group.
I have picked fights with others who I saw as trolls --
including NancyGene when she first arrived.
That's been the gist of every one of your
on-topic statements about the Team Monkey flamewar; that you and your
team went after Stephan, Will, and myself because they "attacked" you
first.
Aha! Now I see what you're up to.
You want to sweep all of the statements that I'd made in other threads
under the carpet, and relabel them as examples of T4T.
No, George. That isn't happening.
There is no "Team Monkey," and those of us you label as such have our
own reasons for our own fights.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 19:21:14 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 16:49:20 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:39:15 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:15:50 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:23:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka >>>>> "HarryLime"aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
My reason for opening a new thread would be because you're constantly >>>>>>> bringing up my poem in unrelated threads, as per your M.O. which I >>>>>>> already noted. (As that contained a few typos), I'll copy it in here: >>>>>>>
"That's been your regular M.O. since you showed up. Whenever I try to >>>>>>> have
a conversations with Will, about anything, you jump in and start spewing
false claims about something else, in the mistaken belief that I'd only >>>>>>> have two options:
(1) try to refute your false claims, in which case you've successfully >>>>>>> disrupted the conversation; or
(2) ignore them (in which some people might think those false claims of >>>>>>> yours are actually true)."
When you're having a conversation *about me*, you mean to say, deceitful >>>>>> George.
If you make false statements about me on a social media platform
(libel), you should expect, at very least, a refutation.
I opened this thread to respond to false statements you were making
about your flame war on Stephan, Will, myself, and others on other
threads. No one has said it wasn't about you.
Yet you have accused me of jumping into what was intended to be a
conversation with Will.
I accused you of "spewing false claims about something else" than the
topic of the thread. Since you're constantly whining about your
"context," I can only conclude that you're deliberately trying to change mine.
If you open a discussion *about me*, you should expect me to join in.
Fine with me, as long as you stay on topic. If you try to change the
topic by making false claims about something else, expect me to move
those to a new thread.
If you open a discussion *about me* in which you refer to me by one of
your childish names ("Lime Sock"), then proceed to make libelous
statements about me, you can be damn sure that I'm going to "jump in."
As long as you don't "jump in and start spewing false claims about
something else" for deflection purposes, then your comments can stay in
the thread.
And when you do all of the above with the foreknowledge that I am going
to "jump in," one can only conclude that you are doing so specifically
to troll me into a flame war in which I am placed in a defensive
position (which is not the position one wants to be in during a flame
war).
But that's your m.o. at its duplicitous best.
Oh, my. Now "duplicitous" means trying to keep a thread on topic.
To save time, why don't you just bump the old thread up to the top of >>>>>>>> the feed?
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating >>>>>>>> the same points that we'd made at the time.
HarryLiar, no one is asking you to comment on that thread (or any of the
other threads I've opened FTM). If you have nothing to say on the poem, >>>>>>> you're more than welcome to sit that one out.
Since the Subject of this thread is "Re: The Lime sock on Stephan
Pickering and NAMBLA" (and since "The Lime sock[sic]" is the latest >>>>>> childish name you have come up with to call me
Ever the hypocrite here's Michael Pendragon whining about childish name >>>>> calling when he's the one who began that practice here years ago.
I'm not complaining about the name-calling, Donkey.
I'm merely pointing out that "The Lime sock[sic]" is George Dance's
latest name for me.
Get with the program. Precisely because of the whining about your
petname that Will mentioned, I changed it several days ago.
My Username is HarryLime.
that's the name of your current sock.
My professional penname is Michael Pendragon.
That's the name of one of your old socks. I do not plan to pretend that
your socks are real people. There's a real person behind all the socks,
and until and unless I learn his name (don't worry, I'm not trying to
find out), I'll call you whatever serves to identify you.
You are free to address and/or refer to me as either of the above. Any
other name will be treated as the childish name-calling that it is.
IOW, you'll whine like a little baby about being called a name, in one breath, while calling your your own perceived enemies the same types of names in the next breath. A paradigm example of duplicity.
The reason I am pointing this out is because it appears in the Subject >>>> header for this thread -- indicating that this thread is about me; and >>>> that it purportedly presents my opinions (reworded by Mr. Dance, of
course) on the topics of Pickles Pickering and NAMBLA.
No, Lying Michael; this thread was a response to comments that you were
making about your flaming of Stephan (in another thread for deflection
purposes, as per your M.O.) You comments were quoted fairly and
accurately, not "reworded" in the slightest.
You're welcome to talk about them here; but be warned that going
forward, if you attempt to deflect by talking about something else, your >>> comments will be snipped here, and moved to the appropriate thread where >>> necessary.
Since my comments appeared in the context of another thread, I cannot
directly assess the validity of your claim.
Why the hell not? You know what thread your comments appeared in; you
can check to see whether I "reworded" any of them or not.
I can only conclude that your reason for opening a new thread in
response to my statements (made in another thread) was to disguise the
context in which they originally arose, and to make it difficult for me
to check on the accuracy of the statement that you quoted.
Whatever. I've already told you why I keep reposting your statements in
new threads. You can choose to believe it or not.
Mr. Dance was whining that I am butting in on what was intended to be a >>>> conversation between the two of you.
No, Lying Michael. I am "whining" about you (once again) immediately
trying to change the subject of the discussion to something else. Your
first comment in this thread was to call me a liar (presumably just for
preemption).
I have called you a liar, because your opening statement was patently
false.
Here is what you wrote: "Since MMP is trying to disrupt his
psychoanalysis by attempting[sic] to change the subject..."
1) You are not a psychologist, I am not your patient, and no
"psychoanalysis" ever occurred.
I'm as much of an armchair psychologist as you are, you're as much my
patient as I was yours, and my psychoanalysis had as much validity as
yours.
2) I was not "disrupting" any thread, but responding to Will Donkey's
false accusations of having driven Pickles away. I neither attempted,
nor succeeded in driving the Late Unlamented Pickles away from AAPC. I
killed him.
You know, if you'd made that reply to Will in the thread, I'd probably
have left your post alone. Knowing your sense of humor, I'd have flagged
it immediately as one of our "funny" lies.
3) Since your Donkey brought up Pickles as an example of my having
driven members away from AAPC, I could not be seen as changing the
subject by responding to his claims.
In short, your opening statement contained three lies. Three lies in
half of a sentence. For anyone else that would have to be a record, but
for you it's just par for the course.
Your second was a misrepresentation of something I'd said
in the "Psychology of MPP" thread which I'd already dealt with on that
thread, so you simply repeated it here.
Since you don't say what "something" my second comment was made in
response to, I cannot address the supposed "misrepresentation." Since
you don't even bother to repeat what my "second comment" was, I can't
even make an educated guess.
You could try reading this thread. Since we've discussed it in other
threads,
But then that's typical George Dance tactics as well: to put forth
accusations in such general terms, and in reference to unspecified
comments in unspecified threads, that they appear to be in relation to
specific offenses, when no such offenses exist.
You don't know what statement of yours I'm talking about, but you're
sure you never said it. That sounds like a typical MPP tactic. Deny everything, just for the sake of denial.
Your third comment contained
both a lie and a faked quote about my poem "My Father's House". (Both
the latter two have been moved to the "My Father's House" thread Will
opened, if you're willing to talk about them there.)
Again, you have made it extremely difficult for me to identify and/or
address your charges in this thread. I can say that have never lied
about your poem. As to the alleged "faked quote," such would have been
paraphrased from memory, and would either have been identified as such,
either with a specific label, or from the context of the discussion.
I do not have a copy of your poem in front of me, but I remember it
quite well. Not because it was a good poem (it wasn't), but because my
colleague, Dr. NancyGene, and I had examined so thoroughly in the past.
Oh, well, it's there if you want to look at it. If you don't, fine with
me.
I am pointing out that this
so-called conversation is a one-sided affair in which Mr. Dance attempts >>>> to put forth libelous statements about me.
It's hardly a one-sided conversation, HarryLiar, when [most of] my posts >>> in it (including the OP) have been replies to you, and you've written
more posts in it than I have, Please stop whining about being excluded
from it, since you obviously are not.
Um... you're the one who'd claimed that I was "jumping into" and
Once again you try to change context. I'd claimed that you were "
"disrupting" a conversation between you and your Donkey. And since your
Donkey's contributions invariably amount to nothing more than "Well
said, George," it is fair to call your "conversations" with him
"one-sided at best."
If Mr. Dance had not wanted me to "butt in" on his "conversation," he
would not have included my name (his latest name for me, that is) in the >>>> Subject header.
Now you're supporting your earlier lie with fake quotes, which did not
come from anything I said, but came from you.
Now, you're just being your typical petty self.
I mistakenly said "butt in" when you had actually said "Jump in."
"Jump in and start spewing false statements about something else." How
many times are you planning to misstate that? Until you believe it?
Mea
Culpea. Although the meanings of the two phrases are interchangeable.
Tit for Tat is a concept that still seems to go over his head.
And so it goes.
Tit for Tat is a concept that I abandoned somewhere before having
attended Kindergarten. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you and >>>> George.
No, Lying Michael. You continually rely on the concept. You may not
believe in govern your own behavior by reciprocal ethics - there's no
sign that your behavior is governed by any ethics - but you clearly pay
lip service to T4T to try to justify your behavior.
Tit for Tat is only a system of ethics (reciprocal or otherwise) to a
5-year old child (give or take a few years in either direction).
It boils down to this: Do unto others as they do unto you.
That is not a matter of ethics, but a system of rewards and punishments.
Ethics should not be dependent upon the actions of others. Ethics
should be based upon your own beliefs regarding the concepts of "right"
and "wrong," "fair" and "unfair," "just" and "unjust," etc.
Your second statement is true. Your first one doesn't even sound
sensible. Take some examples: Is it right or wrong to shoot other
people? Hurt other people? Lie to other people?
I certainly do not pay lip service to your childish "system," which I
find to be morally abominable, childish, petty, and having no purpose
beyond that of endlessly perpetuating hostilities. In short, it's a cop
out justification for fighting.
To repeat; as far as I know, you have no actual ethics at all. So your complaints really don't bother me.
For instance, every time that you "attack" (troll and flame) someone,
you try to justify it with a story (sometimes true, sometimes not) that
they attacked you first.
That is *not* what I do, George.
I have pointed out the reasons for my flame wars with each of the
individuals your Donkey named. To wit:
1) My flame war with your Donkey began in earnest (although my opinion
of him had suffered considerably prior to this time) when he supported
Pickles' accusation that I was a "paedophile."
2) My flame war with Pickles began when he and Jim were discussing
Ginsberg's preference for 13-year old boys as sex partners. It's really
irrelevant as to which one of us first attacked the other (HINT: It was
Pickles who'd attacked me when I'd innocently questioned one of his
posts some time earlier.) Our different stances on the questions of
legal age, incest, and NAMBLA automatically cast us in a confrontational
position. Which is why poetry group discussions should be about poetry,
not pedophilia or politics.
3) Antti flew off the handle with me because I'd made derogatory
comments about General Zid, started trying to dig up personal
information on me (stalking), and so on. I remained calm and,
reasonably, polite through out. You'll note that I didn't call him any
childish names like Lobotomy Boy.
And so on.
Three stories that someone else you were got into flame wars with done something to start them. What was the point of your writing all that, if whether you got into a flame war with them or not really had nothing to
do with what they'd done?
As to you, while we had engaged in many minor skirmishes off and on over
the course of the Donkey War, I continually tried to negotiate peace
treaties between us, and between you and the rest of the group. I
invited you to participate in the Official AAPC FB Group, published your
poetry in AYoS, and constantly defended you against my pretended
"allies."
My break with you came when you falsely accused me of having an
editorial policy based on personal alliances.
I have always published
the best poems for each and every one of our contributors -- without
exception. And for you to have made such accusations (even after I had
published your own poetry), was simply unforgiveable. And, yes, AFAICS,
you started it.
Have I ever started a flame war with anyone?
Yes. When I first came here, I picked fights with PJR and his friends
because I mistakenly saw them as trolls who were attacking other members
of the group.
No mistake there. They were trolls who were attacking other members of
the group.
I have picked fights with others who I saw as trolls --
including NancyGene when she first arrived.
That's been the gist of every one of your
on-topic statements about the Team Monkey flamewar; that you and your
team went after Stephan, Will, and myself because they "attacked" you
first.
Aha! Now I see what you're up to.
You want to sweep all of the statements that I'd made in other threads
under the carpet, and relabel them as examples of T4T.
Don't be such a Peabrain. Labelling a statement as an example of T4T has
no bearing on whether it's true or not; any more than, say, labelling
one as an example of IKYABWAI or preemption does.
No, George. That isn't happening.
There is no "Team Monkey," and those of us you label as such have our
own reasons for our own fights.
So you've said. This is already too long, without you repeating
yourself.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 18:42:45 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 17:29:10 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 16:31:49 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
To me the problem with Stephan Pickering posting here on the poetry
newsgroup was the determination of Jim Senetto and Michael Pendragon to >>>>> drive him away at any cost, and they both tried to strongarm me into >>>>> joining them with this hostile agenda.
Even the Jewish Dr. David Scheimmer saw the antisemitic and homophobic behavior you and Jim Senetto displayed during that time.
Scheimmer also noted the antisemitic mood in Long Island when he
attended college there as a youth.
It seems Jim Senetto was probably raided with these local prejudices
again Jewish people back around the same time Dr. Scheimmer was living
in the area, early 1960s.
Because I wouldn't join Jim Senetto and you in your agenda to drive theWhen I refused to participate, both Michael Pendragon and Jim Senetto >>>>> then turned on me with malicious attacks, even threats of violence, that >>>>> lasted for many years.
And so it goes.
You lie and misrepresent, Pendragon.
As always.
Jim Senetto turned on yu
late Stephan Pickering from this poetry newsgroup.
That's a lie and misrepresentation you created then and continue to lie
about.
Proven in the newsgroup archives.
Jim Senetto sent $50 to Zod, not me.
The money was Zod's to spend as he pleased.
I did, however, refund the $50 to Senetto twice, meaning Senetto got
$100 back for his $50.
Exactly as it happened.
"Jim Senetto sent $50 to Zod, not me."
Meaning the $50 was exclusively for Zod, and we delivered the $50 to Zod immediately.
Jim sent the money to you.
That's correct, and my brother David and I took the money to Zod over in Alabama.
Zod, being homeless,
Zod wasn't actually homeless yet but headed that way.
had no mailbox for him to send it to.
Actually Zod was still living in the trailer, he has not been evicted
yet.
Absolutely the money should have just been sent directly to Zod.
"I did, however, refund the $50 to Senetto twice, meaning
Senetto got $100 back for his $50."
An archived fact ^^^
You never refunded the money to Jim
I refunded the $100 as Jim Senetto instructed.
Jim never saw his $50 again.
I tried a dozen times to refund his $50.
I even wound up paying over $100 for all that, out of my pocket.
What you did was a) write out a $50 check to your daughter,
As Jim Senetto instructed.
and b) send
$50 to an animal shelter
As Jim Senetto instructed.
To correct your lies and misrepresentations and set the record straight
one more time.
Or fifty more, if necessary.
How you can even claim that his dislike of you had anything to do with >>>> Pickering
That's exactly how it happened.
That's exactly how it started.
You and Senetto tried to force me to join y'all in attempting to drive
Stephan Pickering from the poetry newsgroup.
Exactly as it happened ^^^
When I refused to join you, y'all tried to kick me out of the newsgroup
as well.
Exactly as it happened ^^^
1) We never asked you to attack the Pickle
Yes you did, that's an archived fact.
The only thing I asked you to do was to stop responding
No, the archives show you and Jim Senetto expected me to join you two in driving the late Stephan Pickering from this newsgroup, while I declined involvement in, preferring to be neutral.
2) Jim was mad at you over the $50.
Which was refunded DOUBLE, I paid $100 for that $50.
One day George
You know you're supposed to call him General Zod.
introduced himself to the group. You said that
he was a long-time friend of yours in real life.
George then proceeded to ingratiate himself with all of the AAPC members
by placing one of his dozen or so stock comments at the end of each of
our poems ("Great Poem," "Nice poem," "Interesting," "One of your best,"
etc.).
Zod loves poetry as most of us know.
After a week or so had passed, you started a thread wherein you told us
all that George was about to be thrown out into the street. You told us
that he was recovering from a car accident and unable to work, and that
he was waiting for a disability check from the VA (which he was
expecting hourly). In the meantime, he needed to get up the funds
necessary to keep his landlord from throwing him out. You didn't
directly ask for any money
Exactly, and never wanted or expected any money.
Jim sent you $50 (cash) with instructions that you give it to George to
help tide over his landlord until the disability check arrived.
None of this was actually specified.
Jim sent the money and posted a message to you that it was in the mail.
you hadn't given George any of your own money was because he
would only have spent it on booze, drugs, and whores.
No, you're my making that up, I never wrote that, Pendragon.
A few days later, you emailed Jim that the money had been received and
put to good use: treating you and your brother to steak dinners. Since
steak dinners are more nourishing than booze and drugs, you were quite
proud of having convinced George to buy you and brother dinner instead.
That's exactly right.
😏
instead of apologizing and offering
to return the money
No, I offered to reimburse Senetto almost immediately.
As the newsgroup archives show
George then chimed in that he had never asked for
Jim's money, and that he do with it as he pleased.
That never happened, Pendragon.
You're either suffering memory loss again or you're lying again.
Perhaps both.
Jim is too nice a person to have demanded the money back,
Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Pendragon?
but he
insisted that you had misused the money he sent, and wanted you to send
$50 of your own money to a good cause. So you wrote your daughter a
check
That's correct.
That was the first $50 I reimbursed Jim Senetto on.
Eventually, you sent the money to an Animal Shelter
That was the second time I paid for a refund.
In the end I spent over $100 on Jim Senetto's stupid whining.
When you started calling Jim controlling
I called it as I saw it, no apology.
(and various other things) for
having wanted you to use the money to
I gave Zod the $$$ and he spent it as he pleased.
Which was completely his right.
actually *help* your
soon-to-be-homeless friend
The money was well spent as Zod chose to spend it.
*THAT* is why Jim
I didn't have to but I did refund the money to Jim Senetto TWICE a few
years ago.
That was over $100 I spent on Jim Senetto's bullshit whining.
Lie and deny all you want, that's what happened, Pendragon.
As the archives prove ^^^
As for me, there's a world of difference between refusing to participate
As I did.
in a flame war, and supporting Pick's claim that I was a paedophile.
You've claimed I di that but I never actually did.
This is just more of your lies and misrepresentations, Pendragon.
My turning on you after that
No, you had already tuned on me bc because I wouldn't join you and Jim Senetto in your antisemitic and homophobic attacks on the late Stephan Pickering.
When you scam your friends out of money,
So you're still lying about that, ten years later.
Why am I not surprised?
and attempt to label them as
paedophiles
Actually YOU were the only doing that, including lying about Allen
Ginsberg in that way as well.
I am publishing an AAPC poetry journal featuring award-winning poets. >>>>>Can you say vanity press?
A vanity press charges a "reading" or "submission" fee.
Do you pay in contributors copies?
Almost. I don't receive any money for them. They're sold at cost.
So... no.
After Jim and Stephan became engaged in a prolonged flamewar, both on >>>>>>>> and
off the Sampler, the second thing you did was start flooding the group >>>>>>>> with
a nasty, libellous document that NG had written.
Oh yes, the last resort, flood the newsgroup with your lies and
misrepresentations.
There was no such "libellous[sic]" document
George Dance saw it differently.
He certainly spelled it differently.
"There is no 'fact' of 'statutory rape'. 'Morality' -- like
'gnosticism', 'god', haKodesh Barukh hu, 'mysticism' -- are NOT
definable, and for you to keep transposing your stultifying
proto-fascism onto others is not accepted by me."
"The 'incest taboo' cannot be predicated on known biology, but is a
human sociopolitical category."
"Shalom & Erev tov, everyone...PaederastDeSock knows nothing of the
mother of my 2 children now in Yisra'el. Neither does NaziQueene whose >>>> psychopathy is documented here. He is attempting to equate '14' with
immaturity, or infancy. This is how he mangles reality. They were adults >>>> in the eyes of halakhah...which FakeJewMikey is decidedly not."
Grim times for the poetry newsgroup indeed.
Pick didn't belong here.
There's no guidelines on who we "allow" to be here.
Stephan Pickering knew poetry and made many good poetry posts.
Wrong
I don't agree.
The only poetry he posted here
Pretty good poetry, as I recall.
The only poems he "wrote" were
Not true, Stephan Pickering has written some interesting poems over the >>>>> years.
Wrong.
I don't agree.
A.A. Milne wrote some interesting tales about "The House a Pooh
Corner" which Pickles plagiarized by sticking a "Kosher" in front of
Piglet's name and claiming as his own on the grounds of "creative
adaption."
That was an interesting work actually.
The original? Definitely.
The Kosher Kopy? Not at all.
It worked as a National Lampoon or Mad Magazine type satire or parody,
at least.
The third thing you did, a month or so of that, when Jim and Stephan >>>>>>>> were thoroughly
engaged with each other, you went deep diving outside the group for >>>>>>>> information on NAMBLA, and found a quotation from Allan Ginsberg >>>>>>>> ("I have never had sex with anyone under 15"
The youngest sex partner Allen Ginsberg is known to have was the 18-19
year old man
14 or 15 according to other sources.
Can you link to these alleged sources?
And later it turns out the youngest sex partner Allen Ginsberg is known >>>>> to have was an 18-19 year old man.
14.
Can you link to any real evidence of this?
No, he was 18 and then turned 19.
It depends on the source.
Unless something new has surfaced, there's zero evidence.
There's an interview with the fellow, I don't remember his name right
now.
I have to walk my dog for a while.
(To be Continued)
posting here, calling Ginsberg a "pedophile" (or predator);
Which, from the evidence, wasn't true, as shown above.
Again, more on this later.
and then
when others objected to that (like Stephan, Will, or myself), you began
calling those people "pedophiles" as well.
That's when the bullshit from Pendragon began to get heavy.
Most likely Jim had condemned Ginsberg as
a child molester
Which wasn't actually true, by all evidence.
Not statements but actual evidence.
I looked twenty years ago and found no actual evidence, more on this
layer.
Ginsberg was a supporter and member of the North American Man/Boy Love >>>> Association (NAMBLA), a pedophilia and pederasty advocacy organization >>>> in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws and
legalize sexual relations between adults and children.[124][citation
needed] Saying that he joined the organization "in defense of free
speech",[125] Ginsberg stated: "Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics,
witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance ... >>>> I'm a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too—everybody does, who has a >>>> little humanity".[126] In 1994, Ginsberg appeared in a documentary on
NAMBLA called Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys (playing on the gay male >>>> slang term 'chickenhawk'), in which he read a "graphic ode to
youth".[124] He read his poem "Sweet Boy, Gimme Yr Ass" from the book
Mind Breaths.[127]
More re on this later, see below.
In her 2002 book Heartbreak, Andrea Dworkin claimed Ginsberg had
ulterior motives for allying with NAMBLA:
In 1982, newspapers reported in huge headlines that the Supreme Court
had ruled child pornography illegal. I was thrilled. I knew Allen would >>>> not be. I did think he was a civil libertarian. But, in fact, he was a >>>> pedophile. He did not belong to the North American Man/Boy Love
Association out of some mad, abstract conviction that its voice had to >>>> be heard. He meant it. I take this from what Allen said directly to me, >>>> not from some inference I made. He was exceptionally aggressive about
his right to fuck children and his constant pursuit of underage
boys.[128]
There was a bitter feud between Ginsberg and this person, I don't
remember the details but Dworkin was said to have no evidence that
Ginsberg had actually made those statements.
I'll have to research this again, since I haven't read the details in
over twenty years.
and Pickering (who worshipped Ginsberg) spazzed.
That is a fair summary of what I just said, though you left out that you
(and Jim)
were calling Stephan a child molester as well. No one appreciates being
called names like that by cowardly trolls on the internet.
Which led to Tit for Tat behavior over time.
Again, I remember that.
At that point Pendragon and Senetto were trying any dirty trick to drive >>>>> Stephan Pickering away from this newsgroup.
And so it goes.
I doubt you'll argue this, Pendragon, since you once bragged about doing
this in the 1950s music group.
Pickles claimed to have deflowered two 14-year old girls.
Whether he actually did so is unknown, as he has been unequivocally
shown to be a pathological liar.
Nevertheless, according to his own admission, he was a child molester
and statutory rapist.
I remember reading his posts about this but it seemed to be in the
context of his cultural situation, I confess I don't remember the
complicated details of that story.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:40:46 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:21:42 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:15:27 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MPP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:06:00 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:snip
At some point Jim and Pickles got into a flamewar regarding Ginsberg. I >>>>>> don't recall who started it.
Well, allow me to refresh your memory. Jim and Stephan first got into >>>>> flamewars after you formed Team Monkey with him and NastyGoon (NG), a >>>>> Pickering troll.
You're opening sentence is a delusional lie, George. I never formed any >>>> team. There was no "Team Monkey."
I was on a friendly basis with Jim from the first time he posted here
(that is to say, the first time after my having joined the group).
Everyone was on a friendly basis with him originally; he mostly posted
his own poetry; mostly the same dozen or less poems that we'd all read,
with the titles constantly changing so we'd read them again, but no one
flamed him for that. If he got into a flamewar with Stephan over
Ginsberg (and I'll accept your claim that that came first), that would
have been his first flamewar. But when he got into his flamewar with
Stephan (possibly because he was upset that Stephan had been "impolite" >>> to him), and because you were also upset that Stephan had been
"impolite" to you), the two of you began to flame Stephan together. You
went from having a friendly relationship to forming a troll alliance.
Wrong.
We remained in a friendly relationship.
Fighting Pickles did not affect this in any way.
When NancyGene first came to the group, she was trolling Pickles -- and >>>> since Pickles was your Donkey's ally, she soon joined Brooke, ME, Usenet >>>> Editor, and friends in attacking the Donkey. Since I was also an ally
of your Donkey, I joined the Donkey in attacking them.
So "Dr." NastyGoon (who was trolling and flaming Stephan) formed an
alliance with mini-ME (who was trolling and flaming Will) to troll and
flame both of them; and because you and your Chimp also had an alliance
to troll and flame Stephan, the four of you formed an alliance to troll
and flame both of of them. That's the genesis of "Team Monkey" in a
nutshell.
Do you have any idea how batshit crazy half-witted that sounds?
Don't answer, the question was rhetorical.
When they showed that they were willing to work with me in establishing >>>> peace at AAPC, I stopped fighting with them. Stopping fights is the
first step to establishing peace.
But, as you've just told us, you didn't establish any peace or stopping
any fights.
Lie! I just told you that I stopped fighting with NancyGene and ME.
How dense are you?
*Again, the above question is rhetorical.
You just switched from (allegedly) attacking them to
attacking Will and Stephan - you formed the troll alliance alliance that >>> I later called "Team Monkey". To continue:
Lie!
I did not start attacking Will at that time. I merely stopped attacking
NancyGene and ME on his behalf (a fact which he whined about endlessly).
The first thing you did was invite NG into Jim's Sunday Sampler,
where
they (NG's preferred pronoun) would write trollpoems about Stephan. The >>>>> result would be Stephan jumping into the Sampler, which would result in >>>>> JIm
flaming him and others (for example, Richard Oakley) also being turned >>>>> against Jim. I doubt that either Jim nor STephan realized that you were >>>>> manipulating them for that outcome.
Eventually I came to like and respect
NancyGene and ME, and we became friends. This was a nature progression >>>> of our engaging in friendly poetry-related discussions together -- and >>>> had nothing to do with having created some made up "Team."
You became allies (or, to use your term, online "friends") with two
trolls and the four of you then began trolling and flaming Will and
Stephan. You just don't like my calling your alliance "Team Monkey."
I'll reply in depth when I get to your post, George, but that's correct.
I did not start trolling Will until after the *second* time he seconded
Pickles' post/poem depicting me as a "paedophile."
Again, the poem never seemed to be "about you" Harry, that's just the
way you decided to interpret the poem.
This was two years after NancyGene, ME, Jim and I became friends.
You might also recall that I was *not* attacking the Donkey at that
time. Rather than having formed an anti-Donkey team, I had taken a
neutral position and adopted a friendly stance toward both sides.
Of course it's better for a team to attack one person at a time; but of
course you had to start trolling and flaming Will, since
"Dr." NastyGoon and mini-ME were already trolling him as well.
See above.
Will and I had been maintaining an uneasy state of civility towards one
another, out of respect for our former friendship.
It was only after Will seconded Pickles' "paedophile" accusation --
It was simply a poem, not an accusation.
The first time this happened, Will claimed that he had been applauding
Pickles' poem in general -- agreeing with its content
The poems didn't really seem to be about you, Harry.
I think you were being a bit paranoid and delusional at that time.
began openly opposing my attempts to establish peace.
Completely untrue, I stated to the end that I was in favor of peace and
that we could have peace immediately by simply stopping the fighting.
Michael Pendragon showed over and over that he didn't really have any interest in peace.
Once again, your trolling and flaming were doing nothing to "establish
peace" on the group. In fact, by bringing the flamewars into your
Chimp's Sunday Sampler, you had destroyed the one oasis of peace.
The troll thugs were determined to drive Stephan Pickering from the
poetry newsgroups at any cost, as the archives show.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 2:09:47 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 0:12:29 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:40:46 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:21:42 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:15:27 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MPP) aka >>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:Wrong.
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:06:00 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:snip
At some point Jim and Pickles got into a flamewar regarding Ginsberg. I
don't recall who started it.
Well, allow me to refresh your memory. Jim and Stephan first got into >>>>>>> flamewars after you formed Team Monkey with him and NastyGoon (NG), a >>>>>>> Pickering troll.
You're opening sentence is a delusional lie, George. I never formed any >>>>>> team. There was no "Team Monkey."
I was on a friendly basis with Jim from the first time he posted here >>>>>> (that is to say, the first time after my having joined the group).
Everyone was on a friendly basis with him originally; he mostly posted >>>>> his own poetry; mostly the same dozen or less poems that we'd all read, >>>>> with the titles constantly changing so we'd read them again, but no one >>>>> flamed him for that. If he got into a flamewar with Stephan over
Ginsberg (and I'll accept your claim that that came first), that would >>>>> have been his first flamewar. But when he got into his flamewar with >>>>> Stephan (possibly because he was upset that Stephan had been "impolite" >>>>> to him), and because you were also upset that Stephan had been
"impolite" to you), the two of you began to flame Stephan together. You >>>>> went from having a friendly relationship to forming a troll alliance. >>>>
We remained in a friendly relationship.
Fighting Pickles did not affect this in any way.
When NancyGene first came to the group, she was trolling Pickles -- and >>>>>> since Pickles was your Donkey's ally, she soon joined Brooke, ME, Usenet >>>>>> Editor, and friends in attacking the Donkey. Since I was also an ally >>>>>> of your Donkey, I joined the Donkey in attacking them.
So "Dr." NastyGoon (who was trolling and flaming Stephan) formed an
alliance with mini-ME (who was trolling and flaming Will) to troll and >>>>> flame both of them; and because you and your Chimp also had an alliance >>>>> to troll and flame Stephan, the four of you formed an alliance to troll >>>>> and flame both of of them. That's the genesis of "Team Monkey" in a
nutshell.
Do you have any idea how batshit crazy half-witted that sounds?
Don't answer, the question was rhetorical.
When they showed that they were willing to work with me in establishing >>>>>> peace at AAPC, I stopped fighting with them. Stopping fights is the >>>>>> first step to establishing peace.
But, as you've just told us, you didn't establish any peace or stopping >>>>> any fights.
Lie! I just told you that I stopped fighting with NancyGene and ME.
How dense are you?
*Again, the above question is rhetorical.
You just switched from (allegedly) attacking them to
attacking Will and Stephan - you formed the troll alliance alliance that >>>>> I later called "Team Monkey". To continue:
Lie!
I did not start attacking Will at that time. I merely stopped attacking >>>> NancyGene and ME on his behalf (a fact which he whined about endlessly). >>>>
The first thing you did was invite NG into Jim's Sunday Sampler, >>>>>>> where
they (NG's preferred pronoun) would write trollpoems about Stephan. The >>>>>>> result would be Stephan jumping into the Sampler, which would result in >>>>>>> JIm
flaming him and others (for example, Richard Oakley) also being turned >>>>>>> against Jim. I doubt that either Jim nor STephan realized that you were >>>>>>> manipulating them for that outcome.
Eventually I came to like and respect
NancyGene and ME, and we became friends. This was a nature progression >>>>>> of our engaging in friendly poetry-related discussions together -- and >>>>>> had nothing to do with having created some made up "Team."
You became allies (or, to use your term, online "friends") with two
trolls and the four of you then began trolling and flaming Will and
Stephan. You just don't like my calling your alliance "Team Monkey."
I'll reply in depth when I get to your post, George, but that's correct. >>>
I did not start trolling Will until after the *second* time he seconded >>>> Pickles' post/poem depicting me as a "paedophile."
Again, the poem never seemed to be "about you" Harry, that's just the
way you decided to interpret the poem.
Pickles used the name "PaedoScarlotti" in the poem! How is that a
matter of interpretation?
This was two years after NancyGene, ME, Jim and I became friends.
You might also recall that I was *not* attacking the Donkey at that >>>>>> time. Rather than having formed an anti-Donkey team, I had taken a >>>>>> neutral position and adopted a friendly stance toward both sides.
Of course it's better for a team to attack one person at a time; but of >>>>> course you had to start trolling and flaming Will, since
"Dr." NastyGoon and mini-ME were already trolling him as well.
See above.
Will and I had been maintaining an uneasy state of civility towards one >>>> another, out of respect for our former friendship.
It was only after Will seconded Pickles' "paedophile" accusation --
It was simply a poem, not an accusation.
If I had written dozens of posts accusing you of being a "paedophile,"
addressed you as "PaedoDockery," then wrote a poem about "PaedoDockery"
would it simply be a poem?
The first time this happened, Will claimed that he had been applauding >>>> Pickles' poem in general -- agreeing with its content
The poems didn't really seem to be about you, Harry.
I think you were being a bit paranoid and delusional at that time.
And I think that you're not so stupid as not to realize that the act of
calling me "PaedoScarlotti" is an implicit accusation that I am a
paedophile.
began openly opposing my attempts to establish peace.
Completely untrue, I stated to the end that I was in favor of peace and
that we could have peace immediately by simply stopping the fighting.
You wanted us to stop attacking you, but refused to stop flooding the
newsgroup with your 50+ slurp posts and "Hello Jordy" posts a day in
return.
To put it more bluntly, you were saying the equivalent of: "I'll do
whatever I damn well please. If you don't like it, just skip and
ignore."
Michael Pendragon showed over and over that he didn't really have any
interest in peace.
I was willing to make compromises and concessions. You were not.
Once again, your trolling and flaming were doing nothing to "establish >>>>> peace" on the group. In fact, by bringing the flamewars into your
Chimp's Sunday Sampler, you had destroyed the one oasis of peace.
The troll thugs were determined to drive Stephan Pickering from the
poetry newsgroups at any cost, as the archives show.
Lie.
The archives show otherwise, Pendragon.
I never tried to drive Pickles out. I killed the little mofo.
Delusional much, Pendragon?
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:07:50 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 16:51:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:52:18 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 13:38:34 +0000, MichaelMonkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:41:04 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
That's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say >>>>>>> about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in >>>>>>> this thread.
HTH and HAND.
Based on George's reaction to the previous comments of my colleague, Dr. >>>>>> NancyGene and myself, I should think that he would want to stick a "No >>>>>> Trespassing" sign on his father's lawn.
I see HarryLiar is still miffed that I called the comments of him and
"Dr." NastyGoon psychobabble (which is why he's started calling our
psychoanalysis of him "psychobabble"),
Neither one is qualified to make a diagnosis of any kind, physical or
mental.
And so it goes.
I honestly don't recall your having previously used the term, George.
I certainly can't call you a liar for that. Both Will and I have
commented on your selective memory.
True, Harry/Pendragon's poor memory is infamous and legendary in the
Usenet newsgroup archives.
But that of course belongs in the
"Psycho-epistemology" thread; you're only bringing it up here
I noticed that thread has been conveniently buried lately, perhaps it
needs a slight bump.
I suspect that all (me, NancyGene, and yourself) used it when we were
discussing your poem in the past...
I seriously doubt that either "Doctor" Peabrain or "Doctor" NastyGoon
referred to their own efforts as psychobabble.
Definitely sounds too self effacing for them to do anything like that.
but I really don't care enough to
bother looking it up.
Exactly, because the Usenet newsgroup archives will most likely prove
you wrong, Harry/Pendragon.
Of course you don't care to look anything up before talking about it.
And then when the archived evidence is provided, Pendragon/Harry (or
Nancy Gene) simply shuts the fuck up about it until it "goes away."
But that, too, belongs on the "Psycho-Epistemology" thread.
Indeed, that thread is currently buried.
No surprise there.
I'm calling yours "psychobabble" because your misuse of psychology-based >>> terms like "transference" make it clear that you have little to no
knowledge of the subject.
As if the armchair psychiatrists Pendragon and Nancy Gene are qualified
to make such a diagnosis.
They're not.
Thank you for giving me something I *can* call you a liar for, Lying
Michael. In point of fact, you were copying the term "psychobabble"
before you accused me of misusing the term "transference" (which I may
well be; it looks like psychological jargon for what's commonly called
"projection")
Nailed it.
Okay, we've heard your misrepresentation, Pendragon, I said George Dance >>>>> might have something to say about his poem.
I still think this is true ^^^
Of course I'd prefer that readers read my poem, and my own comments on >>>> it, rather than HarryLiar's psychobabble about it. So I'll be happy to >>>> post and talk about it again when I have time.
Excellent.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 7:06:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 3:37:09 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
I am publishing an AAPC poetry journal featuring award-winning poets. >>>>>>>Can you say vanity press?
A vanity press charges a "reading" or "submission" fee.
Do you pay in contributors copies?
Almost. I don't receive any money for them. They're sold at cost.
So, like I said, your publication is basically vanity press, poets
published in your book have to pay to see a copy of the book their
poetry is published in.
Good luck with your vanity press venture.
So... no.
After Jim and Stephan became engaged in a prolonged flamewar
Eventually dragging everyone in.
off the Sampler, the second thing you did was start flooding the group
with
a nasty, libellous document that NG had written.
Lest we forget ^^^
Oh yes, the last resort, flood the newsgroup with your lies and
misrepresentations.
Exactly, nailed it.
There was no such "libellous[sic]" document
George Dance saw it differently.
He certainly spelled it differently.
George Dance got his point across, spelling lames notwithstanding.
Grim times for the poetry newsgroup indeed.
There's no guidelines on who we "allow" to be here on a Usenet
newsgroup.
Stephan Pickering knew poetry and made many good poetry posts.
Pretty good poetry, as I recall.
Stephan Pickering has written some interesting poems over the years.
The third thing you did, a month or so of that, when Jim and Stephan >>>>>>>>>> were thoroughly
engaged with each other, you went deep diving outside the group for >>>>>>>>>> information on NAMBLA, and found a quotation from Allan Ginsberg >>>>>>>>>> ("I have never had sex with anyone under 15"
Under 18-19, we now know.
The youngest sex partner Allen Ginsberg is known to have was the 18-19 >>>>> year old man
And later it turns out the youngest sex partner Allen Ginsberg is known >>>>>>> to have was an 18-19 year old man.
He was 18 and then turned 19.
Unless something new has surfaced, there's zero evidence.
IIRC, Ginsberg tacitly admitted it in one or more interviews.
There's an interview with the fellow, I don't remember his name right >>>>> now.
Which, from the evidence, wasn't true, as shown above.posting here, falsely calling Ginsberg a "pedophile" (or predator); >>>>>>>
Again, more on this later.
and then
when others objected to that (like Stephan, Will, or myself), you began
calling those people "pedophiles" as well.
Harry/Pendragon has apparently forgotten that he began this line of name calling.
That's when the bullshit from Pendragon began to get heavy.
And hot progressively worse.
Most likely Jim had falsely condemned Ginsberg as
a child molester
Which wasn't actually true, by all evidence.
Not statements but actual evidence.
I looked twenty years ago and found no actual evidence, more on this
later.
I'll have to research this again, since I haven't read the details in
over twenty years.
and Pickering (who worshipped Ginsberg) spazzed.
That is a fair summary of what I just said, though you left out that you
(and Jim)
were calling Stephan a child molester as well. No one appreciates being
called names like that by cowardly trolls on the internet.
Which led to Tit for Tat behavior over time.
Again, I remember that.
At that point Pendragon and Senetto were trying any dirty trick to drive
Stephan Pickering away from this newsgroup.
And so it goes.
I doubt you'll argue this, Pendragon, since you once bragged about doing >>> this in the 1950s music group.
I never made any such boast
I don't remember the details but Bruce and Diane still go ballistic if
your name comes up, due to your years of malicious personal attacks and trolling on the 1950s music Usenet newsgroup.
I bragged about torturing the living bejeezus out of PhillyGuy for fun
and amusement. I never made up anything to win an argument there.
You made things up about Philly Guy though, correct?
I researched, and posted, historical sources for every argument I made.
In fact, I got so good at researching 50s music, that I eventually wrote
a 2 volume book on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/MUSIC-Definitive-History-American-Popular/dp/B08D4VRR83/ref
https://www.amazon.com/Music-Two-Definitive-American-1964-1964/dp/B08F6CGF5S?ref
That looks really interesting, actually
1) Orthodox Jews who
arrange marriages for their children usually go to a matchmaker; 2) they
would also ensure that their daughter had a chaperone whenever she and
Pickles were together; 3) they would not have had any reason for wanting
to bring a penniless boy whose violent, alcoholic father had been shot
by his mother-in-law into their family; 4) they most certainly would
*NOT* under any circumstances, have fixed her up with a non-Jew. (This
was long before Pick's alleged self-conversion.) Pick's father *may*
have been Jewish (Pick never said), but Jewish identity is determined
along matriarchal lines (that is, through the mother).
Orthodox Jews cannot marry non-Jews. If an Orthodox Jew's daughter
marries a "goy" (a non-Jew) her parents must sit Shiva for her (hold the
equivalent of a wake), cut off all ties with her, and consider her as
being dead to them.
The second statutory rape supposedly occurred in Israel -- a year or two
after Pickles graduated high school. He claims that he impregnated, and
then married, this woman. However, Pickle's correspondence to Forrest
Ackerman firmly establishes that he was in Los Angeles at the time.
--
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 23:49:17 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:36:43 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 7:06:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 3:37:09 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
I am publishing an AAPC poetry journal featuring award-winning poets.
Can you say vanity press?
A vanity press charges a "reading" or "submission" fee.
Do you pay in contributors copies?
Almost. I don't receive any money for them. They're sold at cost.
So, like I said, your publication is basically vanity press, poets
published in your book have to pay to see a copy of the book their
poetry is published in.
Good luck with your vanity press venture.
Wrong, Donkey. Very few small press publications provide comp copies for
payment these days. Indie press has undergone a great many changes
since the 1980s. There aren't any Xexored, stapled "zines" anymore.
The small press is now either an e-zine or print-on-demand. And I've
yet to see a free print-on-demand comp copy.
"AYoS" is both a free monthly e-zine and an annual print-on-demand that
is sold at cost. The annual publication (a paperback book) is a "year's
best" collection. The monthly e-zine is no different from any other
e-zine.
So... no.
After Jim and Stephan became engaged in a prolonged flamewar
Eventually dragging everyone in.
So, people get dragged in to flame wars. That's all part of the many
joys of Usenet (sarcasm alert).
off the Sampler, the second thing you did was start flooding the group
with
a nasty, libellous document that NG had written.
Lest we forget ^^^
We already have.
I certainly saw no such "document."
Please be so good as to explain WTF you're prattling on about.
Oh yes, the last resort, flood the newsgroup with your lies and >>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
Exactly, nailed it.
Nonsense.
I suggest you look at the list of threads currently at the top of the
feed and count the number that were actually started by me. [HINT: 0]
Then count the number started by you, Jordy, or Dance.
You might also want to take note of how many of these threads are
sporting titles like "NastyGoon Lifts a Line" or "The Lime sock on
Stephan Pickering and NAMBLA."
If anyone is flooding the newsgroup with lies and misrepresentations
it's George Dance.
There was no such "libellous[sic]" document
George Dance saw it differently.
He certainly spelled it differently.
George Dance got his point across, spelling lames notwithstanding.
No, Donkey, he didn't. His thread was titled "NastyGoon Lifts a Line."
No matter how much he may backpedal as to whether or not he technically
accused her of plagiarism in the body of the post [HINT: He did.], the
thread's title should remove any and all doubt as to his intention.
Grim times for the poetry newsgroup indeed.
There's no guidelines on who we "allow" to be here on a Usenet >>>>>>>>> newsgroup.
Stephan Pickering knew poetry and made many good poetry posts.
Pretty good poetry, as I recall.
Stephan Pickering has written some interesting poems over the years. >>>>
The third thing you did, a month or so of that, when Jim and Stephan
were thoroughly
engaged with each other, you went deep diving outside the group for
information on NAMBLA, and found a quotation from Allan Ginsberg >>>>>>>>>>>> ("I have never had sex with anyone under 15"
Under 18-19, we now know.
Again, Donkey, I have provided you with links that state otherwise. You
can believe what you want to, but there is a great deal of evidence to
the contrary.
The youngest sex partner Allen Ginsberg is known to have was the 18-19 >>>>>>> year old man
And later it turns out the youngest sex partner Allen Ginsberg is known
to have was an 18-19 year old man.
He was 18 and then turned 19.
Unless something new has surfaced, there's zero evidence.
IIRC, Ginsberg tacitly admitted it in one or more interviews.
There's an interview with the fellow, I don't remember his name right >>>>>>> now.
posting here, falsely calling Ginsberg a "pedophile" (or predator);
Which, from the evidence, wasn't true, as shown above.
Again, more on this later.
and then
when others objected to that (like Stephan, Will, or myself), you began
calling those people "pedophiles" as well.
Harry/Pendragon has apparently forgotten that he began this line of name >>> calling.
Lie.
Pickles *said* that he'd statutorily raped two 14-year old girls.
Pickles said that there should be *no* legal age restrictions. Pickles
said that the only reason he wouldn't recommend having a sexual
relationship with someone under the age of thirteen was because younger
children are unable to commit to a long term relationship and *the
adult* would end up getting hurt. Pickles said that incest is
culturally accepted in many countries and that those of us who are
opposed to it have been duped by "Nazrim paradigms." Pickles said that
he went to NAMBLA meetings, NAMBLA conventions, and took NAMBLA members
to dinner.
In light of the above, my labeling Pickles a "pedophile" was not a
matter of "name calling." It was a matter of *fact* based on Pickles'
own admissions.
That's when the bullshit from Pendragon began to get heavy.
And hot progressively worse.
Lie.
There is no accusation one can make that is worse than that of
"pedophile." Pickles was one by his own accounting. Pickles called me
one (playing George's game of Tit for Tat).
The only acceleration in the flame war came upon the discovery of the
Ackerman letters which proved that Pickles' entire life story (as he'd
told it) had been a lie.
Most likely Jim had falsely condemned Ginsberg as
a child molester
Which wasn't actually true, by all evidence.
Not statements but actual evidence.
I looked twenty years ago and found no actual evidence, more on this >>>>> later.
I'll have to research this again, since I haven't read the details in >>>>> over twenty years.
and Pickering (who worshipped Ginsberg) spazzed.
That is a fair summary of what I just said, though you left out that you
(and Jim)
were calling Stephan a child molester as well. No one appreciates being
called names like that by cowardly trolls on the internet.
Which led to Tit for Tat behavior over time.
Again, I remember that.
At that point Pendragon and Senetto were trying any dirty trick to drive
Stephan Pickering away from this newsgroup.
And so it goes.
I doubt you'll argue this, Pendragon, since you once bragged about doing >>>>> this in the 1950s music group.
I never made any such boast
I don't remember the details but Bruce and Diane still go ballistic if
your name comes up, due to your years of malicious personal attacks and
trolling on the 1950s music Usenet newsgroup.
I considered Bruce to be a friend. We often chatted via Messenger (or
some similar platform).
Our friendship ended over an incident that I really had nothing to do
with. Sharx, who trolled the group, had become an ally of mine. Sharx
made an unfortunate remark about Diane's looks that Bruce said had her
in tears. Diane had been battling cancer at the time, but hadn't told
anyone so Sharx had no way of knowing this. Bruce demanded that I stop
all interaction with Sharx as a result. I suggested to Sharx that he
apologize, but refused to shun him, or anyone else, at Bruce's say so.
That, AFAIK, is the extent of it.
I bragged about torturing the living bejeezus out of PhillyGuy for fun >>>> and amusement. I never made up anything to win an argument there.
You made things up about Philly Guy though, correct?
Nothing serious.
Philly Guy wrote a "poem" about Dennis (who I still consider to be a
friend). He challenged Dennis to write one about him -- and seemed to
be extending his challenge to all comers. My bad.
Anyhoo, I wrote the infamous "Gerbil Pome" in his honor:
"Here comes Tom from the city of brotherly love
Inserting his hand in a rubbery glove
Then with finger in hole, he does swish it about
Trying to wrestle the young gerbil out."
I didn't see how anyone could take that seriously, but Philly Guy did.
He started writing long, incoherent, run-on rants in which he accused me
of being devil worshiping Nazi and every other terrible thing he could
think of.
So I wrote him another poem.
He went postal again.
So I wrote him another one.
This went on until I decided to try something new: I made a post using
a fake account ("Phi11yGuy" -- the same as his, only I'd replaced the
lowercase ells with ones).
He immediately went ballistic x 1,000. He even went so far as to "kill"
of his "PhillyGuy" Usener name, and adopting a brand new one.
This was a game-changer.
From that point on, I'd let him get used to his new identity, then make
another fake post by him, causing him to kill of his new identity as
well.
What can I say? I'm sadistic.
Anyway, I'd make totally ridiculous posts about him to set him off.
Kind of like how mentioning Michael Cook would set you off -- only much,
much worse.
I researched, and posted, historical sources for every argument I made. >>>> In fact, I got so good at researching 50s music, that I eventually wrote >>>> a 2 volume book on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/MUSIC-Definitive-History-American-Popular/dp/B08D4VRR83/ref
https://www.amazon.com/Music-Two-Definitive-American-1964-1964/dp/B08F6CGF5S?ref
That looks really interesting, actually
Thank you. I'd really like to expand it some day -- but it just takes
up too much time. IOW: I can't work on it and write/publish/create
videos at the same time.
1) Orthodox Jews who
arrange marriages for their children usually go to a matchmaker; 2) they >>>> would also ensure that their daughter had a chaperone whenever she and >>>> Pickles were together; 3) they would not have had any reason for wanting >>>> to bring a penniless boy whose violent, alcoholic father had been shot >>>> by his mother-in-law into their family; 4) they most certainly would
*NOT* under any circumstances, have fixed her up with a non-Jew. (This >>>> was long before Pick's alleged self-conversion.) Pick's father *may*
have been Jewish (Pick never said), but Jewish identity is determined
along matriarchal lines
That's why Zod isn't really considered a Jew, although his family on his father's side is German Jewish.
I think he suffered a lot of angst in his youth, looking Jewish but with
his Irish Catholic mother (from the Deep South at that) he never really
felt he fit in with the little New York Jews that were the main
population in his neighborhood of Buffalo NY.
Then when his family moved here in 1983 he felt alienated because the
locals DID see him as a New York Yankee Jew type.
42 years later and Zod seems more Southern than I do sometimes.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 0:37:49 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 0:25:52 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 23:49:17 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:36:43 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 7:06:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 3:37:09 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:So, like I said, your publication is basically vanity press, poets
I am publishing an AAPC poetry journal featuring award-winning poets.
Can you say vanity press?
A vanity press charges a "reading" or "submission" fee.
Do you pay in contributors copies?
Almost. I don't receive any money for them. They're sold at cost. >>>>>
published in your book have to pay to see a copy of the book their
poetry is published in.
Good luck with your vanity press venture.
Wrong, Donkey. Very few small press publications provide comp copies for >>>> payment these days. Indie press has undergone a great many changes
since the 1980s. There aren't any Xexored, stapled "zines" anymore.
The small press is now either an e-zine or print-on-demand. And I've
yet to see a free print-on-demand comp copy.
"AYoS" is both a free monthly e-zine and an annual print-on-demand that >>>> is sold at cost. The annual publication (a paperback book) is a "year's >>>> best" collection. The monthly e-zine is no different from any other
e-zine.
Eventually dragging everyone in.So... no.
After Jim and Stephan became engaged in a prolonged flamewar >>>>>
So, people get dragged in to flame wars. That's all part of the many
joys of Usenet (sarcasm alert).
off the Sampler, the second thing you did was start flooding the group
with
a nasty, libellous document that NG had written.
Lest we forget ^^^
We already have.
I certainly saw no such "document."
Please be so good as to explain WTF you're prattling on about.
Oh yes, the last resort, flood the newsgroup with your lies and >>>>>>>>>>> misrepresentations.
Exactly, nailed it.
Nonsense.
I suggest you look at the list of threads currently at the top of the
feed and count the number that were actually started by me. [HINT: 0]
Then count the number started by you, Jordy, or Dance.
You might also want to take note of how many of these threads are
sporting titles like "NastyGoon Lifts a Line" or "The Lime sock on
Stephan Pickering and NAMBLA."
If anyone is flooding the newsgroup with lies and misrepresentations
it's George Dance.
There was no such "libellous[sic]" document
George Dance saw it differently.
He certainly spelled it differently.
George Dance got his point across, spelling lames notwithstanding.
No, Donkey, he didn't. His thread was titled "NastyGoon Lifts a Line." >>>> No matter how much he may backpedal as to whether or not he technically >>>> accused her of plagiarism in the body of the post [HINT: He did.], the >>>> thread's title should remove any and all doubt as to his intention.
Grim times for the poetry newsgroup indeed.
Pretty good poetry, as I recall.There's no guidelines on who we "allow" to be here on a Usenet >>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup.
Stephan Pickering knew poetry and made many good poetry posts. >>>>>>
Stephan Pickering has written some interesting poems over the years. >>>>>>
The third thing you did, a month or so of that, when Jim and Stephan
were thoroughly
engaged with each other, you went deep diving outside the group for
information on NAMBLA, and found a quotation from Allan Ginsberg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ("I have never had sex with anyone under 15"
Under 18-19, we now know.
Again, Donkey, I have provided you with links that state otherwise. You >>>> can believe what you want to, but there is a great deal of evidence to >>>> the contrary.
The youngest sex partner Allen Ginsberg is known to have was the 18-19
year old man
And later it turns out the youngest sex partner Allen Ginsberg is known
to have was an 18-19 year old man.
He was 18 and then turned 19.
Unless something new has surfaced, there's zero evidence.
IIRC, Ginsberg tacitly admitted it in one or more interviews.
There's an interview with the fellow, I don't remember his name right >>>>>>>>> now.
posting here, falsely calling Ginsberg a "pedophile" (or predator);
Which, from the evidence, wasn't true, as shown above.
Again, more on this later.
and then
when others objected to that (like Stephan, Will, or myself), you began
calling those people "pedophiles" as well.
Harry/Pendragon has apparently forgotten that he began this line of name >>>>> calling.
Lie.
Pickles *said* that he'd statutorily raped two 14-year old girls.
Pickles said that there should be *no* legal age restrictions. Pickles >>>> said that the only reason he wouldn't recommend having a sexual
relationship with someone under the age of thirteen was because younger >>>> children are unable to commit to a long term relationship and *the
adult* would end up getting hurt. Pickles said that incest is
culturally accepted in many countries and that those of us who are
opposed to it have been duped by "Nazrim paradigms." Pickles said that >>>> he went to NAMBLA meetings, NAMBLA conventions, and took NAMBLA members >>>> to dinner.
In light of the above, my labeling Pickles a "pedophile" was not a
matter of "name calling." It was a matter of *fact* based on Pickles' >>>> own admissions.
That's when the bullshit from Pendragon began to get heavy.
And hot progressively worse.
Lie.
There is no accusation one can make that is worse than that of
"pedophile." Pickles was one by his own accounting. Pickles called me >>>> one (playing George's game of Tit for Tat).
The only acceleration in the flame war came upon the discovery of the
Ackerman letters which proved that Pickles' entire life story (as he'd >>>> told it) had been a lie.
Most likely Jim had falsely condemned Ginsberg as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a child molester
Which wasn't actually true, by all evidence.
Not statements but actual evidence.
I looked twenty years ago and found no actual evidence, more on this >>>>>>> later.
I'll have to research this again, since I haven't read the details in >>>>>>> over twenty years.
Which led to Tit for Tat behavior over time.and Pickering (who worshipped Ginsberg) spazzed.
That is a fair summary of what I just said, though you left out that you
(and Jim)
were calling Stephan a child molester as well. No one appreciates being
called names like that by cowardly trolls on the internet. >>>>>>>
Again, I remember that.
At that point Pendragon and Senetto were trying any dirty trick to drive
Stephan Pickering away from this newsgroup.
And so it goes.
I doubt you'll argue this, Pendragon, since you once bragged about doing
this in the 1950s music group.
I never made any such boast
I don't remember the details but Bruce and Diane still go ballistic if >>>>> your name comes up, due to your years of malicious personal attacks and >>>>> trolling on the 1950s music Usenet newsgroup.
I considered Bruce to be a friend. We often chatted via Messenger (or
some similar platform).
Our friendship ended over an incident that I really had nothing to do
with. Sharx, who trolled the group, had become an ally of mine. Sharx >>>> made an unfortunate remark about Diane's looks that Bruce said had her >>>> in tears. Diane had been battling cancer at the time, but hadn't told >>>> anyone so Sharx had no way of knowing this. Bruce demanded that I stop >>>> all interaction with Sharx as a result. I suggested to Sharx that he
apologize, but refused to shun him, or anyone else, at Bruce's say so. >>>>
That, AFAIK, is the extent of it.
I bragged about torturing the living bejeezus out of PhillyGuy for fun >>>>>> and amusement. I never made up anything to win an argument there.
You made things up about Philly Guy though, correct?
Nothing serious.
Philly Guy wrote a "poem" about Dennis (who I still consider to be a
friend). He challenged Dennis to write one about him -- and seemed to >>>> be extending his challenge to all comers. My bad.
Anyhoo, I wrote the infamous "Gerbil Pome" in his honor:
"Here comes Tom from the city of brotherly love
Inserting his hand in a rubbery glove
Then with finger in hole, he does swish it about
Trying to wrestle the young gerbil out."
I didn't see how anyone could take that seriously, but Philly Guy did. >>>> He started writing long, incoherent, run-on rants in which he accused me >>>> of being devil worshiping Nazi and every other terrible thing he could >>>> think of.
So I wrote him another poem.
He went postal again.
So I wrote him another one.
This went on until I decided to try something new: I made a post using >>>> a fake account ("Phi11yGuy" -- the same as his, only I'd replaced the
lowercase ells with ones).
He immediately went ballistic x 1,000. He even went so far as to "kill" >>>> of his "PhillyGuy" Usener name, and adopting a brand new one.
This was a game-changer.
From that point on, I'd let him get used to his new identity, then make >>>> another fake post by him, causing him to kill of his new identity as
well.
What can I say? I'm sadistic.
Anyway, I'd make totally ridiculous posts about him to set him off.
Kind of like how mentioning Michael Cook would set you off -- only much, >>>> much worse.
I researched, and posted, historical sources for every argument I made. >>>>>> In fact, I got so good at researching 50s music, that I eventually wrote >>>>>> a 2 volume book on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/MUSIC-Definitive-History-American-Popular/dp/B08D4VRR83/ref
https://www.amazon.com/Music-Two-Definitive-American-1964-1964/dp/B08F6CGF5S?ref
That looks really interesting, actually
Thank you. I'd really like to expand it some day -- but it just takes >>>> up too much time. IOW: I can't work on it and write/publish/create
videos at the same time.
I'll be at the library Monday so I'll see about ordering your books.
1) Orthodox Jews who
arrange marriages for their children usually go to a matchmaker; 2) they >>>>>> would also ensure that their daughter had a chaperone whenever she and >>>>>> Pickles were together; 3) they would not have had any reason for wanting >>>>>> to bring a penniless boy whose violent, alcoholic father had been shot >>>>>> by his mother-in-law into their family; 4) they most certainly would >>>>>> *NOT* under any circumstances, have fixed her up with a non-Jew. (This >>>>>> was long before Pick's alleged self-conversion.) Pick's father *may* >>>>>> have been Jewish (Pick never said), but Jewish identity is determined >>>>>> along matriarchal lines
That's why Zod isn't really considered a Jew, although his family on his >>> father's side is German Jewish.
I think he suffered a lot of angst in his youth, looking Jewish but with >>> his Irish Catholic mother (from the Deep South at that) he never really
felt he fit in with the little New York Jews that were the main
population in his neighborhood of Buffalo NY.
Then when his family moved here in 1983 he felt alienated because the
locals DID see him as a New York Yankee Jew type.
42 years later and Zod seems more Southern than I do sometimes.
There are plenty of Jewish children in NY who are only half Jewish (my
own, for example). The "little New York Jews" [sic] can be anything
from Chassidic to reform. Reform Jews certainly wouldn't have cared if
mother was Irish or from the South. Unless his parents sent
him to a Jewish school, he would have easily blended in with all the
other kids.
--
I think he did, basically, but had self conscious moments.
Anyway, this is Zod's story so I should just let him tell it if he wants
to.
I told him the newsgroup is getting lively again when I spoke with him
last night so he might already be lurking.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 16:49:20 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:39:15 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:15:50 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:23:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime"aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
My reason for opening a new thread would be because you're constantly >>>>>> bringing up my poem in unrelated threads, as per your M.O. which I >>>>>> already noted. (As that contained a few typos), I'll copy it in here: >>>>>>
"That's been your regular M.O. since you showed up. Whenever I try to >>>>>> have
a conversation with Will, about anything, you jump in and start spewing >>>>>> false claims about something else, in the mistaken belief that I'd only >>>>>> have two options:
(1) try to refute your false claims, in which case you've successfully >>>>>> disrupted the conversation; or
(2) ignore them (in which some people might think those false claims of >>>>>> yours are actually true)."
When you're having a conversation *about me*, you mean to say, deceitful >>>>> George.
If you make false statements about me on a social media platform
(libel), you should expect, at very least, a refutation.
I opened this thread to respond to false statements you were making
about your flame war on Stephan, Will, myself, and others on other
threads. No one has said it wasn't about you.
It's history, and certain aspects of that decade long flame war haven't
been documented.
To save time, why don't you just bump the old thread up to the top of >>>>>>> the feed?
Not all old threads are available on Nova BBS or JLA Forums.
Thus, new thread is easily the best option.
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating >>>>>>> the same points that we'd made at the time.
It takes time but that's Usenet newsgroups for you.
HarryLiar, no one is asking you to comment on that thread (or any of the >>>>>> other threads I've opened FTM).
Exactly, you don't need our permission to sit this one out, Pendragon.
If you have nothing to say on the poem,
you're more than welcome to sit that one out.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Since the Subject of this thread is "Re: The Lime sock on Stephan
Pickering and NAMBLA" (and since "The Lime sock[sic]" is the latest
childish name you have come up with to call me
After all the childish name-calling you've done over the last decade
you're going to whine about childish name-calling?
Oh, the hypocrisy...
Ever the hypocrite here's Michael Pendragon whining about childish name >>>> calling when he's the one who began that practice here years ago.
I'm not complaining about the name-calling
You sure seem to be, Harry.
I'm merely pointing out that "The Lime sock[sic]" is George Dance's
latest name for me.
We already know that, why bother to waste our time whining about it?
Get with the program. Precisely because of the whining about your
petname that Will mentioned, I changed it several days ago.
Pendragon the little green monkey boy?
😏
No, Lying Michael; this thread was a response to comments that you were
making about your flaming of Stephan (in another thread for deflection
purposes, as per your M.O.) You comments were quoted fairly and
accurately, not "reworded" in the slightest.
High time we documented that dark era of Usenet poetry newsgroups.
You're welcome to talk about them here; but be warned that going
forward, if you attempt to deflect by talking about something else, your
comments will be snipped here, and moved to the appropriate thread where
necessary.
On that note, we probably need an Allen Ginsberg thread.
Mr. Dance was whining
Actually, you're the one whining, Harry/Pendragon.
As I pointed out a couple of paragraphs ago.
No, Lying Michael. I am "whining" about you (once again) immediately
trying to change the subject of the discussion to something else. Your
first comment in this thread was to call me a liar (presumably just for
preemption). Your second was a misrepresentation of something I'd said
in the "Psychology of MPP" thread which I'd already dealt with on that
thread, so you simply repeated it here. Your third comment contained
both a lie and a faked quote about my poem "My Father's House". (Both
the latter two have been moved to the "My Father's House" thread Will
opened, if you're willing to talk about them there.)
Which was actually derailed by Cujo's deflecting.
It's hardly a one-sided conversation, HarryLiar, when and all my posts
in it (including the OP) have been replies to you, and you've written
more posts in it than I have, Please stop whining about being excluded
from it, since you obviously are not.
Correct.
Now you're supporting your earlier lie with fake quotes, which did not
come from anything I said, but came from you.
Tit for Tat is a concept that still seems to go over his head.
And so it goes.
Tit for Tat is a concept that I abandoned somewhere before having
attended Kindergarten. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you and >>> George.
No, Lying Michael. You continually rely on the concept. You may not
believe in govern your own behavior by reciprocal ethics - there's no
sign that your behavior is governed by any ethics - but you clearly pay
lip service to T4T to try to justify your behavior.
For instance, every time that you "attack" (troll and flame) someone,
you try to justify it with a story (sometimes true, sometimes not) that
they attacked you first. That's been the gist of every one of your
on-topic statements about the Team Monkey flamewar; that you and your
team went after Stephan, Will, and myself because they "attacked" you
first.
And that's almost always a complete lie and misrepresentation by Harry
Lime aka Michael Pendragon.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:51:45 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:39:15 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:23:41 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka >>>>>> "HarryLime"aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
My reason for opening a new thread would be because you're constantly >>>>>>>> bringing up my poem in unrelated threads, as per your M.O. which I >>>>>>>> already noted. (As that contained a few typos), I'll copy it in here: >>
"That's been your regular M.O. since you showed up. Whenever I try to >>>>>>>> have
a conversation with Will, about anything, you jump in and start spewing
false claims about something else, in the mistaken belief that I'd only
have two options:
(1) try to refute your false claims, in which case you've successfully >>>>>>>> disrupted the conversation; or
(2) ignore them (in which some people might think those false claims of
yours are actually true)."
If you make false statements about me on a social media platform >>>>>>> (libel), you should expect, at very least, a refutation.
I opened this thread to respond to false statements you were making
about your flame war on Stephan, Will, myself, and others on other
threads. No one has said it wasn't about you.
A good thread to correct the lies and misrepresentations and set the
record straight without having to carry all the troll bullshit along
with us as spewed by Harry Lime and his gang of troll thugs.
It's history, and certain aspects of that decade long flame war haven't
been documented.
Not all old threads are available on Nova BBS or JLA Forums.
Thus, new thread is easily the best option.
Rereading it requires much less time on both our parts than repeating >>>>>>>>> the same points that we'd made at the time.
It takes time but that's Usenet newsgroups for you.
No
Yes.
HarryLiar, no one is asking you to comment on that thread (or any of the
other threads I've opened FTM).
Exactly, you don't need our permission to sit this one out, Pendragon.
If you have nothing to say on the poem,
you're more than welcome to sit that one out.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Since the Subject of this thread is "Re: The Lime sock on Stephan >>>>>>> Pickering and NAMBLA" (and since "The Lime sock[sic]" is the latest >>>>>>> childish name you have come up with to call me
After all the childish name-calling you've done over the last decade
you're going to whine about childish name-calling?
Oh, the hypocrisy...
Are you really
Are you really?
I'm saying that if the thread is about me, you cant expect me to "sit
that one out."
Fair enough, I'm exactly the same.
I'll continue to correct lies and misrepresentations and then set the
record straight.
Ever the hypocrite here's Michael Pendragon whining about childish name >>>>>> calling when he's the one who began that practice here years ago.
I'm not complaining about the name-calling
You sure seem to be, Harry.
Learn
We learned about your agenda long ago, Harry.
I'm merely pointing out that "The Lime sock[sic]" is George Dance's
latest name for me.
We already know that, why bother to waste our time whining about it?
Get with the program. Precisely because of the whining about your
petname that Will mentioned, I changed it several days ago.
Pendragon the little green monkey boy?
😏
No, Lying Michael; this thread was a response to comments that you were >>>> making about your flaming of Stephan (in another thread for deflection >>>> purposes, as per your M.O.) You comments were quoted fairly and
accurately, not "reworded" in the slightest.
High time we documented that dark era of Usenet poetry newsgroups.
At least in better detail.
delusional
I pointed out thT YOU are delusional years ago and here you are second-handing my statement.
You're welcome to talk about them here; but be warned that going
forward, if you attempt to deflect by talking about something else, your >>>> comments will be snipped here, and moved to the appropriate thread where >>>> necessary.
On that note, we probably need an Allen Ginsberg thread.
Mr. Dance was whining
Actually, you're the one whining, Harry/Pendragon.
Whining, lying and spreading misrepresentations, that's the Harry Lime
way.
As I pointed out a couple of paragraphs ago.
No, Lying Michael. I am "whining" about you (once again) immediately
trying to change the subject of the discussion to something else. Your >>>> first comment in this thread was to call me a liar (presumably just for >>>> preemption). Your second was a misrepresentation of something I'd said >>>> in the "Psychology of MPP" thread which I'd already dealt with on that >>>> thread, so you simply repeated it here. Your third comment contained
both a lie and a faked quote about my poem "My Father's House". (Both
the latter two have been moved to the "My Father's House" thread Will
opened, if you're willing to talk about them there.)
Which was actually derailed by Cujo's deflecting.
It's hardly a one-sided conversation, HarryLiar, when and all my posts >>>> in it (including the OP) have been replies to you, and you've written
more posts in it than I have, Please stop whining about being excluded >>>> from it, since you obviously are not.
Correct.
Now you're supporting your earlier lie with fake quotes, which did not >>>> come from anything I said, but came from you.
Tit for Tat is a concept that still seems to go over his head.
And so it goes.
Tit for Tat is a concept that I abandoned somewhere before having
attended Kindergarten. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you and >>>>> George.
No, Lying Michael. You continually rely on the concept. You may not
believe in govern your own behavior by reciprocal ethics - there's no
sign that your behavior is governed by any ethics - but you clearly pay >>>> lip service to T4T to try to justify your behavior.
For instance, every time that you "attack" (troll and flame) someone,
you try to justify it with a story (sometimes true, sometimes not) that >>>> they attacked you first. That's been the gist of every one of your
on-topic statements about the Team Monkey flamewar; that you and your
team went after Stephan, Will, and myself because they "attacked" you
first.
And that's almost always a complete lie and misrepresentation by Harry
Lime aka Michael Pendragon.
The Usenet archives hold the truth
Exactly, such as dozens of examples of you, Harry Lime aka Michael
Pendragon aka Michael Scarlotti behaving as a malicious troll on the
poetry and the 1950s music newsgroups going back two decades.
And so it goes.
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
Jim Senetto sent $50 to Zod, NOT me.
Meaning the money was Zod's not mine.
Senetto mailed it to me and I handed it to Zod, who spent the money as
he pleased, as was his right.
Glad to clear the confusion up about that matter, which happened almost
a decade ago.
You can't write
I've been writing poetry for over 50 years now, Pendragon/Lime, so you
can stop repeating that lying misrepresentation now.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 33:42:05 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,129 |