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: will.dockery@gmail.com (W.Dockery)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: The Return of Michael Monkey
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 06:01:06 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <c44a47b7d064106eba3931c94721e28e@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> <8fda2feb8e4175391309f17f21bfadcd@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="1032136"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Vf9CM7g99yqfGvzEHTw0bhrjcIfvzYBBhUuRma0rLuQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: acd0b3e3614eaa6f47211734e4cbca3bfd42bebc
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$GArEU9uPIMJVN1mQYaR5IOPjWJy8NSRTQmsTZ7KyplXxz2B7hZCfS
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 5:39:18 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:30:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
> "HarryLime" wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 1:56:15 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:58:18 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:20:10 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:29:37 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
>>>>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you lie so much, George?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you project so much, Michael?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the statement you are quoting, I was describing your behavior and
>>>>>>>> practices -- not mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I told you at the time, that was also an example of projection on
>>>>>>> your part; that you were in fact both slurping and publishing your
>>>>>>> allies, and calling your perceived adversaries illiterates. As this
>>>>>>> thread shows, you're still doing both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IKYABWAI is neither an argument nor a rebuttal.
>>>>>
>>>>> OMG! You're gonna try the preemption game: "You can't say that about me,
>>>>> because I said it about you FIRST."
>>>>
>>>> No, George.  When you repost a quotation out of context, with the
>>>> deliberate intention of changing its mean, you are (to couch it in as
>>>> mild a term as possible) deceitful.
>>>
>>> The "mean" of the quotation wasn't changed in the slightest, Lying
>>> Michael.
>>
>> Are you really that dense that you fail to comprehend how you've
>> misrepresented a statement I'd made about you as being about myself?
>
> Don't play the Peabrain, MMP. It was obvious that your statement was not
> about you; I didn't change that.
>
>>>> You present my statement as if I were describing my own practices;
>>>
>>> No, Lying Michael; I distinctly said it was how I would describe your
>>> "practices."
>>
>> You falsely use my statement as "proof" of your claims *without*
>> specifying that I'd made it about you.
>
> Nonsense, Lying Michael. Your statement was proof of nothing, and I
> never claimed it was. You falsely accused me of printing nly perceived
> allies in /April/ magazine and on my blog in general. I've pointed out
> that, while it
> does not describe what I've done there, it does describe you.
>
>> In doing so, you make it appear
>> as if I am stating my own beliefs and practices -- which they are
>> decidedly not.
>
> No, Lying Michael. Once again, I quoted your statement and noted that,
> while it does not describe me, it fits your practice on aapc to a T.
> Your response was to falsely accused me of lying, by pretending I'd said
> you were describing yourself.
>
>>>> whereas I was describing (my understanding of) your own.
>>>
>>> So you've said; you were talking about me. I was talking about you.
>>> You didn't like my saying it about you, so you falsely accused me
>>> of lying.
>>
>> Again, I stated that I was talking about you.
>
> And I stated that you were describing yourself - you were projecting.
> Rather than deal with that, you began lying about what I'd said.
>
>> When you misquoted me, you intentionally made it appear as if I had been
>> talking about myself.
>
> No, Lying Michael. It was obvious from what I'd said that you were
> accusing another person of that. (You would not use "you" to describe
> your own practices.) You lied when you projected it on me, and now
> you're trying to defend that with another lie.
>
>> And, yes, I feel that anyone (other than your Donkey
>
> Permission to use childish nicknames noted. Please don't start crying
> when I do the same.

Harry Lime aka Green Monkey Pendragon.

>> and his socks)
>> would consider that to be a form of lying.
>
> Sure it would be; it it were true.
>
>>>> That is an example of how duplicitous you actually are, and should serve
>>>> as a warning to readers to take anything you say with a very large grain
>>>> of salt.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid we'll have to add "duplicitous" to the list of words you
>>> misuse, MMP. But there's no need to say more about that, since you
>>> were clearly just trying to "win an argument" by making a false
>>> accusation.
>>
>> One of us certainly misunderstands it.
>
> Indeed one of us does. But you misuse it because it sounds good.
>
> snip