Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: 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: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 15:30:51 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: References: <893d0c07374428639ba1a1b5cfd722c2@www.novabbs.com> <87445559ced62c6cbd280b06405e85f9@www.novabbs.com> <8c68fbb29639b1d79fca9b9060f1c1be@www.novabbs.com> <29ba87c01127bc873ed269491b22661b@www.novabbs.com> <74058fa2cf0b468e99a5de5c095ad2e0@www.novabbs.com> <1e473dc076d2582f0567ed591bef0a3d@www.novabbs.com> <65ce489238e6479b52bf696d5c22a9f5@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="1096785"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="8+dz2rsm3jrbG2zIijE9ZpD7dtD/aCelSs77CawmFcg"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$x.scNHjVeSF6NkHHYzvMtucPBrRTYfGbBzkLcY/mv9TdvCClvm3yK X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Posting-User: da88b0d4e721c88c814af4f3bade12e63975cfc7 On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:46:21 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka "HarryLime" wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 9:15:35 +0000, George J. Dance wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:58:13 +0000, Michael Monkey Peakrain aka >> "HarryLime" wrote: >> >>> Earth to George Dance: >> >> Sorry, "Earth", but whatever socks you use, you're still going to be >> MMP. > > That's a popular expression, George. Have you really been ignorant of > it for the past 40+ years? I'm also sorry you missed the joke, though not surprised given your sense of humor. I was alluding to your practice of, not just posting exclusively through socks, but constantly changing them in the middle of "discussions" to pretend you have more "allies" on your side. (Back when you were posting on aapc, you used to use at least as many sock puppets as you had meat puppets. >>> You can't change the content of my statements >>> simply by snipping them prior to replying. >> >> Good; nothing's changed. And since you repeat it all it wouldn't matter >> if it were; it makes more sense to snip it all, and deal with your >> repeat posting of it. > > It's what's called a "straw man" argument, George. You intentionally > take my statements out of context, delete said context from the quoted > passages, then recast my actually words to mean something other than I'd > intended; simply so you can successfully argue against it. Wrong, Peabrain. A "straw man" is arguing against statemtnts you haven't said. You're complaining about me addressing statements you have made, but buried within a paragraph in which you're discussing something else, in the hope you can smuggle it through without challenge. (A "statement" is not the same thing as a sentence, BTW. If you write a sentence like - "Your poetry is technically brilliant, and Pickering was a pedophile, and Will is a pedophile, and Zod is a pedophile, and Jordy is a pedophile, and Ilya's a pedophile, and Antti is a pedophile, and, but I rally don't enjoy reading your poems." - each conjunct in that srntence is a separate statement, and it does not change your meaning to address each one separately). > That's hardly any way to conduct a civil, and/or mature, discussion, but > sadly it's the only thing you've got. LOL! And just what makes you think, that after more than a decade of knowing how you "argue", that I'd even try to have a civil and/or mature discussion with you? I've tried that too many times in the past, and let you get away with too much in the process. >>> You may *think* you can, >> >> - or it may be that I don't think that, and you're simply being >> paranoid. That's more likely, since I'm not aware that I think that >> (which is a good sign I don't). How about if you stop trying to tell me >> what I think, and say something about the subject. > > The subject was that you present "straw man" arguments by intentionally > taking my words out of context. So let's talk about that. Take the sample sentence I've given you. If I object to your claim that, say, "Jordy is a pedophile", and your only response is to response is that's a "strawman argument" because I *may* think I changed your meaning (when I obviously haven't), that's does nothing to address the objection. The name for that is a "red herring" or, as it was more commonly known on aapc, a "deflection." > I have been led to the conclusion that you think that restating > something I've said out of context somehow changes my original statement > as well, because I cannot find any other reason for your behavior. It doesn't change the meaning of either "statement", Lying Michael - neither the statement I took out to challenge, or the mass of text in which you originally buried it. > Since my original statement is always preserved in its proper context > just a post or two above, only someone with the intellect of a turnip > would think that he could get away with it. And when he has been caught > doing it every time, and still persists in doing so, it follows that > according him a turnip level IQ may have been a wee bit generous. Actually, your "original statement" is usually preserved more than once because (again going back to the hypothetical example) if one of the middle conjuncts of your sentence is challenged, you'd tend to respond like this: GE: "What's your evidence that Jordy is a pedophile?" MMP: You're taking my words out of context again, Dishonest Dunce. What I said was: ""Your poetry is technically brilliant, and Pickering was a pedophile, and Will is a pedophile, and Zod is a pedophile, and Jordy is a pedophile, and Ilya's a pedophile, and Antti is a pedophile, but I rally don't enjoy reading your poems." My only options would be to ignore all your middle conjuncts, and let intelligent readers think they're all true because i'm not challenging any of them; or to challenge them, and have you keep repeating them in (as above) to convince your more stupid readers that they must be true because they've heard them so often. snip