[continued from previous message]   
      
   Again, here's the statement that you've actually been flamind:   
      
   [QUOTE]   
   Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called   
   a statement of his editorial philosophy:   
      
   "You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential   
   adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack   
   those of your potential adversaries."   
   "When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.   
   When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and   
   claim he   
   can't write."    
   source text:   
   https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5   
   w/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en   
   [/QUOTE]   
      
   > When are you going to learn that it is pointless to lie on Usenet where   
   > one need only scroll up a few posts to uncover your actual post?   
      
   >>> When you misquoted me, you intentionally made it appear as if I had been   
   >>> talking about myself.   
   >>   
   >> No, Lying Michael. It was obvious from what I'd said that you were   
   >> accusing another person. (You would not use "you" to describe   
   >> your own practices.) You lied when you projected it on me, and now   
   >> you're trying to defend that with another lie.   
   >   
   >   
   > Let's have a third look at what you said.   
      
   Once again, let's look at the actual statement you're throwing your   
   tantrum over:   
      
   [QUOTE]   
   Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called   
   a statement of his editorial philosophy:   
      
   "You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential   
   adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack   
   those of your potential adversaries."   
   "When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.   
   When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and   
   claim he   
   can't write."    
   source text:   
   https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5   
   w/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en   
   That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,   
   but it can't be said often enough.   
   [/QUOTE]   
      
   > Please point out where you made it "obvious that [I] was accusing   
   > another person."   
      
   Once again, you wouldn't use the second person to talk about yourself.   
      
   >>> And, yes, I feel that anyone (other than your Donkey   
   >>   
   >> Permission to use childish nicknames noted. Please don't start crying   
   >> when I do the same.   
      
   > By all means.  I think that you *should* refer to Will as "Donkey."   
   > He's earned that cognomen.   
      
   Tnank your, Mr. Monkey; not that I or anyone needs it to call anyone   
   what they like here. (As you know very well.) And the same for flunkies,   
   since they deserve their MMP-style nicknames as much as you deserve   
   yours.   
      
   >>> and his socks)   
   >>> would consider that to be a form of lying.   
   >>   
   >> Sure it would be; it it were true.   
   >   
   > Here, for the fourth time, is your statement:   
   >   
   > "I'd say the only reason for MMP to call Will an illiterate that's been   
   >  shown in this thread is that he doesn't like Will. Will's also MMP's   
   >  adversary. As he says: 'When [someone] is seen as an adversary, you   
   >  assign a childish name to him and claim he   
   >  can't write.'"   
      
   And here, for the fourth time, is the actual statement you've been   
   flaming about:   
      
   [QUOTE]   
   Indeed. I'm not sure if you remeber that statement of his that I called   
   a statement of his editorial philosophy:   
      
   "You divide everyone into two categories: potential allies and potential   
   adversaries. You slurp the writings of your potential allies and attack   
   those of your potential adversaries."   
   "When [someone] Jim is seen as a potential ally, you request his poetry.   
   When he is seen as an adversary, you assign a childish name to him and   
   claim he   
   can't write."    
   source text:   
   https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/hDYKsC5l5   
   w/m/IR5NzWPJBQAJ?hl=en   
   That also fully describes his critical philosophy. No more need be said,   
   but it can't be said often enough.   
   [/QUOTE]   
      
   > Please explain how that isn't true.   
   >   
   Silly Monkey; you're the one claiming my statement isn't true.   
      
   >>>>> That is an example of how duplicitous you actually are, and should serve   
   >>>>> as a warning to readers to take anything you say with a very large grain   
   >>>>> of salt.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I'm afraid we'll have to add "duplicitous" to the list of words you   
   >>>> misuse, MMP. But there's no need to say more about that, since you   
   >>>> were clearly just trying to "win an argument" by making a false   
   >>>> accusation.   
   >>>   
   >>> One of us certainly misunderstands it.   
   >>   
   >> Indeed one of us does. But you misuse it because it sounds good.   
   >   
   > I have proven my point several times over in this post.   
      
   No, Mr. Goebblels-Monkey: one does not "prove" a point simply by   
   repeating it four times.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)