On 2022-11-12 11:11 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-12 2:08 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:48:57 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-09 10:19 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> So, George... apart from their being unenforced "rules," what part's of the GLs/FAQs do you disagree with?
>>>
>> I don't have to ask you the same thing, Michael, as your behavior in
>> three PPB threads tells us which parts of the GLs you disagree with:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> 4) Don’t hijack other people’s threads. If a thread’s topic is “Walt Whitman,” you should only make a comment pertaining to Walt Whitman. If you wish to discuss a poem you’ve written that was inspired by Mr. Whitman, start your own thread.
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Over the past two weeks, you've hijacked every PPB thread to post and to
>> post about these "GLs" of yours. Please stop.
>
> Posting the GLs to a thread (or, in this case, to a series of threads) that continually ignore them is not an example of hijacking, George.

So, Michael, you've set yourself up as the court to decide when your
"GLs" are violated or not. Typical.

>
> As previously noted: your PPB threads have been identified by PJR as "cancellable spam."

Please don't recycle PJ Ross's lies, Michael. I've given you both the
definition of "cancellable spam" (posting the same message to too many
newsgroups) and the criterion. The OP for this thread (1 posting to 2
groups) does not meet either one. Nor do any other PPB threads.

> Guideline #8 was drafted with your PPB threads in mind -- in order to prevent them from being labeled as such.
>

Good to know. You'd originally said that Guideline #8 was drafted to
target Jordy. Thanks for the admission you'd lied, and that you were
targetting me instead.

> You had originally voiced your support for an updated set of GLs.

Please stop repeating that lie, Michael. I supported your decision to
write a new FAQ (provided that it not be used against those posting
here, including myself). We never discussed your "GLs" - I'd never heard
of your "GLs" until you began writing about them in PPB threads in
November.

> Your repeated refusal to adhere to them can only be seen as an act of protest.
>

No one's protesting your "GLs" Michael. I'm telling you to stop using
them as a pretext to disrupt my threads.

snip

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 1:57:11 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-13 8:07 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 8:02:17 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-13 5:34 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
> >>>> You (Will Dockery) didn't suggest anything
> >>>
> >>> Would Pen have accepted Doc's suggestions...?
> >> Notice that the one you proposed (don't post using the names of other
> >> group participants or their families) was simply ignored. If Will had
> >> tried to participate, he'd have got the same treatment.
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> > That is addressed in 5):
> >
> Really? Let's take a look:
> >
> > 5) Flame wars happen – especially in unmoderated groups like this one. However, there are certain lines that no one should ever cross. Don’t attack your opponent’s family members (unless he/she introduces them into the discussion). And remember that what happens on AAPC stays at AAPC. Don’t threaten to contact your opponent’s spouse, employer, etc.
> >
> Nothing there about using other people's names, or the names of their
> family members.
>
> At least you're back to telling easily debunked lies on this thread.

What part of "Don't attack your opponent's family members" are you failing to understand?

> > 6) Don’t repeat or bump posts. If you post an original poem and no one comments on it… tough cookies. Lack of response means that no one found it interesting enough to warrant one. If you must repost it, at least have the decency to wait a year or seven. While you’re waiting you can write something new and try posting it instead. Similarly, if you must bump, please limit yourself to one bump per poem or post.
> > *Seasonal poems, however, can be bumped/reposted each year.
> >
> > 7) Don’t respond to a post unless you have something of value to contribute to the thread. One word replies, and generic responses such as "I agree" and "yep" and "You nailed it" and "having another read" should be avoided. Comments mean comments, not clichés.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 9) Don’t feed the trolls.
> >
> > FAQs:
> >
> > 1. WHAT IS AAPC?
> > Alt.arts.poetry.comments is a Usenet group of poets who share their work
> > for comments or critiques. Some poets use the group as a sounding board
> > before submitting their poem(s) to literary magazines. Most are looking
> > for advice or help in fine-tuning their writing, developing better
> > images, improving their use of language, and making sure their writing
> > is clear and enjoyable to the reader.
> >
> > 2. WHAT DOES C&C MEAN?
> > Generally, Comments & Critiques (or Criticism). Some writers put this
> > in the header of their post (i.e. "Lazy Day Poem - C&C Please") to
> > indicate that they want comments on their poem. However, since the
> > group is devoted to comments, most posts will receive a reply of some
> > kind even without the C&C designation.
> >
> > 3. HOW SHOULD I POST MY POETRY?
> > There are no cut-and-dried rules for posting poetry to AAPC. However,
> > there are a few "don'ts" that are fairly broadly agreed upon:
> > -- Do not post your poem as an attachment to your message. Most
> > internet users are aware that dangerous computer viruses can be
> > contained in Microsoft Word documents, and will ignore .doc
> > attachments. In general, it is easier on the reader to include the poem
> > in the body of the post; downloading and opening attachments usually
> > takes too much time.
> > -- Do not post using HTML. Some newsgroup-reading software cannot
> > handle HTML posts, and some automatically reject them, so not everyone
> > will see your post. They also are larger in size and take up more space
> > on the computer and more bandwidth in transmission. Most software used
> > to read and post newsgroups allows you to choose between posting as
> > plain text or HTML; choose the plain text option.
> > -- Do not attach pictures (binaries, gifs, jpegs, etc.) or sound files
> > (wavs, midis, mpegs, etc.) to your posts. Again, some news servers will
> > automatically reject them, so not everyone will see your post.
> > -- Do not type your poem or message in all capital letters. Using all
> > caps is universally considered "shouting" in newsgroups and chat rooms.
> >
> > 4. HOW MANY POEMS SHOULD I POST AT A TIME?
> > While there is no limit to the number of poems you can post at a
> > sitting, people are most likely to read and respond to your poem if you
> > post no more than two or three at a time. And as mentioned above, since
> > there are many poems posted each day, a shorter work is more likely to
> > receive comments.
> >
> > 5. WHAT KIND OF HEADER SHOULD I USE?
> > Use the title of the poem, if it has one. If you can't decide on a
> > title, try a header like: "Need a Title..." to let the reader know you'd
> > appreciate comments on that subject. If it is your first poem-post, it
> > is fine to use the header "First Poem" or "First Post". Do not use
> > headers designed strictly to get attention, and it is preferable not to
> > use headers that have nothing to do with your poem.
> >
> > 6. DO I HAVE TO HAVE A TITLE FOR MY POEM?
> > Not necessarily - see #5.
> >
> > 7. DO I HAVE TO WRITE A CERTAIN KIND OF POETRY?
> > AAPC has poets who use all forms and styles of poetry. The group
> > includes but is not limited to free verse, tanka, haiku, sonnet,
> > sestina.... Feel free to use the poetic form you are most comfortable
> > with, or to post experiments in forms. There are several poets who are
> > quite knowledgeable and can help you with the rules of certain poetic
> > forms.
> >
> > 8. WHAT IF I DON'T GET ANY COMMENTS?
> > There could be several reasons for the lack of comments. Most likely it
> > is because the group is following the old rule: "If you can't say
> > nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all." The readers might not have
> > understood your poem or liked it. Sometimes posts are ignored because
> > of too much bad spelling, grammar or punctuation, which can distract the
> > reader from the content of the poem and make it frustrating to get
> > through.
> > Check your post again; look for typos, correct any errors that you find,
> > and repost it in a few days with the note that it has been revised.
> > It is an (until now) unspoken rule, though, that it is best to read the
> > group for a few days, contribute some comments of your own, then post
> > your poem once people have noticed you and gotten to know you. Many
> > readers are more comfortable commenting when they've seen you around for
> > awhile and know that you are interested in what they have to say.
> > Also, consider the length of your post. Since there are many poems
> > posted every day, a shorter work is more likely to receive comments.
> >
> > 9. SHOULD I RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS I RECEIVE?
> > Definitely! Even if you don't agree with the comment, it is a courtesy
> > to make a brief response to show you appreciated the time taken to read
> > and reply to your poem. If you repeatedly do not respond to comments on
> > your work, you may find that readers stop commenting altogether.
> >
> > 10. WHEN AND HOW SHOULD I COMMENT ON OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS?
> > All posts are open to comments. Feel free to point out what
> > specifically you liked about the poem: what lines, images, words did you
> > find particularly interesting or captivating? At the same time, you can
> > also point out any changes you feel might enhance the poem. If you feel
> > a word in a certain place is awkward, feel free to comment on it and
> > suggest a suitable replacement word if you can. It isn't necessary to
> > give a detailed commentary on each poem, though; in general, the poet
> > will appreciate knowing you read the poem, so a few words to indicate
> > you read and enjoyed it are always nice.
> >
> > 11. IS IT OK TO EMAIL MY COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE POET?
> > This is usually a matter of personal preference. If you have become
> > familiar with the poet through other posts to the newsgroup, it is
> > generally acceptable. If you do not know the person, they may ignore
> > your email, so it is preferable to post to the group.
> >
> > 12. CAN I REWRITE SOMEONE'S POEM FOR THEM?
> > If you feel comfortable doing so, the poet will usually appreciate the
> > effort involved. Rewriting sections or giving comments on specific
> > lines are welcome as well.
> >
> > 13. DO YOU HAVE IRC CHATS OR OTHER SCHEDULED GATHERINGS?
> > Not as of this writing (February 1999). There is a semi-official AAPC
> > chat room but it has never been used for a formal AAPC chat. There has
> > also been some banter on having a picnic in the summer of 1999, but no
> > volunteer hosts as of yet.
> >
> > 14. ARE THERE ANY AAPC-RELATED WEB SITES?
> > Many of the poets have their own sites, and most list them in their
> > signature files or post notices of updates to the newsgroup.
> >
> > 15. ARE THERE ANY PUBLISHED / FAMOUS / INFAMOUS POETS IN THE GROUP?
> > Depends on who you ask! The vast majority of the poets have had some of
> > their work published. Some are published widely in anthologies and
> > well-respected poetry journals. No one has made a million from their
> > poetry, but we have our suspicions on who will be famous someday.
> >
> > 16. DO POETRY EDITORS READ THE NEWSGROUP?
> > Some participants are editors of poetry journals, both on-line and
> > print. Quite possibly there are other editors who "lurk" (read but
> > don't post).
> >
> > 17. MIGHT I BE OFFERED A BOOK CONTRACT BY POSTING MY POETRY HERE?
> > Not likely. If you are, be very suspicious of it.
> >
> > 18. WHAT IS CONSIDERED "OFF-TOPIC"?
> > Poets by their nature enjoy tangents. You'll see a lot of threads
> > beginning with a poem and going off in a sometimes bizarre, completely
> > unrelated direction.
> > By and large, keep your original posts (not part of an existing thread)
> > limited to your own poetry, or questions about poetry.
> >
> > 19. DO I HAVE TO USE MY REAL NAME?
> > Internet handles are okay, many regulars use them. To build
> > familiarity, stick to the same one, or use your real name.

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:04:46 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-13 5:19 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>
> Also, George Dance didn't tell the truth (above).
> I said (above) that Michael wrote the Guidelines in 2019 and 2020 mainly
> if not completely on his own. Your proof that he presented a draft of
> them for Team Monkey's approval in January 2021 was valuable new
> information, which I didn't have and which I thanked you for, but
> doesn't disprove anything I've said.
>
> OTOH, it does disprove Michael's claim that y'all had been working on
> the GLs since 2017 (which is why I thanked you).

How does it disprove anything, George?

The 2017 post is archived.

The 2021 post is a greatly expanded and modified version of the 2017 FAQs/GLs.

It should be obvious, even to a dunce, that the FAQs/GLs had been worked on/developed from 2017 to 2021.

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:19:36 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-12 11:19 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 5:20:09 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>> On 2022-11-12 2:08 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:48:57 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-11-09 10:19 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> So, George... apart from their being unenforced "rules," what part's of the GLs/FAQs do you disagree with?
> >>>>
> >>> I don't have to ask you the same thing, Michael, as your behavior in
> >>> three PPB threads tells us which parts of the GLs you disagree with:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) Don’t hijack other people’s threads. If a thread’s topic is “Walt Whitman,” you should only make a comment pertaining to Walt Whitman. If you wish to discuss a poem you’ve written that was inspired by Mr. Whitman, start your own thread.
> >>>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> Over the past two weeks, you've hijacked every PPB thread to post and to
> >>> post about these "GLs" of yours. Please stop.
> >>>> 5) Flame wars happen – especially in unmoderated groups like this one. However, there are certain lines that no one should ever cross. Don’t attack your opponent’s family members (unless he/she introduces them into the discussion). And remember that what happens on AAPC stays at AAPC. Don’t threaten to contact your opponent’s spouse, employer, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> 6) Don’t repeat or bump posts. If you post an original poem and no one comments on it… tough cookies. Lack of response means that no one found it interesting enough to warrant one. If you must repost it, at least have the decency to wait a year or seven. While you’re waiting you can write something new and try posting it instead. Similarly, if you must bump, please limit yourself to one bump per poem or post.
> >>>> *Seasonal poems, however, can be bumped/reposted each year.
> >>>>
> >>>> 7) Don’t respond to a post unless you have something of value to contribute to the thread. One word replies, and generic responses such as "I agree" and "yep" and "You nailed it" and "having another read" should be avoided. Comments mean comments, not clichés.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 9) Don’t feed the trolls.
> >>>>
> >>>> FAQs:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. WHAT IS AAPC?
> >>>> Alt.arts.poetry.comments is a Usenet group of poets who share their work
> >>>> for comments or critiques. Some poets use the group as a sounding board
> >>>> before submitting their poem(s) to literary magazines. Most are looking
> >>>> for advice or help in fine-tuning their writing, developing better
> >>>> images, improving their use of language, and making sure their writing
> >>>> is clear and enjoyable to the reader.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. WHAT DOES C&C MEAN?
> >>>> Generally, Comments & Critiques (or Criticism). Some writers put this
> >>>> in the header of their post (i.e. "Lazy Day Poem - C&C Please") to
> >>>> indicate that they want comments on their poem. However, since the
> >>>> group is devoted to comments, most posts will receive a reply of some
> >>>> kind even without the C&C designation.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. HOW SHOULD I POST MY POETRY?
> >>>> There are no cut-and-dried rules for posting poetry to AAPC. However,
> >>>> there are a few "don'ts" that are fairly broadly agreed upon:
> >>>> -- Do not post your poem as an attachment to your message. Most
> >>>> internet users are aware that dangerous computer viruses can be
> >>>> contained in Microsoft Word documents, and will ignore .doc
> >>>> attachments. In general, it is easier on the reader to include the poem
> >>>> in the body of the post; downloading and opening attachments usually
> >>>> takes too much time.
> >>>> -- Do not post using HTML. Some newsgroup-reading software cannot
> >>>> handle HTML posts, and some automatically reject them, so not everyone
> >>>> will see your post. They also are larger in size and take up more space
> >>>> on the computer and more bandwidth in transmission. Most software used
> >>>> to read and post newsgroups allows you to choose between posting as
> >>>> plain text or HTML; choose the plain text option.
> >>>> -- Do not attach pictures (binaries, gifs, jpegs, etc.) or sound files
> >>>> (wavs, midis, mpegs, etc.) to your posts. Again, some news servers will
> >>>> automatically reject them, so not everyone will see your post.
> >>>> -- Do not type your poem or message in all capital letters. Using all
> >>>> caps is universally considered "shouting" in newsgroups and chat rooms.
> >>>>
> >>>> 4. HOW MANY POEMS SHOULD I POST AT A TIME?
> >>>> While there is no limit to the number of poems you can post at a
> >>>> sitting, people are most likely to read and respond to your poem if you
> >>>> post no more than two or three at a time. And as mentioned above, since
> >>>> there are many poems posted each day, a shorter work is more likely to
> >>>> receive comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> 5. WHAT KIND OF HEADER SHOULD I USE?
> >>>> Use the title of the poem, if it has one. If you can't decide on a
> >>>> title, try a header like: "Need a Title..." to let the reader know you'd
> >>>> appreciate comments on that subject. If it is your first poem-post, it
> >>>> is fine to use the header "First Poem" or "First Post". Do not use
> >>>> headers designed strictly to get attention, and it is preferable not to
> >>>> use headers that have nothing to do with your poem.
> >>>>
> >>>> 6. DO I HAVE TO HAVE A TITLE FOR MY POEM?
> >>>> Not necessarily - see #5.
> >>>>
> >>>> 7. DO I HAVE TO WRITE A CERTAIN KIND OF POETRY?
> >>>> AAPC has poets who use all forms and styles of poetry. The group
> >>>> includes but is not limited to free verse, tanka, haiku, sonnet,
> >>>> sestina.... Feel free to use the poetic form you are most comfortable
> >>>> with, or to post experiments in forms. There are several poets who are
> >>>> quite knowledgeable and can help you with the rules of certain poetic
> >>>> forms.
> >>>>
> >>>> 8. WHAT IF I DON'T GET ANY COMMENTS?
> >>>> There could be several reasons for the lack of comments. Most likely it
> >>>> is because the group is following the old rule: "If you can't say
> >>>> nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all." The readers might not have
> >>>> understood your poem or liked it. Sometimes posts are ignored because
> >>>> of too much bad spelling, grammar or punctuation, which can distract the
> >>>> reader from the content of the poem and make it frustrating to get
> >>>> through.
> >>>> Check your post again; look for typos, correct any errors that you find,
> >>>> and repost it in a few days with the note that it has been revised.
> >>>> It is an (until now) unspoken rule, though, that it is best to read the
> >>>> group for a few days, contribute some comments of your own, then post
> >>>> your poem once people have noticed you and gotten to know you. Many
> >>>> readers are more comfortable commenting when they've seen you around for
> >>>> awhile and know that you are interested in what they have to say.
> >>>> Also, consider the length of your post. Since there are many poems
> >>>> posted every day, a shorter work is more likely to receive comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> 9. SHOULD I RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS I RECEIVE?
> >>>> Definitely! Even if you don't agree with the comment, it is a courtesy
> >>>> to make a brief response to show you appreciated the time taken to read
> >>>> and reply to your poem. If you repeatedly do not respond to comments on
> >>>> your work, you may find that readers stop commenting altogether.
> >>>>
> >>>> 10. WHEN AND HOW SHOULD I COMMENT ON OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS?
> >>>> All posts are open to comments. Feel free to point out what
> >>>> specifically you liked about the poem: what lines, images, words did you
> >>>> find particularly interesting or captivating? At the same time, you can
> >>>> also point out any changes you feel might enhance the poem. If you feel
> >>>> a word in a certain place is awkward, feel free to comment on it and
> >>>> suggest a suitable replacement word if you can. It isn't necessary to
> >>>> give a detailed commentary on each poem, though; in general, the poet
> >>>> will appreciate knowing you read the poem, so a few words to indicate
> >>>> you read and enjoyed it are always nice.
> >>>>
> >>>> 11. IS IT OK TO EMAIL MY COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE POET?
> >>>> This is usually a matter of personal preference. If you have become
> >>>> familiar with the poet through other posts to the newsgroup, it is
> >>>> generally acceptable. If you do not know the person, they may ignore
> >>>> your email, so it is preferable to post to the group.
> >>>>
> >>>> 12. CAN I REWRITE SOMEONE'S POEM FOR THEM?
> >>>> If you feel comfortable doing so, the poet will usually appreciate the
> >>>> effort involved. Rewriting sections or giving comments on specific
> >>>> lines are welcome as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> 13. DO YOU HAVE IRC CHATS OR OTHER SCHEDULED GATHERINGS?
> >>>> Not as of this writing (February 1999). There is a semi-official AAPC
> >>>> chat room but it has never been used for a formal AAPC chat. There has
> >>>> also been some banter on having a picnic in the summer of 1999, but no
> >>>> volunteer hosts as of yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> 14. ARE THERE ANY AAPC-RELATED WEB SITES?
> >>>> Many of the poets have their own sites, and most list them in their
> >>>> signature files or post notices of updates to the newsgroup.
> >>>>
> >>>> 15. ARE THERE ANY PUBLISHED / FAMOUS / INFAMOUS POETS IN THE GROUP?
> >>>> Depends on who you ask! The vast majority of the poets have had some of
> >>>> their work published. Some are published widely in anthologies and
> >>>> well-respected poetry journals. No one has made a million from their
> >>>> poetry, but we have our suspicions on who will be famous someday.
> >>>>
> >>>> 16. DO POETRY EDITORS READ THE NEWSGROUP?
> >>>> Some participants are editors of poetry journals, both on-line and
> >>>> print. Quite possibly there are other editors who "lurk" (read but
> >>>> don't post).
> >>>>
> >>>> 17. MIGHT I BE OFFERED A BOOK CONTRACT BY POSTING MY POETRY HERE?
> >>>> Not likely. If you are, be very suspicious of it.
> >>>>
> >>>> 18. WHAT IS CONSIDERED "OFF-TOPIC"?
> >>>> Poets by their nature enjoy tangents. You'll see a lot of threads
> >>>> beginning with a poem and going off in a sometimes bizarre, completely
> >>>> unrelated direction.
> >>>> By and large, keep your original posts (not part of an existing thread)
> >>>> limited to your own poetry, or questions about poetry.
> >>>>
> >>>> 19. DO I HAVE TO USE MY REAL NAME?
> >>>> Internet handles are okay, many regulars use them. To build
> >>>> familiarity, stick to the same one, or use your real name.
> >> The guidelines were written in 1999, why do you attribute them to Michael?
> >
> > I proposed that we rewrite the GLs in 2017 (with George's encouragement and support): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bazlxZjkvdo/m/EHSpG55UBQAJ?hl=en
>
> Tell the truth, Michael. There was no discussion of "GLs" in 2017, as a
> quick read of the thread will show.

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:47:08 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-12 11:11 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-12 2:08 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:48:57 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-09 10:19 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>> So, George... apart from their being unenforced "rules," what part's of the GLs/FAQs do you disagree with?
> >>>
> >> I don't have to ask you the same thing, Michael, as your behavior in
> >> three PPB threads tells us which parts of the GLs you disagree with:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> 4) Don’t hijack other people’s threads. If a thread’s topic is “Walt Whitman,” you should only make a comment pertaining to Walt Whitman. If you wish to discuss a poem you’ve written that was inspired by Mr. Whitman, start your own thread.
> >>>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Over the past two weeks, you've hijacked every PPB thread to post and to
> >> post about these "GLs" of yours. Please stop.
> >
> > Posting the GLs to a thread (or, in this case, to a series of threads) that continually ignore them is not an example of hijacking, George.
>
>
> So, Michael, you've set yourself up as the court to decide when your
> "GLs" are violated or not. Typical.
>
> >
> > As previously noted: your PPB threads have been identified by PJR as "cancellable spam."
>
> Please don't recycle PJ Ross's lies, Michael. I've given you both the
> definition of "cancellable spam" (posting the same message to too many
> newsgroups) and the criterion. The OP for this thread (1 posting to 2
> groups) does not meet either one. Nor do any other PPB threads.

Your thread counts as "cancellable spam" because it attempts to direct others to your personal blog.

> > Guideline #8 was drafted with your PPB threads in mind -- in order to prevent them from being labeled as such.
> >
>
> Good to know. You'd originally said that Guideline #8 was drafted to
> target Jordy. Thanks for the admission you'd lied, and that you were
> targetting me instead.

It applies to anyone who posts links without comments. Whether it protects you, or "targets" you depends on whether you choose to follow it.

> > You had originally voiced your support for an updated set of GLs.
>
> Please stop repeating that lie, Michael. I supported your decision to
> write a new FAQ (provided that it not be used against those posting
> here, including myself). We never discussed your "GLs" - I'd never heard
> of your "GLs" until you began writing about them in PPB threads in
> November.

You're picking another semantic nit.

The GLs grew out of the FAQs, and their inception can be traced back to the 2017 post.

> > Your repeated refusal to adhere to them can only be seen as an act of protest.
> >
>
> No one's protesting your "GLs" Michael. I'm telling you to stop using
> them as a pretext to disrupt my threads.

Your threads disrupt AAPC, George.

AAPC is not a bulletin board for you to redirect people to your blog.

If you wish to provide a link to your blog, you need to do so *in the context of* an AAPC discussion.

Rule 8) allows you to continue your spam-ads as long as you attempt to start a discussion at AAPC. One measly little sentence about the poem you're posting a link to will suffice, and it is certainly not an imposition on you to request it.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:47:08 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-12 11:11 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >> On 2022-11-12 2:08 a.m., Michael Pendragon 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
>> >>>
>> >>> So, George... apart from their being unenforced "rules," what part's of the GLs/FAQs do you disagree with?
>> >>>
>> >> I don't have to ask you the same thing, Michael, as your behavior in
>> >> three PPB threads tells us which parts of the GLs you disagree with:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>>
>> >>> 4) Don’t hijack other people’s threads. If a thread’s topic is “Walt Whitman,” you should only make a comment pertaining to Walt Whitman. If you wish to discuss a poem you’ve written that was inspired by Mr. Whitman, start your own thread.
>> >>>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> Over the past two weeks, you've hijacked every PPB thread to post and to
>> >> post about these "GLs" of yours. Please stop.
>> >
>> > Posting the GLs to a thread (or, in this case, to a series of threads) that continually ignore them is not an example of hijacking, George.
>>
>>
>> So, Michael, you've set yourself up as the court to decide when your
>> "GLs" are violated or not. Typical.
>>
>> >
>> > As previously noted: your PPB threads have been identified by PJR as "cancellable spam."
>>
>> Please don't recycle PJ Ross's lies, Michael. I've given you both the
>> definition of "cancellable spam" (posting the same message to too many
>> newsgroups) and the criterion. The OP for this thread (1 posting to 2
>> groups) does not meet either one. Nor do any other PPB threads.

> Your thread counts as "cancellable spam" because it attempts to direct others to your personal blog.

No, I suppose George needs to explain the exact meaning to you again, Pendragon.

HTH and HAND.

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:19:36 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-12 11:19 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 5:20:09 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 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

<snipped for brevity>

> >> The guidelines were written in 1999, why do you attribute them to Michael?
> >
> > I proposed that we rewrite the GLs in 2017 (with George's encouragement and support): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bazlxZjkvdo/m/EHSpG55UBQAJ?hl=en
>
> Tell the truth, Michael. There was no discussion of "GLs" in 2017, as a
> quick read of the thread will show.
>
> >
> > Over the course of the next 5 years, the GLs were continually redrafted to comply with the concerns and include the suggestions of the various AAPC members who participated.
> >
>
> Tell the truth, Michael. In fact, there were no "GLs" as late as
> December 2019:
>
> <quote>
> michaelmalef...@gmail.com
> 12/25/19
> There are no official guidelines for the group, at present.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/LJilyVh7W5c/m/G10_imv5AgAJ?hl=en
> </q>
>
> You wrote them between Christmas 2019 and January 2021 (when you
> presented them to your "members" for approval).
>
>
> > IOW: I wrote the GLs with input from the group; and these GLs were eventually agreed on by everyone involved
>
>
> As usual, you won't say *who* actually agreed with them. But, thanks to
> NG's due diligence, we have list of who agreed:
>
> - you (TM)
> - NG (TM)
> - Ash (TM)
> - Spam-a-Lot (TM fan)
> - fake "Clay Dockery"
>
> Since then, Jim Senetto (TM) has also agreed to comply with them.

Definitely nothing but a monkey nest, then, obviously... in other words, bogus.

HTH and HAND.

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 7:34:58 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:47:08 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-12 11:11 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> >> On 2022-11-12 2:08 a.m., Michael Pendragon 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
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So, George... apart from their being unenforced "rules," what part's of the GLs/FAQs do you disagree with?
> >> >>>
> >> >> I don't have to ask you the same thing, Michael, as your behavior in
> >> >> three PPB threads tells us which parts of the GLs you disagree with:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 4) Don’t hijack other people’s threads. If a thread’s topic is “Walt Whitman,” you should only make a comment pertaining to Walt Whitman. If you wish to discuss a poem you’ve written that was inspired by Mr. Whitman, start your own thread.
> >> >>>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> Over the past two weeks, you've hijacked every PPB thread to post and to
> >> >> post about these "GLs" of yours. Please stop.
> >> >
> >> > Posting the GLs to a thread (or, in this case, to a series of threads) that continually ignore them is not an example of hijacking, George.
> >>
> >>
> >> So, Michael, you've set yourself up as the court to decide when your
> >> "GLs" are violated or not. Typical.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > As previously noted: your PPB threads have been identified by PJR as "cancellable spam."
> >>
> >> Please don't recycle PJ Ross's lies, Michael. I've given you both the
> >> definition of "cancellable spam" (posting the same message to too many
> >> newsgroups) and the criterion. The OP for this thread (1 posting to 2
> >> groups) does not meet either one. Nor do any other PPB threads.
>
> > Your thread counts as "cancellable spam" because it attempts to direct others to your personal blog.
> No, I suppose George needs to explain the exact meaning to you again, Pendragon.

If PJR wishes to explain it, I'll listen to him.

As to George, I don't believe he understands much of anything.

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 9:23:10 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 7:34:58 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:47:08 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-12 11:11 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> >> On 2022-11-12 2:08 a.m., Michael Pendragon 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
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So, George... apart from their being unenforced "rules," what part's of the GLs/FAQs do you disagree with?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> I don't have to ask you the same thing, Michael, as your behavior in
> > >> >> three PPB threads tells us which parts of the GLs you disagree with:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> <snip>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 4) Don’t hijack other people’s threads. If a thread’s topic is “Walt Whitman,” you should only make a comment pertaining to Walt Whitman. If you wish to discuss a poem you’ve written that was inspired by Mr. Whitman, start your own thread.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> <snip>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Over the past two weeks, you've hijacked every PPB thread to post and to
> > >> >> post about these "GLs" of yours. Please stop.
> > >> >
> > >> > Posting the GLs to a thread (or, in this case, to a series of threads) that continually ignore them is not an example of hijacking, George.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So, Michael, you've set yourself up as the court to decide when your
> > >> "GLs" are violated or not. Typical.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > As previously noted: your PPB threads have been identified by PJR as "cancellable spam."
> > >>
> > >> Please don't recycle PJ Ross's lies, Michael. I've given you both the
> > >> definition of "cancellable spam" (posting the same message to too many
> > >> newsgroups) and the criterion. The OP for this thread (1 posting to 2
> > >> groups) does not meet either one. Nor do any other PPB threads.
> >
> > > Your thread counts as "cancellable spam" because it attempts to direct others to your personal blog.
> > No, I suppose George needs to explain the exact meaning to you again, Pendragon.
> If PJR wishes to explain it, I'll listen to him.

Apparently PJR has left the building.

>
> As to George, I don't believe he understands much of anything.

On Thursday, November 10, 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?

That's just Pendragon being Pendragon.

If his fingers are typing he's probably lying.

🙂

On 2022-11-14 3:22 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 1:57:11 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-13 8:07 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 8:02:17 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-13 5:34 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
>>>>>> You (Will Dockery) didn't suggest anything
>>>>>
>>>>> Would Pen have accepted Doc's suggestions...?
>>>> Notice that the one you proposed (don't post using the names of other
>>>> group participants or their families) was simply ignored. If Will had
>>>> tried to participate, he'd have got the same treatment.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> That is addressed in 5):
>>>
>> Really? Let's take a look:
>>>
>>> 5) Flame wars happen – especially in unmoderated groups like this one. However, there are certain lines that no one should ever cross. Don’t attack your opponent’s family members (unless he/she introduces them into the discussion). And remember that what happens on AAPC stays at AAPC. Don’t threaten to contact your opponent’s spouse, employer, etc.
>>>
>> Nothing there about using other people's names, or the names of their
>> family members.
>>
>> At least you're back to telling easily debunked lies on this thread.
>
> What part of "Don't attack your opponent's family members" are you failing to understand?

"Attacking" and "impersonating" do not mean the same thing, Michael.
Words matter. Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.

>>>
>>> 19. DO I HAVE TO USE MY REAL NAME?
>>> Internet handles are okay, many regulars use them. To build
>>> familiarity, stick to the same one, or use your real name.

On 2022-11-14 3:48 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:19:36 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-12 11:19 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 5:20:09 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-11-12 2:08 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:48:57 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-11-09 10:19 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, George... apart from their being unenforced "rules," what part's of the GLs/FAQs do you disagree with?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have to ask you the same thing, Michael, as your behavior in
>>>>> three PPB threads tells us which parts of the GLs you disagree with:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) Don’t hijack other people’s threads. If a thread’s topic is “Walt Whitman,” you should only make a comment pertaining to Walt Whitman. If you wish to discuss a poem you’ve written that was inspired by Mr. Whitman, start your own thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Over the past two weeks, you've hijacked every PPB thread to post and to
>>>>> post about these "GLs" of yours. Please stop.
>>>>>> 5) Flame wars happen – especially in unmoderated groups like this one. However, there are certain lines that no one should ever cross. Don’t attack your opponent’s family members (unless he/she introduces them into the discussion). And remember that what happens on AAPC stays at AAPC. Don’t threaten to contact your opponent’s spouse, employer, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6) Don’t repeat or bump posts. If you post an original poem and no one comments on it… tough cookies. Lack of response means that no one found it interesting enough to warrant one. If you must repost it, at least have the decency to wait a year or seven. While you’re waiting you can write something new and try posting it instead. Similarly, if you must bump, please limit yourself to one bump per poem or post.
>>>>>> *Seasonal poems, however, can be bumped/reposted each year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7) Don’t respond to a post unless you have something of value to contribute to the thread. One word replies, and generic responses such as "I agree" and "yep" and "You nailed it" and "having another read" should be avoided. Comments mean comments, not clichés.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 9) Don’t feed the trolls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAQs:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. WHAT IS AAPC?
>>>>>> Alt.arts.poetry.comments is a Usenet group of poets who share their work
>>>>>> for comments or critiques. Some poets use the group as a sounding board
>>>>>> before submitting their poem(s) to literary magazines. Most are looking
>>>>>> for advice or help in fine-tuning their writing, developing better
>>>>>> images, improving their use of language, and making sure their writing
>>>>>> is clear and enjoyable to the reader.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. WHAT DOES C&C MEAN?
>>>>>> Generally, Comments & Critiques (or Criticism). Some writers put this
>>>>>> in the header of their post (i.e. "Lazy Day Poem - C&C Please") to
>>>>>> indicate that they want comments on their poem. However, since the
>>>>>> group is devoted to comments, most posts will receive a reply of some
>>>>>> kind even without the C&C designation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. HOW SHOULD I POST MY POETRY?
>>>>>> There are no cut-and-dried rules for posting poetry to AAPC. However,
>>>>>> there are a few "don'ts" that are fairly broadly agreed upon:
>>>>>> -- Do not post your poem as an attachment to your message. Most
>>>>>> internet users are aware that dangerous computer viruses can be
>>>>>> contained in Microsoft Word documents, and will ignore .doc
>>>>>> attachments. In general, it is easier on the reader to include the poem
>>>>>> in the body of the post; downloading and opening attachments usually
>>>>>> takes too much time.
>>>>>> -- Do not post using HTML. Some newsgroup-reading software cannot
>>>>>> handle HTML posts, and some automatically reject them, so not everyone
>>>>>> will see your post. They also are larger in size and take up more space
>>>>>> on the computer and more bandwidth in transmission. Most software used
>>>>>> to read and post newsgroups allows you to choose between posting as
>>>>>> plain text or HTML; choose the plain text option.
>>>>>> -- Do not attach pictures (binaries, gifs, jpegs, etc.) or sound files
>>>>>> (wavs, midis, mpegs, etc.) to your posts. Again, some news servers will
>>>>>> automatically reject them, so not everyone will see your post.
>>>>>> -- Do not type your poem or message in all capital letters. Using all
>>>>>> caps is universally considered "shouting" in newsgroups and chat rooms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. HOW MANY POEMS SHOULD I POST AT A TIME?
>>>>>> While there is no limit to the number of poems you can post at a
>>>>>> sitting, people are most likely to read and respond to your poem if you
>>>>>> post no more than two or three at a time. And as mentioned above, since
>>>>>> there are many poems posted each day, a shorter work is more likely to
>>>>>> receive comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5. WHAT KIND OF HEADER SHOULD I USE?
>>>>>> Use the title of the poem, if it has one. If you can't decide on a
>>>>>> title, try a header like: "Need a Title..." to let the reader know you'd
>>>>>> appreciate comments on that subject. If it is your first poem-post, it
>>>>>> is fine to use the header "First Poem" or "First Post". Do not use
>>>>>> headers designed strictly to get attention, and it is preferable not to
>>>>>> use headers that have nothing to do with your poem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6. DO I HAVE TO HAVE A TITLE FOR MY POEM?
>>>>>> Not necessarily - see #5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7. DO I HAVE TO WRITE A CERTAIN KIND OF POETRY?
>>>>>> AAPC has poets who use all forms and styles of poetry. The group
>>>>>> includes but is not limited to free verse, tanka, haiku, sonnet,
>>>>>> sestina.... Feel free to use the poetic form you are most comfortable
>>>>>> with, or to post experiments in forms. There are several poets who are
>>>>>> quite knowledgeable and can help you with the rules of certain poetic
>>>>>> forms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 8. WHAT IF I DON'T GET ANY COMMENTS?
>>>>>> There could be several reasons for the lack of comments. Most likely it
>>>>>> is because the group is following the old rule: "If you can't say
>>>>>> nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all." The readers might not have
>>>>>> understood your poem or liked it. Sometimes posts are ignored because
>>>>>> of too much bad spelling, grammar or punctuation, which can distract the
>>>>>> reader from the content of the poem and make it frustrating to get
>>>>>> through.
>>>>>> Check your post again; look for typos, correct any errors that you find,
>>>>>> and repost it in a few days with the note that it has been revised.
>>>>>> It is an (until now) unspoken rule, though, that it is best to read the
>>>>>> group for a few days, contribute some comments of your own, then post
>>>>>> your poem once people have noticed you and gotten to know you. Many
>>>>>> readers are more comfortable commenting when they've seen you around for
>>>>>> awhile and know that you are interested in what they have to say.
>>>>>> Also, consider the length of your post. Since there are many poems
>>>>>> posted every day, a shorter work is more likely to receive comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 9. SHOULD I RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS I RECEIVE?
>>>>>> Definitely! Even if you don't agree with the comment, it is a courtesy
>>>>>> to make a brief response to show you appreciated the time taken to read
>>>>>> and reply to your poem. If you repeatedly do not respond to comments on
>>>>>> your work, you may find that readers stop commenting altogether.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10. WHEN AND HOW SHOULD I COMMENT ON OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS?
>>>>>> All posts are open to comments. Feel free to point out what
>>>>>> specifically you liked about the poem: what lines, images, words did you
>>>>>> find particularly interesting or captivating? At the same time, you can
>>>>>> also point out any changes you feel might enhance the poem. If you feel
>>>>>> a word in a certain place is awkward, feel free to comment on it and
>>>>>> suggest a suitable replacement word if you can. It isn't necessary to
>>>>>> give a detailed commentary on each poem, though; in general, the poet
>>>>>> will appreciate knowing you read the poem, so a few words to indicate
>>>>>> you read and enjoyed it are always nice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 11. IS IT OK TO EMAIL MY COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE POET?
>>>>>> This is usually a matter of personal preference. If you have become
>>>>>> familiar with the poet through other posts to the newsgroup, it is
>>>>>> generally acceptable. If you do not know the person, they may ignore
>>>>>> your email, so it is preferable to post to the group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 12. CAN I REWRITE SOMEONE'S POEM FOR THEM?
>>>>>> If you feel comfortable doing so, the poet will usually appreciate the
>>>>>> effort involved. Rewriting sections or giving comments on specific
>>>>>> lines are welcome as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 13. DO YOU HAVE IRC CHATS OR OTHER SCHEDULED GATHERINGS?
>>>>>> Not as of this writing (February 1999). There is a semi-official AAPC
>>>>>> chat room but it has never been used for a formal AAPC chat. There has
>>>>>> also been some banter on having a picnic in the summer of 1999, but no
>>>>>> volunteer hosts as of yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 14. ARE THERE ANY AAPC-RELATED WEB SITES?
>>>>>> Many of the poets have their own sites, and most list them in their
>>>>>> signature files or post notices of updates to the newsgroup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 15. ARE THERE ANY PUBLISHED / FAMOUS / INFAMOUS POETS IN THE GROUP?
>>>>>> Depends on who you ask! The vast majority of the poets have had some of
>>>>>> their work published. Some are published widely in anthologies and
>>>>>> well-respected poetry journals. No one has made a million from their
>>>>>> poetry, but we have our suspicions on who will be famous someday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 16. DO POETRY EDITORS READ THE NEWSGROUP?
>>>>>> Some participants are editors of poetry journals, both on-line and
>>>>>> print. Quite possibly there are other editors who "lurk" (read but
>>>>>> don't post).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 17. MIGHT I BE OFFERED A BOOK CONTRACT BY POSTING MY POETRY HERE?
>>>>>> Not likely. If you are, be very suspicious of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 18. WHAT IS CONSIDERED "OFF-TOPIC"?
>>>>>> Poets by their nature enjoy tangents. You'll see a lot of threads
>>>>>> beginning with a poem and going off in a sometimes bizarre, completely
>>>>>> unrelated direction.
>>>>>> By and large, keep your original posts (not part of an existing thread)
>>>>>> limited to your own poetry, or questions about poetry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 19. DO I HAVE TO USE MY REAL NAME?
>>>>>> Internet handles are okay, many regulars use them. To build
>>>>>> familiarity, stick to the same one, or use your real name.
>>>> The guidelines were written in 1999, why do you attribute them to Michael?
>>>
>>> I proposed that we rewrite the GLs in 2017 (with George's encouragement and support): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bazlxZjkvdo/m/EHSpG55UBQAJ?hl=en
>>
>> Tell the truth, Michael. There was no discussion of "GLs" in 2017, as a
>> quick read of the thread will show.
>
> If you are able to read the thread, and if the thread consists of more than one post, a discussion obviously took place.
>
> You posted at least two of those responses in support of it.
>
>>> Over the course of the next 5 years, the GLs were continually redrafted to comply with the concerns and include the suggestions of the various AAPC members who participated.
>>>
>>
>> Tell the truth, Michael. In fact, there were no "GLs" as late as
>> December 2019:
>> <quote>
>> michaelmalef...@gmail.com
>> 12/25/19
>> There are no official guidelines for the group, at present.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/LJilyVh7W5c/m/G10_imv5AgAJ?hl=en
>> </q>
>>
>> You wrote them between Christmas 2019 and January 2021 (when you
>> presented them to your "members" for approval).
>
> What part of "Official" are you failing to comprehend.
>
> The GLs were still being written/discussed/modified in 2019. They did not become Official until they had been approved by the AAPC Members in 2021.
>
>>> IOW: I wrote the GLs with input from the group; and these GLs were eventually agreed on by everyone involved
>>
>>
>> As usual, you won't say *who* actually agreed with them. But, thanks to
>> NG's due diligence, we have list of who agreed:
>>
>> - you (TM)
>> - NG (TM)
>> - Ash (TM)
>> - Spam-a-Lot (TM fan)
>> - fake "Clay Dockery"
>>
>> Since then, Jim Senetto (TM) has also agreed to comply with them.
>
> When proposed GLs are posted for approval, one has the option of approving them or not.
>
> Those who fail to cast their vote, or to voice any objections they might have, have approved it by default.

On 2022-11-15 4:00 a.m., Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, November 10, 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?
>
> That's just Pendragon being Pendragon.
>
> If his fingers are typing he's probably lying.
>
> 🙂

His attempts to cover for his lies are getting more ridiculous. He's now
saying that all the past members of AAPC, living or dead, "approved" his
GLs by not voting.

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 9:40:49 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-14 3:22 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 1:57:11 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-13 8:07 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 8:02:17 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-13 5:34 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
> >>>>>> You (Will Dockery) didn't suggest anything
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would Pen have accepted Doc's suggestions...?
> >>>> Notice that the one you proposed (don't post using the names of other
> >>>> group participants or their families) was simply ignored. If Will had
> >>>> tried to participate, he'd have got the same treatment.
> >>>
> >>> Liar.
> >>>
> >>> That is addressed in 5):
> >>>
> >> Really? Let's take a look:
> >>>
> >>> 5) Flame wars happen – especially in unmoderated groups like this one. However, there are certain lines that no one should ever cross. Don’t attack your opponent’s family members (unless he/she introduces them into the discussion). And remember that what happens on AAPC stays at AAPC. Don’t threaten to contact your opponent’s spouse, employer, etc.
> >>>
> >> Nothing there about using other people's names, or the names of their
> >> family members.
> >>
> >> At least you're back to telling easily debunked lies on this thread.
> >
> > What part of "Don't attack your opponent's family members" are you failing to understand?
> "Attacking" and "impersonating" do not mean the same thing, Michael.

Are you saying that the impersonations we're familiar with at AAPC don't count as personal attacks?

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

If an impersonation is done to demean another person, then it constitutes a form of attack.

Funny how Mr. Thesaurus fails to google "synonyms" the one time it might have helped.

> >>> 19. DO I HAVE TO USE MY REAL NAME?
> >>> Internet handles are okay, many regulars use them. To build
> >>> familiarity, stick to the same one, or use your real name.

On 2022-11-14 6:12 p.m., Will Dockery wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:19:36 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-12 11:19 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 5:20:09 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 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
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
>
>>>> The guidelines were written in 1999, why do you attribute them to Michael?
>>>
>>> I proposed that we rewrite the GLs in 2017 (with George's encouragement and support): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bazlxZjkvdo/m/EHSpG55UBQAJ?hl=en
>>
>> Tell the truth, Michael. There was no discussion of "GLs" in 2017, as a
>> quick read of the thread will show.
>>
>>>
>>> Over the course of the next 5 years, the GLs were continually redrafted to comply with the concerns and include the suggestions of the various AAPC members who participated.
>>>
>>
>> Tell the truth, Michael. In fact, there were no "GLs" as late as
>> December 2019:
>>
>> <quote>
>> michaelmalef...@gmail.com
>> 12/25/19
>> There are no official guidelines for the group, at present.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/LJilyVh7W5c/m/G10_imv5AgAJ?hl=en
>> </q>
>>
>> You wrote them between Christmas 2019 and January 2021 (when you
>> presented them to your "members" for approval).
>>
>>
>>> IOW: I wrote the GLs with input from the group; and these GLs were eventually agreed on by everyone involved
>>
>>
>> As usual, you won't say *who* actually agreed with them. But, thanks to
>> NG's due diligence, we have list of who agreed:
>>
>> - you (TM)
>> - NG (TM)
>> - Ash (TM)
>> - Spam-a-Lot (TM fan)
>> - fake "Clay Dockery"
>>
>> Since then, Jim Senetto (TM) has also agreed to comply with them.
>
> Definitely nothing but a monkey nest, then, obviously... in other words, bogus.
>

They can apply to Team Monkey, but it is bogus to claim that anyone else
has to comply with them.

On 2022-11-12 10:42 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> Stop stinking up the place

That's probably just your "GLs" you smell, Michael.

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:00:56 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-14 3:48 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:19:36 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-12 11:19 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 5:20:09 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-11-12 2:08 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:48:57 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2022-11-09 10:19 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, George... apart from their being unenforced "rules," what part's of the GLs/FAQs do you disagree with?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I don't have to ask you the same thing, Michael, as your behavior in
> >>>>> three PPB threads tells us which parts of the GLs you disagree with:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4) Don’t hijack other people’s threads. If a thread’s topic is “Walt Whitman,” you should only make a comment pertaining to Walt Whitman. If you wish to discuss a poem you’ve written that was inspired by Mr. Whitman, start your own thread.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Over the past two weeks, you've hijacked every PPB thread to post and to
> >>>>> post about these "GLs" of yours. Please stop.
> >>>>>> 5) Flame wars happen – especially in unmoderated groups like this one. However, there are certain lines that no one should ever cross.. Don’t attack your opponent’s family members (unless he/she introduces them into the discussion). And remember that what happens on AAPC stays at AAPC. Don’t threaten to contact your opponent’s spouse, employer, etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 6) Don’t repeat or bump posts. If you post an original poem and no one comments on it… tough cookies. Lack of response means that no one found it interesting enough to warrant one. If you must repost it, at least have the decency to wait a year or seven. While you’re waiting you can write something new and try posting it instead. Similarly, if you must bump, please limit yourself to one bump per poem or post.
> >>>>>> *Seasonal poems, however, can be bumped/reposted each year.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 7) Don’t respond to a post unless you have something of value to contribute to the thread. One word replies, and generic responses such as "I agree" and "yep" and "You nailed it" and "having another read" should be avoided. Comments mean comments, not clichés.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 9) Don’t feed the trolls.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> FAQs:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. WHAT IS AAPC?
> >>>>>> Alt.arts.poetry.comments is a Usenet group of poets who share their work
> >>>>>> for comments or critiques. Some poets use the group as a sounding board
> >>>>>> before submitting their poem(s) to literary magazines. Most are looking
> >>>>>> for advice or help in fine-tuning their writing, developing better
> >>>>>> images, improving their use of language, and making sure their writing
> >>>>>> is clear and enjoyable to the reader.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. WHAT DOES C&C MEAN?
> >>>>>> Generally, Comments & Critiques (or Criticism). Some writers put this
> >>>>>> in the header of their post (i.e. "Lazy Day Poem - C&C Please") to
> >>>>>> indicate that they want comments on their poem. However, since the
> >>>>>> group is devoted to comments, most posts will receive a reply of some
> >>>>>> kind even without the C&C designation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. HOW SHOULD I POST MY POETRY?
> >>>>>> There are no cut-and-dried rules for posting poetry to AAPC. However,
> >>>>>> there are a few "don'ts" that are fairly broadly agreed upon:
> >>>>>> -- Do not post your poem as an attachment to your message. Most
> >>>>>> internet users are aware that dangerous computer viruses can be
> >>>>>> contained in Microsoft Word documents, and will ignore .doc
> >>>>>> attachments. In general, it is easier on the reader to include the poem
> >>>>>> in the body of the post; downloading and opening attachments usually
> >>>>>> takes too much time.
> >>>>>> -- Do not post using HTML. Some newsgroup-reading software cannot
> >>>>>> handle HTML posts, and some automatically reject them, so not everyone
> >>>>>> will see your post. They also are larger in size and take up more space
> >>>>>> on the computer and more bandwidth in transmission. Most software used
> >>>>>> to read and post newsgroups allows you to choose between posting as
> >>>>>> plain text or HTML; choose the plain text option.
> >>>>>> -- Do not attach pictures (binaries, gifs, jpegs, etc.) or sound files
> >>>>>> (wavs, midis, mpegs, etc.) to your posts. Again, some news servers will
> >>>>>> automatically reject them, so not everyone will see your post.
> >>>>>> -- Do not type your poem or message in all capital letters. Using all
> >>>>>> caps is universally considered "shouting" in newsgroups and chat rooms.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4. HOW MANY POEMS SHOULD I POST AT A TIME?
> >>>>>> While there is no limit to the number of poems you can post at a
> >>>>>> sitting, people are most likely to read and respond to your poem if you
> >>>>>> post no more than two or three at a time. And as mentioned above, since
> >>>>>> there are many poems posted each day, a shorter work is more likely to
> >>>>>> receive comments.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5. WHAT KIND OF HEADER SHOULD I USE?
> >>>>>> Use the title of the poem, if it has one. If you can't decide on a
> >>>>>> title, try a header like: "Need a Title..." to let the reader know you'd
> >>>>>> appreciate comments on that subject. If it is your first poem-post, it
> >>>>>> is fine to use the header "First Poem" or "First Post". Do not use
> >>>>>> headers designed strictly to get attention, and it is preferable not to
> >>>>>> use headers that have nothing to do with your poem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 6. DO I HAVE TO HAVE A TITLE FOR MY POEM?
> >>>>>> Not necessarily - see #5.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 7. DO I HAVE TO WRITE A CERTAIN KIND OF POETRY?
> >>>>>> AAPC has poets who use all forms and styles of poetry. The group
> >>>>>> includes but is not limited to free verse, tanka, haiku, sonnet,
> >>>>>> sestina.... Feel free to use the poetic form you are most comfortable
> >>>>>> with, or to post experiments in forms. There are several poets who are
> >>>>>> quite knowledgeable and can help you with the rules of certain poetic
> >>>>>> forms.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 8. WHAT IF I DON'T GET ANY COMMENTS?
> >>>>>> There could be several reasons for the lack of comments. Most likely it
> >>>>>> is because the group is following the old rule: "If you can't say
> >>>>>> nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all." The readers might not have
> >>>>>> understood your poem or liked it. Sometimes posts are ignored because
> >>>>>> of too much bad spelling, grammar or punctuation, which can distract the
> >>>>>> reader from the content of the poem and make it frustrating to get
> >>>>>> through.
> >>>>>> Check your post again; look for typos, correct any errors that you find,
> >>>>>> and repost it in a few days with the note that it has been revised..
> >>>>>> It is an (until now) unspoken rule, though, that it is best to read the
> >>>>>> group for a few days, contribute some comments of your own, then post
> >>>>>> your poem once people have noticed you and gotten to know you. Many
> >>>>>> readers are more comfortable commenting when they've seen you around for
> >>>>>> awhile and know that you are interested in what they have to say.
> >>>>>> Also, consider the length of your post. Since there are many poems
> >>>>>> posted every day, a shorter work is more likely to receive comments.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 9. SHOULD I RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS I RECEIVE?
> >>>>>> Definitely! Even if you don't agree with the comment, it is a courtesy
> >>>>>> to make a brief response to show you appreciated the time taken to read
> >>>>>> and reply to your poem. If you repeatedly do not respond to comments on
> >>>>>> your work, you may find that readers stop commenting altogether.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 10. WHEN AND HOW SHOULD I COMMENT ON OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS?
> >>>>>> All posts are open to comments. Feel free to point out what
> >>>>>> specifically you liked about the poem: what lines, images, words did you
> >>>>>> find particularly interesting or captivating? At the same time, you can
> >>>>>> also point out any changes you feel might enhance the poem. If you feel
> >>>>>> a word in a certain place is awkward, feel free to comment on it and
> >>>>>> suggest a suitable replacement word if you can. It isn't necessary to
> >>>>>> give a detailed commentary on each poem, though; in general, the poet
> >>>>>> will appreciate knowing you read the poem, so a few words to indicate
> >>>>>> you read and enjoyed it are always nice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 11. IS IT OK TO EMAIL MY COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE POET?
> >>>>>> This is usually a matter of personal preference. If you have become
> >>>>>> familiar with the poet through other posts to the newsgroup, it is
> >>>>>> generally acceptable. If you do not know the person, they may ignore
> >>>>>> your email, so it is preferable to post to the group.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 12. CAN I REWRITE SOMEONE'S POEM FOR THEM?
> >>>>>> If you feel comfortable doing so, the poet will usually appreciate the
> >>>>>> effort involved. Rewriting sections or giving comments on specific
> >>>>>> lines are welcome as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 13. DO YOU HAVE IRC CHATS OR OTHER SCHEDULED GATHERINGS?
> >>>>>> Not as of this writing (February 1999). There is a semi-official AAPC
> >>>>>> chat room but it has never been used for a formal AAPC chat. There has
> >>>>>> also been some banter on having a picnic in the summer of 1999, but no
> >>>>>> volunteer hosts as of yet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 14. ARE THERE ANY AAPC-RELATED WEB SITES?
> >>>>>> Many of the poets have their own sites, and most list them in their
> >>>>>> signature files or post notices of updates to the newsgroup.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 15. ARE THERE ANY PUBLISHED / FAMOUS / INFAMOUS POETS IN THE GROUP?
> >>>>>> Depends on who you ask! The vast majority of the poets have had some of
> >>>>>> their work published. Some are published widely in anthologies and
> >>>>>> well-respected poetry journals. No one has made a million from their
> >>>>>> poetry, but we have our suspicions on who will be famous someday.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 16. DO POETRY EDITORS READ THE NEWSGROUP?
> >>>>>> Some participants are editors of poetry journals, both on-line and
> >>>>>> print. Quite possibly there are other editors who "lurk" (read but
> >>>>>> don't post).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 17. MIGHT I BE OFFERED A BOOK CONTRACT BY POSTING MY POETRY HERE?
> >>>>>> Not likely. If you are, be very suspicious of it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 18. WHAT IS CONSIDERED "OFF-TOPIC"?
> >>>>>> Poets by their nature enjoy tangents. You'll see a lot of threads
> >>>>>> beginning with a poem and going off in a sometimes bizarre, completely
> >>>>>> unrelated direction.
> >>>>>> By and large, keep your original posts (not part of an existing thread)
> >>>>>> limited to your own poetry, or questions about poetry.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 19. DO I HAVE TO USE MY REAL NAME?
> >>>>>> Internet handles are okay, many regulars use them. To build
> >>>>>> familiarity, stick to the same one, or use your real name.
> >>>> The guidelines were written in 1999, why do you attribute them to Michael?
> >>>
> >>> I proposed that we rewrite the GLs in 2017 (with George's encouragement and support): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bazlxZjkvdo/m/EHSpG55UBQAJ?hl=en
> >>
> >> Tell the truth, Michael. There was no discussion of "GLs" in 2017, as a
> >> quick read of the thread will show.
> >
> > If you are able to read the thread, and if the thread consists of more than one post, a discussion obviously took place.
> >
> > You posted at least two of those responses in support of it.
> >
> >>> Over the course of the next 5 years, the GLs were continually redrafted to comply with the concerns and include the suggestions of the various AAPC members who participated.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Tell the truth, Michael. In fact, there were no "GLs" as late as
> >> December 2019:
> >> <quote>
> >> michaelmalef...@gmail.com
> >> 12/25/19
> >> There are no official guidelines for the group, at present.
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/LJilyVh7W5c/m/G10_imv5AgAJ?hl=en
> >> </q>
> >>
> >> You wrote them between Christmas 2019 and January 2021 (when you
> >> presented them to your "members" for approval).
> >
> > What part of "Official" are you failing to comprehend.
> >
> > The GLs were still being written/discussed/modified in 2019. They did not become Official until they had been approved by the AAPC Members in 2021..
> >
> >>> IOW: I wrote the GLs with input from the group; and these GLs were eventually agreed on by everyone involved
> >>
> >>
> >> As usual, you won't say *who* actually agreed with them. But, thanks to
> >> NG's due diligence, we have list of who agreed:
> >>
> >> - you (TM)
> >> - NG (TM)
> >> - Ash (TM)
> >> - Spam-a-Lot (TM fan)
> >> - fake "Clay Dockery"
> >>
> >> Since then, Jim Senetto (TM) has also agreed to comply with them.
> >
> > When proposed GLs are posted for approval, one has the option of approving them or not.
> >
> > Those who fail to cast their vote, or to voice any objections they might have, have approved it by default.
> No, those who don't vote on a matter have not "approved" it.

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:05:24 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-15 4:00 a.m., Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 10, 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?
> >
> > That's just Pendragon being Pendragon.
> >
> > If his fingers are typing he's probably lying.
> >
> > 🙂
> His attempts to cover for his lies are getting more ridiculous. He's now
> saying that all the past members of AAPC, living or dead, "approved" his
> GLs by not voting.

WTF's your problem, George?

I haven't said any such thing.

The GLs were discussed over the course of four years, in several threads, and were adopted when everyone involved found no need for further changes. You were given ample opportunity to change any part of them you disagreed with. You chose to remain silent. Deal with it.

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:07:39 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-14 6:12 p.m., Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:19:36 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-12 11:19 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 5:20:09 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 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
> >
> > <snipped for brevity>
> >
> >
> >>>> The guidelines were written in 1999, why do you attribute them to Michael?
> >>>
> >>> I proposed that we rewrite the GLs in 2017 (with George's encouragement and support): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bazlxZjkvdo/m/EHSpG55UBQAJ?hl=en
> >>
> >> Tell the truth, Michael. There was no discussion of "GLs" in 2017, as a
> >> quick read of the thread will show.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Over the course of the next 5 years, the GLs were continually redrafted to comply with the concerns and include the suggestions of the various AAPC members who participated.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Tell the truth, Michael. In fact, there were no "GLs" as late as
> >> December 2019:
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >> michaelmalef...@gmail.com
> >> 12/25/19
> >> There are no official guidelines for the group, at present.
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/LJilyVh7W5c/m/G10_imv5AgAJ?hl=en
> >> </q>
> >>
> >> You wrote them between Christmas 2019 and January 2021 (when you
> >> presented them to your "members" for approval).
> >>
> >>
> >>> IOW: I wrote the GLs with input from the group; and these GLs were eventually agreed on by everyone involved
> >>
> >>
> >> As usual, you won't say *who* actually agreed with them. But, thanks to
> >> NG's due diligence, we have list of who agreed:
> >>
> >> - you (TM)
> >> - NG (TM)
> >> - Ash (TM)
> >> - Spam-a-Lot (TM fan)
> >> - fake "Clay Dockery"
> >>
> >> Since then, Jim Senetto (TM) has also agreed to comply with them.
> >
> > Definitely nothing but a monkey nest, then, obviously... in other words, bogus.
> >
> They can apply to Team Monkey, but it is bogus to claim that anyone else
> has to comply with them.

For the 37th time, they are not Laws, George. They are guidelines -- tools for guiding people safely around AAPC. No one is forcing you or your fellow Splooges to follow them. And at this point, no one would accept the Donkey and his Stink into the group even if they started following them.

However, even a dunce should be able to figure out, that if people behave courteously to others, they will be treated courteously in return (reverse Tit for Tat, one might say).

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:13:47 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-11-12 10:42 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >
> > Stop stinking up the place
>
>
> That's probably just your "GLs" you smell, Michael.

Again, which GLs do you have a problem with, George?

IMHO, they are simply matters of common courtesy.

Are you opposed to courtesy on Usenet?

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:13:47 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-12 10:42 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >
>> > Stop stinking up the place
>>
>>
>> That's probably just your "GLs" you smell, Michael.

> Again, which GLs do you have a problem with, George?

Probably the fact that they're the work of a delusional control freak on an ego trip?

🙂

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:21:48 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 10:07:39 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-11-14 6:12 p.m., Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:19:36 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> On 2022-11-12 11:19 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 5:20:09 AM UTC-5, Robert Burrows wrote:
> > >>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 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
> > >
> > > <snipped for brevity>
> > >
> > >
> > >>>> The guidelines were written in 1999, why do you attribute them to Michael?
> > >>>
> > >>> I proposed that we rewrite the GLs in 2017 (with George's encouragement and support): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bazlxZjkvdo/m/EHSpG55UBQAJ?hl=en
> > >>
> > >> Tell the truth, Michael. There was no discussion of "GLs" in 2017, as a
> > >> quick read of the thread will show.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Over the course of the next 5 years, the GLs were continually redrafted to comply with the concerns and include the suggestions of the various AAPC members who participated.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Tell the truth, Michael. In fact, there were no "GLs" as late as
> > >> December 2019:
> > >>
> > >> <quote>
> > >> michaelmalef...@gmail.com
> > >> 12/25/19
> > >> There are no official guidelines for the group, at present.
> > >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/LJilyVh7W5c/m/G10_imv5AgAJ?hl=en
> > >> </q>
> > >>
> > >> You wrote them between Christmas 2019 and January 2021 (when you
> > >> presented them to your "members" for approval).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> IOW: I wrote the GLs with input from the group; and these GLs were eventually agreed on by everyone involved
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As usual, you won't say *who* actually agreed with them. But, thanks to
> > >> NG's due diligence, we have list of who agreed:
> > >>
> > >> - you (TM)
> > >> - NG (TM)
> > >> - Ash (TM)
> > >> - Spam-a-Lot (TM fan)
> > >> - fake "Clay Dockery"
> > >>
> > >> Since then, Jim Senetto (TM) has also agreed to comply with them.
> > >
> > > Definitely nothing but a monkey nest, then, obviously... in other words, bogus.
> > >
> > They can apply to Team Monkey, but it is bogus to claim that anyone else
> > has to comply with them.
> For the 37th time, they are not Laws, George. They are guidelines -- tools for guiding people safely around AAPC. No one is forcing you or your fellow Splooges to follow them. And at this point, no one would accept

This is an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, no one's asking to be "accepted", anyone can join.

HTH and HAND.

the Donkey and his Stink into the group even if they started following them.
>
> However, even a dunce should be able to figure out, that if people behave courteously to others, they will be treated courteously in return (reverse Tit for Tat, one might say).

On 2022-11-14 9:39 p.m., Will Dockery wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 9:23:10 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 7:34:58 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:47:08 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-11-12 11:11 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-11-12 2:08 a.m., Michael Pendragon 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, George... apart from their being unenforced "rules," what part's of the GLs/FAQs do you disagree with?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have to ask you the same thing, Michael, as your behavior in
>>>>>>> three PPB threads tells us which parts of the GLs you disagree with:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4) Don’t hijack other people’s threads. If a thread’s topic is “Walt Whitman,” you should only make a comment pertaining to Walt Whitman. If you wish to discuss a poem you’ve written that was inspired by Mr. Whitman, start your own thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Over the past two weeks, you've hijacked every PPB thread to post and to
>>>>>>> post about these "GLs" of yours. Please stop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posting the GLs to a thread (or, in this case, to a series of threads) that continually ignore them is not an example of hijacking, George.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Michael, you've set yourself up as the court to decide when your
>>>>> "GLs" are violated or not. Typical.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As previously noted: your PPB threads have been identified by PJR as "cancellable spam."
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't recycle PJ Ross's lies, Michael. I've given you both the
>>>>> definition of "cancellable spam" (posting the same message to too many
>>>>> newsgroups) and the criterion. The OP for this thread (1 posting to 2
>>>>> groups) does not meet either one. Nor do any other PPB threads.
>>>
>>>> Your thread counts as "cancellable spam" because it attempts to direct others to your personal blog.
>>>
>>> No, I suppose George needs to explain the exact meaning to you again, Pendragon.

I did, BTW. No surprise; he didn't listen again.

>> If PJR wishes to explain it, I'll listen to him.
>
> Apparently PJR has left the building.

But the usenet spam threshold guidelines are still around. Michael
Monkey knows that; but, as you say, PJ was his mentor and he'll believe
his mentor over the facts. (Pretty much the way the Chimp believes him
over the facts.)

>>
>> As to George, I don't believe he understands much of anything.

MIchael sounds even cuntier than usual tonight.

On 2022-11-14 3:55 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:47:08 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-12 11:11 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:34:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-12 2:08 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:48:57 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-11-09 10:19 a.m., Spam-I-Am wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>

>>> Posting the GLs to a thread (or, in this case, to a series of threads) that continually ignore them is not an example of hijacking, George.
>>
>>
>> So, Michael, you've set yourself up as the court to decide when your
>> "GLs" are violated or not. Typical.
>>
>>>
>>> As previously noted: your PPB threads have been identified by PJR as "cancellable spam."
>>
>> Please don't recycle PJ Ross's lies, Michael. I've given you both the
>> definition of "cancellable spam" (posting the same message to too many
>> newsgroups) and the criterion. The OP for this thread (1 posting to 2
>> groups) does not meet either one. Nor do any other PPB threads.
>
> Your thread counts as "cancellable spam" because it attempts to direct others to your personal blog.
No, Michael, that has nothing to do with what "cancellable spam" is.
"Cancellable spam" is posting the same message to too many newsgroups.

Learn what terms mean, Monkey, and how to use them correctly.

>
>>> Guideline #8 was drafted with your PPB threads in mind -- in order to prevent them from being labeled as such.
>>>
>>
>> Good to know. You'd originally said that Guideline #8 was drafted to
>> target Jordy. Thanks for the admission you'd lied, and that you were
>> targetting me instead.
>
> It applies to anyone who posts links without comments. Whether it protects you, or "targets" you depends on whether you choose to follow it.
>

You just said you were targeting me. " Guideline #8 was drafted with
your PPB threads in mind". Why are you trying to backpedal?

>>> You had originally voiced your support for an updated set of GLs.
>>
>> Please stop repeating that lie, Michael. I supported your decision to
>> write a new FAQ (provided that it not be used against those posting
>> here, including myself). We never discussed your "GLs" - I'd never heard
>> of your "GLs" until you began writing about them in PPB threads in
>> November.
>
> You're picking another semantic nit.f
>

No. The FAQ and the GLs are two distinct documents that you keep trying
to conflate.

> The GLs grew out of the FAQs, and their inception can be traced back to the 2017 post.

Only in the way I've suggested: after we vetoed using the FAQ to troll
participants into compliance, you came up with your "GLs" to do that.
That's the only connection.

>>> Your repeated refusal to adhere to them can only be seen as an act of protest.
>>>
>>
>> No one's protesting your "GLs" Michael. I'm telling you to stop using
>> them as a pretext to disrupt my threads.
>
> Your threads disrupt AAPC, George.
>

No they don't.

> AAPC is not a bulletin board for you to redirect people to your blog.
>

It's not a bulletin board to direct people to your vanity "ezine"
either, but no one's reading is disrupted by either of those.

> If you wish to provide a link to your blog, you need to do so *in the context of* an AAPC discussion.
>

According to your "GLs". You're still begging the question of why anyone
should accept them.

> Rule 8) allows you to continue your spam-ads as long as you attempt to start a discussion at AAPC. One measly little sentence about the poem you're posting a link to will suffice, and it is certainly not an imposition on you to request it.

I do provide "one measly sentence" -- usually, "Today's poem on Penny's
Poetry Blog." If that meets your interpretation of "Rule 8," then we're
done.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-11-13 7:46 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-13 4:57 p.m., NancyGene wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are not telling the truth, George Dance. The Guidelines draft was posted by Michael on January 20, 2021, and there were several suggestions for additions and changes to the GLs from other members of AAPC.

>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/9rP3ex39UYg/m/n-XiebnaAAAJ
>>> I'm more than happy to accept that correction, NancyGene, since that
>>> makes my point even stronger. It turns out the Guidelines were not
>>> written until 2021 -- not, as Michael's been claiming, over a four-year
>>> period, but over a five-week period.
>>>
>>> I see that you and Ash made some wording suggestions, while Spam-a-Lot
>>> merely raised the same point that I'm raising -- that these "GLs"
>>> should not be used PJR-style to troll participants -- and that Michael
>>> actually promised that they would not be used that way.
>>
>> Stop lying, George.
>>
>> The FAQs' first appearance, and discussion, was in 2017.

> The FAQ is not the"GLs", Michael; stop trying to confuse them. You came
> up with the "GL" idea years later, at the end of 2019.

> > I have posted the link for you several times now.

> And I've read it and commented on it. The gist of that discussion was: a
> new FAQ was a great idea, but it was not to be used the way PJ Ross used
> the old FAQ, to troll other people posting here to force their
> "compliance".

>> The GLs were developed as a separate part of the FAQs in 2019. They were necessitated because several items proposed for the FAQs were better suited to Guidelines.

> We can understand very well why they were "necessitated". You couldn't
> use your new FAQ to troll other people posting here, so you needed the
> "GLS" so you could troll them using those instead.

There, several questions answered.

🙂