Something that deserves to not simply be buried.

from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > What are you talking about, George?
> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
>
"Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.

> Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
>
> 1
> : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> 2
> : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship

That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.

>
> I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.

No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.

George Dance wrote:

> Something that deserves to not simply be buried.

> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en

> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
>> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
>> > > What are you talking about, George?
>> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
>> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
>>
> "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.

>> Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
>>
>> 1
>> : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
>> 2
>> : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
>>
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship

> That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.

>>
>> I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.

> No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.

Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
>
> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
>
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> >
> "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
>
> > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> >
> > 1
> > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > 2
> > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> >
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
>
> That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
>
> >
> > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
>
> No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
>
> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
>
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> >
> "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
>
> > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> >
> > 1
> > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > 2
> > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> >
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
>
> That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
>
> >
> > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
>
> No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.

I'm sorry George "Nitpick" Dance... did you call it "Game theory"? Whatever you labeled it as, the point remains the same.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
>>
>> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
>> > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
>> > > > What are you talking about, George?
>> > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
>> > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
>> >
>> "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
>>
>> > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
>> >
>> > 1
>> > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
>> > 2
>> > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
>> >
>> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
>>
>> That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
>>
>> >
>> > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
>>
>> No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.

> I'm sorry George xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hush, troll....!

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:41:28 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> >
> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > >
> > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> >
> > > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > >
> > > 1
> > > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > 2
> > > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > >
> > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> >
> > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> >
> > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
>
> I'm sorry George "Nitpick" Dance... did you call it "Game theory"?

Sure did; and here's what it means:

<q>
game theory
noun
: the analysis of a situation involving conflicting interests (as in business or military strategy) in terms of gains and losses among opposing players
</q>

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

> Whatever you labeled it as, the point remains the same.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
>
> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
>
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> >
> "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
>
> > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> >
> > 1
> > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > 2
> > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> >
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
>
> That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
>
> >
> > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
>
> No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.

Oh Georgie, did you create another "real" poetry thread again? Your goon Dumlumbus dupe troop with surely luv you for it!

We need a thread titled "Dunce Georgie on Tat Lamemanship" !1!

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:41:28 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> > >
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > >
> > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > >
> > > > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > > >
> > > > 1
> > > > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > > 2
> > > > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > > >
> > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> > >
> > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> > >
> > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> >
> > I'm sorry George "Nitpick" Dance... did you call it "Game theory"?
> Sure did; and here's what it means:
>
> <q>
> game theory
> noun
> : the analysis of a situation involving conflicting interests (as in business or military strategy) in terms of gains and losses among opposing players
> </q>
>

IOW: "game theory" pertains to the study of "gamesmanship."

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

I repeat: Whatever you labeled it as, Mr. Nitpick, the point remains the same.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> >
> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > >
> > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> >
> > > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > >
> > > 1
> > > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > 2
> > > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > >
> > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> >
> > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> >
> > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> Oh Georgie, did you create another "real" poetry thread again? Your goon Dumlumbus dupe troop with surely luv you for it!

No, Ashtroll; this is an ethics discussion. Try to follow along; you may learn something.

> We need a thread titled "Dunce Georgie on Tat Lamemanship" !1!

LOLZ, Hypocrite. Do you remember what you titled the last discussion thread?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/8LUgEAqmQiM/m/34HjKQLbAQAJ?hl=en

Maybe we need a thread titled, "The Ashtroll is such a whiny hypocrite!"

> Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.

An excellent point, Zod. Tit for Tat is simply reciprocity; treating others the way you treat you. It means doing good to those who do good to you, and doing harm only to those who do harm to you. The first is the principle of co-operation, and the second the principle of self-defense; principles that virtually everyone follows.

The beauty of a system of ethics like T4T is that they make it possible for a society to be run without being organized by authority figures. That's why authority figures, and wannabe authority figures, hate ethics so much; they can't dispense with them, because a society cannot simply be run by command; but they'll attack and try to undermine them whenever they can.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:34:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.
> An excellent point, Zod. Tit for Tat is simply reciprocity; treating others the way you treat you. It means doing good to those who do good to you, and doing harm only to those who do harm to you. The first is the principle of co-operation, and the second the principle of self-defense; principles that virtually everyone follows.
>
> The beauty of a system of ethics like T4T is that they make it possible for a society to be run without being organized by authority figures. That's why authority figures, and wannabe authority figures, hate ethics so much; they can't dispense with them, because a society cannot simply be run by command; but they'll attack and try to undermine them whenever they can.

Actually no, because without an overriding authority, the individual gets to define what's "good" or "harm" and what would be appropriate "tats"-- I've spent my life picking up dead bodies because of Dance's idea of individual's self governing T4T in interpersonal interactions.

This group demonstrates the failings of T4T-- only MAC reigns supreme here....

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:26:28 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> > >
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > >
> > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > >
> > > > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > > >
> > > > 1
> > > > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > > 2
> > > > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > > >
> > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> > >
> > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> > >
> > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> > Oh Georgie, did you create another "real" poetry thread again? Your goon Dumlumbus dupe troop with surely luv you for it!
> No, Ashtroll; this is an ethics discussion. Try to follow along; you may learn something.
> > We need a thread titled "Dunce Georgie on Tat Lamemanship" !1!
> LOLZ, Hypocrite. Do you remember what you titled the last discussion thread?
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/8LUgEAqmQiM/m/34HjKQLbAQAJ?hl=en
>
> Maybe we need a thread titled, "The Ashtroll is such a whiny hypocrite!"

You already tried and failed-- I thrive on abuse, so there's nothing you can do to me. You think your childhood abuse was bad, mine made me into a monster that you cannot comprehend...

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:34:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.
> An excellent point, Zod. Tit for Tat is simply reciprocity; treating others the way you treat you. It means doing good to those who do good to you, and doing harm only to those who do harm to you. The first is the principle of co-operation, and the second the principle of self-defense; principles that virtually everyone follows.
>
> The beauty of a system of ethics like T4T is that they make it possible for a society to be run without being organized by authority figures. That's why authority figures, and wannabe authority figures, hate ethics so much; they can't dispense with them, because a society cannot simply be run by command; but they'll attack and try to undermine them whenever they can.
>

As this group so aptly demonstrates, perceived tats (of a negative variety) necessitate retaliatory tits. These tits are perceived as tats by those on the receiving end, and in turn, generate another set of tits.

The problem is that each side will always see the other side as aggressor/initiator and, as such, will feel compelled to meet said perceived aggression with retaliation.

Take this thread: you started it as an attempt to troll me into an argument on the basis of my having misremembered your having applied "tit for tat" to "gamesmanship" rather than "game theory" (which is, to all intents and purposes, the study of the former).

In this instance (this thread) I perceive you as the aggressor. You have, after all, created a new thread specifically to troll me.

You, otoh, believe that you're addressing a perceived "tat" on my part (my accidentally having used a slightly different word when indirectly quoting you).

And we can each cite numerous instances of "aggression" in the past wherein each accuses the other of having thrown the first "tat."

As I've attempted to explain to you dozens of times in the past (dense anyone?), tit for tat can *only* result in an endless circle of aggression/retaliation (with each side believing the other is the aggressor).

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:56:34 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:34:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.
> > An excellent point, Zod. Tit for Tat is simply reciprocity; treating others the way you treat you. It means doing good to those who do good to you, and doing harm only to those who do harm to you. The first is the principle of co-operation, and the second the principle of self-defense; principles that virtually everyone follows.
> >
> > The beauty of a system of ethics like T4T is that they make it possible for a society to be run without being organized by authority figures. That's why authority figures, and wannabe authority figures, hate ethics so much; they can't dispense with them, because a society cannot simply be run by command; but they'll attack and try to undermine them whenever they can.
> >
> As this group so aptly demonstrates, perceived tats (of a negative variety) necessitate retaliatory tits. These tits are perceived as tats by those on the receiving end, and in turn, generate another set of tits.
>
> The problem is that each side will always see the other side as aggressor/initiator and, as such, will feel compelled to meet said perceived aggression with retaliation.
>
> Take this thread: you started it as an attempt to troll me into an argument on the basis of my having misremembered your having applied "tit for tat" to "gamesmanship" rather than "game theory" (which is, to all intents and purposes, the study of the former).
>
> In this instance (this thread) I perceive you as the aggressor. You have, after all, created a new thread specifically to troll me.
>
> You, otoh, believe that you're addressing a perceived "tat" on my part (my accidentally having used a slightly different word when indirectly quoting you).
>
> And we can each cite numerous instances of "aggression" in the past wherein each accuses the other of having thrown the first "tat."
>
> As I've attempted to explain to you dozens of times in the past (dense anyone?), tit for tat can *only* result in an endless circle of aggression/retaliation (with each side believing the other is the aggressor).

You nailed it-- Mutually Assured Contrariness...

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:51:53 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:26:28 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> > > >
> > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > > > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > > > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > > >
> > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > > >
> > > > > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1
> > > > > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > > > 2
> > > > > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> > > >
> > > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> > > >
> > > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> > > Oh Georgie, did you create another "real" poetry thread again? Your goon Dumlumbus dupe troop with surely luv you for it!
> > No, Ashtroll; this is an ethics discussion. Try to follow along; you may learn something.
> > > We need a thread titled "Dunce Georgie on Tat Lamemanship" !1!
> > LOLZ, Hypocrite. Do you remember what you titled the last discussion thread?
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/8LUgEAqmQiM/m/34HjKQLbAQAJ?hl=en
> >
> > Maybe we need a thread titled, "The Ashtroll is such a whiny hypocrite!"
> You already tried and failed-- I thrive on abuse, so there's nothing you can do to me. You think your childhood abuse was bad, mine made me into a monster that you cannot comprehend...

I'm very sorry to hear that, truly... hope that you are getting psychological counseling, personally have felt that very helpful myself over the years... personally am thankful that was in my childhood I didn't experience abuse, though in many respects my childhood was certainly no picnic, which is probably true for most people, on some level, there are almost certainly very few "Leave it to Beaver"/"Brady Bunch" households, that is a (nice, pleasent) fantasy... still, I can't complain and have no right to complain, at least not often..
I do worry about you sometimes though, truthfully... You certainly are often quite *intense*, and that it not necessarily particularly "healthy" in regard to a Usenet group... Once again, it appears that you often lose context, perspective and proportion, you appear to forget that this really is JUST an unmoderated newsgroup, whiere interactions are not SUPPOSED to run smoothly, as much as we may wish they would, if they didn't it wouldn't be Usenet... As I've said to Jim many times, is it really worth getting so enraged about the goings on here, on an unmoderated newsgroup, when there are so many serious, dire, REAL LIFE problems that we are all dealing with to some extent? Does that really make sense to you on a practicle, logical level? It just seems that you often let your emotions, your anger, overwhelm your reason, which isn sad, because youn are clerarly a very intelligent, caring, perseptive person... Perhaps, I am reading you wrong, and you really do have more of a sense of persepctive and proportion than I realize, hope so anyway..

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:26:14 AM UTC-5, Jordy C wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:51:53 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:26:28 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> > > > >
> > > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > > > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > > > > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > > > > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > > > >
> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> > > > >
> > > > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> > > > Oh Georgie, did you create another "real" poetry thread again? Your goon Dumlumbus dupe troop with surely luv you for it!
> > > No, Ashtroll; this is an ethics discussion. Try to follow along; you may learn something.
> > > > We need a thread titled "Dunce Georgie on Tat Lamemanship" !1!
> > > LOLZ, Hypocrite. Do you remember what you titled the last discussion thread?
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/8LUgEAqmQiM/m/34HjKQLbAQAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > Maybe we need a thread titled, "The Ashtroll is such a whiny hypocrite!"
> > You already tried and failed-- I thrive on abuse, so there's nothing you can do to me. You think your childhood abuse was bad, mine made me into a monster that you cannot comprehend...
>
I'm very sorry to hear that, truly... hope that you are getting psychological counseling, personally have found that very helpful myself over the years... personally am thankful that in my childhood I didn't experience abuse, though in many respects my childhood was certainly no picnic, which is probably true for most people, on some level, there are almost certainly very few "Leave it to Beaver"/"Brady Bunch" households, that is a (nice, pleasent) fantasy... still, I can't complain and have no right to complain, at least not often..

I do worry about you sometimes though, truthfully... You certainly are often quite *intense*, and that it not necessarily particularly "healthy" in regard to a Usenet group... Once again, it appears that you often lose context, perspective and proportion, you appear to forget that this really is JUST an unmoderated newsgroup, where interactions are not SUPPOSED to run smoothly, as much as we may wish they would, if they did, it wouldn't be Usenet... As I've said to Jim many times, is it really worth getting so enraged about the goings on here, on an unmoderated newsgroup, when there are so many serious, dire, REAL LIFE problems that we are all dealing with to some extent? Does that really make sense to you on a practicle, logical level? It just seems that you often let your emotions, your anger, overwhelm your reason, which is sad, because you are clerarly a very intelligent, caring, perseptive person... Perhaps, I am reading you wrong, and you really do have more of a sense of perspective and proportion than I realize, hope so anyway..

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:34:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.
> An excellent point, Zod. Tit for Tat is simply reciprocity; treating others the way you treat you. It means doing good to those who do good to you, and doing harm only to those who do harm to you. The first is the principle of co-operation, and the second the principle of self-defense; principles that virtually everyone follows.
>
> The beauty of a system of ethics like T4T is that they make it possible for a society to be run without being organized by authority figures. That's why authority figures, and wannabe authority figures, hate ethics so much; they can't dispense with them, because a society cannot simply be run by command; but they'll attack and try to undermine them whenever they can.

Exactly, well put.

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:32:15 AM UTC-5, jdcha...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:26:14 AM UTC-5, Jordy C wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:51:53 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:26:28 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > > > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > > > > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > > > > > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > > > > > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> > > > > Oh Georgie, did you create another "real" poetry thread again? Your goon Dumlumbus dupe troop with surely luv you for it!
> > > > No, Ashtroll; this is an ethics discussion. Try to follow along; you may learn something.
> > > > > We need a thread titled "Dunce Georgie on Tat Lamemanship" !1!
> > > > LOLZ, Hypocrite. Do you remember what you titled the last discussion thread?
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/8LUgEAqmQiM/m/34HjKQLbAQAJ?hl=en
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we need a thread titled, "The Ashtroll is such a whiny hypocrite!"
> > > You already tried and failed-- I thrive on abuse, so there's nothing you can do to me. You think your childhood abuse was bad, mine made me into a monster that you cannot comprehend...
> >
> I'm very sorry to hear that, truly... hope that you are getting psychological counseling, personally have found that very helpful myself over the years... personally am thankful that in my childhood I didn't experience abuse, though in many respects my childhood was certainly no picnic, which is probably true for most people, on some level, there are almost certainly very few "Leave it to Beaver"/"Brady Bunch" households, that is a (nice, pleasent) fantasy... still, I can't complain and have no right to complain, at least not often..
>
> I do worry about you sometimes though, truthfully... You certainly are often quite *intense*, and that it not necessarily particularly "healthy" in regard to a Usenet group... Once again, it appears that you often lose context, perspective and proportion, you appear to forget that this really is JUST an unmoderated newsgroup, where interactions are not SUPPOSED to run smoothly, as much as we may wish they would, if they did, it wouldn't be Usenet... As I've said to Jim many times, is it really worth getting so enraged about the goings on here, on an unmoderated newsgroup, when there are so many serious, dire, REAL LIFE problems that we are all dealing with to some extent? Does that really make sense to you on a practicle, logical level? It just seems that you often let your emotions, your anger, overwhelm your reason, which is sad, because you are clerarly a very intelligent, caring, perseptive person... Perhaps, I am reading you wrong, and you really do have more of a sense of perspective and proportion than I realize, hope so anyway..

Ah Mr. Chase, *allow me to feign surprise* such a unexpected surprise to see a response from you...
But concerning context and perspective, watch me exercise such things by goin' and gettin' in a last chit chattin' with my latest captive audience than go sleep before I actually devote any time to a response here!
(but a response will be coming because you just offered an opening for me to do what I do ardently)
BTW: Tell your friend Willy that this is just an unmoderated group-- he and his editor seem to be taking this mayhem worse than I-- but then that's why I came to the wastelands of the Usenet and your buddies' flame war-- I exult in chaos!

"And I came on a ship on fire
To the seas you call your home
Climbed down from the highest spire
I disappear with the ocean foam
I collect all the things I need
Milon, irago, lamal"
--'Ship on Fire' ~~Zeal & Ardor

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:32:15 AM UTC-5, jdcha...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:26:14 AM UTC-5, Jordy C wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:51:53 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:26:28 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
>
> > > > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > > > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > > > > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > > > > > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > > > > > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> > > > > Oh Georgie, did you create another "real" poetry thread again? Your goon Dumlumbus dupe troop with surely luv you for it!
> > > > No, Ashtroll; this is an ethics discussion. Try to follow along; you may learn something.
> > > > > We need a thread titled "Dunce Georgie on Tat Lamemanship" !1!
> > > > LOLZ, Hypocrite. Do you remember what you titled the last discussion thread?
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/8LUgEAqmQiM/m/34HjKQLbAQAJ?hl=en
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we need a thread titled, "The Ashtroll is such a whiny hypocrite!"
> > > You already tried and failed-- I thrive on abuse, so there's nothing you can do to me. You think your childhood abuse was bad, mine made me into a monster that you cannot comprehend...
> >
> I'm very sorry to hear that, truly... hope that you are getting psychological counseling, personally have found that very helpful myself over the years... personally am thankful that in my childhood I didn't experience abuse, though in many respects my childhood was certainly no picnic, which is probably true for most people, on some level, there are almost certainly very few "Leave it to Beaver"/"Brady Bunch" households, that is a (nice, pleasent) fantasy... still, I can't complain and have no right to complain, at least not often..
>
> I do worry about you sometimes though, truthfully... You certainly are often quite *intense*, and that it not necessarily particularly "healthy" in regard to a Usenet group... Once again, it appears that you often lose context, perspective and proportion, you appear to forget that this really is JUST an unmoderated newsgroup, where interactions are not SUPPOSED to run smoothly, as much as we may wish they would, if they did, it wouldn't be Usenet... As I've said to Jim many times, is it really worth getting so enraged about the goings on here, on an unmoderated newsgroup, when there are so many serious, dire, REAL LIFE problems that we are all dealing with to some extent? Does that really make sense to you on a practicle, logical level? It just seems that you often let your emotions, your anger, overwhelm your reason, which is sad, because you are clerarly a very intelligent, caring, perseptive person... Perhaps, I am reading you wrong, and you really do have more of a sense of perspective and proportion than I realize, hope so anyway..

Well put, Jordy.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:48:26 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:34:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.
> > An excellent point, Zod. Tit for Tat is simply reciprocity; treating others the way you treat you. It means doing good to those who do good to you, and doing harm only to those who do harm to you. The first is the principle of co-operation, and the second the principle of self-defense; principles that virtually everyone follows.
> >
> > The beauty of a system of ethics like T4T is that they make it possible for a society to be run without being organized by authority figures. That's why authority figures, and wannabe authority figures, hate ethics so much; they can't dispense with them, because a society cannot simply be run by command; but they'll attack and try to undermine them whenever they can.
> Actually no, because without an overriding authority, the individual gets to define what's "good" or "harm" and what would be appropriate "tats"

Of course he does; what's your point? That an individual may get it wrong? Are you claiming that "authority figures" somehow don't.

> -- I've spent my life picking up dead bodies because of Dance's idea of individual's self governing T4T in interpersonal interactions.

Really? And how exactly did you establish that as the motive in each case? How many of the killers did you actually speak to?

I'd conjecture that, if you compare the number of people killed by "self governing" people, and those killed by people acting in obedience to "authority figures," you'll find the latter to be much higher. But I'll await your data.
> This group demonstrates the failings of T4T-- only MAC reigns supreme here...

Oh, I don't think so. I've seen plenty of wannabe "authority figures" here, and I wouldn't hold them blameless for the state of the group.

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 9:30:32 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:32:15 AM UTC-5, jdcha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:26:14 AM UTC-5, Jordy C wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:51:53 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:26:28 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> >
> > > > > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > > > > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > > > > > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > > > > > > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > > > > > > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> > > > > > Oh Georgie, did you create another "real" poetry thread again? Your goon Dumlumbus dupe troop with surely luv you for it!
> > > > > No, Ashtroll; this is an ethics discussion. Try to follow along; you may learn something.
> > > > > > We need a thread titled "Dunce Georgie on Tat Lamemanship" !1!
> > > > > LOLZ, Hypocrite. Do you remember what you titled the last discussion thread?
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/8LUgEAqmQiM/m/34HjKQLbAQAJ?hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe we need a thread titled, "The Ashtroll is such a whiny hypocrite!"
> > > > You already tried and failed-- I thrive on abuse, so there's nothing you can do to me. You think your childhood abuse was bad, mine made me into a monster that you cannot comprehend...
> > >
> > I'm very sorry to hear that, truly... hope that you are getting psychological counseling, personally have found that very helpful myself over the years... personally am thankful that in my childhood I didn't experience abuse, though in many respects my childhood was certainly no picnic, which is probably true for most people, on some level, there are almost certainly very few "Leave it to Beaver"/"Brady Bunch" households, that is a (nice, pleasent) fantasy... still, I can't complain and have no right to complain, at least not often..
> >
> > I do worry about you sometimes though, truthfully... You certainly are often quite *intense*, and that it not necessarily particularly "healthy" in regard to a Usenet group... Once again, it appears that you often lose context, perspective and proportion, you appear to forget that this really is JUST an unmoderated newsgroup, where interactions are not SUPPOSED to run smoothly, as much as we may wish they would, if they did, it wouldn't be Usenet... As I've said to Jim many times, is it really worth getting so enraged about the goings on here, on an unmoderated newsgroup, when there are so many serious, dire, REAL LIFE problems that we are all dealing with to some extent? Does that really make sense to you on a practicle, logical level? It just seems that you often let your emotions, your anger, overwhelm your reason, which is sad, because you are clerarly a very intelligent, caring, perseptive person... Perhaps, I am reading you wrong, and you really do have more of a sense of perspective and proportion than I realize, hope so anyway..
> Well put, Jordy.
thank you, Will

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10:00:38 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:48:26 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:34:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.
> > > An excellent point, Zod. Tit for Tat is simply reciprocity; treating others the way you treat you. It means doing good to those who do good to you, and doing harm only to those who do harm to you. The first is the principle of co-operation, and the second the principle of self-defense; principles that virtually everyone follows.
> > >
> > > The beauty of a system of ethics like T4T is that they make it possible for a society to be run without being organized by authority figures. That's why authority figures, and wannabe authority figures, hate ethics so much; they can't dispense with them, because a society cannot simply be run by command; but they'll attack and try to undermine them whenever they can.
> > Actually no, because without an overriding authority, the individual gets to define what's "good" or "harm" and what would be appropriate "tats"
> Of course he does; what's your point? That an individual may get it wrong? Are you claiming that "authority figures" somehow don't.

No, George.

He's saying the same thing that I am. T4T is doomed to invariably become a self-perpetuating circle of attack-retaliation because no one can determine 1) what constitutes and attack, 2) who attacked first, 3) or whether any attack post is to be classified as a "tit" or a "tat."

Again, each side will see the other side as the aggressor; and each side will respond to a retaliatory "tit" as if it were an aggressive "tat."

> > -- I've spent my life picking up dead bodies because of Dance's idea of individual's self governing T4T in interpersonal interactions.
> Really? And how exactly did you establish that as the motive in each case? How many of the killers did you actually speak to?

In warfare each side generally feels that they are in the right. If countries could co-exist peacefully when left to their own devices, there wouldn't be any such thing as war.
> I'd conjecture that, if you compare the number of people killed by "self governing" people, and those killed by people acting in obedience to "authority figures," you'll find the latter to be much higher. But I'll await your data.
>

Let's take the American Civil War (since we've already discussed it in the past). The Southern States found the US Government to be giving preferential treatment (in the form of import/export taxes) to the Northern states and exercised their States' Rights to secede from the Union. The Union, otoh, claimed that they did not have the right to secede. Both sides thought that they were in the right. And for those who wish to see the Civil War in terms of slavery: the Confederacy believed in their right to remain "slave states," whereas the Union believed that they were violating the rights of the men and women they were enslaving. Again, both sides felt that they were right.

Had there been a disinterested Philosopher King (for instance), who both sides were compelled to follow, the issue might have been peacefully resolved..

> > This group demonstrates the failings of T4T-- only MAC reigns supreme here...
> Oh, I don't think so. I've seen plenty of wannabe "authority figures" here, and I wouldn't hold them blameless for the state of the group.

No one is blameless, George.

Again, that's the point.

Each side will always consider themselves to be the injured (and, therefore, retaliating) party.

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10:02:57 AM UTC-5, jdcha...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 9:30:32 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:32:15 AM UTC-5, jdcha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:26:14 AM UTC-5, Jordy C wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:51:53 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:26:28 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> > >
> > > > > > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > > > > > > > > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > > > > > > > > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > > > > > > > > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you.. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > > > > > > > No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > > > : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> > > > > > > Oh Georgie, did you create another "real" poetry thread again? Your goon Dumlumbus dupe troop with surely luv you for it!
> > > > > > No, Ashtroll; this is an ethics discussion. Try to follow along; you may learn something.
> > > > > > > We need a thread titled "Dunce Georgie on Tat Lamemanship" !1!
> > > > > > LOLZ, Hypocrite. Do you remember what you titled the last discussion thread?
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/8LUgEAqmQiM/m/34HjKQLbAQAJ?hl=en
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe we need a thread titled, "The Ashtroll is such a whiny hypocrite!"
> > > > > You already tried and failed-- I thrive on abuse, so there's nothing you can do to me. You think your childhood abuse was bad, mine made me into a monster that you cannot comprehend...
> > > >
> > > I'm very sorry to hear that, truly... hope that you are getting psychological counseling, personally have found that very helpful myself over the years... personally am thankful that in my childhood I didn't experience abuse, though in many respects my childhood was certainly no picnic, which is probably true for most people, on some level, there are almost certainly very few "Leave it to Beaver"/"Brady Bunch" households, that is a (nice, pleasent) fantasy... still, I can't complain and have no right to complain, at least not often..
> > >
> > > I do worry about you sometimes though, truthfully... You certainly are often quite *intense*, and that it not necessarily particularly "healthy" in regard to a Usenet group... Once again, it appears that you often lose context, perspective and proportion, you appear to forget that this really is JUST an unmoderated newsgroup, where interactions are not SUPPOSED to run smoothly, as much as we may wish they would, if they did, it wouldn't be Usenet... As I've said to Jim many times, is it really worth getting so enraged about the goings on here, on an unmoderated newsgroup, when there are so many serious, dire, REAL LIFE problems that we are all dealing with to some extent? Does that really make sense to you on a practicle, logical level? It just seems that you often let your emotions, your anger, overwhelm your reason, which is sad, because you are clerarly a very intelligent, caring, perseptive person... Perhaps, I am reading you wrong, and you really do have more of a sense of perspective and proportion than I realize, hope so anyway..
> > Well put, Jordy.
> thank you, Will

Good afternoon, my friend.

🙂

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10:00:38 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:48:26 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:34:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.
> > > An excellent point, Zod. Tit for Tat is simply reciprocity; treating others the way you treat you. It means doing good to those who do good to you, and doing harm only to those who do harm to you. The first is the principle of co-operation, and the second the principle of self-defense; principles that virtually everyone follows.
> > >
> > > The beauty of a system of ethics like T4T is that they make it possible for a society to be run without being organized by authority figures. That's why authority figures, and wannabe authority figures, hate ethics so much; they can't dispense with them, because a society cannot simply be run by command; but they'll attack and try to undermine them whenever they can.
> > Actually no, because without an overriding authority, the individual gets to define what's "good" or "harm" and what would be appropriate "tats"
> Of course he does; what's your point? That an individual may get it wrong? Are you claiming that "authority figures" somehow don't.
> > -- I've spent my life picking up dead bodies because of Dance's idea of individual's self governing T4T in interpersonal interactions.
> Really? And how exactly did you establish that as the motive in each case? How many of the killers did you actually speak to?
>
> I'd conjecture that, if you compare the number of people killed by "self governing" people, and those killed by people acting in obedience to "authority figures," you'll find the latter to be much higher. But I'll await your data.
> > This group demonstrates the failings of T4T-- only MAC reigns supreme here...
> Oh, I don't think so. I've seen plenty of wannabe "authority figures" here, and I wouldn't hold them blameless for the state of the group.

With Penhead, the control freak on an ego trip as their leader... ha ha.

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:45:38 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10:00:38 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:48:26 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:34:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >
> > > > > Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.
> > > > An excellent point, Zod. Tit for Tat is simply reciprocity; treating others the way you treat you. It means doing good to those who do good to you, and doing harm only to those who do harm to you. The first is the principle of co-operation, and the second the principle of self-defense; principles that virtually everyone follows.
> > > >
> > > > The beauty of a system of ethics like T4T is that they make it possible for a society to be run without being organized by authority figures. That's why authority figures, and wannabe authority figures, hate ethics so much; they can't dispense with them, because a society cannot simply be run by command; but they'll attack and try to undermine them whenever they can.
> > > Actually no, because without an overriding authority, the individual gets to define what's "good" or "harm" and what would be appropriate "tats"
> > Of course he does; what's your point? That an individual may get it wrong? Are you claiming that "authority figures" somehow don't.
> > > -- I've spent my life picking up dead bodies because of Dance's idea of individual's self governing T4T in interpersonal interactions.
> > Really? And how exactly did you establish that as the motive in each case? How many of the killers did you actually speak to?
> >
> > I'd conjecture that, if you compare the number of people killed by "self governing" people, and those killed by people acting in obedience to "authority figures," you'll find the latter to be much higher. But I'll await your data.
> > > This group demonstrates the failings of T4T-- only MAC reigns supreme here...
> > Oh, I don't think so. I've seen plenty of wannabe "authority figures" here, and I wouldn't hold them blameless for the state of the group.
> With Penhead, the control freak on an ego trip as their leader... ha ha.

Hardly the control freak compared to you and your buddy that bury anybody's work that doesn't slurp you two. Hardly the control freak obsession with post editing and censoring every one's quote sections to misrepresent them to fit your narrative. Hardly the control freaking of you two constantly telling everyone that they're confused, admitting to your petty post editing misrepresenting and lying when what they say doesn't meet your approval. I actually got sWilly to say his very own words that I presented were lies! Hardly the control freaking of you two and your ass opinion editor ganging up on me to mock and to bully me into showing my comic work so sWill can belittle it 'cause he's a boasted comix Who's Who whose book is in the Library of Congress. This for over a year, even though your so called friend, whose words you cherry pick like hypocritical Fundies to appropriate for your trolling, told you that I didn't have to. So many times you blew her off-- you blatantly used her.
This all is in your record and repeated every day for everyone to see...