Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: George J. Dance@novabbs.com (George J. Dance)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: The Return of Michael Monkey
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:20:10 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <93a318b5b486e88969590598d2365f5b@www.novabbs.com>
References: <893d0c07374428639ba1a1b5cfd722c2@www.novabbs.com> <b2870a625fcc4e69913f79dee0bb1a52@www.novabbs.com> <e0a9c9c83c5dac88ab8c66daef12f823@www.novabbs.com> <87445559ced62c6cbd280b06405e85f9@www.novabbs.com> <8c68fbb29639b1d79fca9b9060f1c1be@www.novabbs.com> <29ba87c01127bc873ed269491b22661b@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="3955280"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="8+dz2rsm3jrbG2zIijE9ZpD7dtD/aCelSs77CawmFcg";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: da88b0d4e721c88c814af4f3bade12e63975cfc7
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$ujR3NM/PoC73vSArfLJoDutd/YY7FjIeJJpkr./akrLe.A9cJSboG

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:29:37 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:28:40 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 7:40:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
>>> Why do you lie so much, George?
>>
>> Why do you project so much, Michael?
>>
>>> In the statement you are quoting, I was describing your behavior and
>>> practices -- not mine.
>>
>> As I told you at the time, that was also an example of projection on
>> your part; that you were in fact both slurping and publishing your
>> allies, and calling your perceived adversaries illiterates. As this
>> thread shows, you're still doing both.
>
> IKYABWAI is neither an argument nor a rebuttal.

OMG! You're gonna try the preemption game: "You can't say that about me,
because I said it about you FIRST."
>
> Nor does this thread show that I am doing anything of the sort.  FYI: I
> have no "allies" here.  They've all left Usenet AAPC, and are now
> posting on The Official AAPC page at FB.

I'm not sure that's true; I think I've seen both Jim and NancyGene
posting on aapc here:
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=253102&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#253102
But even if it were true, it's not relevant: you're still publishing
their work, and still slurping their work here.

> Do I have "enemies" here?  That's a strong word.

Every member of your "Team Donkey" enemies list - Will, Zod, Jordy,
Rachel, and myself - is posting here on aapc.

> As this thread
> demonstrates, I have a permanently butt-hurt poet who is reopening old
> threads to shout "Jerk Store!" at me.  That's all.



>>> And that statement holds true.
>>>
>>> You requested Jim's poetry for your blog.
>>
>> I asked everyone on the group for poetry for an annual literary journal,
>> April, that I was publishing as an ezine on the blog. I asked everyone
>> in posts to the group. Anyone could submit a poem; April was meant as a
>> journal for aapc, not for "allies" and "adversaries". IMO,
>
> No.  Your blog may have been open to anyone,

That's not what I just said. Once again: "I asked everyone on the group
for
poetry for an annual literary journal, April, that I was publishing as
an
ezine on the blog."

> but you specifically asked
> Jim if you could use one of his poems.

IIRC, he responded to my post to the group by sending me a link and
telling
me to pick a poem. I picked "The Whitening" and sent him a text for
approval
(like I did for all the contributors). Is that what you're going on
about?

> You had previously requested one
> of mine in the same manner shortly after I joined the group.

"Previously," eh? You could have been on aapc in 2010 (which you've
claimed before) using another sock, , but if you'd put a poem in
/April/ then, you would have demanded I remove it, too. Which
means your sock would have to have been either "Heironymous Corey"
or "Robert Burrows". That makes things more interesting.

>>> Jim agreed to let you post
>>> it.
>>
>> Jim submitted one poem for the first year (2010), and two for the second
>> (2011).
>
> Again, the first "submission" had been in answer to your request.

My post to the entire group, "allies" and "adversaries" alike.

>>> You posted it to your blog.
>>
>> All of the submitted poems were published, including Jim's three.
>
> But Jim was still a potential ally to you at the time.  Jim only soured
> on you when you continually supported your Donkey, even though he was
> trolling, disrupting, and eventually shutting down Jim's "Sunday
> Sampler" thread.

FTM: I also requested poetry from your mentor, Piggy Ross, who was
a definite "adversary". "Allies" and "adversaries" had nothing to do
(on my part) with whom I published.

> Your support of a pedophile (and, briefly, of NAMBLA) was the final
> straw for him.

What are you going on about?

>>> When Jim asked to have his poetry removed from your blog (I forget how
>>> long, but it was at least a year after you posted it)
>>
>> (Seven years later, in 2017.)
>
> Don't you think that an author's allowing his poetry to be tied up for
> seven years on a non-paying blog is extremely generous?

No, Michael; submitting poetry to a journal, and then demanding that
they change that issue by removing it 7 years later is not what I'd
call "generous".

> As I've explained to you in the past, the few poetry journals that
> accept reprints insist that the submitted poems are not currently
> available online.

And as I've explained to you, that's completely irrelevant, since
Jim didn't want to pubish his poems in a journal, and apparently
never did.

>> , you started
>>> launching attacks on him.
>>
>> No, Lying Michael; I told him I wanted to keep his poems in the journal,
>> so we disagreed; but it wouldn't have made sense to attack for that. (I
>> did take them off line, so they couldn't be seen, until I figured out
>> what to do.)
>
> You told him you wanted to keep his poems on your blog (and out of
> circulation), *because* he'd asked you to remove them.

Well, d-uh! Why would I have told I wanted to keep his poems in /April/
if he weren't demanding I take them out?

> And why did he
> ask you to remove them, George?

The immediate cause was: he demanded I remove them because I'd called
him out for posting something libelous about another group member,
on one of my threads, multiple times. You remember that: NancyGene
wrote it, and you and JIm were flooding the group with it.  If that
was anything more than just a hissy-fit on his part, one can only
speculate. My speculation is that you told him to; you'd got the idea
of removing poems from a journal from Corey Connor (or told it to him),
and decided you'd get all the poets who contributed to /April/ to take
their poems out.

> Answer: When I saw that your Donkey was not the victim that he pretends
> to be, I stopped supporting him in his troll wars. Desperately in need
> of another ally, your Donkey recruited a deranged pedophile into the
> group. The pedophile's job was to a) back your Donkey in arguments, and
> b) draw some of the fire away from him.
>
> When the pedophile started revealing himself, Jim (who found his
> pedophilic statements sickening) got sucked into a flame war with him.
>
> Because you knew that the pedophile was your Donkey's ally, you chose to
> support him: attacking Jim, myself and others, and even going so far as
> to erroneously claim that NAMBLA had done more for LGBT rights than any
> other organization.
>
Yes, I'm sure you do remember the libelous stuff NancyGene was writing,
and you and Jim were flooding the group with. This pedophile stuff was
your own add-on later, of course.

> It was only *after* you'd begun attacking Jim (and supporting NAMBLA)
> that he asked to have his poetry removed from your blog.

I don't think so, Lying Michael. As I recall, you began posting about
NAMBLA only afterward. In any case, I didn't get involved in your
NAMBLA discussion until afterward.

>> It is a fact that Jim cannot write anything that someone like you, for
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========