On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:15:39 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:47:11 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 9:11:32 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 8:48:41 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 3:55:52 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 3:35:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 2:54:51 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 7:42:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
https://mpsilvertone.wixsite.com/website
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks again to all who contributed.
> > > > > > > And thank you, Mr. Monkey, for letting us know about the title change, and for the chance to archive it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It would have been archived long before you responded to it, Dunce.
> > > > > Of course it was "archived" as soon as you posted it Mr. Monkey. My reply was to ensure that it stays archived. The Bandar-Log has a nasty habit of deleting and memory-holing their typos (while amplifying those of their targets), and I'd like to see that asymmetry corrected.
> > > > > > Once again, one feels compelled to remind you that the world does not revolve about George Dance.
> > > > > If that means we're going to see multiple flame threads on aapc about your typo, too, then I can only say that it's about time.
> > > > Could you possibly be any more of a petty little cunt?
> > > You sound just like your MEatpuppet, asswipe. But to answer your question: Yes, I can do more to reach your level. For instance, like you I can have a colleague put up a screenshot.
> >
> > >
https://imgur.com/gallery/LxL4qog
>
> > Why do always lie while claiming to be superior over us "zeros,"-- you do exactly what you say "zeros" do
> No, Asstroll; I'm quite able to answer your cuntiness with equal cuntiness, and your Monkey King's bitchiness with equal bitchiness just fine, but as I've explained to you, there are differences. For one thing, your king and you followers are aggressors: you all like launching unprovoked attacks on people who haven't attacked you.
>
As both Ash and I have explained to you, there are no "aggressors... launching unprovoked attacks."
What we have is a group of individuals caught up in a neverending cycle of titting one another's tats -- with each individual and/or group believing that the other is the aggressor.
The attacks have gone on for so many years, and have been carried over to so many threads that it is impossible to determine who threw the first tat -- or even to determine what, precisely, a "tat" is.
For instance, if I ask Will and Jordy (nicely) to cut back on their off-topic "hello" posts, and they respond by doubling down on their efforts, I consider that to be a very big "tat."
Will and Jordy, otoh, see it as a passive-aggressive protest against others telling them what they can and cannot do.
I, however, see this as a pair of trolls defiantly continuing to troll the group, and retaliate accordingly.
And around and around we go.
You do the same thing. In fact, you have proclaimed that "Tit for Tat" is a "system of ethics" that you adhere to at AAPC.
I've got a list of grievances against you a long as my arm (a gross understatement), and you've got equally as many against me.
Who threw the first punch? IIRC we first exchanged heated words when you defended Pickles, Ginsberg, and NAMBLA regarding their views on "age of consent."
I don't know if you were suffering from residual butthurt over these exchanges, but when you allowed Pickles to post poetry that directly attacked me in your short-lived revival of The Sunday Sampler, you crossed over a line after which any future attacks against you can only be seen as retaliatory "tits" on my part.
I later attempted to bury the hatchet, and spent several years attempting to intercede on your behalf in your ongoing fights with Jim, ME, NancyGene and others who you claim are on my "team."
And, once again, you crossed over a line when you falsely accused me of prejudicial editorial policies regarding AYoS, which publishes *every* poem submitted by *every* AAPC member (who hasn't gotten themselves banned). From that point on, I again perceive my attacks as nothing more than retaliatory "tits" for your initial, unprovoked offense.
Of course, you'll deny this, and claim that you are the victim -- and, judging by your exhibiting textbook symptoms of having a persecution complex, I have no doubt that you wholeheartedly believe yourself to be the victim in this case.
But why argue over it? You will always see it from your paranoid perspective, just as I will always see it for what it is. (I'm phrasing it in this manner, to show you what my perspective is. You, no doubt, will see it differently.)
We (AAPC as a group) have only two options regarding these endless fights; we can:
1) Recognize that both "sides" feel that they are in the right, and that the attacks from their opponents are entirely unprovoked; and work together on coming to a compromise that will allow them to interact civilly; or
2) Continue to play "Tit for Tat" (with each side believing that they are the ones being tatted), and remaining at one another's throats until Google pull the plug on its groups/Usenet is discontinued.
> For another, you're liars: you'll make up any "fact" and repeat any smear. Morally and ethically, you're less than zero; any
> person has to be presumptively counted as "superior" to you on that score.
Funny, but that's exactly how I see you and your Donkey, George. You rephrase anything we say into a twisted shadow of itself, and your Donkey post-edits our responses then claims that we are agreeing with him.
This, too, is an example of the neverending cycle of retaliations-for-retaliations that your "ethical system" of Tit for Tat creates.
> > so you do know what your very own words value you at?
>
> > George Dance
> > Aug 7, 2023, 9:56:06 AM (16 hours ago)
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 8:39:56 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > George Dance is a leader of none.
> > "NG, your Monkey King is a leader of four zeroes. Do the math (4X0=?) and you'll realize that makes their support evenly matched."
> >
> > ###GeorgeJDance loses an argument
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > in a tantrum of demonizing and dehumanizing character assassination...
> And the #Asstroll again declares an imaginary victory, this time for a fellow Bandar-Log follower.
Here we go again!
Ash accuses you of "demonizing and dehumanizing character assassination," which is something that he (and I) believe to be a part of your m.o.
You respond by attacking him (via childish name-calling).
An adult would try to see why Ash feels this way regarding your behavior, and would make whatever changes are necessary to correct for the bad impression one is making on his peers. If you think that you're so much better than the so-called "Bandar-Logs," why don't you try acting like an adult (as opposed to a petty little cunt)?
And, no, I'm not just calling you a "petty little cunt" because ME labeled you as such. A "petty little cunt" is someone who lashes out against others over a perceived slight (however small). IOW: He is a card-carrying proponent of "Tit for Tat."
> > NG says that he leads zero (no) people and he resorts to character assassination of third parties by calling them zeros (nothings, which is unrelated to him having zero (no) followers), rather than address the actual assertion being argued that he has no followers.
> It's a stupid argument from your Bandar-Log crew, which has also pushed the conspiracy theory that I lead an imaginary "Team Donkey" that not only tries to run the group, but pays secret operatives to infiltrate it and pose as new members (which is the B-L excuse for constantly trying to drive newcomers away). That contradiction is enough to show you "people" don't even believe your own propaganda.
>
That is not what we've said, George. Once again you have used your patented Dunce Logic to twist our words around into something that they do not mean.
1) No one has said that pay secret operatives to infiltrate the group. We all know that none of you has any money to speak of.
2) No one has said that you're trying to drive your friends/allies away. We are saying that you and your Donkey are dead-set on driving those who disagree with/dislike you from the group. You do this by inviting "friends" from non-poetry groups (Pickles, Jordy, Vinyl Cunt, & co.), and flooding the group with reciprocal slurps, pointless "hello" posts, OT discussions, etc. By doing this, you change AAPC from a poetry discussion group, to the equivalent of a personal Facebook -- thereby forcing those of us who wish to discuss poetry to seek out another forum.
> > "Character assassination is a special form of lashing out often done by individuals with symptoms of BPD. Character assassination is generally a reaction to feeling threatened by the target."
> > "When individuals with symptoms of BPD feel threatened by others, they may lash out by assassinating the character of those they feel threatened by. Character assassination involves repeated demeaning, and in some cases slanderous, statements and accusations, in the presence of others whenever possible."
> > "The function of character assassination is to attack the credibility of those that are perceived as a threat in an effort to neutralize them."
> > 'Why Some People with BPD Engage in Character Assassination'
> >
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/my-side-of-the-couch/202302/borderline-personality-disorder-and-character-assassination
> Hmm ... that reminds me of the idiot arguing that it's "highly probable" did not write a poem that's attributed to him because "you are a known plagiarist, a pathological liar, a sloppy editor (to put it mildly), and a petty little cunt." Perhaps I'll copy it there. Or maybe I'll save it for a thread on one of your attempted character assassinations. In any case, I'm sure it will prove useful.
>
And here you go again! This time you're titting Ash for one of my tats (although, from my perspective, it was a tit in retaliation for your having falsely accused me of editorial prejudice).
IOW: It's just Tit for Tat raising its ugly head again, to keep the venom circulating.
> > ~ ~ ~ ~
> > "Abstract:
> > In the media, during sporting events, in online forums, and in interpersonal interactions, whites often portray Black people as animals, especially as APES or MONKEYS. In this essay we consider what contemporary research on prejudice in American politics has to say about these dehumanizing portrayals of Black people."
> > 'Hiding in plain sight: Dehumanization as a foundation of white racial prejudice'
> >
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/soc4.12913
> Sorry, but your team's already played the race card years ago. Back when they were the Monkey, the Chimp, and the Big Baboon,G declared themselves "possibly black" and Baboon to be "possibly racist", so they became the Big Buffoon. That is in no way a "racist" nickname. Neither is yours, Asstroll.
>
You have no way of knowing what race any of us are, Dunce. And the use of words like "chimp" and "monkey" is racially insensitive at best.
When I was in college, I got in quite a bit of trouble for having used the word "monkeys" in a newspaper article. I had used the word to mean "stupid" or "foolish" people. I had cited Émile Borel's "Infinite Monkey Theorem" and noted that while there was never any shortage of monkeys on our campus, typewriters were as scarce as three-digit IQs. In accordance with my cultural experiences at the time, my use of "monkey" had no racial connotations whatsoever.
I was subsequently taught that words like "Monkey," "Ape," and "Chimp" are examples of what are known as "buzz-words" -- racially-charged words that will set off a negative reaction in people of color based on the connotations these words have acquired over years of having been employed as racial epithets and in depictions of African-Americans in racially demeaning cartoons, advertisements, etc.
Since you have no means of knowing which of the members of "Team Monkey" have African-American ancestry, you would be wise to limit your name-calling to words that are not racially-charged.
Better yet, you might try acting like an adult, working out a compromise that *everyone* can live with, and leave your "ethical system" of "Tit for Tat" on the playground where it belongs.