Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mpsilvertone@yahoo.com (HarryLime)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: The Lime sock on Stephan Pickering and NAMBLA
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:23:48 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <07ed3b38b0459f9a4dd37ac4e37b04f6@www.novabbs.com>
References: <31c157534183ddc0956f4b7fafb50192@www.novabbs.com> <dc9bddc8b60ca868d59b860e020f53d8@www.novabbs.com> <b58bbff4c5a2b910bbb883426146fa37@www.novabbs.com> <26ac92e674f8791ba06c1f8c3a7c8979@www.novabbs.com> <052d159692588d3c3ac31f179a923d9c@www.novabbs.com> <96d5330063c91bc4d4ba29991c2f76ad@www.novabbs.com> <c9b5f800e2939e78e29f148202b59ed2@www.novabbs.com> <4dc0c2dcd3748ba6144938e6e5eed541@www.novabbs.com> <0ae47662d5bbd64a8ec1df08ecb90de3@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2971096"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="9yNNWN6S3jCL2bQghupeZ7yt9QQF3aIiWb2guQimaIw";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: e04a750cbe04de725ce24a46bcc3953c76236e3b
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$NDaOcvoAoTAIoHXYz4Odn.19EsWFfZHrlXELiz.rGoy9X711GkLza
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8029
Lines: 161

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"),
>>
>> 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), it is only to be
expected that I should want to refute any libelous statements you
attempt to make therein.

Do you seriously think that anyone would ignore a thread in which you're
claiming to report/discuss their beliefs on a pair of controversial
subjects?

Once again, I'm compelled to put forward the age old question of: WTF is
wrong with you, George Dance?

--