On Saturday, 8 April 2023 at 17:20:13 UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> General-Zod wrote:
>
> > Will Donkey wrote:
>
> >> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >
> >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
> >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D.
> >>>
> >>> Ha ha
>
> >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
>
>
> > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
> Exactly.
>
> ;)

Only a couple of fucktards like you and zod would think that.
Just goes to show…..

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 5:58:29 PM UTC-4, ME wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 April 2023 at 17:20:13 UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> > General-Zod wrote:
> >
> > > Will Donkey wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > >
> > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
> > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ha ha
> >
> > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
> >
> >
> > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
> > Exactly.
> >
>
> Only a couple of fucktards

Look who's talking.

🙂

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:38:27 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 5:58:29 PM UTC-4, ME wrote:
> > On Saturday, 8 April 2023 at 17:20:13 UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> > > General-Zod wrote:
> > >
> > > > Will Donkey wrote:
> > >
> > > >> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ha ha
> > >
> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
> > >
> > >
> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
> > > Exactly.
> > >
> >
> > Only a couple of fucktards
> Look who's talking.

Looks like you're doin' all the talking. How many accounts are you using-- looks like three to me...

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 5:20:13 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> General-Zod wrote:
>
> > Will Donkey wrote:
>
> >> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >
> >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
> >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D.
> >>>
> >>> Ha ha
>
> >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
>
>
> > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
> Exactly.

I may be jealous, Dunce has such a perfect echo chamber... not an original thought among the whole lot of its members!

Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:38:27 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > > General-Zod wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Will Donkey wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
>> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
>> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
>> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
>> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
>> > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word..
>> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
>> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
>> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
>> > > >>> > >
>> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
>> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
>> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
>> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
>> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
>> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
>> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Ha ha
>> > >
>> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
>> > > Exactly.

> How many accounts are you using-- looks like three to me...

I only use two accounts, since you asked.

HTH and HAND.

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 5:06:06 PM UTC-4, ME wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 April 2023 at 16:47:20 UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 4:25:24 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 4:22:30 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:10:56 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:06:46 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 2:30:17 PM UTC-4, General-Zod wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
> > > > > > I looks like I don't have to tell you
> > > > > You never had, hypocrite Ash... ha ha,.
> > > > You're merely the host, the vector for the contagion
> > > It is your malicious thug friends who have that honor, Ash.
> > Mr No One Number Two, your words have no power here and your narrative is merely yours and your socks "real poet" delusion. Are you Sod's troll tag team member?
> >
> > Ah yes, your usual "gang" accusation... So much for you saying that you weren't:
> > Idiot tyrants, how you decree that everyone is in a gang against you and beneath you, you herd them like mere sheep, strip away their individuality. How you post edit narratives of what they say, takes away their speech and puts your petty words in their mouths. Seeing you here, just being the ridicule of Usenet poetry, I must say you're no kings, just lame goons just forcing your selves upon the rest of us.
> > Blind idiots, always they talk so simple minded about gangs and leaders, ignorant to the fact that this strife is a complex web of individual struggles interwoven in fighting.
> >
> > You buried peace under your narcissistic spam a long time ago. Long rest peace in pieces beneath your tit for tatting faeces.
> >
> > Oh, my stars and garters
> > don't let this ego pageantry falter
> > Bump all those past bells and whistles
> > skip 'n ignore that hateful burr and thistle
> > they're just jealous of a "real poetry" performance
> > of the best folk comix artist that Columbus could muster
> >
> > You all try to hold me to rules in this strife
> > of this raucous riot you proudly call Life
> > and all I say in my defense is "Oh, well"
> > to the struggle of shallow minds in empty shells
> > on the slippery slope to their inglorious Hells
> > These rules of this discord's duplicity
> > that you decree and apply hypocritically
> > they serve you only and do no good for me
> > This self absorbed discord isn't accord
> > just ignorance pursued for your own reward
> >
> > And thumbs down all around on this battleground, a burial ground for has been renown, where legacies are uncrowned without a vainglorious sound.
> OMG. Ash, you just bitch slapped will, zod and dance in one fell swoop!!! (With a bit on the side for jordi’s unu)
>
> Well done, Ash.

Yep got them deflecting and burying.
And I have more loaded for another salvo...

O! See the pedaling covering up by tee-for-tee disciples
while Columbus' white knights' flail in denial
It seems that all the self righteous tattering
has brought out skeletons clattering
Busting out in a nasty tatting pageantry-
a resolute coming out, imagined he,
the closet case Qwannabe...

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:10:23 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:38:27 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >
> > > > General-Zod wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Will Donkey wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> >> > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
> >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
> >> > > >>> > >
> >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants.. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Ha ha
> >> > >
> >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
> >> > > Exactly.
> > How many accounts are you using-- looks like three to me...
> I only use two accounts, since you asked.

One account isn't enough to silence a whole group and bury them under Dockery only content, huh?

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:47:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:10:23 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:38:27 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >
> > > > > General-Zod wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Will Donkey wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > >> > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
> > >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> > >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
> > >> > > >>> > >
> > >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> > >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> > >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> > >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> > >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> > >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> > >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr.. G.D..
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> Ha ha
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
> > >> > > Exactly.
> > > How many accounts are you using-- looks like three to me...
> > I only use two accounts, since you asked.
> One account isn't enough to silence a whole group and bury them under Dockery only content, huh?

I'm not the only one here with two accounts.

Ask Michael Pendragon how many accounts he has.

HTH and HAND.

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 9:13:45 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:47:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:10:23 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:38:27 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > General-Zod wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Will Donkey wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> > > >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > >> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > > >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
> > > >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> > > >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
> > > >> > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> > > >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> > > >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> > > >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> > > >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> > > >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> > > >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> Ha ha
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
> > > >> > > Exactly.
> > > > How many accounts are you using-- looks like three to me...
> > > I only use two accounts, since you asked.
> > One account isn't enough to silence a whole group and bury them under Dockery only content, huh?
> I'm not the only one here with two accounts.
>
> Ask Michael Pendragon how many accounts he has.
>
> HTH and HAND.

Deflection for the Losenet vet lose!!!
But you post twice as much as he, in fact you post twice as much as everyone else combined.

Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 9:13:45 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:47:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:10:23 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:38:27 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > > General-Zod wrote:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > Will Donkey wrote:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > >> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
>> > > >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
>> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
>> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
>> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
>> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
>> > > >> > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
>> > > >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
>> > > >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
>> > > >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
>> > > >> > > >>> > >
>> > > >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
>> > > >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
>> > > >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
>> > > >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
>> > > >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
>> > > >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
>> > > >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
>> > > >> > > >>>
>> > > >> > > >>> Ha ha
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
>> > > >> > > Exactly.
>> > > > How many accounts are you using-- looks like three to me...
>> > > I only use two accounts, since you asked.
>> > One account isn't enough to silence a whole group and bury them under Dockery only content, huh?
>> I'm not the only one here with two accounts.
>>
>> Ask Michael Pendragon how many accounts he has.
>>
>> HTH and HAND.

> Deflection

Not at all, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, Ash.

HTH and HAND.

On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 12:18:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Ash Wurthing wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 9:13:45 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:47:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:10:23 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >> > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:38:27 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > General-Zod wrote:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > > Will Donkey wrote:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Zod wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> >> > > >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
> >> > > >> > > >>> > >
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> >> > > >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> >> > > >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> >> > > >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> >> > > >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> >> > > >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> >> > > >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
> >> > > >> > > >>>
> >> > > >> > > >>> Ha ha
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
> >> > > >> > > Exactly.
> >> > > > How many accounts are you using-- looks like three to me...
> >> > > I only use two accounts, since you asked.
> >> > One account isn't enough to silence a whole group and bury them under Dockery only content, huh?
> >> I'm not the only one here with two accounts.
> >>
> >> Ask Michael Pendragon how many accounts he has.
> >>
> >> HTH and HAND.
>
> > Deflection
> Not at all, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, Ash.

You failed with a critical element of your accusation of the offense of hypocrisy:
I simply asked how many accounts you had,
then I asked YOU (no one else) if took that many accounts to spam everyone out
no one else was involved in this, so there would be no hypocrisy especially since I never said anything about myself in this
hypocrisy usually involves someone doing not what they're saying

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 5:30:24 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 12:18:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> > >> > > >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> > >> > > >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
> > >> > > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>> Ha ha
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.

XXXXXXXXX snipped bullshit trolling from Ash xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > Not at all, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, Ash.
> You failed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nope, you just declared another imaginary victory, Ash... ha ha ha.

Zod wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 5:30:24 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 12:18:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >>
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
>> > >> > > >> > > >>>
>> > >> > > >> > > >>> Ha ha
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.

> XXXXXXXXX snipped bullshit trolling from Ash xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > Not at all, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, Ash.
>> You failed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Nope, you just declared another imaginary victory, Ash... ha ha ha.

Just like he brags that he "knows all about" certain topics yet never displays any actual knowledge.

And so it goes.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:49:47 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > Zod wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 5:30:24 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 12:18:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage....
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> Ha ha
> > >> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
> > >> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
> >
> > > XXXXXXXXX snipped bullshit trolling from Ash xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > >> > Not at all, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, Ash.
> > >> You failed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > > Nope, you just declared another imaginary victory, Ash... ha ha ha.
> > Just like he brags that he "knows all about" certain topics yet never displays any actual knowledge.
> Oh wait... you were speaking of me? Exactly what did I brag about? I can't remember exactly what I may have said that I know-- the comics was just a side hobby for my multidisciplinary careers. If you must know, I'm formally trained in two technical and two civil fields with college to boot. The military let me choose my own career field because I was an honor grad in all they threw at me. Hell, they even offered me special duty. And Karen could have told you, once you're skilled in a scientific or technical field, it's not hard to learn others- so I have plenty of informal experience in fields related to mine.
> Now there's bragging for you to bray over...
>
> > And so it goes.

You seem to be a very interesting person and poster, and your thoughtful opinions are indeed appreciated! 🙏☺️🍸

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Zod wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 5:30:24 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 12:18:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage.....
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>>
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> Ha ha
> >> > >> > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
> >> > >> > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
>
> > XXXXXXXXX snipped bullshit trolling from Ash xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >> > Not at all, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, Ash.
> >> You failed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Nope, you just declared another imaginary victory, Ash... ha ha ha.
> Just like he brags that he "knows all about" certain topics yet never displays any actual knowledge.
>
> And so it goes.

I'll be generous-- bring your talking Dunce babble head and perhaps you'll even the odds with you three against me!!!

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Zod wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 5:30:24 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 12:18:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage.....
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>>
> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> Ha ha
> >> > >> > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
> >> > >> > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
>
> > XXXXXXXXX snipped bullshit trolling from Ash xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >> > Not at all, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, Ash.
> >> You failed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Nope, you just declared another imaginary victory, Ash... ha ha ha.
> Just like he brags that he "knows all about" certain topics yet never displays any actual knowledge.

Oh wait... you were speaking of me? Exactly what did I brag about? I can't remember exactly what I may have said that I know-- the comics was just a side hobby for my multidisciplinary careers. If you must know, I'm formally trained in two technical and two civil fields with college to boot. The military let me choose my own career field because I was an honor grad in all they threw at me. Hell, they even offered me special duty. And Karen could have told you, once you're skilled in a scientific or technical field, it's not hard to learn others- so I have plenty of informal experience in fields related to mine.
Now there's bragging for you to bray over...

> And so it goes.

Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Zod wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 5:30:24 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 12:18:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:33:03 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:48:25 AM UTC-4, Monkey Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > I do seem to remember that Penhead or Ash was referring to that specific aspect rather than the main and proper usuage.....
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > George Dance was playing the dunce. He had actually said "Game theory.."
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > Indeed; I was talking about Game theory. You forget what I'd said, were too lazy and stupid to look it up, and went with what you misremembered. But at least you can try to insult me, and feel a bit better over it..
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > The former refers to the use of dubious methods to win a game; the latter refers to the often equally dubious methods for gaining the upper hand in strategic interactions.
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > No, that is not what "Game theory" refers to. Here's a Wikipedia article to remedy your ignorance (not that I expect you to actually read it, but others might):
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.[...]"
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > > In regards to AAPC, the differences are negligible; hence my paraphrase.
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> > You're lying again, Michael; you didn't "paraphrase" anything. You (mis)quoted, because you (as noted) you were too lazy and/or stupid to look up the exact quote.
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> If his fingers are typing then you know Penhead is lying, Mr. G.D..
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>>
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >>> Ha ha
>> >> > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > >> > > >> The original quote runs like this: "If Pendragon's typing, he must be lying."
>> >> > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > >> > > > That's the Penheaded Voodoo Boy to a T... ha ha.
>>
>> > XXXXXXXXX snipped bullshit trolling from Ash xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> >> > Not at all, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, Ash.
>> >> You failed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> > Nope, you just declared another imaginary victory, Ash... ha ha ha.
>> Just like he brags that he "knows all about" certain topics yet never displays any actual knowledge.
>>
>> And so it goes.

> I'll be generous-- bring your talking Dunce

Since George Dance was the original poster on this thread, he's already here.

🙂

George Dance wrote:

>
> Something that deserves to not simply be buried.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good morning, again, well put.

🙂

George Dance wrote:

>
> Something that deserves to not simply be buried.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, well put, lest we forget.

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:25:17 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>
> >
> > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
>
> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
>
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> >>
> > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> >> Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> >>
> >> 1
> >> : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> >> 2
> >> : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> >>
> >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
>
> > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
>
> >>
> >> I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
>
> > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
>
> Again, well put, lest we forget.

Yes, because everyone will easily forget about some frivolous henpecker such as #GeorgeJDance who's pecker is so disappointing and unremarkable. His dignity is piteous.

He needs his unctuous, post bumpin' slurpin' sycophants to try to remind us-- but ALAS, they're among the most ignored and scorned in Usenet, so their efforts are as futile as Dance pretending to speak the truth.

LICKSPITTLE SIMPS!!! TAKE YOUR POLISHED APPLES ELSEWHERE!!!

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 5:14:20 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:25:17 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> >
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> >
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > >> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > >>
> > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > >> Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > >>
> > >> 1
> > >> : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > >> 2
> > >> : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > >>
> > >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> >
> > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> >
> > >>
> > >> I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> >
> > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> >
> > Again, well put, lest we forget.
> Yes, because everyone will easily forget

So, a reminder.

🙂

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 5:27:16 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 5:14:20 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:25:17 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > George Dance wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
> > >
> > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
> > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
> > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
> > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
> > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
> > > >>
> > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
> > > >> Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1
> > > >> : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
> > > >> 2
> > > >> : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
> > > >>
> > > >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
> > >
> > > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
> > >
> > > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
> > >
> > > Again, well put, lest we forget.
> > Yes, because everyone will easily forget
> So, a reminder.

Only if one would pay attention to you, or even believe a word you spew...
Perhaps if you could write something worth heeding.

Beneath the Bronze sky
A Horizon in Flame
The Oceans Boil
The Earth heaves
....and seethes
There is a new Sun rising
That has not Risen for
Thousands of years

Prophets have Written
Songs have been Sung
We have Awoken
A New Age has begun
Spirit The Earth Aflame
--'Spirit The Earth Aflame'~~Primordial
https://primordialofficial.bandcamp.com/track/spirit-the-earth-aflame

The Unkindly Ones cackle
as they weave our shackles

Beware of Megaera

Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 5:27:16 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 5:14:20 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
>> > On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:25:17 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> > > George Dance wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Something that deserves to not simply be buried.
>> > >
>> > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/aQ-00jfZBgAJ?hl=en
>> > >
>> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
>> > > >> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > >> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >> > > > > Do you think you "win" some sort of backwardassed victory by making others repeat themselves?
>> > > >> > > > There's a piece of the puzzle: Michael Monkey may think he's doing it to get a "win".
>> > > >> > > What are you talking about, George?
>> > > >> > The idea of getting a "win" on usenet did come from you. Obviously it's something you think about.
>> > > >> No... it came from an older conversation in which you described your "ethical" system of "Tit for Tat: as having been derived from "gamesmanship."
>> > > >>
>> > > > "Gamesmanship," eh? I don't remember ever using the word.
>> > > >> Gamesmanship is described by Merriam-Webster as follows:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 1
>> > > >> : the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
>> > > >> 2
>> > > >> : the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective
>> > > >>
>> > > >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamesmanship
>> > >
>> > > > That's nice. But it has nothing to do with me or my ethics, I'm afraid.
>> > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I'm asking you if playing dense is part of your "gamesmanship" technique, and what objective you expect to gain by employing it.
>> > >
>> > > > No, since I have no such 'technique' -- but calling me things like that may be part of yours.
>> > >
>> > > Again, well put, lest we forget.
>> > Yes, because everyone will easily forget
>> So, a reminder.

> Only if one would pay attention to you, or even believe a word you spew....
> Perhaps if you could write something worth heeding.

> Beneath the Bronze sky
> A Horizon in Flame
> The Oceans Boil
> The Earth heaves
> ....and seethes
> There is a new Sun rising
> That has not Risen for
> Thousands of years

> Prophets have Written
> Songs have been Sung
> We have Awoken
> A New Age has begun
> Spirit The Earth Aflame
> --'Spirit The Earth Aflame'~~Primordial
> https://primordialofficial.bandcamp.com/track/spirit-the-earth-aflame

> The Unkindly Ones cackle
> as they weave our shackles

> Beware of Megaera

Good afternoon, Ash, welcome back.

🙂

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 10:36:48 PM UTC-5, Jordy C wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 5:08:52 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:06:23 PM UTC-5, Jordy C wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 12:05:53 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > > > Zod wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10:00:38 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:48:26 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > >> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:34:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > Tit for Tat could so easily be used for peace, as you know G.D.
> > > > > >> > > An excellent point, Zod. Tit for Tat is simply reciprocity; treating others the way you treat you. It means doing good to those who do good to you, and doing harm only to those who do harm to you. The first is the principle of co-operation, and the second the principle of self-defense; principles that virtually everyone follows.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > The beauty of a system of ethics like T4T is that they make it possible for a society to be run without being organized by authority figures. That's why authority figures, and wannabe authority figures, hate ethics so much; they can't dispense with them, because a society cannot simply be run by command; but they'll attack and try to undermine them whenever they can.
> > > > > >> > Actually no, because without an overriding authority, the individual gets to define what's "good" or "harm" and what would be appropriate "tats"
> > > > > >> Of course he does; what's your point? That an individual may get it wrong? Are you claiming that "authority figures" somehow don't.
> > > > > >> > -- I've spent my life picking up dead bodies because of Dance's idea of individual's self governing T4T in interpersonal interactions.
> > > > > >> Really? And how exactly did you establish that as the motive in each case? How many of the killers did you actually speak to?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'd conjecture that, if you compare the number of people killed by "self governing" people, and those killed by people acting in obedience to "authority figures," you'll find the latter to be much higher. But I'll await your data.
> > > > > >> > This group demonstrates the failings of T4T-- only MAC reigns supreme here...
> > > > > >> Oh, I don't think so. I've seen plenty of wannabe "authority figures" here, and I wouldn't hold them blameless for the state of the group..
> > > > >
> > > > > > With Penhead, the control freak on an ego trip as their leader.... ha ha.
> > > > > With Ash sniffing along to defend Michael Pendragon's malicious cyberbully stunts.
> > > > >
> > > > > And so it goes.
> > > > Yes it does go.... the donkey blowing his ego as it always goes here. Always armchairing people about obsessions and fantasies they supposedly have. Always proclaiming their confessions to your post edited quotes sections. Deceitfully putting words into their mouths with your post edited doctored record of your quote sections.
> > > > And the idiocy will go on for there's no curing someon in denial of their narcissism. There's probably enough demonstrated behavior in your so called record to support a formal diagnosis, you know...
> > > >
> > > > With such sound and furious flurry from an idiot it will go on, a poor player spamming and fending for his hour upon the stage until he is heard no more. And so it will go until the bitter end, not with an encore but with fate's snicker at the simpering whimper...
> > > >
> > > > So ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the truth, for it's ruthless and fools are always clueless...
> > > > Who wants to go to their graves with all this negative attention that they crave and their threads in flames? Whipping Fools do! I watch it every day, the same fray- and the dismay as intentions go astray and we inevitably decay while the doom of time looms over the disarray...
> > > > --AAPC: Ye Wasted Words
> > > >
> > > > By the way, Mr Losenet Vet, it's not "sniffing after someone" when they respond to a current post that was posted to provoke a response. You're as brilliant as Trump with your belief that you can dictate these things like you're king of this dump. You're not the only one allowed to, in your own words, to respond whenever and however you please.
> > > >
> > > > "All the wants you waste
> > > > All the things you've chased
> > > > Then it all crashes down
> > > > And you break your crown
> > > > And you point your finger, but there's no one around
> > > > Just want one thing, just to play the king
> > > > But the castle crumbled and you're left with just a name
> > > > Where's your crown, King Nothing?"
> > > > --'King Nothing' ~~Metallica
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of cyberbullying, you and your goons know it well when you three gang up on a single person:
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/VrM7cpNOAA4/m/RF2FH0rVDgAJ
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/cQx-pzvZMR8/m/u4clwRx_BwAJ
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/Nx3jOOjZg9Y/m/n_XgzA8lBQAJ
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/ZpDOSQOrxWE/m/mO285j3MAwAJ
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/oC9y6haxMQM/m/L25h6RJxAQAJ
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/WP62bhs4b9E/m/QBWONiRfAgAJ
> > > Personally have never enjoyed the conflicts and the arguing and fighting and animosity and vitriol and vehemently! It’s so unnessasary! As the Beatles sang : “life is very short and there’s no time for fussing and fighting my friends… we can work it out”…
> > And the Beatles sang "Writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear. No one comes near." Look at your posts and think hard on that...
> >
> > Despite what you think, I know the perspective and proportion that you give lip service to-- you and your friends do not. I could be tearing you and your fool friends apart in every thread using every dirty trick, but I do not. You cannot force acceptance, it's earned. All forcing does is to entrench grievances. All you and your fool friends have done is dug yourselves in an inescapable trench. Is it going to take another four years of flame war for you to finally understand?
> Well, I certainly attempt to have some degree of perspective and proportion and context in regard to this group, and other groups as well... Usenet has always seemed to me, in part, a chance to practise conversing with people... I used to like to pretend to be different people, at least in m imagination, but don't that as often, I don't believe... It does seem to me that MANY of us tend to lose perspective, people on both "sides"... even your responce above demonstrates that... As I've said man times, when one considers that there are so many serious, dire, daunting REAL LIFE problems, why oh why do people get so enraged and irate and livid and disturbed about what complete strangers happen to say on the internet??? On a practical, logical, level, it seems to make no sense whatsoever... but apprantly, it's not about logic, it's about emotion... I do believe, that if we all really thought about it on any deep level, we would see that it really doesn't make any sense to be so emotionally affected by the goings on here... It's projection or displacement or scapegoating or whatever the terms are for projecting feelings on to strangers rather than deal with the REAL issues in our own lives... I believe that MANY of us here
> (and elsewhere on the internet) do this, unfortunately...
still believe this to be so... all of the back and forth anger and rage and bitterness and hostility and murderous vitriol and venom on all sides directed against other posters is WAY out of proportion in regard to the circumstances of reading and posting on a Usenet group... have no doubt that any psychiatrist or psychologist worth his or her PHD would agree about this matter, and it's been demonstrated in so many Usenet Groups throughout the history of Usenet... compared to the serious, dire, not by any means resolable problems and issues that people face in REAL LIFE, it makes no sense for people to be enraged by what strangers post in a Usenet group... just goes to demonstrate how high strung and emotional and irrational people generally are, and how easy it is to vent their angst towards strangers over the internet... a FB friend on another group made this point years ago, and couldnt agree more...