On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:44:31 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-08 12:18 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:37:57 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-01 4:14 p.m., Zod wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook
> >>>>>> Ash's childish name-calling noted.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> >>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> >>
> >>>>>> I notice you deleted the attribution to Michael pendragon, which George Dance included, Ash:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it." - MMP, Oct. 5
> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/_e5y_AODqxs/m/8sUTFAKmCgAJ?hl=en
> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> MMP = Michael Pendragon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> HTH and HAND.
> >>
> >>>>> Odd how Ash keeps deleting attribution to pen...!
> >>
> >>>> The rule is part of our FAQs
> >>>
> >>> Not really, Pen...!
> >> Right; a FAQ is not a set of rules.
> >>
> >> This rule of MMP's is from the "Official Guidelines" that he began
> >> posting onto the group last year and that he keeps saying (without
> >> providing evidence) that I participated in drafting.
> >
> > Our GLs and FAQs are listed in the same post, the title of which is "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES & FAQs."
> >
> > Both our Guidelines (GLs) and Facts and Questions (FAQs) contain rules.
> PJ Ross used to post a FAQ here and pretend it was rules. His pretending
> didn't turn it into rules. Neither does your copying him turn your FAQ
> into rules.

My final version is split into two sections: Guidelines and FAQs.

The GLs are *not* enforceable rules, but exactly what their name states: guidelines.

> > The rule in question falls under our GLs section (rule #8).
> That's what I just told Will:
> >> This rule of MMP's is from the "Official Guidelines" that he began
> >> posting onto the group last year and that he keeps saying (without
> >> providing evidence) that I participated in drafting.
> Why not read the previous posts before you comment on them?

Funny how you forgot to include a copy of your post that I was responding to.

GEORGE DANCE: Right; a FAQ is not a set of rules.

I posted a revision of my previous statement -- in response to your objection.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:52:31 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-05 10:57 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:42:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-01 4:05 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>> Sir Cankkkook
> >>>>> Ash's childish name-calling noted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> >>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> >>>>> I notice you deleted the attribution to Michael pendragon, which George Dance included, Ash:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it." - MMP, Oct. 5
> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/_e5y_AODqxs/m/8sUTFAKmCgAJ?hl=en
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> MMP = Michael Pendragon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> HTH and HAND.
> >>>> Odd how Ash keeps deleting attribution to pen...!
> >>>
> >>> They're now also the coward Canuck hypocrite's words also. Can't let the hypocrite tell others (by cowardly hiding behind someone else's words) to provide comment when he never does, and looks the other way when Jordy has been doing it for years now.
> >>> I can condemn him because I give Jordy some leeway with his song link posts while Dance acts the hypocrite.
> >
> > What is your point in bumping this, George?
>
>
> > Are you trying to prove that your PPB threads have consistently flaunted AAPC's GLs (both the former and current ones) for years?
> That's your claim, Michael. It's your job to try to prove it.
>
> So far you haven't even proved that aapc has any "GLs" to "flaunt".

I've posted the GLs, George.

I can't imagine what further proof you would need.

On 2022-11-09 9:37 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:52:31 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-05 10:57 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:42:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-01 4:05 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
>>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
>>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
>>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
>>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook
>>>>>>> Ash's childish name-calling noted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
>>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
>>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
>>>>>>> I notice you deleted the attribution to Michael pendragon, which George Dance included, Ash:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it." - MMP, Oct. 5
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/_e5y_AODqxs/m/8sUTFAKmCgAJ?hl=en
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MMP = Michael Pendragon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HTH and HAND.
>>>>>> Odd how Ash keeps deleting attribution to pen...!
>>>>>
>>>>> They're now also the coward Canuck hypocrite's words also. Can't let the hypocrite tell others (by cowardly hiding behind someone else's words) to provide comment when he never does, and looks the other way when Jordy has been doing it for years now.
>>>>> I can condemn him because I give Jordy some leeway with his song link posts while Dance acts the hypocrite.
>>>
>>> What is your point in bumping this, George?
>>
>>
>>> Are you trying to prove that your PPB threads have consistently flaunted AAPC's GLs (both the former and current ones) for years?
>> That's your claim, Michael. It's your job to try to prove it.
>>
>> So far you haven't even proved that aapc has any "GLs" to "flaunt".
>
> I've posted the GLs, George.

You posted something you wrote titled "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES &
FAQs" -- repeatedly. In fact, I'd say you've been "flaunting" that post
of yours.

>
> I can't imagine what further proof you would need.

Let me guide you through it one step at a time.

(1) prove that aapc has, or even can have, any "GLs" to begin with.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:38:00 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:52:31 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-05 10:57 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:42:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-01 4:05 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > >>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> > >>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> > >>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> > >>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> > >>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> > >>>>>>> [...]
> > >>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> > >>>>>> Sir Cankkkook
> > >>>>> Ash's childish name-calling noted.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> > >>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> > >>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> > >>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> > >>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> > >>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> > >>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> > >>>>> I notice you deleted the attribution to Michael pendragon, which George Dance included, Ash:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> > >>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> > >>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> > >>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> > >>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it." - MMP, Oct. 5
> > >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/_e5y_AODqxs/m/8sUTFAKmCgAJ?hl=en
> > >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> MMP = Michael Pendragon.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> HTH and HAND.
> > >>>> Odd how Ash keeps deleting attribution to pen...!
> > >>>
> > >>> They're now also the coward Canuck hypocrite's words also. Can't let the hypocrite tell others (by cowardly hiding behind someone else's words) to provide comment when he never does, and looks the other way when Jordy has been doing it for years now.
> > >>> I can condemn him because I give Jordy some leeway with his song link posts while Dance acts the hypocrite.
> > >
> > > What is your point in bumping this, George?
> >
> >
> > > Are you trying to prove that your PPB threads have consistently flaunted AAPC's GLs (both the former and current ones) for years?
> > That's your claim, Michael. It's your job to try to prove it.
> >
> > So far you haven't even proved that aapc has any "GLs" to "flaunt".
> I've posted the GLs, George.
>
> I can't imagine what further proof you would need.

I can't imagine why I haven't plonked this thread.

Plonk.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:12:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-09 9:37 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:52:31 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-05 10:57 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:42:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-01 4:05 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook
> >>>>>>> Ash's childish name-calling noted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> >>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> >>>>>>> I notice you deleted the attribution to Michael pendragon, which George Dance included, Ash:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it." - MMP, Oct. 5
> >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/_e5y_AODqxs/m/8sUTFAKmCgAJ?hl=en
> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> MMP = Michael Pendragon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> HTH and HAND.
> >>>>>> Odd how Ash keeps deleting attribution to pen...!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They're now also the coward Canuck hypocrite's words also. Can't let the hypocrite tell others (by cowardly hiding behind someone else's words) to provide comment when he never does, and looks the other way when Jordy has been doing it for years now.
> >>>>> I can condemn him because I give Jordy some leeway with his song link posts while Dance acts the hypocrite.
> >>>
> >>> What is your point in bumping this, George?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Are you trying to prove that your PPB threads have consistently flaunted AAPC's GLs (both the former and current ones) for years?
> >> That's your claim, Michael. It's your job to try to prove it.
> >>
> >> So far you haven't even proved that aapc has any "GLs" to "flaunt".
> >
> > I've posted the GLs, George.
> You posted something you wrote titled "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES &
> FAQs" -- repeatedly. In fact, I'd say you've been "flaunting" that post
> of yours.
> >
> > I can't imagine what further proof you would need.
> Let me guide you through it one step at a time.
>
> (1) prove that aapc has, or even can have, any "GLs" to begin with.

How many times do I need to post them before you deign to recognize their existence?

I think that Corey is correct about this one, George.

*Plonk*

On 2022-11-08 12:42 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-03 3:39 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:05:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 11:32:26 AM UTC-4,
>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-10-31 10:41 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
>>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
>>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
>>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
>>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
>> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
>>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
>>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
>> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
>> for you.
>>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
>>>>
>>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
>>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
>>>>
>>>> But that's nothing new for you.
>>>
>>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
>>>
>> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
>> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
>
> You posted my comments under Jim's post and whined that the rules only apply to team Donkey.
>
> In the most polite terms, that can be taken as a request for me to extend those rules to the members of the supposed "team Monkey" as well.
>
> If, otoh, you were just whining for the sake of whining... god help you.
>
>
>>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
>>>
>>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
>> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
>>>
>> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
>> your "GLs".
>
> I may not have specified that they were in the GLs, but the fact remains that they are.
>
>>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
>> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
>> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
>>>
>> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
>> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
>> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
>
> You made a smarmy comment about the rules only applying to certain individuals.
>
>> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
>>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
>> the GLs from here on in.
>> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
>> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
>
> He should have stood up to me regarding what?
>
>>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
>> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
>> to pass.
>>>
>> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
>> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
>
> Michael Malefica Grendelwolf Pendragon LeFay.
>
> The name says it all.
>
>>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
>> adhere to the GLs as well.
>>>
>> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
>> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
>> you are pretending.
>
> Whether mentioned directly or not, that is what was being discussed.
>
>> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
>> description.
>
> I'm sorry. Allow me to correct.
>
> You whined, on at least two threads, that the rule against posting links without accompanying commentary applies only to team Donkey.
>

That's not true at all. I never said there was such a rule, applying to
anyone. Just because you're replying in a different thread doesn't you
get to make up what I've said in other threads.

>>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
>> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
>>>
>> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
>> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
>
> Your PPP threads are Spam and, lacking commentary, are in violation of our GLs.

Once again: you haven't shown that aapc has any GLs. You've been
flaunting a post of yours you titled "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES &
FAQs", but so far all we've seen is that post of yours and you flaunting
it.

>>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
>> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
>
>> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
>> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
>> possibly unknown others) have come up with.

If you joined a group I moderate, and started posting your own "OFFICIAL
GUIDELINES & FAQs" on it, I'd kick your butt out of there.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:27:07 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:12:54 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-09 9:37 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:52:31 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-05 10:57 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:42:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>> On 2022-11-01 4:05 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > >>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> > >>>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> > >>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> > >>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> > >>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> > >>>>>>>>> [...]
> > >>>>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> > >>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook
> > >>>>>>> Ash's childish name-calling noted.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> > >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> > >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> > >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> > >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> > >>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> > >>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> > >>>>>>> I notice you deleted the attribution to Michael pendragon, which George Dance included, Ash:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> > >>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> > >>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> > >>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> > >>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it." - MMP, Oct. 5
> > >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/_e5y_AODqxs/m/8sUTFAKmCgAJ?hl=en
> > >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> MMP = Michael Pendragon.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> HTH and HAND.
> > >>>>>> Odd how Ash keeps deleting attribution to pen...!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> They're now also the coward Canuck hypocrite's words also. Can't let the hypocrite tell others (by cowardly hiding behind someone else's words) to provide comment when he never does, and looks the other way when Jordy has been doing it for years now.
> > >>>>> I can condemn him because I give Jordy some leeway with his song link posts while Dance acts the hypocrite.
> > >>>
> > >>> What is your point in bumping this, George?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Are you trying to prove that your PPB threads have consistently flaunted AAPC's GLs (both the former and current ones) for years?
> > >> That's your claim, Michael. It's your job to try to prove it.
> > >>
> > >> So far you haven't even proved that aapc has any "GLs" to "flaunt".
> > >
> > > I've posted the GLs, George.
> > You posted something you wrote titled "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES &
> > FAQs" -- repeatedly. In fact, I'd say you've been "flaunting" that post
> > of yours.
> > >
> > > I can't imagine what further proof you would need.
> > Let me guide you through it one step at a time.
> >
> > (1) prove that aapc has, or even can have, any "GLs" to begin with.
> How many times do I need to post them before you deign to recognize their existence?
>
> I think that Corey is correct about this one, George.
>
> *Plonk*

Threesome

*plonk*

On 2022-11-08 5:25 p.m., Zod wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-03 3:39 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:05:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 11:32:26 AM UTC-4,
>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-10-31 10:41 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
>>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
>>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
>>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
>>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
>> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
>>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
>>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
>> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
>> for you.
>>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
>>>>
>>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
>>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
>>>>
>>>> But that's nothing new for you.
>>>
>>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
>>>
>> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
>> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
>>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
>>>
>>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
>> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
>>>
>> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
>> your "GLs".
>>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
>> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
>> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
>>>
>> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
>> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
>> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
>>
>> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
>>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
>> the GLs from here on in.
>> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
>> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
>>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
>> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
>> to pass.
>>>
>> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
>> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
>>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
>> adhere to the GLs as well.
>>>
>> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
>> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
>> you are pretending.
>>
>> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
>> description.
>>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
>> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
>>>
>> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
>> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
>
>>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
>> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
>> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
>> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
>> possibly unknown others) have come up with.
>
> Well put, G.D.

Thank you, Zod. I'll point out that MMP is just using another standard
troll tactic. It's a standard troll tactic to tell the people you're
trolling that you're upsetting them. It's meant to insult the other
person, and hopefully, to actually upset them. Even better, the other
person might deny they're upset, meaning the troll can start a fight
about that instead.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:42:01 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-08 5:25 p.m., Zod wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-03 3:39 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:05:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 11:32:26 AM UTC-4,
> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2022-10-31 10:41 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
> >> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> >>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
> >> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
> >> for you.
> >>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
> >>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
> >>>>
> >>>> But that's nothing new for you.
> >>>
> >>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
> >>>
> >> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
> >> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
> >>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
> >>>
> >>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
> >> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
> >>>
> >> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
> >> your "GLs".
> >>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
> >> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
> >> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
> >>>
> >> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
> >> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
> >> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
> >>
> >> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
> >>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
> >> the GLs from here on in.
> >> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
> >> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
> >>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
> >> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
> >> to pass.
> >>>
> >> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
> >> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
> >>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
> >> adhere to the GLs as well.
> >>>
> >> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
> >> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
> >> you are pretending.
> >>
> >> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
> >> description.
> >>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
> >> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
> >>>
> >> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
> >> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
> >
> >>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
> >> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
> >> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
> >> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
> >> possibly unknown others) have come up with.
> >
> > Well put, G.D.
> Thank you, Zod. I'll point out that MMP is just using another standard
> troll tactic. It's a standard troll tactic to tell the people you're
> trolling that you're upsetting them. It's meant to insult the other
> person, and hopefully, to actually upset them. Even better, the other
> person might deny they're upset, meaning the troll can start a fight
> about that instead.

"MEDIC"

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:30:36 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-08 12:42 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-03 3:39 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:05:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 11:32:26 AM UTC-4,
> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2022-10-31 10:41 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
> >> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> >>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
> >> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
> >> for you.
> >>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
> >>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
> >>>>
> >>>> But that's nothing new for you.
> >>>
> >>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
> >>>
> >> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
> >> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
> >
> > You posted my comments under Jim's post and whined that the rules only apply to team Donkey.
> >
> > In the most polite terms, that can be taken as a request for me to extend those rules to the members of the supposed "team Monkey" as well.
> >
> > If, otoh, you were just whining for the sake of whining... god help you.
> >
> >
> >>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
> >>>
> >>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
> >> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
> >>>
> >> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
> >> your "GLs".
> >
> > I may not have specified that they were in the GLs, but the fact remains that they are.
> >
> >>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
> >> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
> >> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
> >>>
> >> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
> >> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
> >> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
> >
> > You made a smarmy comment about the rules only applying to certain individuals.
> >
> >> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
> >>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
> >> the GLs from here on in.
> >> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
> >> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
> >
> > He should have stood up to me regarding what?
> >
> >>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
> >> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
> >> to pass.
> >>>
> >> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
> >> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
> >
> > Michael Malefica Grendelwolf Pendragon LeFay.
> >
> > The name says it all.
> >
> >>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
> >> adhere to the GLs as well.
> >>>
> >> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
> >> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
> >> you are pretending.
> >
> > Whether mentioned directly or not, that is what was being discussed.
> >
> >> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
> >> description.
> >
> > I'm sorry. Allow me to correct.
> >
> > You whined, on at least two threads, that the rule against posting links without accompanying commentary applies only to team Donkey.
> >
> That's not true at all. I never said there was such a rule, applying to
> anyone. Just because you're replying in a different thread doesn't you
> get to make up what I've said in other threads.

There are many ways to whine, George.

You posted my quote on at least three different threads started by Jim.

Contextually, your post can *only* be read as an implicit whine regarding my failure to have reminded Jim about GL rule #8.

Also implicit in your post was a request that I alert Jim of his transgression.

If you are denying that the above were your reasons for reposting my message to Mack in three separate threads, please explain your actual intent for doing so.

> >>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
> >> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
> >>>
> >> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
> >> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
> >
> > Your PPP threads are Spam and, lacking commentary, are in violation of our GLs.
> Once again: you haven't shown that aapc has any GLs. You've been
> flaunting a post of yours you titled "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES &
> FAQs", but so far all we've seen is that post of yours and you flaunting
> it.
> >>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
> >> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
> >
> >> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
> >> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
> >> possibly unknown others) have come up with.
> If you joined a group I moderate, and started posting your own "OFFICIAL
> GUIDELINES & FAQs" on it, I'd kick your butt out of there.

The GLs & FAQs were developed through a series of public, group discussions, which I have already shown that you were both aware of and (initially) a participant in.

If you had any objections to the GLs and FAQs, you had four years in which to voice them.

Whining about it after the fact isn't going to accomplish anything.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:42:01 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-08 5:25 p.m., Zod wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-03 3:39 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:05:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 11:32:26 AM UTC-4,
> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2022-10-31 10:41 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
> >> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> >>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
> >> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
> >> for you.
> >>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
> >>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
> >>>>
> >>>> But that's nothing new for you.
> >>>
> >>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
> >>>
> >> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
> >> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
> >>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
> >>>
> >>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
> >> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
> >>>
> >> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
> >> your "GLs".
> >>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
> >> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
> >> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
> >>>
> >> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
> >> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
> >> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
> >>
> >> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
> >>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
> >> the GLs from here on in.
> >> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
> >> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
> >>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
> >> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
> >> to pass.
> >>>
> >> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
> >> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
> >>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
> >> adhere to the GLs as well.
> >>>
> >> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
> >> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
> >> you are pretending.
> >>
> >> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
> >> description.
> >>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
> >> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
> >>>
> >> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
> >> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
> >
> >>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
> >> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
> >> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
> >> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
> >> possibly unknown others) have come up with.
> >
> > Well put, G.D.
> Thank you, Zod. I'll point out that MMP is just using another standard
> troll tactic. It's a standard troll tactic to tell the people you're
> trolling that you're upsetting them. It's meant to insult the other
> person, and hopefully, to actually upset them. Even better, the other
> person might deny they're upset, meaning the troll can start a fight
> about that instead.

No, George, your (above) complaints regarding extremely minor issues (e.g., whether you're having reposted my message to Mack in three separate threads has an implicit contextual meaning in the form of both a comment and request) strike me as the acts of someone on the point of a nervous breakdown.

Unlike your Donkey, I don't accuse others of throwing hissyfits, unless I honestly believe that they are doing just that.

In any event, I'm tired of your petty bickering.

I have posted some thoughts on "Atlas Shrugged" (a book you recently claimed that I haven't read). As our resident expert on Ayn Rand, why don't you visit that thread and offer your comments on it?

Let's keep what few literary discussions we have on AAPC going.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-08 5:25 p.m., Zod wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-03 3:39 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:05:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 11:32:26 AM UTC-4,
>>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-10-31 10:41 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
>>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
>>>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
>>>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
>>>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
>>>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
>>> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>>>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>>>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>>>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>>>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
>>>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
>>>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
>>> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
>>> for you.
>>>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
>>>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that's nothing new for you.
>>>>
>>>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
>>>>
>>> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
>>> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
>>>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
>>>>
>>>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
>>> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
>>>>
>>> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
>>> your "GLs".
>>>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
>>> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
>>> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
>>>>
>>> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
>>> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
>>> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
>>>
>>> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
>>>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
>>> the GLs from here on in.
>>> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
>>> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
>>>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
>>> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
>>> to pass.
>>>>
>>> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
>>> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
>>>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
>>> adhere to the GLs as well.
>>>>
>>> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
>>> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
>>> you are pretending.
>>>
>>> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
>>> description.
>>>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
>>> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
>>>>
>>> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
>>> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
> >
>>>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
>>> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
>>> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
>>> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
>>> possibly unknown others) have come up with.
>>
>> Well put, G.D.

> Thank you, Zod. I'll point out that MMP is just using another standard
> troll tactic. It's a standard troll tactic to tell the people you're
> trolling that you're upsetting them. It's meant to insult the other
> person, and hopefully, to actually upset them. Even better, the other
> person might deny they're upset, meaning the troll can start a fight
> about that instead.

From Pendragon's response, it looks like you struck a nerve, George.

🙂

On 2022-11-09 9:36 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:44:31 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-08 12:18 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:37:57 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-01 4:14 p.m., Zod wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
>>>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
>>>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
>>>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
>>>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook
>>>>>>>> Ash's childish name-calling noted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>>>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>>>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>>>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>>>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
>>>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
>>>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I notice you deleted the attribution to Michael pendragon, which George Dance included, Ash:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it." - MMP, Oct. 5
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/_e5y_AODqxs/m/8sUTFAKmCgAJ?hl=en
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MMP = Michael Pendragon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HTH and HAND.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Odd how Ash keeps deleting attribution to pen...!
>>>>
>>>>>> The rule is part of our FAQs
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really, Pen...!
>>>> Right; a FAQ is not a set of rules.
>>>>
>>>> This rule of MMP's is from the "Official Guidelines" that he began
>>>> posting onto the group last year and that he keeps saying (without
>>>> providing evidence) that I participated in drafting.
>>>
>>> Our GLs and FAQs are listed in the same post, the title of which is "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES & FAQs."
>>>
>>> Both our Guidelines (GLs) and Facts and Questions (FAQs) contain rules.
>
>> PJ Ross used to post a FAQ here and pretend it was rules. His pretending
>> didn't turn it into rules. Neither does your copying him turn your FAQ
>> into rules.
>
> My final version is split into two sections: Guidelines and FAQs.
>
> The GLs are *not* enforceable rules, but exactly what their name states: guidelines.
>
>>> The rule in question falls under our GLs section (rule #8).
>> That's what I just told Will:
>>>> This rule of MMP's is from the "Official Guidelines" that he began
>>>> posting onto the group last year and that he keeps saying (without
>>>> providing evidence) that I participated in drafting.

>> Why not read the previous posts before you comment on them?
>
> Funny how you forgot to include a copy of your post that I was responding to.

if you have a comment to some other posts of mine, respond to them there.

>
> GEORGE DANCE: Right; a FAQ is not a set of rules.
>
> I posted a revision of my previous statement -- in response to your objection.
>

>

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-09 9:36 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:44:31 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-08 12:18 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:37:57 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-01 4:14 p.m., Zod wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook
> >>>>>>>> Ash's childish name-calling noted.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> >>>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> I notice you deleted the attribution to Michael pendragon, which George Dance included, Ash:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it." - MMP, Oct. 5
> >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/_e5y_AODqxs/m/8sUTFAKmCgAJ?hl=en
> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> MMP = Michael Pendragon.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> HTH and HAND.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Odd how Ash keeps deleting attribution to pen...!
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The rule is part of our FAQs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not really, Pen...!
> >>>> Right; a FAQ is not a set of rules.
> >>>>
> >>>> This rule of MMP's is from the "Official Guidelines" that he began
> >>>> posting onto the group last year and that he keeps saying (without
> >>>> providing evidence) that I participated in drafting.
> >>>
> >>> Our GLs and FAQs are listed in the same post, the title of which is "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES & FAQs."
> >>>
> >>> Both our Guidelines (GLs) and Facts and Questions (FAQs) contain rules.
> >
> >> PJ Ross used to post a FAQ here and pretend it was rules. His pretending
> >> didn't turn it into rules. Neither does your copying him turn your FAQ
> >> into rules.
> >
> > My final version is split into two sections: Guidelines and FAQs.
> >
> > The GLs are *not* enforceable rules, but exactly what their name states: guidelines.
> >
> >>> The rule in question falls under our GLs section (rule #8).
> >> That's what I just told Will:
> >>>> This rule of MMP's is from the "Official Guidelines" that he began
> >>>> posting onto the group last year and that he keeps saying (without
> >>>> providing evidence) that I participated in drafting.
>
> >> Why not read the previous posts before you comment on them?
> >
> > Funny how you forgot to include a copy of your post that I was responding to.
> if you have a comment to some other posts of mine, respond to them there.

Which post is he referring to?
> > GEORGE DANCE: Right; a FAQ is not a set of rules.
> >
> > I posted a revision of my previous statement -- in r

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-09 9:36 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:44:31 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-08 12:18 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:37:57 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-01 4:14 p.m., Zod wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook
> >>>>>>>> Ash's childish name-calling noted.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> >>>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> I notice you deleted the attribution to Michael pendragon, which George Dance included, Ash:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it." - MMP, Oct. 5
> >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/_e5y_AODqxs/m/8sUTFAKmCgAJ?hl=en
> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> MMP = Michael Pendragon.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> HTH and HAND.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Odd how Ash keeps deleting attribution to pen...!
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The rule is part of our FAQs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not really, Pen...!
> >>>> Right; a FAQ is not a set of rules.
> >>>>
> >>>> This rule of MMP's is from the "Official Guidelines" that he began
> >>>> posting onto the group last year and that he keeps saying (without
> >>>> providing evidence) that I participated in drafting.
> >>>
> >>> Our GLs and FAQs are listed in the same post, the title of which is "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES & FAQs."
> >>>
> >>> Both our Guidelines (GLs) and Facts and Questions (FAQs) contain rules.
> >
> >> PJ Ross used to post a FAQ here and pretend it was rules. His pretending
> >> didn't turn it into rules. Neither does your copying him turn your FAQ
> >> into rules.
> >
> > My final version is split into two sections: Guidelines and FAQs.
> >
> > The GLs are *not* enforceable rules, but exactly what their name states: guidelines.
> >
> >>> The rule in question falls under our GLs section (rule #8).
> >> That's what I just told Will:
> >>>> This rule of MMP's is from the "Official Guidelines" that he began
> >>>> posting onto the group last year and that he keeps saying (without
> >>>> providing evidence) that I participated in drafting.
>
> >> Why not read the previous posts before you comment on them?
> >
> > Funny how you forgot to include a copy of your post that I was responding to.
> if you have a comment to some other posts of mine, respond to them there.

I already re-posted it here, George.

You just post-edited it out.

Here, for your benefit, is the complete exchange which took place above:

MMP: The rule is part of our FAQs

DONKEY: Not really, Pen...!

GEORGE DANCE: Right; a FAQ is not a set of rules.

MMP: Our GLs and FAQs are listed in the same post, the title of which is "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES & FAQs." Both our Guidelines (GLs) and Facts and Questions (FAQs) contain rules.
The rule in question falls under our GLs section (rule #8). Please accept my apologies for any confusion my post may have caused.

GEORGE DANCE: That's what I just told Will: Why not read the previous posts before you comment on them?

MMP: Funny how you forgot to include a copy of your post that I was responding to. I posted a revision of my previous statement -- in response to your objection.

GEORGE DANCE: if you have a comment to some other posts of mine, respond to them there.

What part of this exchange are you having such difficulty with?

Again, I see no point in pursuing this discussion any further.

You are obviously either a) pretending to be incredibly dense in order to troll me into needless repetition of the same information, or b) you are just unbelievably dense.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:42:04 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-01 4:05 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> >>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> To October, by William Curtis
>> >>>>> -
>> >>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
>> >>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
>> >>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
>> >>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
>> >>>>> [...]
>> >>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
>> >>>> Sir Cankkkook
>> >>> Ash's childish name-calling noted.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>> >>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>> >>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>> >>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>> >>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
>> >>>> george...@yahoo.ca
>> >>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
>> >>> I notice you deleted the attribution to Michael pendragon, which George Dance included, Ash:
>> >>>
>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> >>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>> >>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>> >>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>> >>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>> >>> an *original* comment or question regarding it." - MMP, Oct. 5
>> >>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/_e5y_AODqxs/m/8sUTFAKmCgAJ?hl=en
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>
>> >>> MMP = Michael Pendragon.
>> >>>
>> >>> HTH and HAND.
>> >> Odd how Ash keeps deleting attribution to pen...!
>> >
>> > They're now also the coward Canuck hypocrite's words also. Can't let the hypocrite tell others (by cowardly hiding behind someone else's words) to provide comment when he never does, and looks the other way when Jordy has been doing it for years now.
>> > I can condemn him because I give Jordy some leeway with his song link posts while Dance acts the hypocrite.

> What is your point in bumping this, George?

> Are you trying to prove that your PPB threads have consistently flaunted AAPC's GLs

Since the guidelines are bogus, that's what should be done.

HTH and HAND.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:30:36 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-08 12:42 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-03 3:39 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:05:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 11:32:26 AM UTC-4,
> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2022-10-31 10:41 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
> >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
> >> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> >>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
> >> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
> >> for you.
> >>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
> >>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
> >>>>
> >>>> But that's nothing new for you.
> >>>
> >>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
> >>>
> >> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
> >> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
> >
> > You posted my comments under Jim's post and whined that the rules only apply to team Donkey.
> >
> > In the most polite terms, that can be taken as a request for me to extend those rules to the members of the supposed "team Monkey" as well.
> >
> > If, otoh, you were just whining for the sake of whining... god help you.
> >
> >
> >>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
> >>>
> >>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
> >> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
> >>>
> >> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
> >> your "GLs".
> >
> > I may not have specified that they were in the GLs, but the fact remains that they are.
> >
> >>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
> >> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
> >> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
> >>>
> >> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
> >> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
> >> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
> >
> > You made a smarmy comment about the rules only applying to certain individuals.
> >
> >> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
> >>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
> >> the GLs from here on in.
> >> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
> >> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
> >
> > He should have stood up to me regarding what?
> >
> >>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
> >> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
> >> to pass.
> >>>
> >> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
> >> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
> >
> > Michael Malefica Grendelwolf Pendragon LeFay.
> >
> > The name says it all.
> >
> >>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
> >> adhere to the GLs as well.
> >>>
> >> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
> >> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
> >> you are pretending.
> >
> > Whether mentioned directly or not, that is what was being discussed.
> >
> >> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
> >> description.
> >
> > I'm sorry. Allow me to correct.
> >
> > You whined, on at least two threads, that the rule against posting links without accompanying commentary applies only to team Donkey.
> >
> That's not true at all. I never said there was such a rule, applying to
> anyone. Just because you're replying in a different thread doesn't you
> get to make up what I've said in other threads.
> >>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
> >> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
> >>>
> >> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
> >> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
> >
> > Your PPP threads are Spam and, lacking commentary, are in violation of our GLs.
> Once again: you haven't shown that aapc has any GLs. You've been
> flaunting a post of yours you titled "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES &
> FAQs", but so far all we've seen is that post of yours and you flaunting
> it.
> >>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
> >> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
> >
> >> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
> >> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
> >> possibly unknown others) have come up with.
> If you joined a group I moderate, and started posting your own "OFFICIAL
> GUIDELINES & FAQs" on it, I'd kick your butt out of there.

I've been posting here for over twenty years.

It takes more than a shit spewing little monkey like Pendragon to simply walk in and take over a Usenet newsgroup.

HTH and HAND.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:41:39 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:30:36 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-08 12:42 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-03 3:39 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:05:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >>>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 11:32:26 AM UTC-4,
> > >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 2022-10-31 10:41 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
> > >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> > >>>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> > >>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> > >>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> > >>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> > >>>>>>>>> [...]
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> > >>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
> > >> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> > >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> > >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> > >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> > >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> > >>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> > >>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
> > >> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
> > >> for you.
> > >>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
> > >>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But that's nothing new for you.
> > >>>
> > >>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
> > >>>
> > >> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
> > >> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
> > >
> > > You posted my comments under Jim's post and whined that the rules only apply to team Donkey.
> > >
> > > In the most polite terms, that can be taken as a request for me to extend those rules to the members of the supposed "team Monkey" as well.
> > >
> > > If, otoh, you were just whining for the sake of whining... god help you.
> > >
> > >
> > >>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
> > >>>
> > >>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
> > >> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
> > >>>
> > >> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
> > >> your "GLs".
> > >
> > > I may not have specified that they were in the GLs, but the fact remains that they are.
> > >
> > >>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
> > >> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
> > >> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
> > >>>
> > >> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
> > >> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
> > >> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
> > >
> > > You made a smarmy comment about the rules only applying to certain individuals.
> > >
> > >> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
> > >>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
> > >> the GLs from here on in.
> > >> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
> > >> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
> > >
> > > He should have stood up to me regarding what?
> > >
> > >>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
> > >> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
> > >> to pass.
> > >>>
> > >> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
> > >> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
> > >
> > > Michael Malefica Grendelwolf Pendragon LeFay.
> > >
> > > The name says it all.
> > >
> > >>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
> > >> adhere to the GLs as well.
> > >>>
> > >> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
> > >> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
> > >> you are pretending.
> > >
> > > Whether mentioned directly or not, that is what was being discussed.
> > >
> > >> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
> > >> description.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry. Allow me to correct.
> > >
> > > You whined, on at least two threads, that the rule against posting links without accompanying commentary applies only to team Donkey.
> > >
> > That's not true at all. I never said there was such a rule, applying to
> > anyone. Just because you're replying in a different thread doesn't you
> > get to make up what I've said in other threads.
> > >>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
> > >> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
> > >>>
> > >> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
> > >> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
> > >
> > > Your PPP threads are Spam and, lacking commentary, are in violation of our GLs.
> > Once again: you haven't shown that aapc has any GLs. You've been
> > flaunting a post of yours you titled "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES &
> > FAQs", but so far all we've seen is that post of yours and you flaunting
> > it.
> > >>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
> > >> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
> > >
> > >> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
> > >> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
> > >> possibly unknown others) have come up with.
> > If you joined a group I moderate, and started posting your own "OFFICIAL
> > GUIDELINES & FAQs" on it, I'd kick your butt out of there.
> I've been posting here for over twenty years.
>
> It takes more than a shit spewing little monkey like Pendragon to simply walk in and take over a Usenet newsgroup.

The GLs don't apply to you Donkey. They're for members only.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:41:39 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:30:36 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > On 2022-11-08 12:42 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > >> On 2022-11-03 3:39 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > >>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 3:05:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > >>>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 11:32:26 AM UTC-4,
>> > >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > >>>>>> On 2022-10-31 10:41 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
>> > >> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
>> > >>>>>>>>> -
>> > >>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
>> > >>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
>> > >>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
>> > >>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
>> > >>>>>>>>> [...]
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
>> > >>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
>> > >> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>> > >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>> > >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>> > >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>> > >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
>> > >>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
>> > >>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
>> > >> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
>> > >> for you.
>> > >>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
>> > >>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> But that's nothing new for you.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
>> > >>>
>> > >> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
>> > >> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
>> > >
>> > > You posted my comments under Jim's post and whined that the rules only apply to team Donkey.
>> > >
>> > > In the most polite terms, that can be taken as a request for me to extend those rules to the members of the supposed "team Monkey" as well.
>> > >
>> > > If, otoh, you were just whining for the sake of whining... god help you.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
>> > >> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
>> > >>>
>> > >> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
>> > >> your "GLs".
>> > >
>> > > I may not have specified that they were in the GLs, but the fact remains that they are.
>> > >
>> > >>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
>> > >> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
>> > >> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
>> > >>>
>> > >> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
>> > >> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
>> > >> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
>> > >
>> > > You made a smarmy comment about the rules only applying to certain individuals.
>> > >
>> > >> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
>> > >>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
>> > >> the GLs from here on in.
>> > >> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
>> > >> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
>> > >
>> > > He should have stood up to me regarding what?
>> > >
>> > >>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
>> > >> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
>> > >> to pass.
>> > >>>
>> > >> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
>> > >> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
>> > >
>> > > Michael Malefica Grendelwolf Pendragon LeFay.
>> > >
>> > > The name says it all.
>> > >
>> > >>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
>> > >> adhere to the GLs as well.
>> > >>>
>> > >> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
>> > >> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
>> > >> you are pretending.
>> > >
>> > > Whether mentioned directly or not, that is what was being discussed.
>> > >
>> > >> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
>> > >> description.
>> > >
>> > > I'm sorry. Allow me to correct.
>> > >
>> > > You whined, on at least two threads, that the rule against posting links without accompanying commentary applies only to team Donkey.
>> > >
>> > That's not true at all. I never said there was such a rule, applying to
>> > anyone. Just because you're replying in a different thread doesn't you
>> > get to make up what I've said in other threads.
>> > >>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
>> > >> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
>> > >>>
>> > >> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
>> > >> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
>> > >
>> > > Your PPP threads are Spam and, lacking commentary, are in violation of our GLs.
>> > Once again: you haven't shown that aapc has any GLs. You've been
>> > flaunting a post of yours you titled "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES &
>> > FAQs", but so far all we've seen is that post of yours and you flaunting
>> > it.
>> > >>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
>> > >> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
>> > >
>> > >> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
>> > >> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
>> > >> possibly unknown others) have come up with.
>> > If you joined a group I moderate, and started posting your own "OFFICIAL
>> > GUIDELINES & FAQs" on it, I'd kick your butt out of there.
>> I've been posting here for over twenty years.
>>
>> It takes more than a shit spewing little monkey like Pendragon to simply walk in and take over a Usenet newsgroup.

Funny how my foes skipped and ignored me saying that I was tolerant of their some of their posting just links with no other commentary...

I doesn't support their misrepresenting narrative of me so it must be ignored, even when they cannot ignore anything else from me-- except for my poetry. So much for Will's claim of being here for the poetry...

Will Dockery wrote:

> Michael Pendragon wrote:

>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:41:39 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:30:36 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> > On 2022-11-08 12:42 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> > > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
>>> > >>>>>>>>> -
>>> > >>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
>>> > >>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
>>> > >>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
>>> > >>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
>>> > >>>>>>>>> [...]
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
>>> > >>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
>>> > >> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
>>> > >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
>>> > >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
>>> > >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
>>> > >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
>>> > >>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
>>> > >>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
>>> > >>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
>>> > >>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
>>> > >>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
>>> > >> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
>>> > >> for you.
>>> > >>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
>>> > >>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> But that's nothing new for you.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
>>> > >> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
>>> > >
>>> > > You posted my comments under Jim's post and whined that the rules only apply to team Donkey.
>>> > >
>>> > > In the most polite terms, that can be taken as a request for me to extend those rules to the members of the supposed "team Monkey" as well.
>>> > >
>>> > > If, otoh, you were just whining for the sake of whining... god help you.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
>>> > >> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
>>> > >> your "GLs".
>>> > >
>>> > > I may not have specified that they were in the GLs, but the fact remains that they are.
>>> > >
>>> > >>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
>>> > >> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
>>> > >> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
>>> > >> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
>>> > >> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
>>> > >
>>> > > You made a smarmy comment about the rules only applying to certain individuals.
>>> > >
>>> > >> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
>>> > >>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
>>> > >> the GLs from here on in.
>>> > >> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
>>> > >> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
>>> > >
>>> > > He should have stood up to me regarding what?
>>> > >
>>> > >>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
>>> > >> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
>>> > >> to pass.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
>>> > >> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
>>> > >
>>> > > Michael Malefica Grendelwolf Pendragon LeFay.
>>> > >
>>> > > The name says it all.
>>> > >
>>> > >>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
>>> > >> adhere to the GLs as well.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
>>> > >> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
>>> > >> you are pretending.
>>> > >
>>> > > Whether mentioned directly or not, that is what was being discussed.
>>> > >
>>> > >> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
>>> > >> description.
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm sorry. Allow me to correct.
>>> > >
>>> > > You whined, on at least two threads, that the rule against posting links without accompanying commentary applies only to team Donkey.
>>> > >
>>> > That's not true at all. I never said there was such a rule, applying to
>>> > anyone. Just because you're replying in a different thread doesn't you
>>> > get to make up what I've said in other threads.
>>> > >>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
>>> > >> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
>>> > >> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
>>> > >
>>> > > Your PPP threads are Spam and, lacking commentary, are in violation of our GLs.
>>> > Once again: you haven't shown that aapc has any GLs. You've been
>>> > flaunting a post of yours you titled "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES &
>>> > FAQs", but so far all we've seen is that post of yours and you flaunting
>>> > it.
>>> > >>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
>>> > >> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
>>> > >
>>> > >> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
>>> > >> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
>>> > >> possibly unknown others) have come up with.
>>> > If you joined a group I moderate, and started posting your own "OFFICIAL
>>> > GUIDELINES & FAQs" on it, I'd kick your butt out of there.
>>> I've been posting here for over twenty years.
>>>
>>> It takes more than a shit spewing little monkey like Pendragon to simply walk in and take over a Usenet newsgroup.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:30:36 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-08 12:42 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 2:22:51 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>>> Sir Cankkkook, according to your very own ass opinion, your post
> >> is OUT OF ORDER!! See your ass opinion's word below:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "We have a rule regarding the posting of links
> >>>>>>>> and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack.
> >>>>>>>> And that rule is that when we post someone else's
> >>>>>>>> essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post
> >>>>>>>> an *original* comment or question regarding it."
> >>>>>>>> george...@yahoo.ca
> >>>>>>>> Oct 28, 2022, 4:42:19 PM (yesterday)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Good catch, Ash.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ash has a point, George.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've just explained to Jim (at your request) that we are expected
> >> to provide commentary with any links that we post. The same holds true
> >> for you.
> >>>>>> I made no such request. Must you lie about everything?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Call it what you want, George. I was being polite.
> >>>> You misrepresented George Dance, little monkey.
> >>>>
> >>>> But that's nothing new for you.
> >>>
> >>> How is the use of polite language a misrepresentation?
> >>>
> >> You claimed that I requested something that you knew I didn't. That's
> >> not just misrepresentation but outright lying.
> >
> > You posted my comments under Jim's post and whined that the rules only apply to team Donkey.
> >
> > In the most polite terms, that can be taken as a request for me to extend those rules to the members of the supposed "team Monkey" as well.
> >
> > If, otoh, you were just whining for the sake of whining... god help you.
> >
> >
> >>> However, if it will make you happy, I'll rephrase it more accurately:
> >>>
> >>> I had informed Mack (as a new member) that posting links without
> >> commentary is against our GLs, and frowned upon.
> >>>
> >> That's almost true. The only false part is that you said anything about
> >> your "GLs".
> >
> > I may not have specified that they were in the GLs, but the fact remains that they are.
> >
> >>> George Dance seized this opportunity to respond to one of Jim's posts
> >> by reposting my message to Mack (above), along with a smarmy comment
> >> implying that the GLs were being selectively enforced.
> >>>
> >> And there you go lying again. I didn't make any "smarmy comment" to the
> >> Chimp about "the GLs ... bein selectively enforced." In fact, I didn't
> >> make any comment to the Chimp at all. I just sent him your rule.
> >
> > You made a smarmy comment about the rules only applying to certain individuals.
> >
> >> I didn't make any comment to the Chimp. I simply posted him your rule,
> >>> I brought the matter to Jim's attention, and he promised to adhere to
> >> the GLs from here on in.
> >> He should have stood up to you. In fact, I think I'll write and tell him
> >> that. He probably won't read it, either, but it will be archived.
> >
> > He should have stood up to me regarding what?
> >
> >>> Ash then informed George that he was being something of a hypocrite,
> >> as he regularly posts links without commentary -- which I also allowed
> >> to pass.
> >>>
> >> What do you mean, you "allowed" them to pass? There's no rule against
> >> it. Sometimes I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are.
> >
> > Michael Malefica Grendelwolf Pendragon LeFay.
> >
> > The name says it all.
> >
> >>> I then told George that Ash had a valid point, and that George should
> >> adhere to the GLs as well.
> >>>
> >> Once again, there was no discussion of "GLs" in any of this. It's not
> >> that big a deal for you to pretend that we were talkin about that, but
> >> you are pretending.
> >
> > Whether mentioned directly or not, that is what was being discussed.
> >
> >> Your "accurate description" is no more honest than your "polite"
> >> description.
> >
> > I'm sorry. Allow me to correct.
> >
> > You whined, on at least two threads, that the rule against posting links without accompanying commentary applies only to team Donkey.
> >
> That's not true at all. I never said there was such a rule, applying to
> anyone. Just because you're replying in a different thread doesn't you
> get to make up what I've said in other threads.
> >>> The last time I looked, George posted a comment along with his link,
> >> so hopefully this tempest in a teapot has blown over.
> >>>
> >> Given that you've since trolled two more PPP threads, with the same "GL"
> >> misinformation, this one had to be revisited.
> >
> > Your PPP threads are Spam and, lacking commentary, are in violation of our GLs.
> Once again: you haven't shown that aapc has any GLs. You've been
> flaunting a post of yours you titled "AAPC - OFFICIAL GUIDELINES &
> FAQs", but so far all we've seen is that post of yours and you flaunting
> it.
> >>> I don't understand why George should be upset at my referring to his
> >> post in a positive light -- but this recap will hopefully mollify him.
> >
> >> Oh, stop pretending that you're getting me 'upset'. I'm simply pointing
> >> out your dishonesty in pretending that I support this rule that you (and
> >> possibly unknown others) have come up with.
> If you joined a group I moderate, and started posting your own "OFFICIAL
> GUIDELINES & FAQs" on it, I'd kick your butt out of there.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep, well put, G.D. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:21:38 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Zod. I'll point out that MMP is just using another standard
> > troll tactic. It's a standard troll tactic to tell the people you're
> > trolling that you're upsetting them. It's meant to insult the other
> > person, and hopefully, to actually upset them. Even better, the other
> > person might deny they're upset, meaning the troll can start a fight
> > about that instead.
>
> DONKEY: From Pendragon's response, it looks like you struck a nerve, George.

Like I said. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

:)

On 2022-11-09 9:29 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:39:31 AM UTC-5,
george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-08 12:22 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:43:22 AM UTC-5,
george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-01 8:44 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 4:14:45 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-4,
michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
>>>>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
>>>>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
>>>>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
>>>>>>> The rule is part of our FAQs
>>>>>> Not really, Pen...!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, really, Stink.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current AAPC members collaborated on a set of GLs and posted
them under our new FAQs. You'll find the issue in question under 8):
>>>> Since you're giving a link, you don't have to paste the whole
>>>> monstrosity in here; just the relevant section.
>>>
>>> This precludes the possibility of your pretending not to have seen it.
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> 8) Don’t post and run. If you post a famous poem, make an
original comment on it. We all have, or are capable of subscribing to,
Poem a Day. We don’t need to read (or reread) every single poem that you
do. If you like a poem, but can’t think of anything to say about it,
don’t post it.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>

BTW, you're using 'post and run' incorrectly. "Post and run" refers to
posting an OP and then leaving the thread.

>>>> Which "current AAPC members" collaborated on these "Guidelines"?
Not me.
>>>
>>> You were involved in the initial discussions -- possibly some of
the later ones as well.
>> The discussion you linked to was not a discussion of "GLs". You haven't
>> shown that there was any discussion on aapc of "GLs".
>
> The title of the thread I'd posted a link to is "FAQ: First Draft of
Part I."
>
> This clearly shows that the revision was still a work in progress,
and the act of my posting a work in progress is in itself a call for
c&c. However, I specifically ask for group input in my opening statement:
>
> "Here's a very rough draft of the first portion of our proposed FAQs.
I've done a quick edit/update from the original FAQs (thanks Will), and
welcome as many suggestions/changes (and discussions) as possible)."
>
> As you can see from my addressing "Will," the Donkey was involved at
this stage as well.
>

The important point is that it's a "first portion of our proposed FAQs,"
not of "rules" or "GLs". More importantly, there's no further discussion.

> But we're really interested in what George Dance had to say:
>
> "I'm happy to see you pick up the ball and run with it; and I don't
see anything I object to strongly. I added my 2 poetry sites, of
course. Beyond that, I made 2 changes: I changed "critiques" to
"criticism" - I think the former word is way too pretentious, and
offputting: I know we allow comments, too, but the idea of having to
write a 'critique' may still scare some people into silence. Let's leave
the critiques to Kant. The other one word change I'd suggest is "The
vast majority" to "Many" - it's more likely to remain true, no matter
who or how many join, while still making the point. I indicated those
changes up above, XX'ing out the words I'd omit and adding the
suggestions after them. Thanks again, and please carry on."
>

since you're so interested, I'll quote something else I said in that thread:

"A FAQ is just a way to pre-answer questions; it is not what some people
tried to use the old FAQ for, as 'rules' to tell anyone how to behave."
Monday, May 29, 2017 at 1:14:36 PM UTC-4
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bazlxZjkvdo/m/YmmIW4eTAwAJ?hl=en

> Wow! George Dance was "happy" to see this first draft of the new
FAQs/GLs. Not only that, but George Dance made suggestions as to the
wording of it, and George Dance thanked me for undertaking this project
and expressed wish, no... pleaded with me, to continue it.

I still think a FAQ has value. As I said in the same message I just quoted:
"What will a FAQ do? I think it's part of sprucing up the group. I
notice you've been promoting aapc-un on fb, and I've noticed more
readers here, probably as a result. I don't expect any one step to turn
this into a great poetry place again, but they're all steps in that
direction."

I supported your FAQ initiative just as I supported the Chimp's Sampler
initiative. I did not support you telling me what I can and can't post
on my own threads. Once again, that is not what a FAQ is for.

> Of course, we were discussion the FAQs at this time, not the GLs
(which is what he will argue now), however, it specifically lists one
very important rule: "All posts *should* be related to poetry as defined
above."

>>> All the members* were involved to the degree that they accepted the
finished GLs/FAQs.
>>>
>> You also haven't shown that anyone "accepted" your "finished" version of
>> them, either.
>
> Over the course of the next four years, various drafts were
submitted, discussed, and modified until the final set appeared.

Really? Yet there's no record of that that I've been able to find;
nothing between your "FAQ: First Draft of Part I" and the "Official
Guidelines" four years later.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/search?q=faq%20author%3Amichael%20author%3Apendragon&hl=en

You may have been discussing it with Team Monkey on e-mail, but I
suspect you wrote this yourself. Not that there's anything wrong with
that; as I told you four years ago, it needed a person to pick up the
ball, and better you than me.

> No one voted to "accept" it, if that's what you mean. The final
draft was accepted in the sense that no one involved saw fit to offer
any further changes/corrections.

I had no problem with it, until it began being used as a pretext to
troll PPB threads.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-09 9:29 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:39:31 AM UTC-5,
> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-08 12:22 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:43:22 AM UTC-5,
> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-01 8:44 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 4:14:45 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-4,
> michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:24:38 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:54:28 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4,
> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To October, by William Curtis
> >>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>> How bright, loved month, upon the fading brow
> >>>>>>>>>>> Of yonder hill, with melancholy air
> >>>>>>>>>>> Spreads thy sweet smile! How bright the hectic glow
> >>>>>>>>>>> Of dying beauty on thy cheek so fair!
> >>>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/10/to-october-william-curtis.html
> >>>>>>> The rule is part of our FAQs
> >>>>>> Not really, Pen...!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, really, Stink.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The current AAPC members collaborated on a set of GLs and posted
> them under our new FAQs. You'll find the issue in question under 8):
> >>>> Since you're giving a link, you don't have to paste the whole
> >>>> monstrosity in here; just the relevant section.
> >>>
> >>> This precludes the possibility of your pretending not to have seen it.
> >>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 8) Don’t post and run. If you post a famous poem, make an
> original comment on it. We all have, or are capable of subscribing to,
> Poem a Day. We don’t need to read (or reread) every single poem that you
> do. If you like a poem, but can’t think of anything to say about it,
> don’t post it.
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>

> BTW, you're using 'post and run' incorrectly. "Post and run" refers to
> posting an OP and then leaving the thread.

> >>>> Which "current AAPC members" collaborated on these "Guidelines"?
> Not me.
> >>>
> >>> You were involved in the initial discussions -- possibly some of
> the later ones as well.
> >> The discussion you linked to was not a discussion of "GLs". You haven't
> >> shown that there was any discussion on aapc of "GLs".
> >
> > The title of the thread I'd posted a link to is "FAQ: First Draft of
> Part I."
> >
> > This clearly shows that the revision was still a work in progress,
> and the act of my posting a work in progress is in itself a call for
> c&c. However, I specifically ask for group input in my opening statement:
> >
> > "Here's a very rough draft of the first portion of our proposed FAQs.
> I've done a quick edit/update from the original FAQs (thanks Will), and
> welcome as many suggestions/changes (and discussions) as possible)."
> >
> > As you can see from my addressing "Will," the Donkey was involved at
> this stage as well.
> >

> The important point is that it's a "first portion of our proposed FAQs,"
> not of "rules" or "GLs". More importantly, there's no further discussion.

> > But we're really interested in what George Dance had to say:
> >
> > "I'm happy to see you pick up the ball and run with it; and I don't
> see anything I object to strongly. I added my 2 poetry sites, of
> course. Beyond that, I made 2 changes: I changed "critiques" to
> "criticism" - I think the former word is way too pretentious, and
> offputting: I know we allow comments, too, but the idea of having to
> write a 'critique' may still scare some people into silence. Let's leave
> the critiques to Kant. The other one word change I'd suggest is "The
> vast majority" to "Many" - it's more likely to remain true, no matter
> who or how many join, while still making the point. I indicated those
> changes up above, XX'ing out the words I'd omit and adding the
> suggestions after them. Thanks again, and please carry on."
> >

> since you're so interested, I'll quote something else I said in that thread:

> "A FAQ is just a way to pre-answer questions; it is not what some people
> tried to use the old FAQ for, as 'rules' to tell anyone how to behave."
> Monday, May 29, 2017 at 1:14:36 PM UTC-4
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bazlxZjkvdo/m/YmmIW4eTAwAJ?hl=en

> > Wow! George Dance was "happy" to see this first draft of the new
> FAQs/GLs. Not only that, but George Dance made suggestions as to the
> wording of it, and George Dance thanked me for undertaking this project
> and expressed wish, no... pleaded with me, to continue it.

> I still think a FAQ has value. As I said in the same message I just quoted:
> "What will a FAQ do? I think it's part of sprucing up the group. I
> notice you've been promoting aapc-un on fb, and I've noticed more
> readers here, probably as a result. I don't expect any one step to turn
> this into a great poetry place again, but they're all steps in that
> direction."

> I supported your FAQ initiative just as I supported the Chimp's Sampler
> initiative. I did not support you telling me what I can and can't post
> on my own threads. Once again, that is not what a FAQ is for.

> > Of course, we were discussion the FAQs at this time, not the GLs
> (which is what he will argue now), however, it specifically lists one
> very important rule: "All posts *should* be related to poetry as defined
> above."

> >>> All the members* were involved to the degree that they accepted the
> finished GLs/FAQs.
> >>>
> >> You also haven't shown that anyone "accepted" your "finished" version of
> >> them, either.
> >
> > Over the course of the next four years, various drafts were
> submitted, discussed, and modified until the final set appeared.

> Really? Yet there's no record of that that I've been able to find;
> nothing between your "FAQ: First Draft of Part I" and the "Official
> Guidelines" four years later.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/search?q=faq%20author%3Amichael%20author%3Apendragon&hl=en

> You may have been discussing it with Team Monkey on e-mail, but I
> suspect you wrote this yourself. Not that there's anything wrong with
> that; as I told you four years ago, it needed a person to pick up the
> ball, and better you than me.

> > No one voted to "accept" it, if that's what you mean. The final
> draft was accepted in the sense that no one involved saw fit to offer
> any further changes/corrections.

> I had no problem with it, until it began being used as a pretext to
> troll PPB threads.

When such guidelines and FAQs are used against some members, it becomes worthless, bogus.

HTH and HAND.