Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.usenet.ovh!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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 Lime sock on Stephan Pickering and NAMBLA Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 20:00:51 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: References: <31c157534183ddc0956f4b7fafb50192@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="3318665"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="Vf9CM7g99yqfGvzEHTw0bhrjcIfvzYBBhUuRma0rLuQ"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$hRaA2FhWCvRRpviGTgPpIuUk4qhcgwbBCFOCpcumm1pOqEm4aSLmO X-Rslight-Posting-User: acd0b3e3614eaa6f47211734e4cbca3bfd42bebc X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 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... > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========