Re: Why won't George Dance answer a simple question?

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>
> Jim Senetto can't
> write a decent haiku
> or anything else.
>
> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?

Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
you asked it:

"I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."

You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
lie about whether you got an answer.

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:04:12 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:23:18 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
> >
> > Jim Senetto can't
> > write a decent haiku
> > or anything else.
> >

> > Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for your e-magazine?
> It's a simple question, George.


Forget it Mr. Burrows, politicians lie.

[Michael Pendragon]

That is not an answer to Robert's question, George.

I ask everyone at AAPC to post poetry to the AYoS thread. However, since I believe that Will Donkey and his Stink are incapable of writing "a decent haiku or anything else," I make certain to exclude them from my invitation.

An editor would not want to publish poetry that he considered to be worthless, nor would he wish to have his magazine associated with poetry he considered to be worthless.

If you ask Jim for poetry, you must think that his poetry is good enough to appear in your magazine. Unless your magazine has no standards whatsoever, and publishes any garbage that is thrown at it, you would not solicit submissions from a writer whose talents were not up to a certain standard.

But we all know your m.o. You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack those of your potential adversaries. (Or, as you like to call it: "Tit for Tat.")

When Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write. Like most career politicians, you're half toady and half jackass. Which half shows itself depends on the "party" of the party being addressed.

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 12:17 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> Disingenuous Dance.


Don't be such a whiner, Bobby Burro. You told a lie, and you got caught.
Suck it up.

[Michael Pendragon]

First you claim to have asked Jim for a poem... now you claim that Robert was lying when he said you asked Jim for a poem.

If anyone got caught lying here, George, it's you.

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 11:49 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>>> George Dance wrote:
>>>
>>> Jim Senetto can't
>>> write a decent haiku
>>> or anything else.
>>>
>>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
>>
>> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
>> you asked it:
>>
>> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."
>>
>> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
>> lie about whether you got an answer.
>
> That is not an answer to Robert's question, George.

So you didn't like the answer. That's no reason to lie and pretend
Robert didn't get an answer, either.

>
> I ask everyone at AAPC to post poetry to the AYoS thread. However, since I believe that Will Donkey and his Stink are incapable of writing "a decent haiku or anything else," I make certain to exclude them from my invitation.
>

So you don't "ask everyone at AAPC" to post poetry to AYOS. Your first
sentence is a lie.

> An editor would not want to publish poetry that he considered to be worthless, nor would he wish to have his magazine associated with poetry he considered to be worthless.
>
> If you ask Jim for poetry, you must think that his poetry is good enough to appear in your magazine. Unless your magazine has no standards whatsoever, and publishes any garbage that is thrown at it, you would not solicit submissions from a writer whose talents were not up to a certain standard.

You can use whatever editorial standards you want in your own anthology.
My intent was to produce a representative sample of usenet poetry; I did
not exclude poets I didn't like.

> But we all know your m.o. You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack those of your potential adversaries. (Or, as you like to call it: "Tit for Tat.")
>
> When Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write. Like most career politicians, you're half toady and half jackass. Which half shows itself depends on the "party" of the party being addressed.

That sounds like a paranoid rant, Michael. You shouldn't hit the booze
so early.

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 12:17 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> Disingenuous Dance.

You told a lie and you got caught. If calling me names makes you feel
better about that, you go right ahead.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:35:28 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-15 11:49 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> >>> George Dance wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jim Senetto can't
> >>> write a decent haiku
> >>> or anything else.
> >>>
> >>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
> >>
> >> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
> >> you asked it:
> >>
> >> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."
> >>
> >> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
> >> lie about whether you got an answer.
> >
> > That is not an answer to Robert's question, George.
> So you didn't like the answer. That's no reason to lie and pretend
> Robert didn't get an answer, either.

I didn't say that Robert didn't get a *response,* George.

I said that your response did no answer his question.

Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.

> > I ask everyone at AAPC to post poetry to the AYoS thread. However, since I believe that Will Donkey and his Stink are incapable of writing "a decent haiku or anything else," I make certain to exclude them from my invitation.
> >
> So you don't "ask everyone at AAPC" to post poetry to AYOS. Your first
> sentence is a lie.

No, George. I ask everyone to post... with exceptions stipulated in small print.

> > An editor would not want to publish poetry that he considered to be worthless, nor would he wish to have his magazine associated with poetry he considered to be worthless.
> >
> > If you ask Jim for poetry, you must think that his poetry is good enough to appear in your magazine. Unless your magazine has no standards whatsoever, and publishes any garbage that is thrown at it, you would not solicit submissions from a writer whose talents were not up to a certain standard.
> You can use whatever editorial standards you want in your own anthology.
> My intent was to produce a representative sample of usenet poetry; I did
> not exclude poets I didn't like.

AYoS has a similar purpose, and does not exclude *poets* I dislike.

It excludes *poetry* that would be an embarrassment for other poets to find included alongside their own.

> > But we all know your m.o. You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack those of your potential adversaries. (Or, as you like to call it: "Tit for Tat.")
> >
> > When Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write. Like most career politicians, you're half toady and half jackass. Which half shows itself depends on the "party" of the party being addressed.
> That sounds like a paranoid rant, Michael. You shouldn't hit the booze
> so early.

It's supported by your track record, George.

[Michael Pendragon]

Is that why you called Robert "Bobby Burro"?

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 12:52 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-15 12:17 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>>>>> George Dance wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim Senetto can't
>>>>> write a decent haiku
>>>>> or anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
>>>>
>>>> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
>>>> you asked it:
>>>>
>>>> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."
>>>>
>>>> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
>>>> lie about whether you got an answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Disingenuous Dance.

>> You told a lie -- and you got caught. If calling me names makes you feel

>> better about that, you go right ahead.
>
> Is that why you called Robert "Bobby Burro"?

Please don't lie, Michael. Before Bobby Burro started name-calling in
this thread, I was calling him "Robert" -- it's still in the backthread.

[George J. Dance]

You're either lying or confused, Michael. First I did tell Bobby Burro,
in answer to his question, that I'd asked Jim (since I asked everyone)
for a poem ... now, I'm claimed that the Burro was lying when he said I
didn't give him that answer.

> If anyone got caught lying here, George, it's you.

Where's the lie, Michael?

You may not believe that I asked Jim for a poem, but it's a statement of
fact that Jim (unless he lies to you) will confirm.

Or you may not believe that the Burro was lying when he said I didn't
answer his question, but my answer is in the archives.

[Michael Pendragon]

GD: B-b-b-but he called me a name fiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrsssssssssssssstttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, George, he didn't.

[Michael Pendragon]

As previously noted:

First you claim to have asked Jim for a poem... now you claim that Robert was lying when he said you asked Jim for a poem.

It's got to be one or the other, George. You can't have it both ways.

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 12:52 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:35:28 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-15 11:49 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>>>>> George Dance wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim Senetto can't
>>>>> write a decent haiku
>>>>> or anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
>>>>
>>>> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
>>>> you asked it:
>>>>
>>>> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."
>>>>
>>>> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
>>>> lie about whether you got an answer.
>>>
>>> That is not an answer to Robert's question, George.
>> So you didn't like the answer. That's no reason to lie and pretend
>> Robert didn't get an answer, either.
>
> I didn't say that Robert didn't get a *response,* George.
>
> I said that your response did no answer his question.

It certainly did: he asked why I asked Jim for a poem. My "response"
answered his question: I asked Jim because I asked everyone.

>
> Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.
>

Indeed. Don't try, for instance, to pretend that an answer you didn't
like wasn't an answer.

>
>>> I ask everyone at AAPC to post poetry to the AYoS thread. However, since I believe that Will Donkey and his Stink are incapable of writing "a decent haiku or anything else," I make certain to exclude them from my invitation.
>>>
>> So you don't "ask everyone at AAPC" to post poetry to AYOS. Your first
>> sentence is a lie.
>
> No, George. I ask everyone to post... with exceptions stipulated in small print.
>

If you're making 'exceptions' for the poets you don't like, then you're
not asking "everyone". Words matter: Learn what they mean, and how to
use them correctly.

>>> An editor would not want to publish poetry that he considered to be worthless, nor would he wish to have his magazine associated with poetry he considered to be worthless.
>>>
>>> If you ask Jim for poetry, you must think that his poetry is good enough to appear in your magazine. Unless your magazine has no standards whatsoever, and publishes any garbage that is thrown at it, you would not solicit submissions from a writer whose talents were not up to a certain standard.
>> You can use whatever editorial standards you want in your own anthology.
>> My intent was to produce a representative sample of usenet poetry; I did
>> not exclude poets I didn't like.
>
> AYoS has a similar purpose, and does not exclude *poets* I dislike.

You just said you were excluding poets you dislike.

> It excludes *poetry* that would be an embarrassment for other poets to find included alongside their own.
>

Don't blame your decisions on "other poets", Michael. You're the editor,
not them. Maybe Jim did tell you not to exclude Will's poems, but that
it was you who excluded them, not him. Take some responsibility for your
actions.

>>> But we all know your m.o. You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack those of your potential adversaries. (Or, as you like to call it: "Tit for Tat.")
>>>
>>> When Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write. Like most career politicians, you're half toady and half jackass. Which half shows itself depends on the "party" of the party being addressed.

>> That sounds like a paranoid rant, Michael. You shouldn't hit the booze
>> so early.
>
> It's supported by your track record, George.

And yours that you hit the booze early and make paranoid rants is
supported by yours, Michael.

[George J. Dance]

There's that pesky 'not' again.
"Maybe Jim did tell you to exlude Will's poems ..."

> it was you who excluded them, not him. Take some responsibility for your
> actions.

>>>> But we all know your m.o. You divide everyone into two categories:
>>>> potential allies and potential adversaries. You slurp the writings
>>>> of your potential allies and attack those of your potential
>>>> adversaries. (Or, as you like to call it: "Tit for Tat.")
>>>>
>>>> When Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. When
>>>> he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and
>>>> claim he can't write. Like most career politicians, you're half
>>>> toady and half jackass. Which half shows itself depends on the
>>>> "party" of the party being addressed.
>
>>> That sounds like a paranoid rant, Michael. You shouldn't hit the booze
>>> so early.
>>
>> It's supported by your track record, George.
>
> And yours that you hit the booze early and make paranoid rants is
> supported by yours, Michael.
>

Since I'm in here to edit, I might as well edit that sentence, too.


"And my response, that you hit the booze early and make paranoid rants,

[George J. Dance]

You lied when you said I was calling him "Bobby Burro" in this thread,
when I was calling him "Robert". Like him, you're trying to cover up
your lie by deflecting with a hissy fit.

> Actually, George, he didn't.

Actually, Michael, you're full of shit.

[George J. Dance]

Your first statement is true. Your second statement was a lie: I did not
"claim that Robert was lying when he said [I] asked Jim for a poem."

> If anyone got caught lying here, George, it's you.

Actually, Michael, it was Bobby Burro first, and now you.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:28:25 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-15 12:52 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:35:28 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-15 11:49 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> >>>>> George Dance wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jim Senetto can't
> >>>>> write a decent haiku
> >>>>> or anything else.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
> >>>>
> >>>> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
> >>>> you asked it:
> >>>>
> >>>> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."
> >>>>
> >>>> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
> >>>> lie about whether you got an answer.
> >>>
> >>> That is not an answer to Robert's question, George.
> >> So you didn't like the answer. That's no reason to lie and pretend
> >> Robert didn't get an answer, either.
> >
> > I didn't say that Robert didn't get a *response,* George.
> >
> > I said that your response did no answer his question.
> It certainly did: he asked why I asked Jim for a poem. My "response"
> answered his question: I asked Jim because I asked everyone.

I've already explained this to your, George.

As previously noted, it begs the question: Does your BBB magazine lack standards to the point that you would include poetry you deem worthless in it?

> > Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.
> >
> Indeed. Don't try, for instance, to pretend that an answer you didn't
> like wasn't an answer.

It may have been an answer... just not to Robert's question.

I don't know whose question it was an answer to. Are you hearing those strange voice in your head again?

> >>> I ask everyone at AAPC to post poetry to the AYoS thread. However, since I believe that Will Donkey and his Stink are incapable of writing "a decent haiku or anything else," I make certain to exclude them from my invitation.
> >>>
> >> So you don't "ask everyone at AAPC" to post poetry to AYOS. Your first
> >> sentence is a lie.
> >
> > No, George. I ask everyone to post... with exceptions stipulated in small print.
> >
> If you're making 'exceptions' for the poets you don't like, then you're
> not asking "everyone". Words matter: Learn what they mean, and how to
> use them correctly.

Again, I direct you to read the fine print.

Everyone (with exceptions) ≠ Everyone.

> >>> An editor would not want to publish poetry that he considered to be worthless, nor would he wish to have his magazine associated with poetry he considered to be worthless.
> >>>
> >>> If you ask Jim for poetry, you must think that his poetry is good enough to appear in your magazine. Unless your magazine has no standards whatsoever, and publishes any garbage that is thrown at it, you would not solicit submissions from a writer whose talents were not up to a certain standard.
> >> You can use whatever editorial standards you want in your own anthology.
> >> My intent was to produce a representative sample of usenet poetry; I did
> >> not exclude poets I didn't like.
> >
> > AYoS has a similar purpose, and does not exclude *poets* I dislike.
> You just said you were excluding poets you dislike.

No, George. My exclusion has nothing to do with my personal feelings regarding the Donkey and his Stink. I have excluded them for the following reasons:

1) They have shown themselves to be troll, and are no longer considered members of AAPC,
2) I would be embarrassed to have my poetry appear in any collection that would publish theirs,
3) Several AYoS contributors have informed me that they do not wish to see their poetry appearing in a publication alongside of the swill that they write.

When one's poetry is so terrible that other poets refuse to have their work appear alongside of it... it speaks volumes as to the quality of their work.

The Donkey and his Stink have been banned due to the consistent lack of quality in their work. They have not been banned because I dislike them as individuals.

> > It excludes *poetry* that would be an embarrassment for other poets to find included alongside their own.
> >
> Don't blame your decisions on "other poets", Michael. You're the editor,
> not them. Maybe Jim did tell you not to exclude Will's poems, but that
> it was you who excluded them, not him. Take some responsibility for your
> actions.

Several of my contributors expressed this sentiment, George (myself included).

> >>> But we all know your m.o. You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack those of your potential adversaries. (Or, as you like to call it: "Tit for Tat.")
> >>>
> >>> When Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write. Like most career politicians, you're half toady and half jackass. Which half shows itself depends on the "party" of the party being addressed.
>
> >> That sounds like a paranoid rant, Michael. You shouldn't hit the booze
> >> so early.
> >
> > It's supported by your track record, George.
> And yours that you hit the booze early and make paranoid rants is
> supported by yours, Michael.

I rarely drink in the daytime George. And even if I were to start, it wouldn't change the fact that (like your fellow Splooges), you praise those you consider potential allies, and attack those you consider to be adversaries.

[Michael Pendragon]

Um... you're responding to your own statement, George.

> "Maybe Jim did tell you to exlude Will's poems ..."

And again.

> > it was you who excluded them, not him. Take some responsibility for your
> > actions.
>
> >>>> But we all know your m.o. You divide everyone into two categories:
> >>>> potential allies and potential adversaries. You slurp the writings
> >>>> of your potential allies and attack those of your potential
> >>>> adversaries. (Or, as you like to call it: "Tit for Tat.")
> >>>>
> >>>> When Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. When
> >>>> he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and
> >>>> claim he can't write. Like most career politicians, you're half
> >>>> toady and half jackass. Which half shows itself depends on the
> >>>> "party" of the party being addressed.
> >
> >>> That sounds like a paranoid rant, Michael. You shouldn't hit the booze
> >>> so early.
> >>
> >> It's supported by your track record, George.
> >
> > And yours that you hit the booze early and make paranoid rants is
> > supported by yours, Michael.
> >
> Since I'm in here to edit, I might as well edit that sentence, too.
>
>
> "And my response, that you hit the booze early and make paranoid rants,
> is supported by yours, Michael."

You're the one responding to your own statements, George.

What time is it in Canuckland?

[Michael Pendragon]

Really? How many threads have you been calling him "Bobby Burro" in?

> when I was calling him "Robert". Like him, you're trying to cover up
> your lie by deflecting with a hissy fit.
> > Actually, George, he didn't.
> Actually, Michael, you're full of shit.

Robert has already added the missing comma, thereby establishing that he did not call you a name.

Please try to follow the conversation.

[Michael Pendragon]

You said he was lying about something, George. What were you accusing him of lying about?

> > If anyone got caught lying here, George, it's you.
> Actually, Michael, it was Bobby Burro first, and now you.

I've shown your lie, George.

If you now deny having accused Robert of lying, I suppose I'll have to scroll up and find one of several examples.

If you claim you had accused him of lying about something else, please be so good as to explain yourself.

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 1:30 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:

> George seems very confused.
> Some cognitive testing
> might confirm early onset dementia.

No, Bobby Burro, if there's any confusion about the thread, it's yours.
You got called a liar for claiming that I didn't answer your question;
and Michael got called a liar for claiming that I'd called you a liar
for something else you'd said.

I'm sorry if that's confusing to you, but please try to follow along.

[Michael Pendragon]

Um... George...

Here's your original post to Robert in this thread:

[START QUOTE]

Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
you asked it:

"I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."

You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
lie about whether you got an answer.

[END QUOTE]

You appear to have been accusing Robert of having told two lies: 1) in claiming that you'd asked Jim for a poem, when in fact it was a blanket request for all usenet poets, and, 2) for informing you that your "answer" did not correspond to, or satisfy, his question.

If anyone is confused in this thread... it's George J. Dance.

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 1:02 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:

> Disingenuous, Dance.
> Happy now?

Oh, no; I'm much happier getting to call you Bobby Burro.

[Will Dockery]

Ball of Confusion:
https://youtu.be/D5P7x4vh_ts

[George J. Dance]

No, he added a comma, to change his statement, because he thought for
some reason that his name calling didn't make me "happy".

>
> Please try to follow the conversation.

I'm having no difficulty doing so. I wish I could say the same for you.

[Michael Pendragon]

Like I said, you're turning into a Donkey:

"I do go in for the childish name-calling."
-- Will Dockery in a rare moment of self-acknowledgement

[Michael Pendragon]

Stop playing the dunce, George.

You mistook his statement for name-calling, and he corrected it to shut you up.

Apparently, he should have known better.

> > Please try to follow the conversation.
> I'm having no difficulty doing so. I wish I could say the same for you.

You've been dancing around in so many circles that you ended up responding to (and challenging) your own statements.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 3:14:02 PM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:

> George, you seem to be exhibiting some of early
> symptoms of dementia, specifically: childish
> behavior, anger, confusion and aphasia.

Robert, that just described almost every poster here, including yourself

HTH and HAND.

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 3:14 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:

> George, you seem to be exhibiting some of early
> symptoms of dementia, specifically: childish
> behavior, anger, confusion and aphasia.

Burro, you seem to be trolling and projecting.

[George J. Dance]

I corrected a couple of my statements that looked inaccurate. If you'd
read the post, rather than shooting off a trollpost as soon as you saw
it, you might have realized that.

[Michael Pendragon]

Oh, I see... you felt the need to change "exclude" to "exlude."

Got it.

[George J. Dance]

That's not true. I never claimed I made one "blanket request". I asked
everyone individually, including Jim. Of course, I can't call you a liar
for that, but just a bullshitter: you weren't here, and you don't know
what happened.

, and, 2) for informing you that your "answer" did not correspond to, or
satisfy, his question.

Of course my answer corresponded to his question. He asked why I'd asked
Jim, and my answer was that I'd asked everyone posting poetry here
(which of course included Jim, since he was posting poetry here at the
time).

Of course Bobby wasn't satisfied; that's why he got angry and lied about
the fact I'd answered his question.

>
> If anyone is confused in this thread... it's George J. Dance.

I don't think anyone is actually "confused" by what's going on in this
thread. The Burro opened it to troll me, and you've come in to do
back-up trolling for him.

[W-Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-15 12:52 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-15 12:17 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>>>>>> George Dance wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Senetto can't
>>>>>> write a decent haiku
>>>>>> or anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
>>>>> you asked it:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."
>>>>>
>>>>> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
>>>>> lie about whether you got an answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Disingenuous Dance.

>>> You told a lie -- and you got caught. If calling me names makes you feel
>>> better about that, you go right ahead.
>>
>> Is that why you called Robert "Bobby Burro"?

> Please don't lie, Michael. Before Bobby Burro started name-calling in
> this thread, I was calling him "Robert" -- it's still in the backthread.

That's Michael Pendragon, always the whining little monkey.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

If your magazine was by personal invite only, and you felt that Jim was incapable of writing a decent poem, why would you send him a personal invite?

> , and, 2) for informing you that your "answer" did not correspond to, or
> satisfy, his question.
> Of course my answer corresponded to his question. He asked why I'd asked
> Jim, and my answer was that I'd asked everyone posting poetry here
> (which of course included Jim, since he was posting poetry here at the
> time).

Again, that is not what he was asking, George.

He was questioning your editorial integrity.

> Of course Bobby wasn't satisfied; that's why he got angry and lied about
> the fact I'd answered his question.

But you didn't answer his question, George.

You answered your incorrect interpretation of his question.

IOW: You played the dunce and deflected.

> > If anyone is confused in this thread... it's George J. Dance.
> I don't think anyone is actually "confused" by what's going on in this
> thread. The Burro opened it to troll me, and you've come in to do
> back-up trolling for him.

You're whining, George.

Robert opened to ask you a question.

You've yet to provide an applicable response.

[Zod]

Yes, it isn't just a standard put down when someone questions how much Voodoo Boy THINKS... since he often seems to have canned troll posts that he simply copy and pastes in...

I kid you not...

[NancyGene]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 8:45:10 PM UTC, Robert Burrows wrote:

> An excellent example of your anger, and
> of your childish behavior, in the from of
> name calling. Get help, George. If you get
> on Aricept now maybe you can slow the
> progression and manage your symptoms.

Dr. NancyGene is standing by to write a prescription for Aricept. We can get George Dance the Canadian discount so that he doesn't need to try to sneak across the border.

[W-Dockery]

Robert Burrows wrote:


> George Dance wrote:
>
> Jim Senetto can't
> write a decent haiku
> or anything else.

> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for your e-magazine?

George answered that question in another thread, if my memory serves me well.

HTH and HAND.

[Zod]

Burro... ha ha.

[Zod]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 4:24:50 PM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:

> Blue tarp...ha ha.

I live the life I choose, remember that...

[Will Dockery]

I'm sure that Robert has read The Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac, well known to be your guidebook, Zod.

[General-Zod]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
>>
>> Jim Senetto can't
>> write a decent haiku
>> or anything else.
>>
>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?

> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
> you asked it:

> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."

> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
> lie about whether you got an answer.

Robert seems to be having difficulty remembering things lately.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 5:31:55 PM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:

> I have read The Dharma Bums. I have also read
> about how Jack Kerouac died of an esophageal
> hemorrhage that was caused by decades of
> heavy drinking.

Alcoholic writers and artists are not rare.

[Will Dockery]

No problem, everyone makes a mistake from time to time.

[W.Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-15 1:18 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:14:22 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>>>>>>>> George Dance wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Jim Senetto can't
>>>>>>>> write a decent haiku
>>>>>>>> or anything else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
>>>>>>> you asked it:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
>>>>>>> lie about whether you got an answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Disingenuous Dance.
>>>>> Don't be such a whiner, Bobby Burro. You told a lie, and you got caught.
>>>>> Suck it up.
>>>>
>>>> First you claim to have asked Jim for a poem... now you claim that Robert was lying when he said you asked Jim for a poem.
>>>>
>>> You're either lying or confused, Michael. First I did tell Bobby Burro,
>>> in answer to his question, that I'd asked Jim (since I asked everyone)
>>> for a poem ... now, I'm claimed that the Burro was lying when he said I
>>> didn't give him that answer.
>>>> If anyone got caught lying here, George, it's you.
>>> Where's the lie, Michael?
>>>
>>> You may not believe that I asked Jim for a poem, but it's a statement of
>>> fact that Jim (unless he lies to you) will confirm.
>>>
>>> Or you may not believe that the Burro was lying when he said I didn't
>>> answer his question, but my answer is in the archives.
>>
>> As previously noted:
>>
>> First you claim to have asked Jim for a poem... now you claim that Robert was lying when he said you asked Jim for a poem.
>>
>> It's got to be one or the other, George. You can't have it both ways.
>>

> Your first statement is true. Your second statement was a lie: I did not
> "claim that Robert was lying when he said [I] asked Jim for a poem."

>> If anyone got caught lying here, George, it's you.

> Actually, Michael, it was Bobby Burro first, and now you.


Typical Pendragon pattern.

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 1:50 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-15 1:18 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:14:22 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

>>>> On 2022-11-15 12:31 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:26:56 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-11-15 12:17 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:

> You said he was lying about something, George. What were you accusing him of lying about?

He lied when he said I didn't answer his question. That's in the subject
header: "Why won't George Dance answer a simple question?"
Pay attention.

>>> If anyone got caught lying here, George, it's you.
>> Actually, Michael, it was Bobby Burro first, and now you.
>

> I've shown your lie, George.
>

No you haven't, Michael. You've shown that two things you *claimed* I
said contradict; but as I've told one of your claims was incorrect.


> If you now deny having accused Robert of lying, I suppose I'll have to scroll up and find one of several examples.
>

Of course I accused Burro of lying. Here's his lie again:
"Why won't George Dance answer a simple question?"


> If you claim you had accused him of lying about something else, please be so good as to explain yourself.

I've already explained why his claim that I didn't answer his question
was a lie. I answered it in the thread where he asked it; he simply
reposted it in this thread, without my answer, to lie that I hadn't
answered it.

[Michael Pendragon]

And what's the answer? Why won't you answer a simple question?

> Pay attention.
> >>> If anyone got caught lying here, George, it's you.
> >> Actually, Michael, it was Bobby Burro first, and now you.
> >
> > I've shown your lie, George.
> >
>
> No you haven't, Michael. You've shown that two things you *claimed* I
> said contradict; but as I've told one of your claims was incorrect.

IIRC (and I no longer recall the bulk of this nonsense), you'd originally taken issue with Robert's claim that you'd asked Jim for a poem.

Now you admit that you did ask Jim for a poem... but only because you'd asked "everyone" for a poem.

However, you went on to claim that you specifically asked Jim for a poem (either in a private email, or in a post directed only to him).

This belies your claim that you didn't really want Jim's poetry, but just asked "everyone" to participate.

> > If you now deny having accused Robert of lying, I suppose I'll have to scroll up and find one of several examples.
> >
>
> Of course I accused Burro of lying. Here's his lie again:
> "Why won't George Dance answer a simple question?"

Prove him wrong. Answer the damn question.

> > If you claim you had accused him of lying about something else, please be so good as to explain yourself.
>
> I've already explained why his claim that I didn't answer his question
> was a lie. I answered it in the thread where he asked it; he simply
> reposted it in this thread, without my answer, to lie that I hadn't
> answered it.

I'm still listening, George. Why won't you answer a simple question?

[Will Dockery]

Good evening, George, well put.

[General-Zod]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
>>
>> Jim Senetto can't
>> write a decent haiku
>> or anything else.
>>
>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?

> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
> you asked it:

> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."

> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
> lie about whether you got an answer.

Odd, this topic has bee discussed here for days, now...!

[George J. Dance]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 2:31:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 2:09:56 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-15 1:02 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:57:58 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-15 12:52 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

> > >>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>> On 2022-11-15 12:17 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:

> > >>>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> > >>>>>>> George Dance wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Jim Senetto can't
> > >>>>>>> write a decent haiku
> > >>>>>>> or anything else.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
> > >>>>>> you asked it:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
> > >>>>>> lie about whether you got an answer.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>

> > >>>>> Disingenuous Dance.
> > >>>> You told a lie -- and you got caught. If calling me names makes you feel
> > >>>> better about that, you go right ahead.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is that why you called Robert "Bobby Burro"?
> > >> Please don't lie, Michael. Before Bobby Burro started name-calling in
> > >> this thread, I was calling him "Robert" -- it's still in the backthread.
> > >
> > > Disingenuous, Dance.
> > > Happy now?
> > Oh, no; I'm much happier getting to call you Bobby Burro.

> Like I said, you're turning into a Donkey:
>
> "I do go in for the childish name-calling."
> -- Will Dockery in a rare moment of self-acknowledgement

If only that were true, my wife Maureen and her massive beaver would be satisfied. Have you ever seen a donkey dick?

[George J. Dance]

My mind is too complex to answer simple questions. Maybe you should ask Zod or Will Dockery.

[W.Dockery]

Robert Burrows wrote:

> It doesn't.

George Dance answered the question, though.

🙂

[W-Dockery]

Robert Burrows wrote:

> George Dance wrote:
>
> Jim Senetto can't
> write a decent haiku
> or anything else.

> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?

George Dance already answered you.

HTH and HAND.

[Spam-I-Am]

What’s the answer?

[Will Dockery]

Here, Corey ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 4:33:10 AM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 4:31:04 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:

> > Robert Burrows wrote:
> >
> > > George Dance wrote:
> > >
> > > Jim Senetto can't
> > > write a decent haiku
> > > or anything else.
> > > Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
> >

> > George Dance already answered you.
> >
> > HTH and HAND.
> What’s the answer?

See above. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Spam-I-Am]

That’s an obfuscation, not an answer.

[Will Dockery]

Not really.

[Spam-I-Am]

Great comeback. That’ll shut me up.

[Will Dockery]

I'm not trying to shut you up, I'm just giving my opinion.

🙂

[Spam-I-Am]

What’s your opinion?

[W-Dockery]

George has answered Robert's question several times, now.

>> > If you claim you had accused him of lying about something else, please be so good as to explain yourself.
>>
>> I've already explained why his claim that I didn't answer his question
>> was a lie. I answered it in the thread where he asked it; he simply
>> reposted it in this thread, without my answer, to lie that I hadn't
>> answered it.

> I'm still listening, George. Why won't you answer a simple question?

Again, George has answered Robert's question several times now.

HTH and HAND.

[Spam-I-Am]

So, in your opinion, George has answered Robert’s question.
In other people’s opinions, he has not. If you’re satisfied, great.
Of course, other people’s opinions are just as valid as yours.

[Will Dockery]

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 4:31:04 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Robert Burrows wrote:
>>
>> > George Dance wrote:
>> >
>> > Jim Senetto can't
>> > write a decent haiku
>> > or anything else.
>> > Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
>>

>> George Dance already answered you.
>>
>> HTH and HAND.

> What’s the answer?

Look it up.

[Will Dockery]

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:08:08 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:15:11 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >> On 2022-11-15 1:50 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >> >> On 2022-11-15 1:18 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

>> >> >>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:14:22 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
>> >> >>>> On 2022-11-15 12:31 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:26:56 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> On 2022-11-15 12:17 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

>> >> >>>>>>>> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>> George Dance wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jim Senetto can't
>> >> >>>>>>>>> write a decent haiku
>> >> >>>>>>>>> or anything else.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
>> >> >>>>>>>>

No argument with that.

🙂

[Spam-I-Am]

All opinions are valid in that they represent one’s unique perspective.
You’re entitled to your opinion. Some opinions, however, are far more
valuable than others by virtue of their proximity to the truth. A doctor’s
opinion is less valuable than a carpenter’s opinion if the truth is that
you are more in need of home repairs than you are a medical checkup.

[W.Dockery]

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 12:16:48 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:08:08 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:15:11 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >> >> On 2022-11-15 1:50 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >> >> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 2022-11-15 1:18 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:14:22 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> On 2022-11-15 12:31 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:26:56 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>> On 2022-11-15 12:17 p.m., Robert Burrows wrote:

That's true on a basic level of course, but this isn't rocket science, as you probably know.

🙂

[Zod]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-5, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> All opinions are valid in that they represent one’s unique perspective.
> You’re entitled to your opinion. Some opinions, however, are far more
> valuable than others by virtue of their proximity to the truth. A doctor’s
> opinion is less valuable than a carpenter’s opinion if the truth is that
> you are more in need of home repairs than you are a medical checkup.

Well put, Pastor C,.....

[Ash Wurthing]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:49:18 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> > > George Dance wrote:
> > >
> > > Jim Senetto can't
> > > write a decent haiku
> > > or anything else.
> > >
> > > Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?
> >
> > Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
> > you asked it:
> >
> > "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."
> >
> > You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
> > lie about whether you got an answer.

> That is not an answer to Robert's question, George.
>
> I ask everyone at AAPC to post poetry to the AYoS thread. However, since I believe that Will Donkey and his Stink are incapable of writing "a decent haiku or anything else," I make certain to exclude them from my invitation.
>
> An editor would not want to publish poetry that he considered to be worthless, nor would he wish to have his magazine associated with poetry he considered to be worthless.
>
> If you ask Jim for poetry, you must think that his poetry is good enough to appear in your magazine. Unless your magazine has no standards whatsoever, and publishes any garbage that is thrown at it, you would not solicit submissions from a writer whose talents were not up to a certain standard.
>
> But we all know your m.o. You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack those of your potential adversaries. (Or, as you like to call it: "Tit for Tat.")
>
> When Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry. When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write. Like most career politicians, you're half toady and half jackass. Which half shows itself depends on the "party" of the party being addressed.

Good goddamn! All the Dance paranoid troll propaganda I had to skip to get to this post!

The answer was simple for anyone to see and MMP nailed it for me!

"Dance would twist every truth for imagined victory"
~~Ashmordial

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 1:33:47 AM UTC-5, fake George J. Dance forged:

> My mind xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Forgery noted and reported ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[W.Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
>>
>> Jim Senetto can't
>> write a decent haiku
>> or anything else.
>>
>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for you e-magazine?

> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
> you asked it:

> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/ magazine."

> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
> lie about whether you got an answer.

So he got his answer, why is he still asking the question?

[George J. Dance]

I think he and his backup troll (MMP as usual) have finally stopped. I
think the only reason for the troll at all was to keep me busy so I
wouldn't see the Chimp's latest poetry challenge -- I never heard of it
till it was over, and he was declared the winner. I wrote the whole
thing up as an OP tonight.

[Spam-I-Am]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 4:12:43 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:

> If you really believe that I conspired with Michael
> to keep you distracted so that you wouldn't see
> Jim's challenge then your much sicker than I
> thought.

Ditto plonk. No offense. Have a great day.

[W.Dockery]

He does get in a good one every now and then.

🙂

[W.Dockery]

Everything Senetto does is in a repeating pattern, so he'll be back to the "challenge" stage again in a month or so, after he leaves Usenet forever again, and so on.

HTH and HAND.

[George J. Dance]

On 2022-11-15 11:49 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5,

george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
>>> George Dance wrote:
>>>
>>> Jim Senetto can't

>>> [compose] a decent haiku

>>> or anything else.
>>>
>>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for
you e-magazine?
>>
>> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
>> you asked it:
>>
>> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/
magazine."
>>
>> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
>> lie about whether you got an answer.
>

> That is not an answer to Robert's question, George.

It certainly is. I asked Jim because I asked everyone. You may not like
tht answer, but that is no reason
to protend Robert wasn't given it.

> I ask everyone at AAPC to post poetry to the AYoS thread. However,
since I believe that Will Donkey and his Stink are incapable of writing
"a decent haiku or anything else," I make certain to exclude them from
my invitation.
>

then you do not "ask everyone" to post poetry to AYOS. I did.

> An editor would not want to publish poetry that he considered to be
worthless, nor would he wish to have his magazine associated with poetry
he considered to be worthless.
>
> If you ask Jim for poetry, you must think that his poetry is good
enough to appear in your magazine. Unless your magazine has no standards
whatsoever, and publishes any garbage that is thrown at it, you would
not solicit submissions from a writer whose talents were not up to a
certain standard.

You can use whatever editorial standards you want in your own anthology.
My intent was to produce a representative sample of usenet poetry; I did
not exclude poets I didn't like. And I was satisfied with all the poems
I published.

> But we all know your m.o. You divide everyone into two categories:
potential allies and potential adversaries. You slurp the writings of
your potential allies and attack those of your potential adversaries.

LOL! That certainly is not "Tit for Tat". It sounds just like the "team
playing" that I've written about and you deny ever noticing.

>
> When Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.

Wrong. As I already answered several times, I asked everyone for poetry,
real or potential ally or not. I'm wondering where you're getting that
stuff from?

> When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him
and claim he can't write. Like most career politicians,
> you're half toady and half jackass. Which half shows itself depends
on the "party" of the party being addressed.

Ah, that part sounds familiar.

"However, since I believe that Will Donkey and his Stink are incapable
of writing "a decent haiku or anything else," I make certain to exclude
them from my invitation."

" When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and
claim he can't write."

You got this from your own editorial policy.

[W.Dockery]

Pendragon seems to be projecting.

[ME]

On Tuesday, 15 November 2022 at 11:04:12 UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:23:18 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
> >
> > Jim Senetto can't

> > write a decent haiku
> > or anything else.
> >
> > Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for your e-magazine?
> It's a simple question, George.


Probably for the same reason dance never admits to the lies and misteprestations he makes against others here. He’s full of bluster and confusion. He’s uses that tactic often.
Like his buddy, he’s a dishonest person.

[Will Dockery]

Well put, as usual.

[ME]

[ME]

On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 04:52:17 UTC-5, ME wrote:

I don’t want this to get lost in will’s deflection of the truth.

[Ash Wurthing]

Control is through exploiting beliefs driven by desire and fear. Humans are herded instinctively with what they wish to believe. Destruction awaits with the distraction of disbelief. Hear this and weep for the truth, for it's merely a thing of convenience. Humans so empowered by their perceived superiority are also enslaved by it and are expendable to their entrenched beliefs. Beware of Epsilon0x1D65, the fifth column

Someone's imaginary victory calling, post editing and correcting "lies" and "misrepresentations," their setting the record straight is just them trying to apply the illusory truth effect upon those they regard as just their captive audience and not other creators...

"The illusory truth effect, also known as the illusion of truth, describes how, when we hear the same false information repeated again and again, we often come to believe it is true. Troublingly, this even happens when people should know better—that is, when people initially know that the misinformation is false."
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/illusory-truth-effect

The failed legacies here to pick at, such a feast...

[Michael Pendragon]

On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 8:07:06 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-15 11:49 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5,
> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-15 10:18 a.m., Robert Burrows wrote:
> >>> George Dance wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jim Senetto can't
> >>> [compose] a decent haiku
> >>> or anything else.
> >>>
> >>> Then why did you personally solicit more than one of his poems for
> you e-magazine?
> >>
> >> Please don't lie, Robert. You were given an answer in the thread where
> >> you asked it:
> >>
> >> "I asked everyone posting poetry on aapc for poems for /April/
> magazine."
> >>
> >> You may have not understood the answer, but that's no reason for you to
> >> lie about whether you got an answer.
> >
> > That is not an answer to Robert's question, George.
> It certainly is. I asked Jim because I asked everyone. You may not like
> tht answer, but that is no reason
> to protend Robert wasn't given it.

I've already explained to you what Robert was actually questioning. Your desire to dance around the real question is understandable.

However, if you want to play the dunce and refuse to address anything more than the literal question... fine. You can answer my question instead:

MY QUESTION TO GEORGE DANCE: If you consider Jim's poetry worthless, yet ask him to submit a poem for pre-approved publication in your blog/magazine, what does that say about your editorial standards?

[Will Dockery]

Again, well put, George.

HTH and HAND.

[George J. Dance]

Aside from the two lies you tried to smuggle in (that I've ever called
Jim's poetry "worthless", and that I'd "pre-approved" any poems without
reading them), you're asking the same question as Robert. So you get the
same answer.

I asked everyone posting at aapc for a poem. I did not discriminate on
the basis of who was an "ally" or an "adversary," or on the basis of
real or pretend judgements about their "poetry" in general.

Respond to that, if you want, or just pretend that you didn't get an
answer either. Your choice.

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Seems I'm worthless from you very mouth.\

Dance:

[Coco DeSockmonkey]

You're playing the petty little cunt again, George.

Here's what you said:

Jim Senetto can't

write a decent haiku
or anything else.

If Jim cannot write a decent haiku *or anything else,* then his poetry would be worthless.

> and that I'd "pre-approved" any poems without
> reading them), you're asking the same question as Robert. So you get the
> same answer.

You claimed that you'd contacted Jim and requested that he submit a poem. Generally, when one requests a poem for an anthology that represents a certain group of poets, the submission would be pre-approved.

> I asked everyone posting at aapc for a poem. I did not discriminate on
> the basis of who was an "ally" or an "adversary," or on the basis of
> real or pretend judgements about their "poetry" in general.

Your above statement also strongly implies that the poetry was pre-approved.

> Respond to that, if you want, or just pretend that you didn't get an
> answer either. Your choice.

No, George, you have not answered my question. You are either as dense as our resident Donkey, or playing the dunce in an attempt at deflection.

I am not asking you whether you requested poetry from "everyone." We have already established that you had.

I am asking you what it says about your editorial standards if you request poetry from someone who you believe "cannot write a decent haiku, or anything else."

But since you seem incapable of seeing past your own reflection, allow me to rephrase my question in general terms:

What does it say about an editor's standards if he requests poetry from someone he believes incapable of composing a decent poem?*

*Please note that the editor in question is not necessarily George Dance.

[Will Dockery]

Instead, Pendragon goes into a flaming meltdown, now calling you a "cunt", I see.

And so it goes.