[continued from previous message]   
      
   Yes, I'm sure you do remember the libelous stuff NancyGene was writing,   
   and you and Jim were flooding the group with. This pedophile stuff was   
   your own add-on later, of course.   
      
   > It was only *after* you'd begun attacking Jim (and supporting NAMBLA)   
   > that he asked to have his poetry removed from your blog.   
      
   I don't think so, Lying Michael. As I recall, you began posting about   
   NAMBLA only afterward. In any case, I didn't get involved in your   
   NAMBLA discussion until afterward.   
      
   >> It is a fact that Jim cannot write anything that someone like you, for   
   >> instance, would even call poetry. That's not an attack, just fact. But   
   >> it's not something I told him at the time; that wouldn't have made any   
   >> sense.   
   >>   
   >> I'm afraid you're confusing unconnected events that happened years   
   >> apart.   
   >   
   > No, George.  I was merely providing a two examples of your behavior   
   > toward Jim.  I am not in any way attempting to place your numerous   
   > examples on a timeline.   
      
   You're certainly contradicting the actual timeline.   
   >   
   > Allow me to rephrase that to your satisfaction: Over the course of the   
   > 7+ years you've been fighting with Jim, you launched numerous attacks on   
   > him.  One example, was when you called him illiterate.   
      
   Look, I'm sorry that the snowflake is offended, but it's simple fact   
   that   
   Jim cannot write poetry, of any kind; and, as this thread also   
   demonstrates,   
   he can't even punctuate properly.   
      
   > Another example   
   > was when you challenged him to write a triolet and to pit it against one   
   > of yours.   
      
   I've challenged him to write many forms - triolets, centos, ballad   
   meter,   
   even haiku - but he hasn't been willing to make an effort. He's just too   
   stupid (too wilfully ignorant) to learn. Once again, that's just a fact.   
      
   > Happy?   
   >   
   > As to your claim that I wouldn't call Jim's writing "poetry," you are   
   > intentionally falsifying my meaning by referring to my words out of   
   > context (unfortunately this is another of your standard practices).   
      
   It's the definition of "poetry" you proposed and we both agreed to,   
   earlier on this thread. I understand that you realize you fucked up   
   and want to switch definitions, but - nope.   
      
   > In your above statement, you make it appear as if I had been making a   
   > value judgment regarding Jim's work.  Such was not the case.  I have   
   > always defined "poetry" as "a literary form comprising rhymed-metered   
   > verse."  The majority of Jim's works do not use rhyme or meter, so they   
   > fall outside of my definition of poetry.   
      
   Not just his work: The majority of wwhat you publish in AYOS falls   
   outside   
   your definition of poetry. You publish his non-verse (and NancyGene's   
   doggerel) because they're your allies.   
      
   > They are, however, excellent   
   > literary works -- and works which contemporary critics would define as   
   > "Modern Poetry."   
   >   
   > And, FYI, Jim's work is still receiving compliments from other Modern   
   > poets on The Official AAPC FB page.   
   >   
   > I am a fan of Jim's writing.  I just consider it to be extremely well   
   > written prose.   
      
   I understand perfectly. You (the anonymous person inside thw socks don't   
   think   
   Jim's work (and most of what you post on AYOS) is even poetry, but you   
   (as your "Michael Pendragon" sock) have to praise his work and request   
   it for your journal, because he's your ally. Which I've repeatedly   
   pointed out.   
      
   Which brings us back to where we began this digression, so it's a good   
   place to end it, too.   
      
   snip   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)