"Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!

[Ash Wurthing]

'enuff said...

[George J. Dance]

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:

" "Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!"
> 'enuff said...

It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat. So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers. It's an open book quiz, so here's a first source for him to check over if he'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

[Michael Pendragon]

Please pardon my intrusion (I know that your question was directed to Ash), but the first definition for 'Tit for Tat" that turns up in a Google search is as follows: "the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered."

Now I can't speak for Mr. Wurthing, but I feel that the problem with T4T should be obvious to everyone.

T4T only works in clinical situations (as described in the Wikipedia article). In the real world (and/or cyberspace), it's a formula for disaster.

According to the rules of T4T, if Will punches you in the nose, you're obligated to punch his nose in return. This does not resolve the problem (whatever provoked Will to punch you in the first place). It simply compounds the injuries that result from it.

And, again, according to T4T, Will would then have the choice of ceasing the hostilities, or offering a new injury in retaliation for his busted nose. Should Will choose the latter option, he will invariably up the ante by inflicting an even greater injury, which you (under the rules of T4T) would now be obligated to return.

This creates an unending circle of escalating violence.

"Tit for Tat" was spoofed by Laurel and Hardy in a 1935 short of the same name. There's 3 minute clip at https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=754821585115450 (and the entire 20 minute short at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnGdyjd_BL4).

At AAPC, T4T has similarly only exacerbated existing conditions, and reinforced the childish mentality that has come to be prevalent here.

Has anyone here ever stopped calling you "Dunce" because you called them a name in return? I certainly didn't stop fighting with you because you called me "Pig-Pen" and "Pedo-Dragon."

Usenet groups exist (much like any other groups) because people like to discuss their interests with similarly-minded peers. People come to AAPC because they love reading (and in most cases, writing) poetry. As long as everyone stays on-topic and treats one another with civility, the group will flourish. And when a group proves beneficial to all of its members, it is in their best interest to ensure that it continues to work. So they form an unspoken agreement to treat one another with respect, to apologize when they've overstepped their boundaries, and to abide by group rules and decisions.

Usenet groups fail (for the most part) for two reasons: a) one member attempts to dominate the group, and/or b) one member is incapable of getting along with the others. In both cases, there are only two feasible outcomes: the other members will either drive him away, or they will leave the group.

When dealing with such individuals, T4T will only further inflame an already hostile situation. The best approach is for the members of the group to form a united front. Much like trolls, these disruptors crave attention. Unlike trolls, they also crave acceptance. When met with disapproval from *all* of the members, they will usually move on to groups that are better suited to their needs. In some instances (where the disruptor is not attempting to dominate the group), they are able to adapt their behaviors and become integrated into the group.

At AAPC, we have a member who is both incapable of getting along with the other members, and who is also attempting to dominate the group. I'm sure you know of whom I speak. And, as you know, I have attempted to reason with him, bargain with him, and integrate him into the group -- all without the slightest bit of success.

If this individual would be considerate to the other members by not making upwards of 100 posts per day (10 posts per day is desirable, 25 barely acceptable, and anything more, intolerable), they would be willing to accept him as a member -- and hostilities would end. But because this individual also wishes to dominate the group, he refuses to be considerate of the other members' wishes, and refuses to make any compromises.

Your support of this disruptive individual (and his flunkies) has created a rift between yourself and the other members -- who view you as an enabler (at best). Calling them names like "Jism" and "Ashhole" only increase the negative feelings toward you and further the hostile environment.

I'm not suggesting that you stop supporting the disruptors (although your taking an active role in addressing the problem would go a long way toward achieving its resolution). I'm merely saying that the T4T is to your distinct disadvantage. Karen was also perceived as an enabler, but she rarely received any ill treatment (or even any ill feelings) from the group (with the occasional exception of ME). That's because Karen avoided the T4T tactic like the plague. You could benefit from her example.

Love him or hate him, Will has been a problem (the biggest problem) with AAPC for the past 20+ years. That won't change regardless of what any of do. And there will always be some hostility toward you for supporting him. But I don't think it's too late for you to patch things up between the other members and yourself. T4T is not going to help you in achieving that. Consideration for, and civility toward, other members, will.

Drop the name-calling -- regardless of what the others call you. It's to everyone's benefit to establish a better environment at AAPC, and they want peace as much as you do. Treat them with civility and, in time, they'll come around. And, should you happen to like one of their poems, a few positive comments would go a long way toward changing their perception of you as the enemy.

That's just my two-cent's worth -- take it or leave it.

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

Tit for Tat could work if both sides have a desire for peace.

[Michael Pendragon]

Please explain how George punching you in the nose would bring about a desired state of peace.


Michael Pendragon
“There's nobody here but me, Chuck. I've driven every last one of them away..!”
-- Will Dockery, in a rare moment of candor.

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:30:13 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > >
> > > " "Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!"
> > > > 'enuff said...
> > >
> > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat. So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers. It's an open book quiz, so here's a first source for him to check over if he'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
> > Tit for Tat could work if both sides have a desire for peace.
> Please explain how George punching you in the nose would bring about a desired state of peace.

If he began with a handshake instead.

> Michael Pendragon
> “There's nobody here but me, Chuck. I've driven every last one of them away..!”
> -- Will Dockery

https://shadowville-mythos.blogspot.com/

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 12:53:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:30:13 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > >
> > > > " "Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!"
> > > > > 'enuff said...
> > > >
> > > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat. So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers. It's an open book quiz, so here's a first source for him to check over if he'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
> > > Tit for Tat could work if both sides have a desire for peace.
> > Please explain how George punching you in the nose would bring about a desired state of peace.
> If he began with a handshake instead.

Had you read my previous post before responding, you would know that George's punch was in retaliation to an initial punch from you.

Had George offered you a handshake *after* you'd punched him, he would not be demonstrating T4T. He would be applying the Christian doctrine of turning the other cheek.

Nor, for that matter, would your having offered George a handshake instead of a blow to the nose be an example of T4T (that's another Christian doctrine known as the Golden Rule).

T4T does *not* mean trading niceties. T4T is a system of equal retribution: it's the Hammurabic code as applied to forced cooperation (in the clinical sense), and a childish system of getting even (in the popular sense).

Michael Pendragon
“There's nobody here but me, Chuck. I've driven every last one of them away..!”

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

Apparently Pendragon needs to study up on Tit for Tat, as well.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Donkey in denial.

[Ash Wurthing]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

'enuff said...

> It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat.

Yes, it is questionable. I earned that honorific title and claim it proudly. I have been cursed in several languages and the children in the projects have done better name calling-- and they're just parrotting what they hear the adults say.

> So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers.

Of course, I play tit for tat and also played politician and preempted any questions with "''Enuff said." I don't have to answer, I demonstrated my answer, in which you were so cooperative with... Go look up what I told someone about the posts not being what they seem.

Although, Pendragon answered the question perfectly-- better than any of the rest of us could-- a shame that those who could learn from it, refuse to open their eyes and their minds. Thank you Pendragon-- those that can reckon the nature of the beast, will understand your words.

As Pendragon also said-- "indifferent." Your side failed to notice that I usually leave Jordy, Rachel and mostly Ilya alone. Sometimes I'm even civil to them. They're not as bad a nuisance that the King of the Posts and his hound dog are so I can usually tolerate them. Jordy's emoji's don't even bother me-- that's his freedom of expression and his freedom to alienate his self if he cannot speak in a way acceptable for two way communications. Though I believe he uses them in conversations with others that accept it-- so it doesn't even involve me.

I don't involve the neutrals in the conflict. I did confronted ktell (just about the general situation) but didn't lump her in with my enemy just because she speaks to or may have said something in support of him. The same with Xip-- he stays out of the fight and I respect that and him for it.

And I left your blog out of it-- a gesture of respect to creators. And I initially said nothing about you publishing Will's work-- that what we do. The only time I have gone after people's work is when it causes problems.

[George J. Dance]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:53:14 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >
> > " "Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!"
> > > 'enuff said...
> >
> > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat. So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers. It's an open book quiz, so here's a first source for him to check over if he'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
> >
> Please pardon my intrusion (I know that your question was directed to Ash)

I welcome it. I am hoping that Ash will engage with the thread, but he may not. It's been enjoyable talking philosophy recently, and I'm hoping this will be no exception.

> , but the first definition for 'Tit for Tat" that turns up in a Google search is as follows: "the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered."

Yes, that's from the origin of the term, and reflects the common understanding of the term. But the term has a more technical meaning; it's a strategy in game theory, where there are two choices - co-operate or defect. TAT can be summed up as "Cooperate initially; continue to cooperate with those who cooperate with you; defect from those who defect from you."

I'd generalize that as a moral rule. If the choices are 'be nice' to others or 'be nasty' to them (the way I look at it), then the rule would be: "Be nice to those who are not being nasty to you; be nasty to those who are being nasty to you."

That's a formulation of Tit for Tat I apply in my life, so in that respect Ash is correct. I'd have preferred he come in here, we dialogue, and we actually agree that there's nothing wrong with living life that way; but that may not happen, so maybe it's for the best that I just spell it out.

> Now I can't speak for Mr. Wurthing, but I feel that the problem with T4T should be obvious to everyone.
>
> T4T only works in clinical situations (as described in the Wikipedia article). In the real world (and/or cyberspace), it's a formula for disaster.
>
> According to the rules of T4T, if Will punches you in the nose, you're obligated to punch his nose in return.

No; it follows that I'd have the right to punch Will in the nose, but that's just a moral maxim; and I do not believe that anyone is obligated to always follow moral maxims. Morality is there to protect people from harm, and therefore no one is obligated to follow a maxim that will result in his own harm. If Will were a cop, for example, punching him back could get me shot. So it's a right I have, but not an obligation; I can punch back or, if I think I have to, not.

This does not resolve the problem (whatever provoked Will to punch you in the first place). It simply compounds the injuries that result from it.

Why do I have to worry about something I did to provoke him? If he wants to talk about that, we'd be doing it instead. I wouldn't mind talking about that, but I can't do that if he keeps punching me. Which would be more likely to stop him from continuing to punch me? Punching back, or not punching back?

> And, again, according to T4T, Will would then have the choice of ceasing the hostilities, or offering a new injury in retaliation for his busted nose. Should Will choose the latter option, he will invariably up the ante by inflicting an even greater injury, which you (under the rules of T4T) would now be obligated to return.

Hey, if Will has a choice, on his move, to either not punch me, or to do something more than punch me (eg, shoot me), then so do I. I think he has the right to do the first, but no right to do the second; any more than I had a right to shoot him for punching me the first time. If a punch justifies anything, it justifies no more than a punch back. (I think that's the most that T4T can justify.)

> This creates an unending circle of escalating violence.

You remind me of Jesus: His solution to violence was to never punch back, but to turn the other cheek; and I think he was correct that the amount of violence caused by 'nasty' people is miniscule compared to that caused otherwise 'nice' people who think someone else has been 'nasty' to them. I'd prefer a world where everyone is 'nice,' but granted there are 'nasty' people, I think the best way to deal with that is not to be nice to them.

>
> "Tit for Tat" was spoofed by Laurel and Hardy in a 1935 short of the same name. There's 3 minute clip at https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=754821585115450 (and the entire 20 minute short at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnGdyjd_BL4).
>
> At AAPC, T4T has similarly only exacerbated existing conditions, and reinforced the childish mentality that has come to be prevalent here.

Well, now; there are both 'nasty' and 'nice' people here. What would be your moral strategy for dealing with them? Are you nice to those who are nice to you? Are you nasty to those who are nasty to you? If so, how do you think you're following a different strategy from T4T? If not, how does yours differ?

> Has anyone here ever stopped calling you "Dunce" because you called them a name in return? I certainly didn't stop fighting with you because you called me "Pig-Pen" and "Pedo-Dragon."

No, of course we kept fighting, but we stopped using those terms. (I do remember your writing to me and telling me, in effect, "Stop calling me Pedodragon. I stopped calling you Dunce weeks ago." - which I did.

> Usenet groups exist (much like any other groups) because people like to discuss their interests with similarly-minded peers. People come to AAPC because they love reading (and in most cases, writing) poetry. As long as everyone stays on-topic and treats one another with civility, the group will flourish.
>
> And when a group proves beneficial to all of its members, it is in their best interest to ensure that it continues to work. So they form an unspoken agreement to treat one another with respect, to apologize when they've overstepped their boundaries, and to abide by group rules and decisions.

True; but some people (the truly nasty ones) made no such agreement; they don't care whether the group flourishes or not,; and so appealing to a common interest will not get them to agree. So what is your strategy for dealing with them?

> Usenet groups fail (for the most part) for two reasons: a) one member attempts to dominate the group, and/or b) one member is incapable of getting along with the others. In both cases, there are only two feasible outcomes: the other members will either drive him away, or they will leave the group.

That sounds reasonable - I don't think the common denominator is always one member, but that's close enough since gangs often have a key member, and would fall apart in his absence.

For a long time on aapc, there was a member who dominated the group, Dennis Hammes; he made as many as 50% of the posts, replying to everything. He was capable of getting along with others; I actually wrote a poem with him once - so he's your type (a), not your type (b). Yet his dominance arguably kept aapc intact until his death.

That leaves your type (b), the best example of which I can think of is FG. He is truly nasty to everyone (in behavior); yet I don't think many consider him a threat to the group, or even want to do anything about him.

> When dealing with such individuals, T4T will only further inflame an already hostile situation. The best approach is for the members of the group to form a united front. Much like trolls, these disruptors crave attention. Unlike trolls, they also crave acceptance. When met with disapproval from *all* of the members, they will usually move on to groups that are better suited to their needs. In some instances (where the disruptor is not attempting to dominate the group), they are able to adapt their behaviors and become integrated into the group.

How do you show disagreement?

> At AAPC, we have a member who is both incapable of getting along with the other members, and who is also attempting to dominate the group. I'm sure you know of whom I speak. And, as you know, I have attempted to reason with him, bargain with him, and integrate him into the group -- all without the slightest bit of success.

And your complaint is that it hasn't worked because you've been doing it alone, rather than as part of a 'united front'? Probably, but I think it's unclear that's what you have been doing - I don't mean unclear to me, as I've not been reading your exchanges with him so I can't say - but unclear to him or to those who would support your claims against him (because what I hear from them has not been reasoning, bargaining, or being attempting to be inclusive).

> If this individual would be considerate to the other members by not making upwards of 100 posts per day (10 posts per day is desirable, 25 barely acceptable, and anything more, intolerable), they would be willing to accept him as a member -- and hostilities would end. But because this individual also wishes to dominate the group, he refuses to be considerate of the other members' wishes, and refuses to make any compromises.

They would? I doubt that FG, for instance, cares how many posts a person makes; and the same for others I won't risk trolling in by naming.

> Your support of this disruptive individual (and his flunkies) has created a rift between yourself and the other members --

I thought that's whom you meant. That's a person that I've gotten along with since I joined the group; we've had our differences, but we've been able to overcome them. If he were nasty to me, then I'd of course be nasty to him; but he hasn't. You're asking me to consider him incapable of getting along with me instead - to consider him nasty, when he's been nice on the whole - and to be nasty back.

In short, you're asking me to practice T4T, but in a collectivist variant: you're asking me to not determine who's being nice and who's being nasty for myself, but to let the "group" decide for me, and to be nice or nasty to the other people here depending not on who is nice or nasty to me, but depending on whom the "group" somehow decides is nice or nasty.

> who view you as an enabler (at best). Calling them names like "Jism" and "Ashhole" only increase the negative feelings toward you and further the hostile environment.

You did realize that my use of "Ashhole" was in response to his calling me "Jism Dance." So you're arguing that I should not be nasty back (call him a name) in response to his calling me a name. Instead I should be nice to him - "turn the other cheek" - and instead be nasty to someone he's being nasty to, because someone speaking for the "group" thinks it's in the interest of the "group."

Which is indistinguishable from another maxim -- be nice to the people that someone - let's call them the "group whisperer" -- tells you to be nice to, and nasty to the people that person tells you to. Which seems to imply that I must not only abandon the morality I live by -- essentially T4T -- but I also must abandon any attempt to live morally -- of consciously governing how I act -- here, for "the good of the group".

> I'm not suggesting that you stop supporting the disruptors (although your taking an active role in addressing the problem would go a long way toward achieving its resolution). I'm merely saying that the T4T is to your distinct disadvantage.

I dont' think you've show that; it may be to the group's, or the group whisperer's disadvantage) but that's not what your example is showing me. Rather, you're invoking T4T (as a collective strategy for the group to deal with one putatively "nasty" person, and simply telling me that what's wrong with it is not my use of it but my attempting to live morally - my determining whom to be nice or nasty to - operiod.

> Karen was also perceived as an enabler, but she rarely received any ill treatment (or even any ill feelings) from the group (with the occasional exception of ME). That's because Karen avoided the T4T tactic like the plague. You could benefit from her example.

Karen, following her own inclinations, tried to be nice to everyone, and ended up leaving anyway. That turned out to be even less viable than FG's be-nasty-to-everyone strategy. We have a toxic environment here, where nastiness is the norm.

> Love him or hate him, Will has been a problem (the biggest problem) with AAPC for the past 20+ years. That won't change regardless of what any of do.

Well, no. Back in the early 2000's, the 'biggest problem' was undoubtedly Chuck Lysaght. I think Will got roped in originally because he was nice to Chuck, so to those who were not he got seen as Will's enabler. (Mind you, Chuck vs. a large fraction of the group wasn't the only thing going on; for years, for instance, Hammes and PJ Ross fought a battle for dominance; eventually that settled down; Ross took a subservient roll which lasted until the day he found out Hammes was dead.) Anyway, Hammes loathed Chuck, and then he loathed Will, as much for their poetry as anything; if he'd noticed "fish and chips" he'd have loathed his poetry, too. But Hammes did end up getting one form of dominance: he was able to assemble or convince enough people to be nasty to Chuck, to assemble a gang large enough to be considered the group.

The problem of Will's overposting was more effect than cause - when you have a whole gang posting to and about you, it's impossible to reply to everything without posting more than anyone else. But most of that ceased when PJ found it impossible to keep the gang together; all such posts went way down.

After all that was over, I remember one person whose overposting was a problem that led some to leave: HC. (Initially he addressed that problem, not by posting less, but by deleting all his posts; but eventually he did cut down.)

But enough of that history; it's trivia, and the discussion of T4T, and morality in general, is what's important here.

> And there will always be some hostility toward you for supporting him. But I don't think it's too late for you to patch things up between the other members and yourself.

But what would that accomplish? For me or for "the group"? Will is not going to leave the group, or limit his posts, or change his ways, simply because I start being nasty to him; he may be conciliatory towards me, but if I persist in being nasty he won't stick to that.

I can predict that, because (despite what I implied earlier), I'm not just nasty to anyone I perceive as being nasty to me. If I've had a mutually nice relationship with someone, I'm slow to nastiness. So while I'm slow to react to someone being nasty to me, and I'll try to keep the nice relationship going, I reach a point at which I believe my niceness is just enabling the nasty. I've reached that point twice; first, after Hammes' gang got nasty with me (because I wouldn't be nasty to Will -- the same way they'd earlier got nasty with Will because he wouldn't be nasty to Chuck), and again 4 years ago, when a whole new gang got nasty with me (because I wouldn't be nasty with Stephan Pickering). My name for that strategy -- responding to unrelenting nastiness with unrelenting niceness -- is "appeasement." (To get back to the morality discussion: Yes, Christian morality preaches appeasement.)

> T4T is not going to help you in achieving that. Consideration for, and civility toward, other members, will.

But why would I want to 'patch things up' with nasty people, and even be nasty towards others (who've never done me harm) for their sake? Maybe I'd receive less personal nastiness, but I doubt it; their nastiness, as I see it, is not because I'm nasty to them, but I'm not nasty to someone else.)

> Drop the name-calling -- regardless of what the others call you. It's to everyone's benefit to establish a better environment at AAPC, and they want peace as much as you do. Treat them with civility and, in time, they'll come around. And, should you happen to like one of their poems, a few positive comments would go a long way toward changing their perception of you as the enemy.

And the result will be, in the words of Neville Chamberlain, "peace in our time." Had Chamberlain accomplished peace, he'd now be considered a premier statesman of the 20th century (while Churchill would have been an obscure footnote, best known for the Gallipoli fiasco). Instead, Chamberlain's become the universal symbol of appeasement.

>
> That's just my two-cent's worth -- take it or leave it.

I always appreciate reading your two-cents' worth on any subject; philosophy today, who knows what tomorrow.

[Ash Wurthing]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 2:56:26 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

> Apparently Pendragon needs to study up on Tit for Tat, as well.

You must also be a slap stick comedian as well as hot shot comix artist. Otherwise, someone apparently doesn't know how not to make themselves the jackass and laughing stock...

[George J. Dance]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:20:35 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> 'enuff said...
>
> > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat.
> Yes, it is questionable. I earned that honorific title and claim it proudly. I have been cursed in several languages and the children in the projects have done better name calling-- and they're just parrotting what they hear the adults say.
> > So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers.

> Of course, I play tit for tat and also played politician and preempted any questions with "''Enuff said." I don't have to answer, I demonstrated my answer, in which you were so cooperative with... Go look up what I told someone about the posts not being what they seem.

> Although, Pendragon answered the question perfectly-- better than any of the rest of us could-- a shame that those who could learn from it, refuse to open their eyes and their minds. Thank you Pendragon-- those that can reckon the nature of the beast, will understand your words.

I read his entire post and replied to it. My major objection is that his alternative -- being nice or nasty to others when told to -- looks like not even morality, but some collectivist negation of it. And your claim that MP speaks for you, to speak frankly as you deserve that, does not strike me as some superior morality that you both see and I'm missing, but as the very collectivist negation I've been talking about.

> As Pendragon also said-- "indifferent." Your side failed to notice that I usually leave Jordy, Rachel and mostly Ilya alone. Sometimes I'm even civil to them. They're not as bad a nuisance that the King of the Posts and his hound dog are so I can usually tolerate them. Jordy's emoji's don't even bother me-- that's his freedom of expression and his freedom to alienate his self if he cannot speak in a way acceptable for two way communications. Though I believe he uses them in conversations with others that accept it -- so it doesn't even involve me.

If I failed to notice, it's because I usually leave their discussions alone myself; I'll read a thread if they post some good poetry (though for Jordy that's usually good songs), so I'll look at their OP's, but I drop out as quickly even then. I do enjoy some of Ilya's essays, though I almost always disagree, but it's only on occasion, when I feel philosophical, that I'll actually reply to one.

> I don't involve the neutrals in the conflict.

Well, those people are not neutrals; they've all been put into Will's gang because they're nice to him. Rachel was actually Jim's earliest target here; before Pickering, and before Will. Pickering actually got a pass from Jim because he couldn't stand poor Rachel (for reasons I don't know), while Will became the object of his wrath for still being nice to Rachel, and then to Pickering, after Jim got nasty with them. (I'm sure there was more to it, but that was the overt reason.)

> I did confronted ktell (just about the general situation) but didn't lump her in with my enemy just because she speaks to or may have said something in support of him. The same with Xip -- he stays out of the fight and I respect that and him for it.

So you're asking me to, similarly, not lump you in with Jim's gang. I don't consider you a full member, but you do strike me as an initiate or a pledge, at least. I understand you're trying to create something new with them -- that "Safe House" or "Sane House" you're always talking about -- and perhaps you feel that supporting the gang is a small price to pay for that. But since I haven't seen any of that, I can't imagine if it's worth it or not.

> And I left your blog out of it-- a gesture of respect to creators. And I initially said nothing about you publishing Will's work-- that what we do. The only time I have gone after people's work is when it causes problems.

Fair enough; that's a very important thing. There are people here who've fucked with both my blog and my wiki, and in my view that's enough to make them the lowest form of person on usenet: the person who takes disagreement off usenet and "goes RL". I certainly don't put you in that category. All we can do to each other, as long as we don't go RL, is call each other names, and names will never hurt us. If we're mutually nasty, it's only on a superficial level, more for show than anything; somewhat like Senator Sane in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

[Zod]

Ya nailed it G.D.....!

[Will Dockery]

Interesting discussion, well put response, George.

[Family Guy]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

You still do not understand the concept of 'Tit for Tat.'

[Family Guy]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 2:52:09 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 12:53:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:30:13 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > " "Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!"
> > > > > > 'enuff said...
> > > > >
> > > > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat. So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers. It's an open book quiz, so here's a first source for him to check over if he'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
> > > > Tit for Tat could work if both sides have a desire for peace.
> > > Please explain how George punching you in the nose would bring about a desired state of peace.
> > If he began with a handshake instead.
> Had you read my previous post before responding, you would know that George's punch was in retaliation to an initial punch from you.

Dockery doesn't "read." That requires "intelligence" and "literacy," neither of which he possesses.

>
> Had George offered you a handshake *after* you'd punched him, he would not be demonstrating T4T. He would be applying the Christian doctrine of turning the other cheek.
>
> Nor, for that matter, would your having offered George a handshake instead of a blow to the nose be an example of T4T (that's another Christian doctrine known as the Golden Rule).
>
> T4T does *not* mean trading niceties. T4T is a system of equal retribution: it's the Hammurabic code as applied to forced cooperation (in the clinical sense), and a childish system of getting even (in the popular sense).

Stop trying to confuse Dockery with facts. You know that makes him mad.

[Family Guy]

Not really. More like Donkey just being an ass.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:24:32 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:53:14 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > >
> > > " "Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!"
> > > > 'enuff said...
> > >
> > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat. So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers. It's an open book quiz, so here's a first source for him to check over if he'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
> > >
> > Please pardon my intrusion (I know that your question was directed to Ash)
> I welcome it. I am hoping that Ash will engage with the thread, but he may not. It's been enjoyable talking philosophy recently, and I'm hoping this will be no exception.
> > , but the first definition for 'Tit for Tat" that turns up in a Google search is as follows: "the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered."
> Yes, that's from the origin of the term, and reflects the common understanding of the term. But the term has a more technical meaning; it's a strategy in game theory, where there are two choices - co-operate or defect. TAT can be summed up as "Cooperate initially; continue to cooperate with those who cooperate with you; defect from those who defect from you."
>
> I'd generalize that as a moral rule. If the choices are 'be nice' to others or 'be nasty' to them (the way I look at it), then the rule would be: "Be nice to those who are not being nasty to you; be nasty to those who are being nasty to you."
>

I'm not familiar with its application in game theory (apart from what I've read in the Wikipedia article), but I don't believe your "moral rule" applies. I would paraphrase your moral rule as "Treat others as they treat you," which *could* be construed as T4T (returning like for like)... but my understanding of T4T is that it is pertains only to retaliatory responses.

> That's a formulation of Tit for Tat I apply in my life, so in that respect Ash is correct. I'd have preferred he come in here, we dialogue, and we actually agree that there's nothing wrong with living life that way; but that may not happen, so maybe it's for the best that I just spell it out.
> > Now I can't speak for Mr. Wurthing, but I feel that the problem with T4T should be obvious to everyone.
> >
> > T4T only works in clinical situations (as described in the Wikipedia article). In the real world (and/or cyberspace), it's a formula for disaster.
> >
> > According to the rules of T4T, if Will punches you in the nose, you're obligated to punch his nose in return.
> No; it follows that I'd have the right to punch Will in the nose, but that's just a moral maxim; and I do not believe that anyone is obligated to always follow moral maxims. Morality is there to protect people from harm, and therefore no one is obligated to follow a maxim that will result in his own harm. If Will were a cop, for example, punching him back could get me shot. So it's a right I have, but not an obligation; I can punch back or, if I think I have to, not.
>

The question here isn't one of whether you have the right to punch Will back, but whether your opting to not punch Will back would qualify as T4T. I don't see how it could. If you choose to deviate from the maxim, the maxim no longer applies.

> This does not resolve the problem (whatever provoked Will to punch you in the first place). It simply compounds the injuries that result from it.
> Why do I have to worry about something I did to provoke him? If he wants to talk about that, we'd be doing it instead. I wouldn't mind talking about that, but I can't do that if he keeps punching me. Which would be more likely to stop him from continuing to punch me? Punching back, or not punching back?
>

That, and the fact that one cannot reason with a potato.

However, you are only allowing yourself two options: to punch or not to punch, when there are other options available.

For example: if Will were to punch you in the nose in the vicinity of a police officer, you could call the officer over and have Will arrested. You could take out a restraining order against Will, charge him with battery, etc. And, should you wish to settle the matter amicably, you could have your lawyers discuss an amicable solution.

> > And, again, according to T4T, Will would then have the choice of ceasing the hostilities, or offering a new injury in retaliation for his busted nose. Should Will choose the latter option, he will invariably up the ante by inflicting an even greater injury, which you (under the rules of T4T) would now be obligated to return.
> Hey, if Will has a choice, on his move, to either not punch me, or to do something more than punch me (eg, shoot me), then so do I. I think he has the right to do the first, but no right to do the second; any more than I had a right to shoot him for punching me the first time. If a punch justifies anything, it justifies no more than a punch back. (I think that's the most that T4T can justify.)
>

I honestly don't see where he has any right to punch anyone in the nose... but you're referring to game theory, which I'm admittedly unfamiliar with.

> > This creates an unending circle of escalating violence.
> You remind me of Jesus:

What a horrible thing to say!

> His solution to violence was to never punch back, but to turn the other cheek; and I think he was correct that the amount of violence caused by 'nasty' people is miniscule compared to that caused otherwise 'nice' people who think someone else has been 'nasty' to them. I'd prefer a world where everyone is 'nice,' but granted there are 'nasty' people, I think the best way to deal with that is not to be nice to them.
>

Jesus was a weenie, who probably had all of his teeth knocked out before he could grow a beard.

> >
> > "Tit for Tat" was spoofed by Laurel and Hardy in a 1935 short of the same name. There's 3 minute clip at https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=754821585115450 (and the entire 20 minute short at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnGdyjd_BL4).
> >
> > At AAPC, T4T has similarly only exacerbated existing conditions, and reinforced the childish mentality that has come to be prevalent here.
> Well, now; there are both 'nasty' and 'nice' people here. What would be your moral strategy for dealing with them? Are you nice to those who are nice to you? Are you nasty to those who are nasty to you? If so, how do you think you're following a different strategy from T4T? If not, how does yours differ?
>

No, I don't base my behavior toward others on their actions toward me.

My rule is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they've proven their worth (in my estimation).

I base my behavior on what I perceive to be someone's worth. If I think that someone is a talented poet, I am going to treat him with respect (insofar as his writing is concerned). If I find someone to have interesting ideas, I am going to seek out his ideas. And if I find someone else to be an ignorant piece of filth, I'll scrape his residue off the sole of my shoe and move on.

> > Has anyone here ever stopped calling you "Dunce" because you called them a name in return? I certainly didn't stop fighting with you because you called me "Pig-Pen" and "Pedo-Dragon."
> No, of course we kept fighting, but we stopped using those terms. (I do remember your writing to me and telling me, in effect, "Stop calling me Pedodragon. I stopped calling you Dunce weeks ago." - which I did.

And I would have continued to address you by name regardless of whether you'd stopped in return.

I simply decided that you were okay in my book, and that I wasn't go to fight you any longer. And since no reasonably sane person would seek to continue hostilities once his opponent had ceased, I was certain that you would do so in return.

> > Usenet groups exist (much like any other groups) because people like to discuss their interests with similarly-minded peers. People come to AAPC because they love reading (and in most cases, writing) poetry. As long as everyone stays on-topic and treats one another with civility, the group will flourish.
> >
> > And when a group proves beneficial to all of its members, it is in their best interest to ensure that it continues to work. So they form an unspoken agreement to treat one another with respect, to apologize when they've overstepped their boundaries, and to abide by group rules and decisions.
> True; but some people (the truly nasty ones) made no such agreement; they don't care whether the group flourishes or not,; and so appealing to a common interest will not get them to agree. So what is your strategy for dealing with them?
>

That begs the question as to who you mean by the "truly nasty ones." You have called NancyGene "NastyGene," and directed your "That Nasty Gene" poem against both her and Edward/Jim. I certainly don't think of either of them as being in any way detrimental to the group -- quite the contrary, I think that both have proven themselves to be immensely beneficial to it.

I see no need for anyone to appeal to them because they have both shown that they have the group's best interest at heart.

If, otoh, you're referring to the various Impostor Trolls, they have also shown a willingness to cease their hostilities for the benefit of the group. You may recall that about a year ago they agreed to a "cease fire" if Will and Stink would limit their posts in return. I asked them to take the initiative -- to stop their attacks against Will first, and to see if he would limit his posts as a result. They withheld their attacks for two weeks, whereas Will only managed to keep his posts down to an acceptable level for two days.

Of course you could be referring to Will and Stink (who, in my opinion, are far and away the nastiest trolls we've got). I doubt that you are referring to them, but will address that possibility all the same.
I no longer hold any hope that there can ever be any reasoning with either of them. They won't go away, and they are unwilling to change. The rest of us will have to deal (or cope) with them as each of us sees fit.

Encouraging them (publishing them in print and/or on your blog) doesn't help the situation any (IMHO). But that is how you choose to deal with them. And one could, theoretically, argue that supplicating them might also pacify them. It didn't, but that is something we can only be sure of in hindsight.

> > Usenet groups fail (for the most part) for two reasons: a) one member attempts to dominate the group, and/or b) one member is incapable of getting along with the others. In both cases, there are only two feasible outcomes: the other members will either drive him away, or they will leave the group.
> That sounds reasonable - I don't think the common denominator is always one member, but that's close enough since gangs often have a key member, and would fall apart in his absence.

Make it "one or more members" -- it really doesn't matter.

> For a long time on aapc, there was a member who dominated the group, Dennis Hammes; he made as many as 50% of the posts, replying to everything. He was capable of getting along with others; I actually wrote a poem with him once - so he's your type (a), not your type (b). Yet his dominance arguably kept aapc intact until his death.
>

In which case, we'd need to define "dominate."

I'm using the term in the negative sense of "subjugate," "overpower," "force oneself upon." You're using it in the positive sense of becoming "predominant" or "preeminent" in.

I cannot comment on Dennis Hammes as he was before my time, but based on your description, he would not be an example of what I'd intended by "dominance."

> That leaves your type (b), the best example of which I can think of is FG. He is truly nasty to everyone (in behavior); yet I don't think many consider him a threat to the group, or even want to do anything about him.

No, FG is not what I meant by Type b. FG is, more or less, accepted by the majority of the group's members in spite of his generally hostile behavior. I was talking about a social pariah: someone who wants to be a part of the group, but who the other members shun -- because he lacks the skills/knowledge/intellect/shared interests to fit in.

But, of course you realize that in both cases, I am referring to WD.

> > When dealing with such individuals, T4T will only further inflame an already hostile situation. The best approach is for the members of the group to form a united front. Much like trolls, these disruptors crave attention. Unlike trolls, they also crave acceptance. When met with disapproval from *all* of the members, they will usually move on to groups that are better suited to their needs. In some instances (where the disruptor is not attempting to dominate the group), they are able to adapt their behaviors and become integrated into the group.
> How do you show disagreement?

Not disagreement -- but disapproval. In many cases, the Type b individual only wants to be a part of the group. He may throw tantrums until he is admitted, but once he's been accepted, he'll content himself with staying quietly in the background. Disapproval is expressed, when necessary, by a word or two acknowledging the group disapproval of a given behavior: "We don't do that here, Will."

> > At AAPC, we have a member who is both incapable of getting along with the other members, and who is also attempting to dominate the group. I'm sure you know of whom I speak. And, as you know, I have attempted to reason with him, bargain with him, and integrate him into the group -- all without the slightest bit of success.
> And your complaint is that it hasn't worked because you've been doing it alone, rather than as part of a 'united front'?

I once thought that way... and I still think that providing a united front would work in the majority of cases. For example: some years ago, a troll using the name of "&" appeared here. He/she was met by a united front, and quickly disappeared. Unfortunately, I've come to believe that this approach will not work with WD.

> Probably, but I think it's unclear that's what you have been doing - I don't mean unclear to me, as I've not been reading your exchanges with him so I can't say - but unclear to him or to those who would support your claims against him (because what I hear from them has not been reasoning, bargaining, or being attempting to be inclusive).
>

All of the above have been tried over the course of the past few years. The first attempt was made when Karen first returned to the group. I'd managed to bargain a temporary peace between you and ER/NG, but WD refused to come to the bargaining table. I reopened the discussion when AW arrived -- although, at that point, I already knew that it was fruitless, and was simply going through the motions for AW's benefit.

But I've given up on this approach -- just as I've given up on there ever being any peace with WD. He doesn't want peace. He wants an unconditional surrender wherein he is given free rein to do whatever he pleases without reproach.

> > If this individual would be considerate to the other members by not making upwards of 100 posts per day (10 posts per day is desirable, 25 barely acceptable, and anything more, intolerable), they would be willing to accept him as a member -- and hostilities would end. But because this individual also wishes to dominate the group, he refuses to be considerate of the other members' wishes, and refuses to make any compromises.
> They would? I doubt that FG, for instance, cares how many posts a person makes; and the same for others I won't risk trolling in by naming.

FG is what he is. As noted earlier, he is more or less accepted by the group in spite of himself. As you'd noted, he isn't seen as a threat to the group.

> > Your support of this disruptive individual (and his flunkies) has created a rift between yourself and the other members --
> I thought that's whom you meant. That's a person that I've gotten along with since I joined the group; we've had our differences, but we've been able to overcome them. If he were nasty to me, then I'd of course be nasty to him; but he hasn't. You're asking me to consider him incapable of getting along with me instead - to consider him nasty, when he's been nice on the whole - and to be nasty back.
>

I know that you and Will have been on good terms for 15-20 years, and would not ask you to end it.

My point is that your support of him is seen as enabling him by the other members of the group. I'm asking you to take that into consideration in your dealings with them. I'm asking you to change your relationship with them -- not your relationship with Will.

Instead of attacking ER/NG/ME/AW, you need to remember that they see you as being part of the problem. If you were to treat them with civility -- regardless of their attacks on you or Will -- I think that they would eventually come to see that you are not the malicious troll that they take you for.

Remember how I said that I chose not to continue my hostilities with you and simply stopped? Regardless of whether you chose to return the favor? I'm asking you to do take the same approach with the others.

Hopefully, I've earned your trust at this point -- just as you would, hopefully, come to earn their trust by following my suggestion.

> In short, you're asking me to practice T4T, but in a collectivist variant: you're asking me to not determine who's being nice and who's being nasty for myself, but to let the "group" decide for me, and to be nice or nasty to the other people here depending not on who is nice or nasty to me, but depending on whom the "group" somehow decides is nice or nasty.
>

Not at all.

Stay friends with Will and his cronies. But there's no reason for you to be actively engaged in flame wars with the rest of the group as a result. It takes two to have a fight. If you stop fighting them, the fight's over (at least insofar as you're concerned). I'm not asking for you to make any concessions to them -- just to stop fighting them. They don't want a flame war any more than you want one.

> > who view you as an enabler (at best). Calling them names like "Jism" and "Ashhole" only increase the negative feelings toward you and further the hostile environment.
> You did realize that my use of "Ashhole" was in response to his calling me "Jism Dance." So you're arguing that I should not be nasty back (call him a name) in response to his calling me a name. Instead I should be nice to him - "turn the other cheek" - and instead be nasty to someone he's being nasty to, because someone speaking for the "group" thinks it's in the interest of the "group."
>

Yes. That's what I'm asking.

If it helps, you can call me "Pedodragon." I won't retaliate. That way you won't be the only one forced to endure name-calling in silence.

> Which is indistinguishable from another maxim -- be nice to the people that someone - let's call them the "group whisperer" -- tells you to be nice to, and nasty to the people that person tells you to. Which seems to imply that I must not only abandon the morality I live by -- essentially T4T -- but I also must abandon any attempt to live morally -- of consciously governing how I act -- here, for "the good of the group".
>

I'm not asking you to be nasty to anyone. This isn't an Us vs Them proposal.

I'm merely saying that ER/NG/ME and AW all want what's best for AAPC -- as do you. There's really no need for any of you to fight, because none of you want there to be any fighting. And since none of you want there to be any fighting, it's stupid for you to be engaged in a perpetual war with one another. Just stop it.

Yes, I'm placing the onus on you, and not on them -- that's because it's easier to convince one person to make a sacrifice than it is to convince four. If you stop attacking them, I'll do everything I can to get them to stop attacking you.

> > I'm not suggesting that you stop supporting the disruptors (although your taking an active role in addressing the problem would go a long way toward achieving its resolution). I'm merely saying that the T4T is to your distinct disadvantage.
> I dont' think you've show that; it may be to the group's, or the group whisperer's disadvantage) but that's not what your example is showing me. Rather, you're invoking T4T (as a collective strategy for the group to deal with one putatively "nasty" person, and simply telling me that what's wrong with it is not my use of it but my attempting to live morally - my determining whom to be nice or nasty to - operiod.
>

Isn't it obvious that calling others names like "Jism" is only going to make the resent you? It doesn't matter if they called you "Dunce" first. The resentment is still there. T4T (in the retaliatory sense) is not going to resolve anything.

OTOH, when I stopped calling you "Dunce," you stopped calling me "Pedodragon" -- although it took you a couple of weeks to do so. The only way to successfully end hostilities is to make up your mind to stop fighting. I'm not getting my other cheek slapped by you, so apparently it works.

> > Karen was also perceived as an enabler, but she rarely received any ill treatment (or even any ill feelings) from the group (with the occasional exception of ME). That's because Karen avoided the T4T tactic like the plague. You could benefit from her example.
> Karen, following her own inclinations, tried to be nice to everyone, and ended up leaving anyway. That turned out to be even less viable than FG's be-nasty-to-everyone strategy. We have a toxic environment here, where nastiness is the norm.
>

Yes, Karen left because she couldn't stand all of the nastiness. But you're missing my point. Karen was accepted and treated respectfully by everyone here (even by ME most of the time). My point is that people aren't going to attack you or anyone else just because they're on friendly terms with Will.

> > Love him or hate him, Will has been a problem (the biggest problem) with AAPC for the past 20+ years. That won't change regardless of what any of do.
> Well, no. Back in the early 2000's, the 'biggest problem' was undoubtedly Chuck Lysaght. I think Will got roped in originally because he was nice to Chuck, so to those who were not he got seen as Will's enabler. (Mind you, Chuck vs. a large fraction of the group wasn't the only thing going on; for years, for instance, Hammes and PJ Ross fought a battle for dominance; eventually that settled down; Ross took a subservient roll which lasted until the day he found out Hammes was dead.) Anyway, Hammes loathed Chuck, and then he loathed Will, as much for their poetry as anything; if he'd noticed "fish and chips" he'd have loathed his poetry, too. But Hammes did end up getting one form of dominance: he was able to assemble or convince enough people to be nasty to Chuck, to assemble a gang large enough to be considered the group.
>

The early 2000s is 20 years ago (depending on what you consider early). I wasn't here when the CL vs DH wars were going on and am unable to comment on it. Hopefully, you can agree that the problem in 2021 is WD vs practically everyone else.

> The problem of Will's overposting was more effect than cause - when you have a whole gang posting to and about you, it's impossible to reply to everything without posting more than anyone else. But most of that ceased when PJ found it impossible to keep the gang together; all such posts went way down.
>

His overposting may have started out as a response to PJR, but today it has become the cause of everyone else's animosity toward him.

> After all that was over, I remember one person whose overposting was a problem that led some to leave: HC. (Initially he addressed that problem, not by posting less, but by deleting all his posts; but eventually he did cut down.)
>
> But enough of that history; it's trivia, and the discussion of T4T, and morality in general, is what's important here.
> > And there will always be some hostility toward you for supporting him. But I don't think it's too late for you to patch things up between the other members and yourself.
> But what would that accomplish? For me or for "the group"? Will is not going to leave the group, or limit his posts, or change his ways, simply because I start being nasty to him; he may be conciliatory towards me, but if I persist in being nasty he won't stick to that.
>

Again, I'm not asking you to be nasty to Will. Nor am I asking you to stop being on friendly terms with Will. Invite him over to your house for dinner for all I care.

I'm asking you to cease your hostilities toward ER/NG/ME and AW. That's all.

What will that accomplish? For starters, it will end the ongoing war between yourself and them. It will allow you, and them, to spend more time constructively discussing one another's work -- and such discussions would be beneficial for all -- and would raise the standard of quality for AAPC posts in general.

> I can predict that, because (despite what I implied earlier), I'm not just nasty to anyone I perceive as being nasty to me. If I've had a mutually nice relationship with someone, I'm slow to nastiness. So while I'm slow to react to someone being nasty to me, and I'll try to keep the nice relationship going, I reach a point at which I believe my niceness is just enabling the nasty. I've reached that point twice; first, after Hammes' gang got nasty with me (because I wouldn't be nasty to Will -- the same way they'd earlier got nasty with Will because he wouldn't be nasty to Chuck), and again 4 years ago, when a whole new gang got nasty with me (because I wouldn't be nasty with Stephan Pickering). My name for that strategy -- responding to unrelenting nastiness with unrelenting niceness -- is "appeasement." (To get back to the morality discussion: Yes, Christian morality preaches appeasement.)
>

That really wasn't the reason/reasons, George. I got nasty because your support of NAMBLA (as I perceived it) made me dislike you. And my niceness/nastiness is based on how much I like someone. Others got nasty for other reasons. For the most part, it was because you often attacked them in defense of Will (at least that's how it appeared to me). And I get it -- you saw NG and ME as disruptive trolls -- which they initially were. But when they stopped trolling, and started contributing to, the group, you continued to attack them as the enemy. They called you names, you called them names, and both sides built up several years of mutual insult and dislike.

> > T4T is not going to help you in achieving that. Consideration for, and civility toward, other members, will.
> But why would I want to 'patch things up' with nasty people, and even be nasty towards others (who've never done me harm) for their sake? Maybe I'd receive less personal nastiness, but I doubt it; their nastiness, as I see it, is not because I'm nasty to them, but I'm not nasty to someone else.)
>

You should patch things up with ER/NG/ME and AW because they're viable members of the group, because we are a group, and we all want the same things from the group.

As to WD, no one is asking you to stop being friends with him.

> > Drop the name-calling -- regardless of what the others call you. It's to everyone's benefit to establish a better environment at AAPC, and they want peace as much as you do. Treat them with civility and, in time, they'll come around. And, should you happen to like one of their poems, a few positive comments would go a long way toward changing their perception of you as the enemy.
> And the result will be, in the words of Neville Chamberlain, "peace in our time." Had Chamberlain accomplished peace, he'd now be considered a premier statesman of the 20th century (while Churchill would have been an obscure footnote, best known for the Gallipoli fiasco). Instead, Chamberlain's become the universal symbol of appeasement.
> >

It worked with you and me.

> > That's just my two-cent's worth -- take it or leave it.
> I always appreciate reading your two-cents' worth on any subject; philosophy today, who knows what tomorrow.

Thank you.

[Will Dockery]

Yes, I do.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

Good points.

[Zod]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

Ha ha... nailed that...

[rjbur...@gmail.com]

Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN? We should ALL give George a little LATITUDE, the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books for I don't know how long. I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain. Give the poor guy a BREAK.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN? We should ALL give George a little LATITUDE, the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books for I don't know how long. I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain. Give the poor guy a BREAK.

Nice Gary Gamble homage.

🙂

[ME]

Michael, well put and you nailed it.

[Will Dockery]

George, well put and you nailed it.

🙂

[rjbur...@gmail.com]

As usual, Will, you missed the point. You always miss the point. You'd miss the point even if I took the time to explain the point to you.
Have a good night, old friend.
🙂

[rjbur...@gmail.com]

Is that how you play shit for shat?

[Will Dockery]

Okay, did you get /my/ point?

> Have a good night, old friend.
> 🙂

Likewise, Robert, have a good night.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

Just having a little fun, Robert, lighten up.

🙂

[ME]

Will, shove it. You’re just a whiney, little bitch.
Grow up.

[Will Dockery]

Perhaps you should follow your own advice?

You're acting a bit childish tonight, yourself.

🙂

[ME]

How’s that?

[W.Dockery]

Just the usual, for you.

🙂

[rjbur...@gmail.com]

> Likewise, Robert, ...

No, I didn't get your point. Not at all. In fact, I have no idea what a "Gary Gamble homage" even is. The phrase is a nonsequitur. I suppose that, given enough time, and money, and manpower, a guy like Elon Musk could maybe find a nonsequitur out there that makes sense, but, unfortunately for humanity, Elon likes playing with his toy rockets.
The loss to humanity is incalculable.

[W-Dockery]

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> > > > the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^°°°°

That's a standard Gary Gamble one liner ^^^^

> I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> > > Nice Gary Gamble homage.

>> >

> No, I didn't get your point. Not at all. In fact, I have no idea what a "Gary Gamble homage" even is

See above.

🙂

[rjbur...@gmail.com]

You are aware that I am in the hospital for at least the next two to four weeks, being treated for leukemia, and that I still don’t know my prognosis, right?

I am acutely aware that your intellect towers above mine.

Your comment really hurt my feelings, because it made me feel really, really stupid, and that's not my fault. God made me that way.

I expect a timely apology.

🙂

[H C]

I expect a timely bowel movement.
I’m nothing if not a regular guy.

[George J. Dance]

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:14:14 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:04:47 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN? We should ALL give George a little LATITUDE, the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books for I don't know how long. I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain. Give the poor guy a BREAK.
> > Nice Gary Gamble homage.
> >
> > 🙂
> As usual, Will, you missed the point. You always miss the point.

I think your point was obvious, Robert. Let me give a summary:
"George said something I didn't read or didn't understand, but it wasn't worth reading, anyway. After all, George worked in a book bindery and actually did manual work -- so there's something wrong with him. That tells you all you need to know about what he said -- since there's something wrong with him, whatever he wrote has to be wrong -- so let's be nice and ignore it."

> You'd miss the point even if I took the time to explain the point to you.

Well, let's explain that line to Will just in case:
"You've done manual labor, too, will -- so you're a mud person just like George."
>("Mud person" was a Gary Gamble referencee, BTW ).

[George J. Dance]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 5:20:58 AM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 1:17:56 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> > > > the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^°°°°
> >
> > That's a standard Gary Gamble one liner ^^^^
> > > I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > >> > > Nice Gary Gamble homage.
> > >> >
> >
> > > No, I didn't get your point. Not at all. In fact, I have no idea what a "Gary Gamble homage" even is
> > See above.
> >
> You are aware that I am in the hospital for at least the next two to four weeks, being treated for leukemia, and that I still don’t know my prognosis, right?

Yes, indeed. And despite what they're pumping him up with, you're probably in pain, too.

> I am acutely aware that your intellect towers above mine.

Obvious sarcasm, best translated as: As Robert sees it, Will's a mud person, so he doesn't know anything -- and Robert's telling him that (even using a literary device, to do so!) demonstrates his own "towering" intellect.

> Your comment really hurt my feelings, because it made me feel really, really stupid, and that's not my fault. God made me that way.

More sarcasm, best translated as: Will's comments can't hurt Robert because -- even in the hospital, possibly at death's door -- Robert is smugly convinced of his own superiority anyway. At least, when Robert dies, he can die happy because of that.

[George J. Dance]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:30:13 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

> > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > >
> > > " "Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!"

> > > > 'enuff said...
> > >

> > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat. So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers. It's an open book quiz, so here's a first source for him to check over if he'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

> > Tit for Tat could work if both sides have a desire for peace.

> Please explain how George punching you in the nose would bring about a desired state of peace.

Once he knew I could and would punch back, he'd think twice about punching as a strategy, and likely try a different strategy.

[Will Dockery]

Pendragon is playing stupid, of course.

He knows how it works since he practices it with you, in fact.

[Michael Pendragon]

I do no such thing, Donkey.

I like George, so I treat George accordingly.

My liking George is independent of any feelings George might harbor toward me.

Similarly, I dislike you, and treat you accordingly as well.

Michael Pendragon
“My new poems are mind blowing ones... heavy imery and ART influenece...”
-- George “General Stink” Sulzbach, demonstrating the effects of his "poetry" on the mind.

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:12:38 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:00:49 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 8:39:41 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:30:13 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " "Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!"
> > > > > > > 'enuff said...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat. So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers. It's an open book quiz, so here's a first source for him to check over if he'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
> > >
> > > > > Tit for Tat could work if both sides have a desire for peace.
> > >
> > > > Please explain how George punching you in the nose would bring about a desired state of peace.
> > >
> > > Once he knew I could and would punch back, he'd think twice about punching as a strategy, and likely try a different strategy.
>
> > Pendragon is playing stupid, of course.
> >
> > He knows how it works since he practices it with you, in fact.
>

> I do no such thing xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Childish name calling snipped>

Sure you do, elephant.

🙂

[George J. Dance]

Well, in fairness, he may not realizes that what he does with me - Respectfully and politely disagreeing with me -- is an example of "playing" T4T. Whereas I know it is because T4T is exactly the strategy governing my relations with him: I'm respectful and polite to him because he's respectful and polite to me.

Everybody "plays" T4T in real life - not consistently, because they haven't actually read any game theory, but intuitively, in a more-or-less conscious integration of the rules they've learned. For example, by the time I'd got to school, I knew that I shouldn't fight with the other kids; and also, that when someone picked a fight with me, I should fight back. Let's apply that by elaborating on MP's scenario: We're schoolmates, and one day you walk up to me and punch me. So my first impulse is to hit back.

Irrespective of what MP practices, he did outline a couple of alternate strategies. One, rather than punch back, I could try to reason with you and find out why you punched me: ask you, "Why did you do that?", or even "What's wrong with you?" As I've said, I've got the option to do that, and if I don't that would also be due to applying T4T.

If I didn't know you at all, and you just walked up and punched me on the cheek (rather than the nose, so I can turn the other one), I wouldn't think twice about hitting back. Whereas if we were friends, who'd always been nice to each other, and then one day you punch me out of the blue, I would think twice, and I could very well decide to talk to you instead of hitting back. But that would also be a result of applying T4T in a real-life situation: in RL (as opposed to game theory) I'd have to consider all your past behavior to me, not just that one punch.

His other option is: leave it up to a higher authority tell me what to do. ("Vengeance is mine, sayeth ________.") In the present case, that higher authority would be the "group," but in this scenario -- where we're schoolmates, and you just punched me in the nose -- the right thing for me to do would be to run to the teacher and tell on you.

I think that "tell the teacher" strategy would lead to my being punched out by not just you but a lot of other kids I didn't even know.

[Will Dockery]

There's also "Live and Let Live" but that's obviously unacceptable to the Pendragon gang:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_and_let_live_(World_War_I)

[Michael Pendragon]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:46:54 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:00:49 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 8:39:41 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:30:13 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " "Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!"
> > > > > > > 'enuff said...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat. So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers. It's an open book quiz, so here's a first source for him to check over if he'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
> > >
> > > > > Tit for Tat could work if both sides have a desire for peace.
> > >
> > > > Please explain how George punching you in the nose would bring about a desired state of peace.
> > >
> > > Once he knew I could and would punch back, he'd think twice about punching as a strategy, and likely try a different strategy.
> > Pendragon is playing stupid, of course.
> >
> > He knows how it works since he practices it with you, in fact.
> Well, in fairness, he may not realizes that what he does with me - Respectfully and politely disagreeing with me -- is an example of "playing" T4T. Whereas I know it is because T4T is exactly the strategy governing my relations with him: I'm respectful and polite to him because he's respectful and polite to me.
>

I strongly disagree, George.

As previously explained (both to Will and yourself), I am nice to you because I like you. How you choose to treat me in return is irrelevant.

> Everybody "plays" T4T in real life - not consistently, because they haven't actually read any game theory, but intuitively, in a more-or-less conscious integration of the rules they've learned. For example, by the time I'd got to school, I knew that I shouldn't fight with the other kids; and also, that when someone picked a fight with me, I should fight back. Let's apply that by elaborating on MP's scenario: We're schoolmates, and one day you walk up to me and punch me. So my first impulse is to hit back.
>
> Irrespective of what MP practices, he did outline a couple of alternate strategies. One, rather than punch back, I could try to reason with you and find out why you punched me: ask you, "Why did you do that?", or even "What's wrong with you?" As I've said, I've got the option to do that, and if I don't that would also be due to applying T4T.
>
> If I didn't know you at all, and you just walked up and punched me on the cheek (rather than the nose, so I can turn the other one), I wouldn't think twice about hitting back. Whereas if we were friends, who'd always been nice to each other, and then one day you punch me out of the blue, I would think twice, and I could very well decide to talk to you instead of hitting back. But that would also be a result of applying T4T in a real-life situation: in RL (as opposed to game theory) I'd have to consider all your past behavior to me, not just that one punch.
>
> His other option is: leave it up to a higher authority tell me what to do. ("Vengeance is mine, sayeth ________.") In the present case, that higher authority would be the "group," but in this scenario -- where we're schoolmates, and you just punched me in the nose -- the right thing for me to do would be to run to the teacher and tell on you.
>
> I think that "tell the teacher" strategy would lead to my being punched out by not just you but a lot of other kids I didn't even know.

I recall a discussion we had regarding Pick, wherein you'd said that his prickly nature (easy to take offense, and always on the attack) was most likely due to years of having been under attack from members of various groups. I suspect (from the above) that the same might apply to you as well.

That said, you appear to have missed my point entirely.

If you come into any group looking for a fight, you're going to get one. If, otoh, you don't wish to be constantly fighting with the other members of the group, the solution is obvious: stop fighting.

At various points in the past, I had been engaged in flame wars with you, PJR, Cujo, NancyGene, ME, and Family Guy. I am no longer fighting with any of you.

Why?

Because I decided to stop fighting.

This isn't a schoolyard (although certain individuals like to behave as though it were) -- it's a Usenet group. As such, it's a group of individuals who share an interest in poetry and who have gotten together to write and/or discuss poetry. And we can safely assume that most of these individuals would rather write and discuss poetry than fight.

Rather than viewing everyone as a potential enemy, we need to remind ourselves that they want the same things that we want: to write and discuss poetry. Once we recognize this, we can view the situation in a different light. We can then see that the other members are not potential enemies, but potential friends. That sounds annoyingly "goodie-goodie," and I cringe at having written it -- but it's the truth.

This morning, you came to the group with both fists swinging -- jumping into existing conflicts and attacking others (like Robert) who hadn't done anything to provoke you. Why? Do you count Robert as one of "the enemy"? Did you feel a need to come rushing to Will's defense (in spite of the fact that Will's constantly provoking everyone else here)? Did you need to puff up your ego by acting superior to everyone else (while accusing them of having done the same)? Did you see this as an opportune way of flipping me the bird without actually doing so?

These are serious questions, George. But all of them can be addressed by answering the following one: Why are you suddenly on the attack?

And, FWIW, I did not tell you to take a figurative punch in the nose without retaliation, nor to run crying to a higher authority. I said that one doesn't need to counter violence with more violence.

[George Dance]

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:

> Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN? We should ALL give George a little LATITUDE, the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books for I don't know how long. I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain. Give the poor guy a BREAK.

Lifting boxes of books during my life as a stockboy is nothing compared with trying to lift my wife Maureen off me when she wants sex and there is no bull around to fuck her properly. Have you seen the size of her? She's almost as fat as Will Dockery and slightly less smelly.

[George J. Dance]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 11:30:05 AM UTC-4, fake "George Dance" wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN? We should ALL give George a little LATITUDE, the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books for I don't know how long. I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain. Give the poor guy a BREAK.

> Lifting boxes of books during my life as a stockboy is nothing

Fake George, I wasn't a "stockboy" when I was "lifting boxes of books." I was a head packer, running a packing line at a bindery. You won't convince anyone with your fraud if you keep getting facts like that one wrong. Just a clue, since you seem to be in need of one.

snip

[Will Dockery]

Looks like you pissed Nancy Gene off.

🙂

[W.Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:14:14 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:04:47 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >

>> > > Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN? We should ALL give George a little LATITUDE, the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books for I don't know how long. I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain. Give the poor guy a BREAK..

>> > Nice Gary Gamble homage.
>> >
>> > 🙂
>> As usual, Will, you missed the point. You always miss the point.

> I think your point was obvious, Robert. Let me give a summary:
> "George said something I didn't read or didn't understand, but it wasn't worth reading, anyway. After all, George worked in a book bindery and actually did manual work -- so there's something wrong with him. That tells you all you need to know about what he said -- since there's something wrong with him, whatever he wrote has to be wrong -- so let's be nice and ignore it."

>> You'd miss the point even if I took the time to explain the point to you.

> Well, let's explain that line to Will just in case:
> "You've done manual labor, too, will -- so you're a mud person just like George."
>>("Mud person" was a Gary Gamble referencee, BTW ).

Like I said, very "Gary Gamble".

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

So why didn't Gary love you, Donkey? You haven't worked in 20-30 years.


Michael Pendragon
“There's nobody here but me, Chuck. I've driven every last one of them away..!”
-- Will Dockery, in a rare moment of candor.

[Family Guy]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 12:55:48 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 11:30:05 AM UTC-4, fake "George Dance" wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN? We should ALL give George a little LATITUDE, the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books for I don't know how long. I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain. Give the poor guy a BREAK.
>
> > Lifting boxes of books during my life as a stockboy is nothing
> Fake George, I wasn't a "stockboy" when I was "lifting boxes of books." I was a head packer,

I have absolutely no doubts that you have been a head packer.

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 11:30:05 AM UTC-4, fake George Dance forged:

> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN? We should ALL give George a little LATITUDE, the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books for I don't know how long. I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain. Give the poor guy a BREAK.
> Lifting boxes of books during my life as a stockboy is nothing

Nice forgery.

Did you learn how to do it from Michael Pendragon?

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

[Zod]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 3:49:08 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:41:17 AM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
> > "Remember, also, that "Nancy Gene" is an Impostor troll name, same as, say fake Conley or fake George Dance, used to annoy and harass Stephan Pickering."
>
> Then why are they still using it years after his death? Could it be that it had nothing to do with the lunatic Pickering-- he was unhinged, there's no denying it.

It was well known as a fact at the time.... the details can be found in the archives....

[General-Zod]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:58:17 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:20:35 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:

> > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > 'enuff said...
> >
> > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat.

> > Yes, it is questionable. I earned that honorific title and claim it proudly. I have been cursed in several languages and the children in the projects have done better name calling-- and they're just parrotting what they hear the adults say.

> > > So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers.
>

> > Of course, I play tit for tat and also played politician and preempted any questions with "''Enuff said." I don't have to answer, I demonstrated my answer, in which you were so cooperative with... Go look up what I told someone about the posts not being what they seem.
>
> > Although, Pendragon answered the question perfectly-- better than any of the rest of us could-- a shame that those who could learn from it, refuse to open their eyes and their minds. Thank you Pendragon-- those that can reckon the nature of the beast, will understand your words.
> I read his entire post and replied to it. My major objection is that his alternative -- being nice or nasty to others when told to -- looks like not even morality, but some collectivist negation of it. And your claim that MP speaks for you, to speak frankly as you deserve that, does not strike me as some superior morality that you both see and I'm missing, but as the very collectivist negation I've been talking about.
>
> > As Pendragon also said-- "indifferent." Your side failed to notice that I usually leave Jordy, Rachel and mostly Ilya alone. Sometimes I'm even civil to them. They're not as bad a nuisance that the King of the Posts and his hound dog are so I can usually tolerate them. Jordy's emoji's don't even bother me-- that's his freedom of expression and his freedom to alienate his self if he cannot speak in a way acceptable for two way communications. Though I believe he uses them in conversations with others that accept it -- so it doesn't even involve me.
>
> If I failed to notice, it's because I usually leave their discussions alone myself; I'll read a thread if they post some good poetry (though for Jordy that's usually good songs), so I'll look at their OP's, but I drop out as quickly even then. I do enjoy some of Ilya's essays, though I almost always disagree, but it's only on occasion, when I feel philosophical, that I'll actually reply to one.
> > I don't involve the neutrals in the conflict.
> Well, those people are not neutrals; they've all been put into Will's gang because they're nice to him. Rachel was actually Jim's earliest target here; before Pickering, and before Will. Pickering actually got a pass from Jim because he couldn't stand poor Rachel (for reasons I don't know), while Will became the object of his wrath for still being nice to Rachel, and then to Pickering, after Jim got nasty with them. (I'm sure there was more to it, but that was the overt reason.)
>
> > I did confronted ktell (just about the general situation) but didn't lump her in with my enemy just because she speaks to or may have said something in support of him. The same with Xip -- he stays out of the fight and I respect that and him for it.
>
> So you're asking me to, similarly, not lump you in with Jim's gang. I don't consider you a full member, but you do strike me as an initiate or a pledge, at least. I understand you're trying to create something new with them -- that "Safe House" or "Sane House" you're always talking about -- and perhaps you feel that supporting the gang is a small price to pay for that. But since I haven't seen any of that, I can't imagine if it's worth it or not.
> > And I left your blog out of it-- a gesture of respect to creators. And I initially said nothing about you publishing Will's work-- that what we do. The only time I have gone after people's work is when it causes problems.
> Fair enough; that's a very important thing. There are people here who've fucked with both my blog and my wiki, and in my view that's enough to make them the lowest form of person on usenet: the person who takes disagreement off usenet and "goes RL". I certainly don't put you in that category. All we can do to each other, as long as we don't go RL, is call each other names, and names will never hurt us. If we're mutually nasty, it's only on a superficial level, more for show than anything; somewhat like Senator Sane in this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

Second read, good write up...

[Will Dockery]

He did nail it.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Not even close.

I had planned on ignoring this, but since you insist on reposting it, I'll have to set the record straight.

POINT 1:

Does anyone here think that Jim started attacking you because you were nice to Rachel?

Everyone knows why you got on Jim's shit list: you scammed him out of $50.

I realize that George skips over a lot of the threads, but I find it hard to believe that he missed that episode in its entirety.

POINT 2:

IIRC, George's Wiki came under attack because he'd used his unauthorized author bios as a platform for attacking AAPC members (myself included). I have always stressed that what happens in AAPC should stay in AAPC; and have held to this by *not* carrying my battles into other platforms (which both you and George have done). No one should ever attack someone's blog/Wiki because they're fighting with them at AAPC -- but it's a two-way street: no one should ever use their blog/Wiki as a platform for attacking AAPC members that they're fighting with.


Michael Pendragon
“I do go in for the childish name-calling.”
-- Will Dockery in a rare moment of self-acknowledgement

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 9:22:08 AM UTC-4 Michael Pendragon lied and misrepresented:

> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:53:34 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 5:44:11 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:58:17 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:20:35 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing
>

> > > > > 'enuff said...
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat.
> > > > > Yes, it is questionable. I earned that honorific title and claim it proudly. I have been cursed in several languages and the children in the projects have done better name calling-- and they're just parrotting what they hear the adults say.
> > > > > > So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers.
> > > >
> > > > > Of course, I play tit for tat and also played politician and preempted any questions with "''Enuff said." I don't have to answer, I demonstrated my answer, in which you were so cooperative with... Go look up what I told someone about the posts not being what they seem.
> > > >
> > > > > Although, Pendragon answered the question perfectly-- better than any of the rest of us could-- a shame that those who could learn from it, refuse to open their eyes and their minds. Thank you Pendragon-- those that can reckon the nature of the beast, will understand your words.
> > > > I read his entire post and replied to it. My major objection is that his alternative -- being nice or nasty to others when told to -- looks like not even morality, but some collectivist negation of it. And your claim that MP speaks for you, to speak frankly as you deserve that, does not strike me as some superior morality that you both see and I'm missing, but as the very collectivist negation I've been talking about.
> > > >
> > > > > As Pendragon also said-- "indifferent." Your side failed to notice that I usually leave Jordy, Rachel and mostly Ilya alone. Sometimes I'm even civil to them. They're not as bad a nuisance that the King of the Posts and his hound dog are so I can usually tolerate them. Jordy's emoji's don't even bother me-- that's his freedom of expression and his freedom to alienate his self if he cannot speak in a way acceptable for two way communications. Though I believe he uses them in conversations with others that accept it -- so it doesn't even involve me.
> > > >
> > > > If I failed to notice, it's because I usually leave their discussions alone myself; I'll read a thread if they post some good poetry (though for Jordy that's usually good songs), so I'll look at their OP's, but I drop out as quickly even then. I do enjoy some of Ilya's essays, though I almost always disagree, but it's only on occasion, when I feel philosophical, that I'll actually reply to one.
> > > > > I don't involve the neutrals in the conflict.
> > > > Well, those people are not neutrals; they've all been put into Will's gang because they're nice to him. Rachel was actually Jim's earliest target here; before Pickering, and before Will. Pickering actually got a pass from Jim because he couldn't stand poor Rachel (for reasons I don't know), while Will became the object of his wrath for still being nice to Rachel, and then to Pickering, after Jim got nasty with them. (I'm sure there was more to it, but that was the overt reason.)
> > > >
> > > > > I did confronted ktell (just about the general situation) but didn't lump her in with my enemy just because she speaks to or may have said something in support of him. The same with Xip -- he stays out of the fight and I respect that and him for it.
> > > >
> > > > So you're asking me to, similarly, not lump you in with Jim's gang. I don't consider you a full member, but you do strike me as an initiate or a pledge, at least. I understand you're trying to create something new with them -- that "Safe House" or "Sane House" you're always talking about -- and perhaps you feel that supporting the gang is a small price to pay for that. But since I haven't seen any of that, I can't imagine if it's worth it or not.
> > > > > And I left your blog out of it-- a gesture of respect to creators. And I initially said nothing about you publishing Will's work-- that what we do. The only time I have gone after people's work is when it causes problems.
> > > > Fair enough; that's a very important thing. There are people here who've fucked with both my blog and my wiki, and in my view that's enough to make them the lowest form of person on usenet: the person who takes disagreement off usenet and "goes RL". I certainly don't put you in that category. All we can do to each other, as long as we don't go RL, is call each other names, and names will never hurt us. If we're mutually nasty, it's only on a superficial level, more for show than anything; somewhat like Senator Sane in this video:
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko
>
> > > Second read, good write up...
>
> > He did nail it.
>
>

> I had planned on ignoring this, but since you insist on reposting it, I'll

You'll lie and misrepresent, as usual, Michael Pendragon?

> POINT 1:
>
> Does anyone here think that Jim started attacking you because you were nice to Rachel?
>
> Everyone knows why you got on Jim's shit list

<Lies and misrepresentations snipped>


Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?

> I realize that George skips over a lot of the threads, but I find it hard to believe that he missed that episode in its entirety.

George Dance didn't miss it, and since you repeat the lies and misrepresentations, I expect he'll correct you, Pendragon.

> POINT 2:
>
> IIRC, George's Wiki came under attack because he'd used his unauthorized author bios as a platform for attacking AAPC members (myself included). I have always stressed that what happens in AAPC should stay in AAPC; and have held to this by *not* carrying my battles into other platforms (which both you and George have done). No one should ever attack someone's blog/Wiki because they're fighting with them at AAPC -- but it's a two-way street: no one should ever use their blog/Wiki as a platform for attacking AAPC members that they're fighting with.

Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?

😉

[Michael Pendragon]

Everyone knows that you scammed Jim' out of $50., Donkey.

It's all fully documented in the archives.

> Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> > I realize that George skips over a lot of the threads, but I find it hard to believe that he missed that episode in its entirety.
> George Dance didn't miss it, and since you repeat the lies and misrepresentations, I expect he'll correct you, Pendragon.

If George believes that Jim's attacks on you had nothing to do with your having conned him out of $50., then George is sorely mistaken.

> > POINT 2:
> >
> > IIRC, George's Wiki came under attack because he'd used his unauthorized author bios as a platform for attacking AAPC members (myself included). I have always stressed that what happens in AAPC should stay in AAPC; and have held to this by *not* carrying my battles into other platforms (which both you and George have done). No one should ever attack someone's blog/Wiki because they're fighting with them at AAPC -- but it's a two-way street: no one should ever use their blog/Wiki as a platform for attacking AAPC members that they're fighting with.
> Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?

I'm well aware that you're attempting to reopen an old flame war between GD and myself. That's not going to happen.

As in most fights, there were wrongs committed on both sides: George should not have used his Wiki as a means of discrediting AAPC members, and no AAPC members should have vandalized George's Wiki pages.


Michael Pendragon
“Loved Poe in Junior High School... almost as good as Hank Williams and Popeye”
-- Will Dockery, village idiot.

[Will Dockery]

Senetto sent Zod money and then wanted a refund, which he got.

> > <Lies and misrepresentations snipped>


> Everyone knows that you scammed Jim' out of $50

No, that's an old lie you've been spreading here for years, Pendragon.

> It's all fully documented in the archives

Exactly, which will show you're lying about and misrepresenting what happened.

> > Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> > > I realize that George skips over a lot of the threads, but I find it hard to believe that he missed that episode in its entirety.
> > George Dance didn't miss it, and since you repeat the lies and misrepresentations, I expect he'll correct you, Pendragon.
> If George believes that Jim's attacks on you had nothing to do with your having conned him out of $50., then George is sorely mistaken.
> > > POINT 2:
> > >
> > > IIRC, George's Wiki came under attack because he'd used his unauthorized author bios as a platform for attacking AAPC members (myself included). I have always stressed that what happens in AAPC should stay in AAPC; and have held to this by *not* carrying my battles into other platforms (which both you and George have done). No one should ever attack someone's blog/Wiki because they're fighting with them at AAPC -- but it's a two-way street: no one should ever use their blog/Wiki as a platform for attacking AAPC members that they're fighting with.
>
> > Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> I'm well aware

Another lie:

> that you're attempting to reopen an old flame war between GD and myself. That's not going to happen.

No, but I know George can be trusted to tell the truth.

You can't.

> As in most fights, there were wrongs committed on both sides: George should not have used his Wiki as a means of discrediting AAPC members, and no AAPC members should have vandalized George's Wiki pages.
>
>
> Michael Pendragon
> “Loved Poe in Junior High School... almost as good as Hank Williams and Popeye”
> -- Will Dockery

Yes, Edgar Allan Poe inspired and influenced my poetry:

https://shadowville-mythos.blogspot.com/?m=1

[Michael Pendragon]

Really?

IIRC Jim refused to accept a refund and the money was *eventually* sent to Cujo who donated it to his favorite charity.

> > > <Lies and misrepresentations snipped>
>
>
> > Everyone knows that you scammed Jim' out of $50
> No, that's an old lie you've been spreading here for years, Pendragon.

I'm sure Jim will back me up on it.

> > It's all fully documented in the archives
> Exactly, which will show you're lying about and misrepresenting what happened.

Here's a breakdown in outline form:

1) Will Donkey posts an announcement that Stinky George is about to be evicted from his trailer. WD mentions that Stinky is recuperating from an accident, and reminds us of his alleged military service (by pretending that a VA benefit check is in the mail, but won't arrive in time.

2) Jim sends $50. to help out.

3) Since Stinky George supposedly hasn't got a mailbox at his trailer, Will asks that Jim send the money to him (in cash).

4) Once Jim tells Will that the money has been posted, Will warns Jim that Stinky can't be trusted with money and will probably spend it on booze, drugs, and hookers.

5) Jim asks Will to oversee how situation, and to make sure that Stinky spends the money on supplies that will help him if he ends up homeless.

6) Will receives the money and emails Stinky. In the email, Will neglects to mention that the money is being sent to buy Stinky supplies, or to help tide over his landlord until the VA check arrives. Instead, Will invites Stinky out to dinner with his Brother Dave and himself.

7) The following day, Will posts a message to Jim, happily reporting that the $50 bought steak dinners for three.

8) Shortly thereafter, Will reports that a "maniac" has assaulted Brother Dave and himself with a metal pipe. Will later reveals the "maniac"s identity as Stinky George.

9) Jim is rightly upset that the money wasn't spent to help Stinky George (as he'd intended), and demands that Will give $50. to help out someone else in need.

10) Will photographs himself handing a $50. check to his daughter.

11) Suspecting another scam, Jim demands that the check be sent to a third party (Cujo), which it was.

12) The alleged VA check never materialized, and its disappearance was neve explained.

13) Stinky got evicted and now lives under a discarded piece of tarp (generously donated to him by Will).

14) Will accuses Jim of having been "a control freak" and insists that the money was well spent on his (Will's) steak dinner.

15) Will erroneously maintains that the money was refunded to Jim.

Did I miss any details, Donkey?

> > > Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> > > > I realize that George skips over a lot of the threads, but I find it hard to believe that he missed that episode in its entirety.
> > > George Dance didn't miss it, and since you repeat the lies and misrepresentations, I expect he'll correct you, Pendragon.
> > If George believes that Jim's attacks on you had nothing to do with your having conned him out of $50., then George is sorely mistaken.
> > > > POINT 2:
> > > >
> > > > IIRC, George's Wiki came under attack because he'd used his unauthorized author bios as a platform for attacking AAPC members (myself included). I have always stressed that what happens in AAPC should stay in AAPC; and have held to this by *not* carrying my battles into other platforms (which both you and George have done). No one should ever attack someone's blog/Wiki because they're fighting with them at AAPC -- but it's a two-way street: no one should ever use their blog/Wiki as a platform for attacking AAPC members that they're fighting with.
> >
> > > Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> > I'm well aware
> Another lie:
> > that you're attempting to reopen an old flame war between GD and myself. That's not going to happen.
> No, but I know George can be trusted to tell the truth.
>
> You can't.

I will swear by my outline in a court of law.

> > As in most fights, there were wrongs committed on both sides: George should not have used his Wiki as a means of discrediting AAPC members, and no AAPC members should have vandalized George's Wiki pages.
> >
> >
> > Michael Pendragon
> > “Loved Poe in Junior High School... almost as good as Hank Williams and Popeye”
> > -- Will Dockery
> Yes, Edgar Allan Poe inspired and influenced my poetry:

Poe would have had you flogged for desecrating the title of "poet."

Michael Pendragon
“I'm thinking (and G-d talks to me more than Falwell, or is that Lucifer, it's hard to tell, it's usually his old lady, but She sure says some nice things who ever She is... love it when She drops by the shed for that angelic wake up... @:-} but I digress...)”
-- Will Dockery, -- Will Dockery, on his relationship with God

[W-Dockery]

No, that's an example of your misrepresentations and lies, Pendragon.

Senetto sent Zod money, Zod spent the money.

Senetto spent months whining about how the money was spent, so I sent Senetto a refund, to the charity he specified.

Now, since your word can't be trusted, Pendragon, we can have George Dance verify or clarify the above, which is what really happened.

😉

[H C]

I'd be happy to clarify what happened, if you like.

[Michael Pendragon]

I'd like.

[H C]

Of course you would, but I wasn’t addressing you.

[Michael Pendragon]

1a) I should add that Will had only introduced Stinky to the group couple of weeks earlier, and that Stinky had set about ingratiating himself to the group by giving unqualified "Outdamnstanding"s to everything anyone posted.

[H C]

Do you think Donkey and Stinky intentionally, and with
premeditation, conspired to defraud Jim out of money?
I don’t see how you can make a charge like that stick,
but am willing to hear your argument if you think you can.

[Zod]

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:58:58 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> 1a) I should add that Will had only introduced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> to the group couple of weeks earlier

That is a lie, I was posting poetry for about a year before that....

[W-Dockery]

Zod wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:58:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon lied and misrepresented:

>>
>> 1a) I should add that Will had only introduced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> to the group couple of weeks earlier

> That is a lie, I was posting poetry for about a year before that....

Yes, one lie of many from Pendragon.

[Michael Pendragon]

I have my suspicions.

And the above-related scenario does play out as a premeditated con job.

And Will does have a history of conning people out of money (as I'm sure you're all too aware).

But, no... I can't prove it.

Will can always plead stupidity (and who can argue against that?).

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

It played out as Michael describes but I will add that I, at first, I shelved the problem I had with it, but as it went on is when I wanted it to go where it should have gone in the first place. The daughter money order, furthered my anger, knowing the daughter could just cash and hand it back to daddy. It finally made it to a animal shelter of some kind care of Cujo.

Later up the road, Dance came up with the idea that I sent the money to in fact create all the friction..It was MY idea from the very beginning to create animosity, the grand scheme to become the leader of the pack and willing to pay for that privilege.

Utter nonsense.

Money was sent, steaks were eaten, the con was successful.

At the end, we have a dry drunk, a wet drunk homeless by the river and an editor thinking the Donkey worth of a book.

Not quiet Milli Vanilli, but a con is a con.

The End

[W.Dockery]

Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

<snipped for brevity>

> It played out as Michael describes

No, Michael Pendragon laced his description with lies and misrepresentations, as expected.

> but I will add that I, at first, I shelved the problem I had with it

I told you from the start that I'd refund the money since you constantly complained about how it was spent, Senetto.

> The daughter money order, furthered my anger

That's where I and others began to suspect your motives, since giving the money to my daughter was your idea, Senetto.

> It finally made it to a animal shelter of some kind care of Cujo.

At this point the matter was settled, I had refunded the money to the place and person you chose.

> Later up the road, Dance came up with the idea that I sent the money to in fact create all the friction..It was MY idea from the very beginning to create animosity, the grand scheme to become the leader of the pack and willing to pay for that privilege.

That's somewhat of a misrepresentation of what I've read from George Dance, but he can clarify and correct you on this better than I could.

>
> Money was sent, steaks were eaten

And when you complained about that, your money was refunded to you, Senetto.
>
> The End

That's right, the matter is settled, Senetto.

😉

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 4:27:53 PM UTC-4, H C wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:58:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon lied and misrepresented:

> > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:53:34 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 5:44:11 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:58:17 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat.
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is questionable. I earned that honorific title and claim it proudly. I have been cursed in several languages and the children in the projects have done better name calling-- and they're just parrotting what they hear the adults say.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I play tit for tat and also played politician and preempted any questions with "''Enuff said." I don't have to answer, I demonstrated my answer, in which you were so cooperative with... Go look up what I told someone about the posts not being what they seem.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Although, Pendragon answered the question perfectly-- better than any of the rest of us could-- a shame that those who could learn from it, refuse to open their eyes and their minds. Thank you Pendragon-- those that can reckon the nature of the beast, will understand your words.
> > > > > > > > > > I read his entire post and replied to it. My major objection is that his alternative -- being nice or nasty to others when told to -- looks like not even morality, but some collectivist negation of it. And your claim that MP speaks for you, to speak frankly as you deserve that, does not strike me as some superior morality that you both see and I'm missing, but as the very collectivist negation I've been talking about.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As Pendragon also said-- "indifferent." Your side failed to notice that I usually leave Jordy, Rachel and mostly Ilya alone. Sometimes I'm even civil to them. They're not as bad a nuisance that the King of the Posts and his hound dog are so I can usually tolerate them. Jordy's emoji's don't even bother me-- that's his freedom of expression and his freedom to alienate his self if he cannot speak in a way acceptable for two way communications. Though I believe he uses them in conversations with others that accept it -- so it doesn't even involve me.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If I failed to notice, it's because I usually leave their discussions alone myself; I'll read a thread if they post some good poetry (though for Jordy that's usually good songs), so I'll look at their OP's, but I drop out as quickly even then. I do enjoy some of Ilya's essays, though I almost always disagree, but it's only on occasion, when I feel philosophical, that I'll actually reply to one.
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't involve the neutrals in the conflict.
> > > > > > > > > > Well, those people are not neutrals; they've all been put into Will's gang because they're nice to him. Rachel was actually Jim's earliest target here; before Pickering, and before Will. Pickering actually got a pass from Jim because he couldn't stand poor Rachel (for reasons I don't know), while Will became the object of his wrath for still being nice to Rachel, and then to Pickering, after Jim got nasty with them. (I'm sure there was more to it, but that was the overt reason.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I did confronted ktell (just about the general situation) but didn't lump her in with my enemy just because she speaks to or may have said something in support of him. The same with Xip -- he stays out of the fight and I respect that and him for it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So you're asking me to, similarly, not lump you in with Jim's gang. I don't consider you a full member, but you do strike me as an initiate or a pledge, at least. I understand you're trying to create something new with them -- that "Safe House" or "Sane House" you're always talking about -- and perhaps you feel that supporting the gang is a small price to pay for that. But since I haven't seen any of that, I can't imagine if it's worth it or not.
> > > > > > > > > > > And I left your blog out of it-- a gesture of respect to creators. And I initially said nothing about you publishing Will's work-- that what we do. The only time I have gone after people's work is when it causes problems.
> > > > > > > > > > Fair enough; that's a very important thing. There are people here who've fucked with both my blog and my wiki, and in my view that's enough to make them the lowest form of person on usenet: the person who takes disagreement off usenet and "goes RL". I certainly don't put you in that category. All we can do to each other, as long as we don't go RL, is call each other names, and names will never hurt us. If we're mutually nasty, it's only on a superficial level, more for show than anything; somewhat like Senator Sane in this video:
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Second read, good write up...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He did nail it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I had planned on ignoring this, but since you insist on reposting it, I'll

As expected, you lie about it and misrepresent the details.

> > > > > > You'll lie and misrepresent, as usual, Michael Pendragon?
> > > > > > > POINT 1:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anyone here think that Jim started attacking you because you were nice to Rachel?

The ultimatum was over Stephan Pickering, though, when you backed Senetto on a plan to send Pickering "packing", as Senetto put it.

> > > > > > > Everyone knows
> > > > Senetto sent Zod money and then wanted a refund, which he got.
> > > Really?

Yes, really.

> > > IIRC Jim refused to accept a refund and the money was *eventually* sent to Cujo who donated it to his favorite charity.

Which was as directed by Jim Senetto.

The money was refunded and the matter supposed to be settled.

> > > > > > <Lies and misrepresentations snipped>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Everyone knows that xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Above lie snipped.

> > > > No, that's an old lie you've been spreading here for years, Pendragon.
> > > I'm sure Jim will back me up on it.

George Dance can set the record straight after you and Senetto are finished with the bullshit.

> > > > > It's all fully documented in the archives

And it doesn't match Pendragon's bullshit.

> > > > Exactly, which will show you're lying about and misrepresenting what happened.

As predicted, Pendragon gives his version below, loaded with lies and misrepresentations, as expected.

> > > Here's a breakdown in outline form:

With your lies and misrepresentations added, of course, Pendragon.

> > > 1) Will posts an announcement that Zod is about to be evicted from his trailer. WD mentions that Stinky is recuperating from an accident, and reminds us of his alleged military service (by pretending that a VA benefit check is in the mail, but won't arrive in time.

I never asked for money.

Zod never asked for money.

After Senetto complained about it for months, the money was refunded.

> > 1a) I should add that Will had only introduced Stinky to the group couple of weeks earlier, and that Stinky had set about ingratiating himself to the group by giving unqualified "Outdamnstanding"s to everything anyone posted.

This is incorrect, Zod was on the group about a year before that, maybe longer.

> > > 2) Jim sends $50. to help out.

Which was later refunded after Senetto complained about it for months.

> > > 3) Since Stinky George supposedly hasn't got a mailbox at his trailer, Will asks that Jim send the money to him (in cash).
> > >
> > > 4) Once Jim tells Will that the money has been posted, Will warns Jim that Stinky can't be trusted with money and will probably spend it on booze, drugs, and hookers.
> > >
> > > 5) Jim asks Will to oversee how situation, and to make sure that Stinky spends the money on supplies that will help him if he ends up homeless.
> > >
> > > 6) Will receives the money and emails Stinky. In the email, Will neglects to mention that the money is being sent to buy Stinky supplies, or to help tide over his landlord until the VA check arrives. Instead, Will invites Stinky out to dinner with his Brother Dave and himself.
> > >
> > > 7) The following day, Will posts a message to Jim, happily reporting that the $50 bought steak dinners for three.
> > >
> > > 8) Shortly thereafter, Will reports that a "maniac" has assaulted Brother Dave and himself with a metal pipe. Will later reveals the "maniac"s identity as Stinky George.
> > >
> > > 9) Jim is rightly upset that the money wasn't spent to help Stinky George (as he'd intended), and demands that Will give $50. to help out someone else in need.
> > >
> > > 10) Will photographs himself handing a $50. check to his daughter.
> > >
> > > 11) Suspecting another scam, Jim demands that the check be sent to a third party (Cujo), which it was.
> > >
> > > 12) The alleged VA check never materialized, and its disappearance was neve explained.
> > >
> > > 13) Stinky got evicted and now lives under a discarded piece of tarp (generously donated to him by Will).
> > >
> > > 14) Will accuses Jim of having been "a control freak" and insists that the money was well spent on his (Will's) steak dinner.
> > >
> > > 15) Will erroneously maintains that the money was refunded to Jim.
> > >
> > > Did I miss any details

You've added many details that are lies and misrepresentations, Pendragon.

> > > > > > Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> > > > > > > I realize that George skips over a lot of the threads, but I find it hard to believe that he missed that episode in its entirety.
> > > > > > George Dance didn't miss it, and since you repeat the lies and misrepresentations, I expect he'll correct you, Pendragon.
> > > > > If George believes that Jim's attacks on you had nothing to do with your having conned him out of $50., then George is sorely mistaken.

That's a lie, though.

There was never a "con".

That's one of your many lies and misrepresentations, Pendragon.

> > > > > > > POINT 2:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IIRC, George's Wiki came under attack because he'd used his unauthorized author bios as a platform for attacking AAPC members (myself included). I have always stressed that what happens in AAPC should stay in AAPC; and have held to this by *not* carrying my battles into other platforms (which both you and George have done). No one should ever attack someone's blog/Wiki because they're fighting with them at AAPC -- but it's a two-way street: no one should ever use their blog/Wiki as a platform for attacking AAPC members that they're fighting with.

I agree that flame wars shouldn't be taken to real life, including stalking.

> > > > > > Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> > > > > I'm well aware
> > > > Another lie:
> > > > > that you're attempting to reopen an old flame war between GD and myself. That's not going to happen.

I've no intention of that, but George Dance can be trusted with his word.

You, Pendragon, being a malicious liar with an agenda, cannot.

> > > > No, but I know George can be trusted to tell the truth.
> > > >
> > > > You can't.
> > > I will swear by my outline in a court of law.

It still isn't how it happened or how it's archived on Usenet.

> > > > > As in most fights, there were wrongs committed on both sides: George should not have used his Wiki as a means of discrediting AAPC members, and no AAPC members should have vandalized George's Wiki pages.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael Pendragon
> > > > > “Loved Poe in Junior High School... almost as good as Hank Williams and Popeye”
> > > > > -- Will Dockery
> > > > Yes, Edgar Allan Poe inspired and influenced my poetry:
> > >
> > >

> Do you think Donkey and Stinky intentionally, and with
> premeditation, conspired to defraud Jim out of money?
> I don’t see how you can make a charge like that stick,
> but am willing to hear your argument if you think you can.

It didn't happen like Pendragon's depiction, to make a long story short.

Senetto sent money to Zod, after Senetto complained, the money was later refunded.

No plan, nobody asked for money.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 12:50:56 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

<Willsnip >

> > > 1a) I should add that Will had only introduced Stinky to the group couple of weeks earlier, and that Stinky had set about ingratiating himself to the group by giving unqualified "Outdamnstanding"s to everything anyone posted.
> This is incorrect, Zod was on the group about a year before that, maybe longer.

Stink assaulted you and Brother Dave with the "metal bar" on September 14, 2016.

If Stink was here at least a year before the incident, prove it. Find a Stinkpost from September 14, 2015 or earlier.

I'll make it even easier for you: find a Stinkpost from August 14, 2016 or earlier.

< Willsnip >

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:35:18 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 12:50:56 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> <Willsnip >
> > > > 1a) I should add that Will had only introduced Stinky to the group couple of weeks earlier, and that Stinky had set about ingratiating himself to the group by giving unqualified "Outdamnstanding"s to everything anyone posted.
>
> > This is incorrect, Zod was on the group about a year before that, maybe longer.
>

> [Zod] assaulted you and Brother Dave with the "metal bar" on September 14, 2016.
>
> If [Zod] was here at least a year before the incident, prove it. Find a [Zod] post from September 14, 2015 or earlier.
>
> I'll make it even easier for you: find a [Zod] post from August 14, 2016 or earlier.
>
> < Willsnip >

Okay, I'll have a look and bump up what I find.

I know there are poetry posts by Zod from Winter, Spring and Summer of 2016 if not sooner.

[Conley Brothers]

That's like being the head pizza boy. At the end of the day you're still a fucking pizza boy. What a shit job for a grown man to have.

[Conley Brothers]

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:23:37 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Exactly, which will show you're lying about and misrepresenting what happened.
> Here's a breakdown in outline form:
>
> 1) Will Donkey posts an announcement that Stinky George is about to be evicted from his trailer. WD mentions that Stinky is recuperating from an accident, and reminds us of his alleged military service (by pretending that a VA benefit check is in the mail, but won't arrive in time.
>
> 2) Jim sends $50. to help out.
>
> 3) Since Stinky George supposedly hasn't got a mailbox at his trailer, Will asks that Jim send the money to him (in cash).
>
> 4) Once Jim tells Will that the money has been posted, Will warns Jim that Stinky can't be trusted with money and will probably spend it on booze, drugs, and hookers.
>
> 5) Jim asks Will to oversee how situation, and to make sure that Stinky spends the money on supplies that will help him if he ends up homeless.
>
> 6) Will receives the money and emails Stinky. In the email, Will neglects to mention that the money is being sent to buy Stinky supplies, or to help tide over his landlord until the VA check arrives. Instead, Will invites Stinky out to dinner with his Brother Dave and himself.
>
> 7) The following day, Will posts a message to Jim, happily reporting that the $50 bought steak dinners for three.
>
> 8) Shortly thereafter, Will reports that a "maniac" has assaulted Brother Dave and himself with a metal pipe. Will later reveals the "maniac"s identity as Stinky George.
>
> 9) Jim is rightly upset that the money wasn't spent to help Stinky George (as he'd intended), and demands that Will give $50. to help out someone else in need.
>
> 10) Will photographs himself handing a $50. check to his daughter.
>
> 11) Suspecting another scam, Jim demands that the check be sent to a third party (Cujo), which it was.
>
> 12) The alleged VA check never materialized, and its disappearance was neve explained.
>
> 13) Stinky got evicted and now lives under a discarded piece of tarp (generously donated to him by Will).
>
> 14) Will accuses Jim of having been "a control freak" and insists that the money was well spent on his (Will's) steak dinner.
>
> 15) Will erroneously maintains that the money was refunded to Jim.
>
> Did I miss any details, Donkey?
>

> Michael Pendragon
> “I'm thinking (and G-d talks to me more than Falwell, or is that Lucifer, it's hard to tell, it's usually his old lady, but She sure says some nice things who ever She is... love it when She drops by the shed for that angelic wake up... @:-} but I digress...)”
> -- Will Dockery, -- Will Dockery, on his relationship with God

A truthful account of the swindle Dockery and Sulzbach pulled. Spot on.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:32:17 AM UTC-4, fake Conley forged:

Of course, an Impostor troll such as you, being anonymous, can pretend to be anything you want, you forging identity thief.

😉

[Conley Brothers]

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:44:23 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> No, that's an example of your misrepresentations and lies, Pendragon.
>
> Senetto sent Zod money, Zod spent the money.
>
> Senetto spent months whining about how the money was spent, so I sent Senetto a refund

You never sent him a refund and he didn't ask you to. Stop lying, Dockery.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:36:53 AM UTC-4, fake Conley forged and lied:

> You never sent him a refund and he didn't ask you to xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx

Yes I did, and Cujo witnessed it.

😉

[Will Dockery]

Yes, there were a dozen or more of your poems posted during that year.

[Michael Pendragon]

The attack with the metal bar took place on 9/14/2016. The attack occurred shortly after the infamous steak dinner.

Find a Stink poem that was posted prior to 8/14/2016.

[Will Dockery]

Okay, I'll have a look at the archives.

😉

[Ash Wurthing]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:34:30 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:46:54 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> There's also "Live and Let Live" but that's obviously unacceptable to the Pendragon gang:

Troll Tyrant! There is no living under your spam that smothers our voices. your trolling that hunts us down in our own threads and hijacks them for not praising him. There is no freedom of expression here except for what Will decrees is free to say. He will misrepresent and label us as trolls, phobs, fascists if we don't say what he wants-- which is obviously fan worship.

I will never be a part of Will deluded vision of an AAPC domineered by him! I have Rivendell, Will can have this infested Moria.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:25:22 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:34:30 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:46:54 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > There's also "Live and Let Live" but that's obviously unacceptable to the Pendragon gang:
>

> He will misrepresent and label us as trolls, phobs, fascists if we don't say what he wants-- which is obviously fan worship.

Just calling it as I see it, Ash.

> I will never be a part of Will deluded vision of an AAPC domineered by him! I have Rivendell, Will can have this infested Moria.

Best of luck to you, then, Ash.

😉

[ME]

Will, you don’t have enough to do, evidently. I’m going to help you out with that problem.

[Will Dockery]

I've got plenty of poetry to post:

https://shadowville-mythos.blogspot.com/2021/05/journey-in-past.html

[George J. Dance]

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
> Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN?

I can't say I have. I can't even say I've ever heard that phrase.

BTW, did you ever notice that "Jism Gang" is an anagram of "Jim's Gang"?

> We should ALL give George a little LATITUDE, the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books for I don't know how long. I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain. Give the poor guy a BREAK.

If it helps relieve your sometimes excruciating pain to imagine me in pain, too, Robert, you do just that.

[Ash Wurthing]

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:16:53 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> BTW, did you ever notice that "Jism Gang" is an anagram of "Jim's Gang"?

A poor one at that. No, every one is going to see it as you intended it-- simply you calling Jim "jism". And why it's your new nickname. You wanted tit for tat. Eventually I'll remove the original post to take the title off the threads list-- that is if your friends ever learn to quit bumping it. I'm sure you have noticed that I usually leave our interactions like with some debates-- where each side present their case and leave it to the readers to decide.

[Zod]

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:16:53 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN?
> I can't say I have. I can't even say I've ever heard that phrase.
>
> BTW, did you ever notice that "Jism Gang" is an anagram of "Jim's Gang"?

He's the Kingpen...

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:16:53 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN?
> I can't say I have. I can't even say I've ever heard that phrase.
>
> BTW, did you ever notice that "Jism Gang" is an anagram of "Jim's Gang"?

It's a nod to traditional Usenet "flame" spelling that old timers like PJR would get.

Like his "teh" for the and "lits" for list.

[Family Guy]

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:16:53 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

I can imagine you in pain. Just please help make it a reality, mmmmkay?

[Family Guy]

> I've got plenty of spam to spam:
>

Fixed.

[Family Guy]

big effin' surprise there.

[Ash Wurthing]

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 3:30:43 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 4:16:53 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:

> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:42:53 PM UTC-4, rjbur @gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Did you know that "Jism" Dance is an anagram of the phrase JAM DISC EN?
> > I can't say I have. I can't even say I've ever heard that phrase.
> >
> > BTW, did you ever notice that "Jism Gang" is an anagram of "Jim's Gang"?
> It's a nod to traditional Usenet "flame" spelling that old timers like PJR would get.
>
> Like his "teh" for the and "lits" for list.
> > > We should ALL give George a little LATITUDE, the poor man has paid his dues by manually lifting boxes of books for I don't know how long. I imagine that GEORGE suffers from some serious back pain. Give the poor guy a BREAK.
> > If it helps relieve your sometimes excruciating pain to imagine me in pain, too, Robert, you do just that.

Keep reaching, you may come up some bs deflection, that may fool your side about the blatant abuses your side is now doing.

If that's a fLAMer spelling, it's still of the word "jism" and doesn't change the fact of what you're doing- you guys, Will's nod gang, do love your childish name calling and I should feel bad for using such an easy exploit with you guys.

At least you're being honest in this case, you know that you just said GD is being a flamer just like PJR

[Ash Wurthing]

lolz Now WilLIE can't complain that you never did anything for him. You did his post editing and record setting for him! Don't ya hate it, Willie?

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 5:24:32 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:53:14 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > >
> > > " "Jism" Dance demands tit for tat!1!"
> > > > 'enuff said...
> > >
> > > It's questionable whether Mr. Wurthing (he gets upset when I call him "Ashhole") has taken a course, read a book or an article, or even watched a video about Tit for Tat. So let's ask him a couple of questions: what does he think it is, and what does he think is wrong with it? One sentence answers. It's an open book quiz, so here's a first source for him to check over if he'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
> > >
> > Please pardon my intrusion (I know that your question was directed to Ash)
> I welcome it. I am hoping that Ash will engage with the thread, but he may not. It's been enjoyable talking philosophy recently, and I'm hoping this will be no exception.
> > , but the first definition for 'Tit for Tat" that turns up in a Google search is as follows: "the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered."
> Yes, that's from the origin of the term, and reflects the common understanding of the term. But the term has a more technical meaning; it's a strategy in game theory, where there are two choices - co-operate or defect. TAT can be summed up as "Cooperate initially; continue to cooperate with those who cooperate with you; defect from those who defect from you."
>
> I'd generalize that as a moral rule. If the choices are 'be nice' to others or 'be nasty' to them (the way I look at it), then the rule would be: "Be nice to those who are not being nasty to you; be nasty to those who are being nasty to you."
>
> That's a formulation of Tit for Tat I apply in my life, so in that respect Ash is correct. I'd have preferred he come in here, we dialogue, and we actually agree that there's nothing wrong with living life that way; but that may not happen, so maybe it's for the best that I just spell it out.
> > Now I can't speak for Mr. Wurthing, but I feel that the problem with T4T should be obvious to everyone.
> >
> > T4T only works in clinical situations (as described in the Wikipedia article). In the real world (and/or cyberspace), it's a formula for disaster.
> >
> > According to the rules of T4T, if Will punches you in the nose, you're obligated to punch his nose in return.
> No; it follows that I'd have the right to punch Will in the nose, but that's just a moral maxim; and I do not believe that anyone is obligated to always follow moral maxims. Morality is there to protect people from harm, and therefore no one is obligated to follow a maxim that will result in his own harm. If Will were a cop, for example, punching him back could get me shot. So it's a right I have, but not an obligation; I can punch back or, if I think I have to, not.
> This does not resolve the problem (whatever provoked Will to punch you in the first place). It simply compounds the injuries that result from it.
> Why do I have to worry about something I did to provoke him? If he wants to talk about that, we'd be doing it instead. I wouldn't mind talking about that, but I can't do that if he keeps punching me. Which would be more likely to stop him from continuing to punch me? Punching back, or not punching back?
> > And, again, according to T4T, Will would then have the choice of ceasing the hostilities, or offering a new injury in retaliation for his busted nose. Should Will choose the latter option, he will invariably up the ante by inflicting an even greater injury, which you (under the rules of T4T) would now be obligated to return.
> Hey, if Will has a choice, on his move, to either not punch me, or to do something more than punch me (eg, shoot me), then so do I. I think he has the right to do the first, but no right to do the second; any more than I had a right to shoot him for punching me the first time. If a punch justifies anything, it justifies no more than a punch back. (I think that's the most that T4T can justify.)
> > This creates an unending circle of escalating violence.
> You remind me of Jesus: His solution to violence was to never punch back, but to turn the other cheek; and I think he was correct that the amount of violence caused by 'nasty' people is miniscule compared to that caused otherwise 'nice' people who think someone else has been 'nasty' to them. I'd prefer a world where everyone is 'nice,' but granted there are 'nasty' people, I think the best way to deal with that is not to be nice to them.
> >
> > "Tit for Tat" was spoofed by Laurel and Hardy in a 1935 short of the same name. There's 3 minute clip at https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=754821585115450 (and the entire 20 minute short at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnGdyjd_BL4).
> >
> > At AAPC, T4T has similarly only exacerbated existing conditions, and reinforced the childish mentality that has come to be prevalent here.
> Well, now; there are both 'nasty' and 'nice' people here. What would be your moral strategy for dealing with them? Are you nice to those who are nice to you? Are you nasty to those who are nasty to you? If so, how do you think you're following a different strategy from T4T? If not, how does yours differ?
> > Has anyone here ever stopped calling you "Dunce" because you called them a name in return? I certainly didn't stop fighting with you because you called me "Pig-Pen" and "Pedo-Dragon."
> No, of course we kept fighting, but we stopped using those terms. (I do remember your writing to me and telling me, in effect, "Stop calling me Pedodragon. I stopped calling you Dunce weeks ago." - which I did.
> > Usenet groups exist (much like any other groups) because people like to discuss their interests with similarly-minded peers. People come to AAPC because they love reading (and in most cases, writing) poetry. As long as everyone stays on-topic and treats one another with civility, the group will flourish.
> >
> > And when a group proves beneficial to all of its members, it is in their best interest to ensure that it continues to work. So they form an unspoken agreement to treat one another with respect, to apologize when they've overstepped their boundaries, and to abide by group rules and decisions.
> True; but some people (the truly nasty ones) made no such agreement; they don't care whether the group flourishes or not,; and so appealing to a common interest will not get them to agree. So what is your strategy for dealing with them?
> > Usenet groups fail (for the most part) for two reasons: a) one member attempts to dominate the group, and/or b) one member is incapable of getting along with the others. In both cases, there are only two feasible outcomes: the other members will either drive him away, or they will leave the group.
> That sounds reasonable - I don't think the common denominator is always one member, but that's close enough since gangs often have a key member, and would fall apart in his absence.
>
> For a long time on aapc, there was a member who dominated the group, Dennis Hammes; he made as many as 50% of the posts, replying to everything. He was capable of getting along with others; I actually wrote a poem with him once - so he's your type (a), not your type (b). Yet his dominance arguably kept aapc intact until his death.

Tom Bishop was a contender, until his untimely death.

> That leaves your type (b), the best example of which I can think of is FG. He is truly nasty to everyone (in behavior); yet I don't think many consider him a threat to the group, or even want to do anything about him.
> > When dealing with such individuals, T4T will only further inflame an already hostile situation. The best approach is for the members of the group to form a united front. Much like trolls, these disruptors crave attention. Unlike trolls, they also crave acceptance. When met with disapproval from *all* of the members, they will usually move on to groups that are better suited to their needs. In some instances (where the disruptor is not attempting to dominate the group), they are able to adapt their behaviors and become integrated into the group.
> How do you show disagreement?
> > At AAPC, we have a member who is both incapable of getting along with the other members, and who is also attempting to dominate the group. I'm sure you know of whom I speak. And, as you know, I have attempted to reason with him, bargain with him, and integrate him into the group -- all without the slightest bit of success.
> And your complaint is that it hasn't worked because you've been doing it alone, rather than as part of a 'united front'? Probably, but I think it's unclear that's what you have been doing - I don't mean unclear to me, as I've not been reading your exchanges with him so I can't say - but unclear to him or to those who would support your claims against him (because what I hear from them has not been reasoning, bargaining, or being attempting to be inclusive).
> > If this individual would be considerate to the other members by not making upwards of 100 posts per day (10 posts per day is desirable, 25 barely acceptable, and anything more, intolerable), they would be willing to accept him as a member -- and hostilities would end. But because this individual also wishes to dominate the group, he refuses to be considerate of the other members' wishes, and refuses to make any compromises.
> They would? I doubt that FG, for instance, cares how many posts a person makes; and the same for others I won't risk trolling in by naming.
> > Your support of this disruptive individual (and his flunkies) has created a rift between yourself and the other members --
> I thought that's whom you meant. That's a person that I've gotten along with since I joined the group; we've had our differences, but we've been able to overcome them. If he were nasty to me, then I'd of course be nasty to him; but he hasn't. You're asking me to consider him incapable of getting along with me instead - to consider him nasty, when he's been nice on the whole - and to be nasty back.
>
> In short, you're asking me to practice T4T, but in a collectivist variant: you're asking me to not determine who's being nice and who's being nasty for myself, but to let the "group" decide for me, and to be nice or nasty to the other people here depending not on who is nice or nasty to me, but depending on whom the "group" somehow decides is nice or nasty.
> > who view you as an enabler (at best). Calling them names like "Jism" and "Ashhole" only increase the negative feelings toward you and further the hostile environment.
> You did realize that my use of "Ashhole" was in response to his calling me "Jism Dance." So you're arguing that I should not be nasty back (call him a name) in response to his calling me a name. Instead I should be nice to him - "turn the other cheek" - and instead be nasty to someone he's being nasty to, because someone speaking for the "group" thinks it's in the interest of the "group."
>
> Which is indistinguishable from another maxim -- be nice to the people that someone - let's call them the "group whisperer" -- tells you to be nice to, and nasty to the people that person tells you to. Which seems to imply that I must not only abandon the morality I live by -- essentially T4T -- but I also must abandon any attempt to live morally -- of consciously governing how I act -- here, for "the good of the group".
> > I'm not suggesting that you stop supporting the disruptors (although your taking an active role in addressing the problem would go a long way toward achieving its resolution). I'm merely saying that the T4T is to your distinct disadvantage.
> I dont' think you've show that; it may be to the group's, or the group whisperer's disadvantage) but that's not what your example is showing me. Rather, you're invoking T4T (as a collective strategy for the group to deal with one putatively "nasty" person, and simply telling me that what's wrong with it is not my use of it but my attempting to live morally - my determining whom to be nice or nasty to - operiod.
> > Karen was also perceived as an enabler, but she rarely received any ill treatment (or even any ill feelings) from the group (with the occasional exception of ME). That's because Karen avoided the T4T tactic like the plague. You could benefit from her example.
> Karen, following her own inclinations, tried to be nice to everyone, and ended up leaving anyway. That turned out to be even less viable than FG's be-nasty-to-everyone strategy. We have a toxic environment here, where nastiness is the norm.
> > Love him or hate him, Will has been a problem (the biggest problem) with AAPC for the past 20+ years. That won't change regardless of what any of do.
> Well, no. Back in the early 2000's, the 'biggest problem' was undoubtedly Chuck Lysaght. I think Will got roped in originally because he was nice to Chuck, so to those who were not he got seen as Will's enabler. (Mind you, Chuck vs. a large fraction of the group wasn't the only thing going on; for years, for instance, Hammes and PJ Ross fought a battle for dominance; eventually that settled down; Ross took a subservient roll which lasted until the day he found out Hammes was dead.) Anyway, Hammes loathed Chuck, and then he loathed Will, as much for their poetry as anything; if he'd noticed "fish and chips" he'd have loathed his poetry, too. But Hammes did end up getting one form of dominance: he was able to assemble or convince enough people to be nasty to Chuck, to assemble a gang large enough to be considered the group.
>
> The problem of Will's overposting was more effect than cause - when you have a whole gang posting to and about you, it's impossible to reply to everything without posting more than anyone else. But most of that ceased when PJ found it impossible to keep the gang together; all such posts went way down.
>
> After all that was over, I remember one person whose overposting was a problem that led some to leave: HC. (Initially he addressed that problem, not by posting less, but by deleting all his posts; but eventually he did cut down.)
>
> But enough of that history; it's trivia, and the discussion of T4T, and morality in general, is what's important here.
> > And there will always be some hostility toward you for supporting him. But I don't think it's too late for you to patch things up between the other members and yourself.
> But what would that accomplish? For me or for "the group"? Will is not going to leave the group, or limit his posts, or change his ways, simply because I start being nasty to him; he may be conciliatory towards me, but if I persist in being nasty he won't stick to that.
>
> I can predict that, because (despite what I implied earlier), I'm not just nasty to anyone I perceive as being nasty to me. If I've had a mutually nice relationship with someone, I'm slow to nastiness. So while I'm slow to react to someone being nasty to me, and I'll try to keep the nice relationship going, I reach a point at which I believe my niceness is just enabling the nasty. I've reached that point twice; first, after Hammes' gang got nasty with me (because I wouldn't be nasty to Will -- the same way they'd earlier got nasty with Will because he wouldn't be nasty to Chuck), and again 4 years ago, when a whole new gang got nasty with me (because I wouldn't be nasty with Stephan Pickering). My name for that strategy -- responding to unrelenting nastiness with unrelenting niceness -- is "appeasement." (To get back to the morality discussion: Yes, Christian morality preaches appeasement.)
> > T4T is not going to help you in achieving that. Consideration for, and civility toward, other members, will.
> But why would I want to 'patch things up' with nasty people, and even be nasty towards others (who've never done me harm) for their sake? Maybe I'd receive less personal nastiness, but I doubt it; their nastiness, as I see it, is not because I'm nasty to them, but I'm not nasty to someone else.)
> > Drop the name-calling -- regardless of what the others call you. It's to everyone's benefit to establish a better environment at AAPC, and they want peace as much as you do. Treat them with civility and, in time, they'll come around. And, should you happen to like one of their poems, a few positive comments would go a long way toward changing their perception of you as the enemy.
> And the result will be, in the words of Neville Chamberlain, "peace in our time." Had Chamberlain accomplished peace, he'd now be considered a premier statesman of the 20th century (while Churchill would have been an obscure footnote, best known for the Gallipoli fiasco). Instead, Chamberlain's become the universal symbol of appeasement.
> >
> > That's just my two-cent's worth -- take it or leave it.
> I always appreciate reading your two-cents' worth on any subject; philosophy today, who knows what tomorrow.

...