On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 5:50:56 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 4:09:25 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 8:33:43 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:18:20 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 9:28:49 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 2:08:18 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 12:06:34 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 4:59:01 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 4:30:37 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 4:03:05 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not only are George Dance's posts deleted, but also posts by Pendragon and Ash, as shown here.

> > > > > > > > > > Epic Flame here!5!
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 2:47:47 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > And speaking of death fantasies.
> > > > > > > > > > You mean George Dance's death fantasy about Mr Burrows?
> > > > > > > > > You mean the one NGBS was peddling around here yesterday?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > Epic Flame - Reddit Here!1!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Did George J Dance wish death on a sick person in the hospital- and just for criticizing him?! That's damned cold and damned screwed up coming from someone saying they're the victim and the supposed "good guy".
> > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That turned out to be misinformation. Please update your story.
> > > > > > > > Nope, the tag trail shows my source.
> > > > > > > Sure does. You had one source: the poor "sick person" who was trolling me at the time, and made it up; you confirmed your story by doublechecking with the *same guy.*
> > > > > > > > All I can credit you with is at least you got the propaganda 'omission for out of context' trick right.
> > > > > > > I can't even credit you with getting that right; since that quote NG posted out of context also refutes your story - your story was dead in the water when NG posted that.
> > > > > > > > Sorry to tell you, I broke the news before anyone else
> > > > > > > You sure did (except for BB, who made it up). Too bad it was of the usual NGBS calibre: fake news.
> > > > > > Is this an example of "Tit for Tat"?
> > > > >
> > > > > I suppose so. Mr. Wurthing wants a flame war, too, so I've given him what he wants as well. But there is a moral difference: he's spreading lies about me, and I'm telling the truth about him.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know which post/s you're referring to, but Ash has never acted dishonestly in the past.
> > >
> > > You've said you miss posts. Did you miss his story last month, where he was calling me an "anti-vaccer" (sic)?
> > I either missed it, or don't recall it. I skim over much of the fighting as it's usually just the same old same old -- and don't waste any brain cells on committing them to memory.
> >
> > I do recall him saying that the Donkey was an anti-vaxxer (which the infamous video of him dancing around with a piece of toilet paper hanging out of his nose implied)... but I could be misremembering who the target was. Perhaps he'd been referring to Stink... sorry for being lazy, but I'm too tired to go searching for it at the moment.
> > > > Like I've said, your post really angered a lot of people... and extreme anger can lead to extremity on one's response.
> > >
> > > First, Second, even if I'd made a "death wish", that is not something that arouses anger here. You've seen death wishes, and death curses, here plenty of times, and even made a few yourself. That's not to call you a "hypocrite" -- that's become just a term to score points in a flame war. But it does compel me to believe that you're feigning anger now. The same for the others who've expressed anger: Mr. Senetto, Miss ME, the Misses Nancy Gene, and Mr. Wurthing.
> > >
> > Yes, I've made death threats (curses) -- and am truly and unabashedly glad that Pick kicked the bucket. And my death threats, etc., have received little-to-no censure from those who are now attacking you.
> >
> > I fully understand your position on this point. From your perspective, it does seem like everyone is using it as an excuse to dump on George Dance..
> >
> > I don't know if "anger" is the proper words for my feelings regarding your remark -- although, it's not too far off the mark. I think "aghast" seems more accurate. Like I said, that's a line that my code of ethics wouldn't allow me to even consider, much less cross.
> >
> > This implies that I consider your comments to Robert much worse than my comments to/on Pick and Stink. And I'm sure that from your perspective, this comes across as a double standard. I don't know if I can explain it, but I'll try. When I threw my curse on Pick, he was relatively healthy (although NancyGene noticed a sign that a heart attack was imminent, and had Pick listened to her, he might still be alive today). Stink is also relatively healthy (for a homeless, toothless pissbum who lives under a piece of discarded tarp).
> >
> > Being relatively healthy, neither Pick nor Stink was/is dealing with a major health crisis. Robert, otoh, is dealing with one. Thankfully, he's been making a good deal of progress and will hopefully beat his disease entirely. But he's still in the hospital and still having to deal with that reality.
> >
> > IMO there's a world of difference between telling a relatively healthy person "I wish that you were dead" and telling someone who's in the hospital undergoing a bone marrow transplant that he could die.
> >
> > I hope you can understand that. My putting a curse on Stink has little-to-no impact on Stink's feelings. Stink doesn't give a damn what I think about him and doesn't place any stock in the power of my curse. Robert's situation doesn't allow him the luxury of shrugging off comments of that sort. He's struggling to cope with fears about his health every moment.
> >
> > Your comment was appalling to me, because I would consider myself a disgusting human being if I'd said it. And I'm not one who's easily appalled.
> > > Second, even if some people were angered, they weren't angered at my post. Remember that we're talking about 2 distinct "statements" here:
> > > (1) the one I actually made, which nobody reacted to until you produced it days later -- as far as I know, no one (including Mr. Wurthing, saw it until you posted it; there's no reason to think anyone but Mr. Burrows was angered by it.
> > > (2) the one Mr. Burrows, and then Mr. Wurthing, claimed I'd made, which may or may not be the same as (1). (Neither of them have confirmed or denied that it was; they simply ignored my requests to do so.) That, not my actual post, was the one that actually angered people, assuming those who replied were angry.
> > >
> > I can't speak for the others, but I saw your actual post -- and I was appalled by your actual post. And because I found your post so unbelievably mean spirited as to leave me aghast, I can't believe that others didn't find it equally appalling.
> > > Third, no matter how consciously, you're allowing "Ash" to pull a bait-and-switch: to substitute (1) (which he didn't read, or even look for) for (2) (the one he claimed to have seen, but couldn't produce when challenged). The result, if not the intent, is to confuse (1) and (2) just to confuse anyone about what I'd actually said.
> > >
> > Had you told Robert that you wished he were dead, it would be no worse, IMO, than what you'd actually said.
> >
> > That's what you're not getting here.
> >
> > I consider what you actually wrote to be unconscionable. It is something that I would not have done -- regardless of how much I dislike a person. And I'm mostly amoral.
> >
> > What you actually wrote is what I'm appalled by. What you actually wrote is what angered Robert. It doesn't matter that he'd mistakenly labeled it a death wish. He wouldn't have reacted to it at all if it hadn't angered him.
> >
> > Ash is a nice person. He saw that you'd upset Robert and reacted like any empathetic human being would.
> >
> > You act as if you think he should say "I'm sorry, George, I mistakenly thought that you'd *wished* death on Robert, whereas you were only reminding him that he *could* die from the cancer he's currently battling."
> >
> > The bottom line is that what you actually wrote was horrible -- and the fact that you can't see this makes me think that you must be a sociopath (incapable of any form of empathy and entirely devoid of conscience).
> > > > I suspect that Ash's post contains some exaggeration -- which is a matter of emotion rather than one of morality.
> > >
> > > It looks to me as if Mr. Wurthing's post was based entirely on what he'd read in Mr. Burrows's flames of Will Dockery on the subject; he didn't exaggerate what I said, because he didn't bother to read what I'd said.
> > Again, had he read your actual statement, he would have been every bit as angry. Your statement was every bit as disgusting as Robert's "exaggerated" claim.
> > > > > Mr. Burrows decided to claim falsely that I'd wished for his death. So why shouldn't I claim that he made it up? The fact is he did: whether he misunderstood what I'd said, or simply decided to outright lie just to make me look worse, the effect is the same.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure that's what he took your post to mean. You didn't specifically state that you wished him dead, but you acted as though his death were both immanent and probable.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Everone's death is not just probable but certain; the point being that one should live each day as if their death were imminent, and chose their time on what's important; and what's important to him acting as if he's "better" than Will Dockery.
> > >
> > Not everyone is currently in a hospital undergoing chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant.
> > > > > > The truth is that you'd made a callous remark and BB reacted to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The truth is: we were in a flame war, by his choice and initiation; one of my flames stung; and he had a meltdown.
> > > >
> > > > Damn it, George -- what you wrote went well beyond flaming.
> > >
> > > I've seen plenty worse in flaming; and, as I've said, the people you've said were angry not only tolerated that, but engaged in it.
> > No, George, I've never seen any trolling that even compares to what you said.
> >
> > And, no, I have lines that my conscience will not allow me to cross, and I would never engage in anything comparable.
> >
> > Yes, I take a sadistic delight in slapping the Donkey around. And, yes, I cross over plenty of lines in my personal attacks on him and his family. And, yes, nice people like Karen find my Donkey abuse to be appalling.
> >
> > But what you did was 100x worse (for the reasons explained above).
> > > > I've always said that AAPC fights should not cross over into real life (I don't always keep to that, but we're not talking about me).
> > >
> > > Not directly, but it is relevant in discussing what statements here get you angry. I don't think it's the statements at all, but who made them and to whom they were made.
> > >
> > > > When someone is in a hospital undergoing chemotherapy and (IIRC) bone marrow transplant, the last thing they want to hear is that you've already written them off as a goner.
> > >
> > > Since Mr. Burrows has "forgiven" me for not saying what he claimed I did, I can excuse him for getting it wrong. There is no excuse for Mr. Wurthing, who did not bother to check or even confirm what I'd said, but merely started posting about it as part of his flame war.
> > >
> > What you actually said was reason enough for both men to condemn you.
> > > > > > > Duh! I'm fully aware you were playing tag team: BB went after me to defend/deflect from JO, then you jumped in to defend/deflect from BB.. I've seen it enough times to know how it works.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You're sounding more than a tad paranoid, George.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really: you deny that's exactly what happened on my thread?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I am denying that.
> > >
> > > Well, for the reasons I've govem you, I'm affirming it.
> > What you actually wrote upset Robert and me.
> >
> > What you actually wrote, and/or Robert's reaction to what you wrote, upset everyone else.
> >
> > I'm truly sorry that you're unable to realize why what you actually wrote was unconscionable.
> > > > It's true that different people had strong reactions to your post, but these were spontaneous reactions -- not a concerted effort to play "tag team."
> > >
> > > None of those reples were in reaction to my post (1), and I'm not talking the people who flamed Will over Mr. Burrows's claims (2). The 'tag' in this case occurred when I pressed Mr. Burrows on his claim, and in response Mr. Wurthing started this "Epic Flame War" of his with me.
> > >
> > There was not "tag."
> >
> > You upset Robert. You upset Ash. You upset anyone with even a shred of human decency.
> >
> > As previously noted: had we all been in Robert's hospital room when you said it, you'd be leaving the hospital with a black eye, a busted nose, and several missing teeth. And, no, that's not an exaggeration.
> > > > > Not to question your desire for peace, but: isn't exactly what you're doing for the Jism Gang yourself in this thread?
> > > >
> > > > Taking my turn in the ring? Not at all.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I'm interceding for you -- insofar as one can with regard to your post.
> > >
> > > Interceding with whom? You've only been posting to me about it.
> > With anyone who might be reading this.
> >
> > I'm trying to get you realize why what you did was wrong... so that once you realize it, you'll apologize for having done it, and so the other members of the group will forgive you for having done it.
> >
> > I'm reasoning with you -- not telling you to FOAD -- and am hoping that others will follow my example.
> >
> > I'm arguing your case: you were caught up in the heat of the argument, and spoke without thinking. When you (finally) calmed down, and were able to distance yourself from the situation to examine it with a clear head, you realized that there was no excuse for your statement.
> > > > > > > > till I saw what you were doing to Mr Burrows.
> > > > > > > Correction: til you read what "Mr. Burrows" *said* I was doing. You wouldn't even give me the details of your story; you wouldn't even share your money quote (which also didn't corroborate BB's charges).
> > > > > > BB was mistaken in saying that you'd wished for his death, however, your statement struck most of us as being every bit as nasty as if you had.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, and (given Mr. Burrows's gang affiliation) his prior nastiness has gone into the memory hole, while the whole gang is pissing their collective pants over my "nastiness." Boo-hoo.
> > > >
> > > > Since when has Bob been a member of "the gang"?
> > >
> > > I'd say, since he came back to the group a while ago and began flaming for them. Of course he's not a full member; he's not here enough.
> > He doesn't flame anyone.
> >
> > He gets in occasional fights with Will and Stink -- as does everyone else (except for you and Isaac -- and Isaac's just another Donkeysock).
> > > > He's avoided the flame wars almost as much as Karen.
> > > >
> > >
> > > He's confined himself to flaming Will and Zod, which you don't count as "flame wars."
> > >
> > No, I don't count that as flaming.
> >
> > Will and Stink spend all their time here 1) flaming others, 2) necroposting their own "poetry," 3) saying "hi" to Jordy, and 4) whining about how a gang of "malicious trolls, liars, identity thieves and forgers" are picking on them. And numbers 2 through 4 are really just other forms of trolling..
> >
> > Smacking a troll is no different than stepping on a cockroach.
> > > > As to the "gang"s being upset over your perceived nastiness... why shouldn't they be? I'm upset over it. And, in spite of our having had battles in the past, it's something I never would have expected from you.
> > >
> > > Assuming Mr. Wurthing had seen (1), then he was not that upset enough about it. or wouldn't have seen any need to embellish it into something more upsetting (2). Nor, I'm afraid, have you convinced me that you were all that upset, since we both know that you have both approved and made far worse ones.
> > >
> > Please remind me of *one* instance where I (or anyone else here) has done anything that qualifies as comparable.
> > > > > > If that discussion had taken place in a real life situation, you'd have left the room with a black eye, a busted nose, and several missing teeth. Seriously, it was *that* bad.
> > >
> > > Your analogy is bad, BTW; usent is not like RL, precisely because there is no physical danger here. I don't believe for a minute that you go about in RL telling people to their face that you wish they were dead, much less calling them things like pond scum or child molesters (far worse statements, from Which you might not have even walked away). Again I'm not playing the "hypocrite" card, but pointing out what's wrong with your analogy.
> > >
> > I have gotten into fights in RL where I've shouted many extremely insulting things at strangers -- and am extremely lucky that these shouting matches never became physical. I haven't done it in many years, as I've learned to control my temper over time. But none of that has any bearing on my analogy. In RL, you'd have gotten the shit beaten out of you. The fact that Usenet is a safe haven from any physical danger only makes you seem like a coward as well.
> > > > > If he'd started screaming at me in real life, I'd probably have just left the room. But of course he wouldn't, and I wouldn't have had to say anything nasty back.
> > > >
> > > > You didn't *have* to say anything nasty, back. The high road is always an option.
> > > >
> > > > > > I can't understand how you find nothing wrong with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing you find wrong with it is that it was an effective flame; it mentioned something true about him: he has a limited time to live, and he wants to spend it being a nasty, disagreeable piece of shit to other people. So it stung. That's exactly what I find right about it: he got the appropriate response.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We all have a limited time to live, and we all deal with that knowledge as best as we can. But one someone has been diagnosed with leukemia and is in the hospital undergoing chemotherapy, their ability to deal with it is going to be extremely compromised.
> > >
> > > As I said, his first reaction (to whatever he saw), and his first post on it, is excusable. What is less excusable is his repeatdly using it, once again, troll Will Dockery. And what is completely inexcusable is Mr. Wurthing's attempt to spread it around the group, when he apparently had no idea what he was talking about.
> > >
> > And, once again, what you'd actually said was every bit as bad -- if not moreso.
> > > > You're giving me the impression that you're incapable of experiencing empathy -- which would make you either a sociopath or a Vulcan.
> > >
> > > No, I have empathy with almost everyone, and even with humanity in general. A person has to do something thoroughly repellent - something a person would not do - to make me lose all empathy for him; to not care whether he lives or dies, as I put it to Mr. Burrows.
> > >
> > You don't appear to have any empathy, because you cannot imagine the intensity of what Robert must be experiencing. If you had empathy, you could place yourself in his position, and *feel* what your callous remark must have made him feel.
> > > > > > > > But how can one have peace when one side would desist and your side, sensing the advantage, would continue flaming and trolling anyone WHO DARES to say even the most minor negative thing about your side.
> > > > > > > Precisely why I've stopped "desisting". I agree with every reason MP says working for peace, but I've noticed that in practice it's always been just me "desisting" while your side continues flaming and trolling anyone else (irrespective of what they actually say or do).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that a large part of the problem might be in your assigning everyone to "sides."
> > >
> > > > > You've done the same thing, with the same players. The only difference is your names for the sides: you call the Jism Gang "everyone" or "the group," and their targets "pond scum" and the like.
> > > >
> > > > I see the so-called "Jism Gang" (of which you've implied my membership in) as being individuals who share a common dislike of Will Donkey and his sockpuppet's antics. I don't see them as a "gang," anymore than I saw you, me and Donkey as being members of "The Dunce Gang," as PJR dubbed us.
> > >
> > > > IIRC, you didn't see yourself as the leader of any gang, then. You need to look at this with the same level of understanding.
> > >
> > > Mr. Wurthing has in fact assigned me to a gang, though he disagrees on who the leader is:
> > > <quote>
> > > > Oh wait, hypocrite willy idnorances what his posse does-- Zod's nasty name calling, GD's troll threads and smutty name calling, Rachel's anti-Semitic statements and Ilya' misogynistic and racist essays.
> > > </q>
> > Yes, he has.
> >
> > Will, Stink and Isaac are a gang. Will brought both of his socks here to slurp his posts, and to attack and annoy everyone else. You, Rachel and Ilya are not members of Will's gang. However, the fact that you invariably side with him and his gang members makes it easy for others to mistake you as a member.
> >
> > Your alliance is with Will's gang, and for many people, the difference between a member and an ally is negligible.
> > > > > > Apart from Will and his splooges (who were brought here by him *specifically* to kiss his ass and attack his "enemies") no one else here is actually part of an organized "team."
> > >
> > > So apparently all three of us agree that there is a gang of people who kiss ass and attack everyone else (whom they see as the enemy). All we disagree on is who that gang's members are.
> > No... I'd say that Ash and I are mostly in agreement. I consider you to be a Donkey ally; he sees you as a Donkey gang member.
> >
> > The only one who sees things differently is you.
> > > > > Oh, right -- the fact that these shits -- from Miss NancyGene to Miss ME to the new recruit, Mr. Wurthing -- spend their days here kissing Mr. Senetto's ass and attacking his "enemies" is because they're all free-thinking individuals. Got it.
> > > >
> > > > People like Jim. I like Jim. Jim's a likeable guy.
> > > >
> > > > People tend to defend those they consider their friends.
> > >
> > > Sure; and they tend to judge behavior wrt to them and their friends, differently from how they judge behavior wrt to their enemies; even if it's exactly the same behavior. Which, I'm afraid, is what it looks like what you're doing here; it really strikes me that your major problem with what I actually told Mr. Burrows was not what I said, but to whom I said it.
> > >
> > I can only tell you that you are 100% wrong. If Will were in a similar situation to Robert, I would tell Jim, Ash, NancyGene, ME, and others to back off. Like I said, there are lines that I don't cross and do not want others to cross.
> > > I'm sorry, but this is already too long, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to snip here. The other topics you've raised, the past history of the group etc., are all things worth discussing, but I'd like to keep the focus on Mr. Wurthing's flame war. If you think I've snipped too much, feel free to put anything back in.
> > >
> > No need. I'm not trying to score points or win a debate. I'm just trying to convince you that you're wrong -- and that you're only burning bridges by insisting that your behavior was justified.
>
>
> Good morning!
>
> Why am I reading this? What am I doing here?
> What does any of this really have to do with me?
> Have you ever asked yourself these questions,
> because they occur to me all the fucking time!?!