On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 12:09:58 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> 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.

Such language! And you claim that I sound "cunty"?

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 12:27:29 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> 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.

So you admit that your links to your blog count as "spam" -- just not the cancellable var.

> 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?

Stop playing the dunce, George. I said that GL #8 was designed to protect your PPB links, but to discourage Jordy's Pervy Uncle from flooding the group with links to whatever poem he stumbles across on youtube.

One GL can accomplish several seemingly unrelated ends.

> >>> 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 old ones may have been.

The new ones were written as a single document intended to help readers and members successfully navigate AAPC.

> > 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.

That may be your perception of it. However, the GLs were not vetoed and are now officially in effect.

> >>> 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.

Of course they do.

We've been over this, George. AAPC is a *discussion* group. Threads are supposed to initiate and encourage group discussion. When a thread redirects readers *away* from AAPC, it defeats the Group's purpose.

I have no problem with your link. In fact, I prefer an attractive presentation of poetry over the bare bones style of a Newsgroup. If you posted the entire poem here, along with a comment aimed at starting a discussion, I would have no problem with PPB. In fact, I would applaud it. Include the link -- but use it to start a discussion here.

> > 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.

1) My so-called "vanity ezine" is a group project featuring original poetry by AAPC members.
2) The poetry is submitted via AAPC, and can be discussed/commented on at AAPC.
3) The "vanity ezine" may be on another site, but it *encourages* AAPC members to submit/post their poetry at AAPC.
4) Along with its FB page and yearly print copy, my so-called "vanity ezine" encourages new members visit AAPC.

> > 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.

Again, because they represent common courtesy, and were agreed upon by all who participated in their creation. If the majority of members in a group dislike having uncommented links shoved before them like spam, it is only courteous to avoid posting uncommented links.

> > 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.

No, George, you know that it does not.

When Stink doubles as your sock and drops one of his stock comments after it, you thank him and launch into a mini lecture on the work. You've even gratefully noted that his stock comment allows you to pontificate upon the poem at hand.

If you were to post such comments at the start of your thread, PPB would become a much valued asset to AAPC. Why would you want to have PPB looked on, and treated as, spam, when you could easily turn it into a popular AAPC feature?

Why would you want to be opposed to the majority of members of a group that you choose to belong to?

George J. Dance wrote:

> 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.)

Yes, in that way, PJR is sort of the spiritual Godfather of the monkey team.

George J. Dance wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > George J. Dance 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.
> So you admit that your links to your blog count as "spam" -- just not the cancellable var.
> > 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?
> Stop playing the dunce, George. I said that GL #8 was designed to protect your PPB links, but to discourage Jordy's Pervy Uncle from flooding the group with links to whatever poem he stumbles across on youtube.
>
> One GL can accomplish several seemingly unrelated ends.
> > >>> 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 old ones may have been.
>
> The new ones were written as a single document intended to help readers and members successfully navigate AAPC.
> > > 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.
> That may be your perception of it. However, the GLs were not vetoed and are now officially in effect.
> > >>> 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.

Yes, that's an absurd accusation, the poetry threads add a lot to the group.

General-Zod wrote:

> George J. Dance 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

> Quite outstanding, as usual...

Agreed and seconded.

General-Zod wrote:

> George J. Dance 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

> Quite outstanding, as usual...

Agreed and seconded.

🙂

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

SPAM REPORTED

George Dance 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

Another read of another fine work of poetry.....