Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mpsilvertone@yahoo.com (HarryLime)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: The Return of Michael Monkey
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:36:50 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <7f5eb01f01d0dff96b94f20f0357c83d@www.novabbs.com>
References: <893d0c07374428639ba1a1b5cfd722c2@www.novabbs.com> <b2870a625fcc4e69913f79dee0bb1a52@www.novabbs.com> <e0a9c9c83c5dac88ab8c66daef12f823@www.novabbs.com> <87445559ced62c6cbd280b06405e85f9@www.novabbs.com> <96e45bbf062642b889f59b22663b2420@www.novabbs.com> <98bde89002bbf1883bff8e9359482df5@www.novabbs.com> <c6e03e9aecfabad8d781778c46ad9cc6@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="1104378"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="9yNNWN6S3jCL2bQghupeZ7yt9QQF3aIiWb2guQimaIw";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: e04a750cbe04de725ce24a46bcc3953c76236e3b
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$kXojiW6nvItlLoRlGBjtS.ldq8GKtK81WaFDxdMCvW39oDccw9lNC
Bytes: 9328
Lines: 192

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 6:17:55 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 1:56:15 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:58:18 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:20:10 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:29:37 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
>>>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>>>>> Nor does this thread show that I am doing anything of the sort.  FYI: I
>>>>>> have no "allies" here.  They've all left Usenet AAPC, and are now
>>>>>> posting on The Official AAPC page at FB.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure that's true; I think I've seen both Jim and NancyGene
>>>>> posting on aapc here:
>>>>> https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253102&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253102
>>>>> But even if it were true, it's not relevant: you're still publishing
>>>>> their work, and still slurping their work here.
>>>>
>>>> If the most recent post you can find from Jim is nearly two months old,
>>>> it's safe to say that he is no longer participating in this group.  He's
>>>> certainly not participating at the level he was a few years ago.
>>>
>>> So what? Jim doesn't turn into a neutral bystander every time he
>>> flounces off
>>> the group; the fact that you're here slurping him in this flame war you
>>> reignited is enough to show that you still perceive him as your ally.
>>
>> Jim doesn't turn into a neutral bystander when he isn't around to
>> witness the event/s in question.  Jim has no knowledge of our current
>> discussions, is not participating in said discussions, and cannot
>> possibly be considered as an ally insofar as said discussions are
>> concerned.
>
> There is absolutely no reason to believe you. There is reason to think
> your Chimp and your Goon have both posted here (especially since your
> only rebuttal was "that was two months ago"), and every reason to think
> they're still lurking.

You can think whatever you like, but you have no evidence to support
your belief.


>>>> Whether I publish his work is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> MMP, your ONLY reason for saying that I used to see Jim as my ally
>>> is that I used to publish his work. If that's now "irrelevant", then you
>>> had absolutely no reason for falsely accusing me of using your M.O. in
>>> the
>>> first place. So, fine; let's agree that it's irrelevant, and you were
>>> just
>>> making up shit.
>>
>> 1) Whether *I* publish Jim's work is irrelevant.  I publish the work of
>> *everyone* who contributes to the AAPC group's FB page.  Again, that's
>> *EVERYONE* -- no exceptions.
>
> So you're say you're doing the same thing with /AYOS/ as I was doing
> with /April/. Of course, there are difference.

No, George.  You were selecting poems on a given topic and reposting
them in a different (and, in your mind, permanent) location.

The FB AAPC reposts *every* poem that was submitted to the group in a
monthy magazine format.  The magazine's content is deleted at the end of
each month.


> For one, aapc was open to
> everyone, whereas your facebook group is closed; you decide who can
> publish there and who can't.

In theory, not in practice.  I have never turned down anyone who applied
for membership.

Our group was set up so that we can discuss poetry without being
pestered by trolls.  And our policy works exceedingly well.  We have no
trolls, no flame wars, no exchanging of insults, and no "Jordy's" to
greet 6x a day.

Anyone who agrees to follow the rules (1. post an original poem, 2)
discuss another member's poem, 3) post and discuss a famous poem, 4)
initiate a poetry-related discussion, 5) don't troll) is welcome to be a
member.


> For another: you declare that AYOS
> publishes "everyone" who publishes in your facebook group, whereas in
> /April/ and on my blog later I published "everyone who agrees to let me
> publish them." See the differences?

Yes.  You select which poems/poets you'll publish.  I publish everyone
-- not just the poetry of my friends.


>> 2) You, otoh, do not publish everyone who takes part in the AAPC Usenet
>> forum.
>
> Yes; as noted, I publish only the people who explicitly consents to
> their poem's publication; whereas you claim that everyone who posts to
> your facebook group has tacitly concented to go into AYOS.

It's clearly stated in our group's GLs.

And, FWIW, I've yet to have any complaints.


>> 3) Your conclusion (that your misrepresentation of my description of
>> your practices is irrelevant) does not follow from anything in the
>> above.  To wit: I publish *everything* that is posted to the AAPC FB
>> group, whereas you only publish the work of Usenet AAPC members of your
>> choosing.
>
> I certainly do not publish the work of anyone who explicitly denied me
> permission to publish their stuff.

If someone notes that their poem is "not for publication," I respect
their wishes.

And, should someone ask to have their poetry removed (which only
happened from Usenet members -- back when we were still accepting
submissions from Usenet), I have removed it immediately, no questions
asked.

Similarly, when you demanded that your poetry, which had been printed
with your approval (I sent you pageproofs prior to publication, received
your approval, and still have the emails to back it up), I withdrew the
issues containing them from circulation.

>>>> He is not engaging in any flame wars (or what pass for discussions
>>>> here), and is therefore not a potential "ally" -- for me or anyone else.
>>>
>>> Of course he is your "potential" ally. He's been reading and posting
>>> here
>>> as your ally, and there's nothing stopping him from doing it in the
>>> future.
>>> Same for your other Team Monkey flunky, NG.
>>
>> To be an ally, one must be involved in the present conflict.
>
> Don't play the Peabrain. The "present conflict" has been going on since
> 2017.

When it began is irrelevant.  At present, there are only three people
involved in this discussion: myself, you, and your Donkey.  And I am
most certainly not courting your Donkey's favor as a potential ally.


> As you've noted previously, it's an ongoing war. Originally it was
> a war you began to seize control of aapc from the people posting here;
> now it appears to be just a war to wreck it as much as possible. (That's
> so much like Putin's war in the Ukraine, that I might start calling you
> "Putindragon" again.)

 ROTHLMAO!  That's the same lie you used to tell me about PJR!


>> From a
>> linguistic standpoint, anyone can be a "potential" ally.
>
> Indeed; which is why, when you couldn't show that your Chimp was my ally
> or my perceived ally, you switched terms and started calling him a
> "potential ally."

If I'm not mistaken, we were discussing whether Jim and NancyGene were
*my* allies in regards to this discussion.  Why would I have attempted
to show that Jim was your ally?


>> However, as
>> applied to this present discussion in which Jim has not taken part (and
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========