Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:30:26 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 4:56:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 4:40:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 8:40:38 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > > On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:03:09 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 1:34:11 PM UTC-4, Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:58:15 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, February 9, 2009 at 6:31:36 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > February
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ocean waves in winter,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the curve of your cheek.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?
>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it.
>> > > > > > > See above.
>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.
>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it.
>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Where's your admission?
>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
>> > >
>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
>> > >
>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
>> > >
>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
>> > >
>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
>> >
>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
>>
>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
>> ReplyPermalink
>> Post by Will Dockery
>> George Dance wrote...
>> Post by George Dance
>> Post by George Dance
>> February
>> ocean waves in winter,
>> the curve of your cheek.
>> ocean waves in winter
>> the curve of your cheek
>> Unnoticed dreams
>> the curve of your cheek
>> Unnoticed dreams
>> ocean waves in winter
>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>> perspective.
>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
>> Video by Doug Cole
>> </q>
>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
>> And here that is, once again:
>> <quote>
>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> </q>
>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
>>
>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

>> George Dance wrote:
>>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>>> > George Dance wrote:
>
>>> > > > > > February
> > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
>>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
>>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
>
>> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance

>>> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?
>>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
>>> > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
>>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
>>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it.
>>> > > > > > > See above.
>>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.
>>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
>>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
>>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
>>> > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
>>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
>>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
>>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
>>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
>>> > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
>>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
>>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
>>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
>>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it.
>>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
>>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
>>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Where's your admission?
>>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
>>> > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
>>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
>>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
>>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
>>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
>>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
>>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
>>> > >
>>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
>>> > >
>>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
>>> > >
>>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
>>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
>>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
>>> > >
>>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
>>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
>>> >
>>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
>>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
>>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
>>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
>>>
>>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
>>> ReplyPermalink
>>> Post by Will Dockery
>>> George Dance wrote...
>>> Post by George Dance
>>> Post by George Dance
>>> February
>>> ocean waves in winter,
>>> the curve of your cheek.
>>> ocean waves in winter
>>> the curve of your cheek
>>> Unnoticed dreams
>>> the curve of your cheek
>>> Unnoticed dreams
>>> ocean waves in winter
>>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>>> perspective.
>>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
>>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
>>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
>>> Video by Doug Cole
>>> </q>
>>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
>>> And here that is, once again:
>>> <quote>
>>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>>> </q>
>>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
>>>
>>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
>>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:30:19 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> George Dance wrote:
> >>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >>> > George Dance wrote:
> >
> >>> > > > > > February
> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> >>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> >>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> >
> >> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>
> >>> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
> >>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
> >>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it.
> >>> > > > > > > See above.
> >>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
> >>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
> >>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
> >>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so..
> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
> >>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
> >>> > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
> >>> > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
> >>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
> >>> > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it.
> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
> >>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
> >>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Where's your admission?
> >>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
> >>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical.
> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
> >>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
> >>> > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
> >>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
> >>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
> >>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
> >>> > >
> >>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
> >>> > >
> >>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
> >>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
> >>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
> >>> > >
> >>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
> >>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
> >>> >
> >>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
> >>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
> >>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
> >>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
> >>>
> >>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
> >>> ReplyPermalink
> >>> Post by Will Dockery
> >>> George Dance wrote...
> >>> Post by George Dance
> >>> Post by George Dance
> >>> February
> >>> ocean waves in winter,
> >>> the curve of your cheek.
> >>> ocean waves in winter
> >>> the curve of your cheek
> >>> Unnoticed dreams
> >>> the curve of your cheek
> >>> Unnoticed dreams
> >>> ocean waves in winter
> >>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> >>> perspective.
> >>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
> >>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> >>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> >>> Video by Doug Cole
> >>> </q>
> >>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
> >>> And here that is, once again:
> >>> <quote>
> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >>> </q>
> >>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
> >>>
> >>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
> >>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.
>
> >> That's not it.
>
> >> You reposted Will's response which appears in the thread (above).
>
> >> You see? Locating the deleted post is more difficult than you thought. And you (supposedly) have some idea as to what it was.
> Like I said, it isn't difficult at all, just go to the thread at Narkive:
>
> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>
> Michael Pendragon must have finally read the thread, thus:

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:30:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >> George Dance wrote:
>> >>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> >>> > George Dance wrote:
>> >
>> >>> > > > > > February
>> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
>> >>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
>> >>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
>> >
>> >> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
>> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
>> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
>> >>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it.
>> >>> > > > > > > See above.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
>> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
>> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
>> >>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
>> >>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
>> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so..
>> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
>> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
>> >>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
>> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
>> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
>> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
>> >>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
>> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it.
>> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
>> >>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
>> >>> > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > Where's your admission?
>> >>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical.
>> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
>> >>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
>> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
>> >>> > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
>> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
>> >>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
>> >>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
>> >>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
>> >>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
>> >>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
>> >>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
>> >>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
>> >>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
>> >>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
>> >>>
>> >>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
>> >>> ReplyPermalink
>> >>> Post by Will Dockery
>> >>> George Dance wrote...
>> >>> Post by George Dance
>> >>> Post by George Dance
>> >>> February
>> >>> ocean waves in winter,
>> >>> the curve of your cheek.
>> >>> ocean waves in winter
>> >>> the curve of your cheek
>> >>> Unnoticed dreams
>> >>> the curve of your cheek
>> >>> Unnoticed dreams
>> >>> ocean waves in winter
>> >>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>> >>> perspective.
>> >>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
>> >>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
>> >>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
>> >>> Video by Doug Cole
>> >>> </q>
>> >>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
>> >>> And here that is, once again:
>> >>> <quote>
>> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >>> </q>
>> >>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
>> >>>
>> >>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
>> >>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.
>>
>> >> That's not it.
>>
>> >> You reposted Will's response which appears in the thread (above).
>>
>> >> You see? Locating the deleted post is more difficult than you thought. And you (supposedly) have some idea as to what it was.
>> Like I said, it isn't difficult at all, just go to the thread at Narkive:
>>
>> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>>
>> Michael Pendragon must have finally read the thread, thus:

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:50:24 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:30:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> >> George Dance wrote:
> >> >>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >> >>> > George Dance wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> > > > > > February
> >> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> >> >>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> >> >>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >>
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it.
> >> >>> > > > > > > See above.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
> >> >>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him..
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so..
> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
> >> >>> > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
> >> >>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it..
> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > Where's your admission?
> >> >>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical..
> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
> >> >>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
> >> >>> > > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
> >> >>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
> >> >>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
> >> >>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
> >> >>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
> >> >>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
> >> >>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
> >> >>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
> >> >>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
> >> >>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
> >> >>> ReplyPermalink
> >> >>> Post by Will Dockery
> >> >>> George Dance wrote...
> >> >>> Post by George Dance
> >> >>> Post by George Dance
> >> >>> February
> >> >>> ocean waves in winter,
> >> >>> the curve of your cheek.
> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
> >> >>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> >> >>> perspective.
> >> >>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
> >> >>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> >> >>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> >> >>> Video by Doug Cole
> >> >>> </q>
> >> >>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
> >> >>> And here that is, once again:
> >> >>> <quote>
> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >>> </q>
> >> >>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
> >> >>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.
> >>
> >> >> That's not it.
> >>
> >> >> You reposted Will's response which appears in the thread (above).
> >>
> >> >> You see? Locating the deleted post is more difficult than you thought. And you (supposedly) have some idea as to what it was.
> >> Like I said, it isn't difficult at all, just go to the thread at Narkive:
> >>
> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >>
> >> Michael Pendragon must have finally read the thread, thus:
>
> > I clicked on the link, Donkey. There are 202 replies. I didn't recognize at least a dozen of them. Which one is the post that was deleted?
> I'll check it, and see about perhaps posting a screenshot later today.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:50:24 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:30:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >> >> George Dance wrote:
>> >> >>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> >> >>> > George Dance wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>> > > > > > February
>> >> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
>> >> >>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
>> >> >>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
>> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >>
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > See above.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him..
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so..
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
>> >> >>> > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
>> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it..
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
>> >> >>> > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
>> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
>> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > Where's your admission?
>> >> >>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
>> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical..
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
>> >> >>> > > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
>> >> >>> > > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
>> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
>> >> >>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
>> >> >>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
>> >> >>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
>> >> >>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
>> >> >>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
>> >> >>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
>> >> >>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
>> >> >>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
>> >> >>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
>> >> >>> ReplyPermalink
>> >> >>> Post by Will Dockery
>> >> >>> George Dance wrote...
>> >> >>> Post by George Dance
>> >> >>> Post by George Dance
>> >> >>> February
>> >> >>> ocean waves in winter,
>> >> >>> the curve of your cheek.
>> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
>> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
>> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
>> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
>> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
>> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
>> >> >>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>> >> >>> perspective.
>> >> >>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
>> >> >>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
>> >> >>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
>> >> >>> Video by Doug Cole
>> >> >>> </q>
>> >> >>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
>> >> >>> And here that is, once again:
>> >> >>> <quote>
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >>> </q>
>> >> >>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
>> >> >>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.
>> >>
>> >> >> That's not it.
>> >>
>> >> >> You reposted Will's response which appears in the thread (above).
>> >>
>> >> >> You see? Locating the deleted post is more difficult than you thought. And you (supposedly) have some idea as to what it was.
>> >> Like I said, it isn't difficult at all, just go to the thread at Narkive:
>> >>
>> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >>
>> >> Michael Pendragon must have finally read the thread, thus:
>>
>> > I clicked on the link, Donkey. There are 202 replies. I didn't recognize at least a dozen of them. Which one is the post that was deleted?
>> I'll check it, and see about perhaps posting a screenshot later today.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 5:26:53 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:50:24 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:30:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> >> >> George Dance wrote:
> >> >> >>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >> >> >>> > George Dance wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > February
> >> >> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> >> >> >>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> >> >> >>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
> >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >>
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry..comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > See above.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one..
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him..
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so..
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
> >> >> >>> > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it..
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
> >> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > Where's your admission?
> >> >> >>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical..
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
> >> >> >>> > > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
> >> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
> >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >> >>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
> >> >> >>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
> >> >> >>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
> >> >> >>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
> >> >> >>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
> >> >> >>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
> >> >> >>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
> >> >> >>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
> >> >> >>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
> >> >> >>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
> >> >> >>> ReplyPermalink
> >> >> >>> Post by Will Dockery
> >> >> >>> George Dance wrote...
> >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
> >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
> >> >> >>> February
> >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter,
> >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek.
> >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
> >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
> >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
> >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
> >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
> >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
> >> >> >>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> >> >> >>> perspective.
> >> >> >>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
> >> >> >>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> >> >> >>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
> >> >> >>> Video by Doug Cole
> >> >> >>> </q>
> >> >> >>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
> >> >> >>> And here that is, once again:
> >> >> >>> <quote>
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
> >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >> >>> </q>
> >> >> >>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
> >> >> >>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's not it.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> You reposted Will's response which appears in the thread (above)..
> >> >>
> >> >> >> You see? Locating the deleted post is more difficult than you thought. And you (supposedly) have some idea as to what it was.
> >> >> Like I said, it isn't difficult at all, just go to the thread at Narkive:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> >>
> >> >> Michael Pendragon must have finally read the thread, thus:
> >>
> >> > I clicked on the link, Donkey. There are 202 replies. I didn't recognize at least a dozen of them. Which one is the post that was deleted?
> >> I'll check it, and see about perhaps posting a screenshot later today.
>
> > Do you know which post was deleted?
>
> > Just copy/paste it here.
>
> > The one that George previously copy/pasted was not the deleted post because it appears in this thread.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 5:26:53 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:50:24 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:30:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> >> >> George Dance wrote:
> > >> >> >>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > >> >> >>> > George Dance wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > February
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> > >> >> >>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> > >> >> >>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
> > >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael.. Do you have to lie about everything?
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it..
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > See above.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him..
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so..
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it..
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know.. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
> > >> >> >>> > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
> > >> >> >>> > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > Where's your admission?
> > >> >> >>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
> > >> >> >>> > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical..
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
> > >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
> > >> >> >>> > > > >
> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > >> >> >>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
> > >> >> >>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
> > >> >> >>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
> > >> >> >>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
> > >> >> >>> > >
> > >> >> >>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
> > >> >> >>> > >
> > >> >> >>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
> > >> >> >>> > >
> > >> >> >>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
> > >> >> >>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
> > >> >> >>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
> > >> >> >>> > >
> > >> >> >>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
> > >> >> >>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
> > >> >> >>> >
> > >> >> >>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
> > >> >> >>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
> > >> >> >>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
> > >> >> >>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
> > >> >> >>> ReplyPermalink
> > >> >> >>> Post by Will Dockery
> > >> >> >>> George Dance wrote...
> > >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
> > >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
> > >> >> >>> February
> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter,
> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek.
> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
> > >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
> > >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
> > >> >> >>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> > >> >> >>> perspective.
> > >> >> >>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
> > >> >> >>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> > >> >> >>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler..
> > >> >> >>> Video by Doug Cole
> > >> >> >>> </q>
> > >> >> >>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
> > >> >> >>> And here that is, once again:
> > >> >> >>> <quote>
> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > >> >> >>> </q>
> > >> >> >>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
> > >> >> >>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >> That's not it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >> You reposted Will's response which appears in the thread (above).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >> You see? Locating the deleted post is more difficult than you thought. And you (supposedly) have some idea as to what it was.
> > >> >> Like I said, it isn't difficult at all, just go to the thread at Narkive:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Michael Pendragon must have finally read the thread, thus:
> > >>
> > >> > I clicked on the link, Donkey. There are 202 replies. I didn't recognize at least a dozen of them. Which one is the post that was deleted?
> > >> I'll check it, and see about perhaps posting a screenshot later today.
> >
> > > Do you know which post was deleted?
> >
> > > Just copy/paste it here.
> >
> > > The one that George previously copy/pasted was not the deleted post because it appears in this thread.
> That, as i've already pointed out, is monkeyshit.
> > I think it might have been deleted because it was probably just a double post, but I'll find out.
> >
> > HTH and HAND.
> Since you're planning to check, Will, I'll tell you what I told our monkey: it appears as a reply to your first post in the thread. It should be easy to find that one, as its video was embedded by narkive. The deleted post appears right after yours; it's a reply to yours without any original text.
>

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 5:26:53 PM UTC-4, Wlll Dockery wrote:
>> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:50:24 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
>> > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > >> > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:30:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > >> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > >> >> >> George Dance wrote:
>> > >> >> >>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > >> >> >>> > George Dance wrote:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > February
>> > >> >> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
>> > >> >> >>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
>> > >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael.. Do you have to lie about everything?
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it..
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > See above.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him..
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so..
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it..
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know.. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
>> > >> >> >>> > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > Where's your admission?
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
>> > >> >> >>> > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical..
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> > >> >> >>> > > > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > >> >> >>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
>> > >> >> >>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
>> > >> >> >>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
>> > >> >> >>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
>> > >> >> >>> > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
>> > >> >> >>> > >
>> > >> >> >>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
>> > >> >> >>> > >
>> > >> >> >>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
>> > >> >> >>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
>> > >> >> >>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
>> > >> >> >>> > >
>> > >> >> >>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
>> > >> >> >>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
>> > >> >> >>> >
>> > >> >> >>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
>> > >> >> >>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
>> > >> >> >>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
>> > >> >> >>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
>> > >> >> >>> ReplyPermalink
>> > >> >> >>> Post by Will Dockery
>> > >> >> >>> George Dance wrote...
>> > >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
>> > >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
>> > >> >> >>> February
>> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter,
>> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek.
>> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
>> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
>> > >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
>> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
>> > >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
>> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
>> > >> >> >>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>> > >> >> >>> perspective.
>> > >> >> >>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
>> > >> >> >>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
>> > >> >> >>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler..
>> > >> >> >>> Video by Doug Cole
>> > >> >> >>> </q>
>> > >> >> >>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
>> > >> >> >>> And here that is, once again:
>> > >> >> >>> <quote>
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > >> >> >>> </q>
>> > >> >> >>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
>> > >> >> >>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >> That's not it.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >> You reposted Will's response which appears in the thread (above).
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >> You see? Locating the deleted post is more difficult than you thought. And you (supposedly) have some idea as to what it was.
>> > >> >> Like I said, it isn't difficult at all, just go to the thread at Narkive:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Michael Pendragon must have finally read the thread, thus:
>> > >>
>> > >> > I clicked on the link, Donkey. There are 202 replies. I didn't recognize at least a dozen of them. Which one is the post that was deleted?
>> > >> I'll check it, and see about perhaps posting a screenshot later today.
>> >
>> > > Do you know which post was deleted?
>> >
>> > > Just copy/paste it here.
>> >
>> > > The one that George previously copy/pasted was not the deleted post because it appears in this thread.
>> That, as i've already pointed out, is monkeyshit.
>> > I think it might have been deleted because it was probably just a double post, but I'll find out.
>> >
>> > HTH and HAND.
>> Since you're planning to check, Will, I'll tell you what I told our monkey: it appears as a reply to your first post in the thread. It should be easy to find that one, as its video was embedded by narkive. The deleted post appears right after yours; it's a reply to yours without any original text.
>>

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 6:47:34 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 5:26:53 PM UTC-4, Wlll Dockery wrote:
> >> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:50:24 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> >> > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > >> > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:30:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > >> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > >> >> >> George Dance wrote:
> >> > >> >> >>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >> > >> >> >>> > George Dance wrote:
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > February
> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
> >> > >> >> >>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
> >> > >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael.. Do you have to lie about everything?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it..
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > See above.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him..
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so..
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate.. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it..
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know.. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > Where's your admission?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical..
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
> >> > >> >> >>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
> >> > >> >> >>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
> >> > >> >> >>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
> >> > >> >> >>> > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
> >> > >> >> >>> > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
> >> > >> >> >>> > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
> >> > >> >> >>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
> >> > >> >> >>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
> >> > >> >> >>> > >
> >> > >> >> >>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
> >> > >> >> >>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
> >> > >> >> >>> >
> >> > >> >> >>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
> >> > >> >> >>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
> >> > >> >> >>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
> >> > >> >> >>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
> >> > >> >> >>>
> >> > >> >> >>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
> >> > >> >> >>> ReplyPermalink
> >> > >> >> >>> Post by Will Dockery
> >> > >> >> >>> George Dance wrote...
> >> > >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
> >> > >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
> >> > >> >> >>> February
> >> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter,
> >> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek.
> >> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
> >> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
> >> > >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
> >> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
> >> > >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
> >> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
> >> > >> >> >>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> >> > >> >> >>> perspective.
> >> > >> >> >>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
> >> > >> >> >>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> >> > >> >> >>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler..
> >> > >> >> >>> Video by Doug Cole
> >> > >> >> >>> </q>
> >> > >> >> >>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
> >> > >> >> >>> And here that is, once again:
> >> > >> >> >>> <quote>
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> > >> >> >>> </q>
> >> > >> >> >>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
> >> > >> >> >>>
> >> > >> >> >>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
> >> > >> >> >>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> That's not it.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> You reposted Will's response which appears in the thread (above).
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> You see? Locating the deleted post is more difficult than you thought. And you (supposedly) have some idea as to what it was.
> >> > >> >> Like I said, it isn't difficult at all, just go to the thread at Narkive:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Michael Pendragon must have finally read the thread, thus:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > I clicked on the link, Donkey. There are 202 replies. I didn't recognize at least a dozen of them. Which one is the post that was deleted?
> >> > >> I'll check it, and see about perhaps posting a screenshot later today.
> >> >
> >> > > Do you know which post was deleted?
> >> >
> >> > > Just copy/paste it here.
> >> >
> >> > > The one that George previously copy/pasted was not the deleted post because it appears in this thread.
> >> That, as i've already pointed out, is monkeyshit.
> >> > I think it might have been deleted because it was probably just a double post, but I'll find out.
> >> >
> >> > HTH and HAND.
> >> Since you're planning to check, Will, I'll tell you what I told our monkey: it appears as a reply to your first post in the thread. It should be easy to find that one, as its video was embedded by narkive. The deleted post appears right after yours; it's a reply to yours without any original text.
> >>
>
> > Found it.
>
> > You see how simple that was, George?
>
> > All it took was for you to be a little forthcoming with the requested information.
> Interesting that you couldn't find it yourself, probably because it proves Nancy Gene to be wrong?

Michael Pendragon wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> George Dance wrote:
>>>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>>>>> > George Dance wrote:
>
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > February
>> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
>
>> >> > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:

https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance

>> >> > >> >> >>>>> Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
>
>> >> > >> >> > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael.. Do you have to lie about everything?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it..
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > See above.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him..
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so..
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate.. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it..
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know.. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > Where's your admission?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical..
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
>> >> > >> >> >>> > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
>> >> > >> >> >>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
>> >> > >> >> >>> > >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
>> >> > >> >> >>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
>> >> > >> >> >>> >
>> >> > >> >> >>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
>> >> > >> >> >>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
>> >> > >> >> >>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
>> >> > >> >> >>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
>> >> > >> >> >>>
>> >> > >> >> >>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
>> >> > >> >> >>> ReplyPermalink
>> >> > >> >> >>> Post by Will Dockery
>> >> > >> >> >>> George Dance wrote...
>> >> > >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
>> >> > >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
>> >> > >> >> >>> February
>> >> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter,
>> >> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek.
>> >> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
>> >> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
>> >> > >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
>> >> > >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
>> >> > >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
>> >> > >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
>> >> > >> >> >>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>> >> > >> >> >>> perspective.
>> >> > >> >> >>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
>> >> > >> >> >>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
>> >> > >> >> >>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler..
>> >> > >> >> >>> Video by Doug Cole
>> >> > >> >> >>> </q>
>> >> > >> >> >>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
>> >> > >> >> >>> And here that is, once again:
>> >> > >> >> >>> <quote>
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> >> > >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> > >> >> >>> </q>
>> >> > >> >> >>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
>> >> > >> >> >>>
>> >> > >> >> >>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
>> >> > >> >> >>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> That's not it.
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> You reposted Will's response which appears in the thread (above).
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> You see? Locating the deleted post is more difficult than you thought. And you (supposedly) have some idea as to what it was.
>> >> > >> >> Like I said, it isn't difficult at all, just go to the thread at Narkive:
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> Michael Pendragon must have finally read the thread, thus:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> > I clicked on the link, Donkey. There are 202 replies. I didn't recognize at least a dozen of them. Which one is the post that was deleted?
>> >> > >> I'll check it, and see about perhaps posting a screenshot later today.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Do you know which post was deleted?
>> >> >
>> >> > > Just copy/paste it here.
>> >> >
>> >> > > The one that George previously copy/pasted was not the deleted post because it appears in this thread.
>> >> That, as i've already pointed out, is monkeyshit.
>> >> > I think it might have been deleted because it was probably just a double post, but I'll find out.
>> >> >
>> >> > HTH and HAND.
>> >> Since you're planning to check, Will, I'll tell you what I told our monkey: it appears as a reply to your first post in the thread. It should be easy to find that one, as its video was embedded by narkive. The deleted post appears right after yours; it's a reply to yours without any original text.
>> >>
>>
>> > Found it.
>>
>> > You see how simple that was, George?
>>
>> > All it took was for you to be a little forthcoming with the requested information.
>> Interesting that you couldn't find it yourself, probably because it proves Nancy Gene to be wrong?

George Dance wrote:

> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 5:26:53 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> George Dance wrote:
>>>> Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> >>> George Dance wrote:
>
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > February
>> >> >> > > > > > > > Unnoticed dreams:
>> >> >> >>> > > >> > ocean waves in winter,
>> >> >> >>> > > > > the curve of your cheek.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > > > > >> > Here's the complete thread, archived at Narkive:
>> >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > HTH and HAND.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent find, Will -- at least it was a find for me, because I keep losing the narkive link and have to have it rediscovered. It's linked by subthread rather than by date, and the posts are just dated "X years ago", but since there's only one deleted post it was easy enough to find it, and to prove that the Monkey and the Goon have been lying about that as well. (It appears right after your post with the embedded video.)
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me talk about that story now, since I've been holding back waiting for the proof to be posted (which you've done).
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our resident Monkey claimed that I'd spewed "snippy replies" at "everyone else" in the discussion but you and FarStar (whom he now thinks is Zod). Which of course was a lie - I flamed the only the four trolls, no one else, not Manwolf or msifg. So I asked him to PPOSTFU, by showing my "snippy reply" to Manwolf.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expected reply would have been that by "everyone else" he'd meant everyone that I'd replied to; and indeed he did try that. But by then it was too late: NastyGoon had already claimed that I'd deleted the reply to Manwolf. So now the Monkey had to double down and claim the same thing, while neglecting my request for him to post proof. Of course he can't because in fact there was no such post -- but they both have to keep claiming that there was, in the process digging themselves in deeper..
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you keep moving your false accusations to new threads.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > We're still in the same thread, Michael. Do you have to lie about everything?
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > What do you call this?
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry..comments/c/vjt3spFpxgc
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > The latest revision of the poem. Can't you read it?
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I call it a continuation of this argument in a separate thread, wherein you repeat all of your previous accusations out of context.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Then, as I said, it's doubtful that you read it.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > See above.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Of course, we all know that this is your oft-quoted Goebbels-endorsed method for getting others to believe your lies.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 people who responded to your poems, you gave slurp-backs to the two that slurped you, and spewed your usual petty, snippy "comebacks" at everyone else.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > That's what you said, and that was not true. The only people I "spewed" at where the four trolls in the thread at that time.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > You spewed at 5, slurped 2, and deleted one..
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > You're either a liar or innumerate. I "spewed" at the 4 trolls, thanked 2 other who non-trolls who commented, and didn't reply to the other 2.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Whatever. I'm too tired of your nit-pickery to scroll up and/or argue the point. Spewing at 4 and thanking 2 is still a 2-to-1 ratio, and sufficient to establish your inability to accept negative criticism.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael, none of the four trolls offered any criticism. The only person who offered any criticism was Manwolf.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > If you're too dense to understand how JR's and Karla's mock poetry was a criticism on yours, I can't help you. Go back to the potato field.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Your reply to Manwolf appears to have been deleted from the thread. I do not know what, if anything, you said to him..
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > And there's the lie Will and I are discussing. NastyGoon had claimed that I'd deleted a "snippy" reply to Manwolf. And you've doubled down on it.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I've done no such thing, George.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > There is currently no reply to Manwolf showing in this thread (on Google Groups -- which is the *only* means by which I access this group).
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So kindly stop repeating the lie that I deleted a reply to him.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so..
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that you would slurp/spew 7 of the 8 respondents while ignoring one who you claim to have been attacking one of your perceived enemies.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're either lying or innumerate. As I said, I "ignored" 2 of the 8 -- Manwolf and msifg -- *both* of whom had "attacked" the troll jr sherman.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > See above. It still shows you for the petty person that you are.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > LOL! If I didn't reply to him, it was either because I was too busy -- and I was busy, with the four trolls and their attacks on the people in the thread who said they liked it -- or that I thought it would take too long to write a reply to him.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > LOL? You don't get humor, but laugh at your failure to have responded to the only person you claim "offered any criticism" of your poem?
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > WTF is wrong with you?
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > This makes me strongly suspect that the deleted post was one in which you spewed your snippy venom at Manwolf.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Michael; we've seen the complete record of the thread, which Will found on Narkive. The "deleted" post was not from me to Manwolf. Anyone who wants can go read the thread and verify that. NG simply made up their false accusation.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > Then why don't you just repost what was deleted here, and be done with it?
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > But why argue about it? You claim to access Google Groups via a newsreader. Your response to Manwolf should be easy for you to locate and repost in this thread.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Which only shows your ignorance: newsreaders do not have archives going back to 2009. (Thunderbird archives only the last 500 or so posts.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > Why should I have any knowledge of how many posts each newsreader archives? How many posts does Eternal September archive?
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > You should have some knowledge of that because you're trying to explain it. Why are you trying to explain something you know nothing about?
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > Where do you think I'm trying to explain something, George? I asked you a couple of questions. If you don't know the answers, just say so and move on.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > However, as Will demonstrated, it is possible to find the "deleted" post on Narkive. You've been asked to PP, so go find it..
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > Just post the deleted portion here, George. Narkive isn't going to identify which post was deleted, and I haven't the time to attempt to figure out which one was.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > So NG's claim was false in fact, but you're going to believe it's true because that makes you "happy". That's good to know. It explains why you make so many false claims: you believe them because believing them makes you happy.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > When you show that NancyGene's statement was incorrect, I'll admit that it was incorrect. Easy as pie.
>> >> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > Did you forget about this, Pendragon?
>> >> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > Where's your admission?
>> >> >> >>> > > > > Click the link, scroll down, read, and admit you were wrong:
>> >> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I can only guess that the deleted post had been addressed to Manwolf -- you simply may have ignored him entirely.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > So you're finally admitting that your "colleague" (who is *NOT* on your team) might have simply made up the story. I hope they enjoy your attempt to throw them under the bus.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > No. I'm saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of what you did.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > I believe NancyGene's statement, but hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > So you were unable to either PP or STFU. Typical..
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > I had already conceded that you may have ignored Manwolf, George. You're the one who used that concession to make your idiotic claim that I was throwing NancyGene under a bus.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Sorry, it looked like you no longer believed your claim; and when you began calling it 'NG's' claim rather than one you both posted, it looked like you were trying to throw them under the bus. Now that you've said that you're going to continue to believe and spread that false claim anyway, because it makes you happy, that changes things.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > The only thing that's changed is your rephrasing of my posts..
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > The point of contention is over the content of post that was deleted from the thread.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here.
>> >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> >> >> >>> > > > >
>> >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >> >>> > > > What part of "You can settle the point by reposting the deleted thread here" are you failing to understand, Donkey?
>> >> >> >>> > > I'm failing to understand "You can settle the point". We already know your reasons for believing in the "post to Manwolf".
>> >> >> >>> > > (1) "Since NancyGene said you did, and since I believe she has access to a newsreader, I will assume that she is correct in saying so."
>> >> >> >>> > > (2) "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement"
>> >> >> >>> > >
>> >> >> >>> > > You believe it because (1) your "colleague" (who is "not" on your team, of course) said it, and (2) believing it makes you happy. Since neither reason has anything to do with the facts of the matter, there's no reason that showing you the facts will "settle" anything.
>> >> >> >>> > >
>> >> >> >>> > > Since it's easy (and undetectable without going to the site) for either Will or me to change the text after pasting but before posting, that's probably the gambit you'd think of and use to keep it going: that you can't believe it wasn't altered simply because a non-"colleague" said it.
>> >> >> >>> > >
>> >> >> >>> > Don't be silly, Mr. Conspiracy Guy. If you post it, I will immediately check it against the original in the link.
>> >> >> >>> I'm glad to have your commitment on that. Not that I believe it will do any good, but I feel I should do something to reciprocate. Here it is, copied and pasted.
>> >> >> >>> > > The links were not posted for you, or for any of your "colleagues" (who are all "not" on your team, of course). They were posted for anyone who is reading the thread and is interested enough in the facts to look (which you are not).
>> >> >> >>> > >
>> >> >> >>> > For what is at least the third time, I repeat: it will be both difficult and time consuming for me to identify the deleted thread when I've no idea what the deleted thread was.
>> >> >> >>> It's not difficult at all. You know the thread, and have a link to it; and I've told you which post it is in the thread. Since you now plan to go there anyway, after complaining about "difficult and time consuming" it will be, I'll repeat the latter instructions. It's the post immediately after the one (from Will) with the embedded video. I found it in less time than it took to read this post of yours, and it should take you far less.
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > IIRC the one newsreader I tried, Eternal September, was very difficult to navigate, and listed the posts in a different order than AAPC.
>> >> >> >>> I didn't verify it using a newsreader; as I said, it can't be accessed on my newsreader. I used Will's narkive link. The posts are in a different order there, too, but it's not hard to find.
>> >> >> >>> > So, if you wish to settle this point once and for all, all that you need to do is 1) copy/paste the deleted message here,
>> >> >> >>> Here it is, FWIW; simply copied and pasted:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> <quote> George Dance14 years ago
>> >> >> >>> ReplyPermalink
>> >> >> >>> Post by Will Dockery
>> >> >> >>> George Dance wrote...
>> >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
>> >> >> >>> Post by George Dance
>> >> >> >>> February
>> >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter,
>> >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek.
>> >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
>> >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
>> >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
>> >> >> >>> the curve of your cheek
>> >> >> >>> Unnoticed dreams
>> >> >> >>> ocean waves in winter
>> >> >> >>> Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>> >> >> >>> perspective.
>> >> >> >>> http://youtu.be/r6BGlXmtzE8
>> >> >> >>> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
>> >> >> >>> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
>> >> >> >>> Video by Doug Cole
>> >> >> >>> </q>
>> >> >> >>> 2) copy/paste a link where I can see it in the original thread.
>> >> >> >>> And here that is, once again:
>> >> >> >>> <quote>
>> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > Here's the link again https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >> >>> > > > > The link to the thread has been posted here several times, Pendragon:
>> >> >> >>> > > > > https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >> >>> </q>
>> >> >> >>> > That's not so much to ask -- especially when it could have definitely settled the matter several days ago.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> > So as the popular saying goes: Put up or shut up.
>> >> >> >>> I've put up. Now it's your turn.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's not it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You reposted Will's response which appears in the thread (above)..
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You see? Locating the deleted post is more difficult than you thought. And you (supposedly) have some idea as to what it was.
>> >> >> Like I said, it isn't difficult at all, just go to the thread at Narkive:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://alt.arts.poetry.comments.narkive.com/ZPTgukz4/february-george-dance
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Michael Pendragon must have finally read the thread, thus:
>> >>
>> >> > I clicked on the link, Donkey. There are 202 replies. I didn't recognize at least a dozen of them. Which one is the post that was deleted?
>> >> I'll check it, and see about perhaps posting a screenshot later today.
>>
>> > Do you know which post was deleted?
>>
>> > Just copy/paste it here.
>>
>> > The one that George previously copy/pasted was not the deleted post because it appears in this thread.