[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> GD: Interestingly, MMP concludes by once again praising the work of   
   >>> an   
   >>> ally Jim ("Edward") while insulting the work of an adversary. If he were   
   >>> still here, I'm sure he'd shrug that off as just a coincidence.   
   >>>   
   >>> MMP: J.D. Senetto is an exceptionally talented poet.  In fact, my   
   >>> greatest difficulty in selecting which poems to include in AYoS' year   
   >>> end print journal, is in deciding which of Jim's poems to leave out.   
   >>   
   >> Now, that's as adulatory as if the Chimp wrote it himself - and just as   
   >> meaningful, I'm afraid. As I've said, and not just to MMP and his team:   
   >>   
   >> If a poet consistently praised his own and only his own work, that   
   >> wouldn't be seen as a comment on the work but on the poet. Do you agree   
   >> so far?   
   >> If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each   
   >> other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.   
   >>   
   >>>> Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.   
   >>>   
   >>> GD: Well, we can ask the readers who won this round: Michael's   
   >>> adversary,   
   >>> whose poem was edited by an illiterate; or Michael's ally, the   
   >>> illiterate who did the editing.   
   >>>   
   >>> MMP: I think it abundantly clear that Mr. Rochester is the winner, since   
   >>> his "edit" of your poem has weighed so heavily on your consciousness   
   >>> that you felt compelled to address it a second time... nearly two years   
   >>> after the fact.   
   >>   
   >> That should be "clear" to anyone. Rereading the thread and thinking of   
   >> new things to say would be enough to explain why I'd comment again.   
   >> There's no no reason to think that I'd thought of Mr. Chimp's edit in   
   >> the intervening time, and I certainly can't say that I have. For   
   >> another, I did not address his edit in my reply; I tried to keep the   
   >> focus consistently on MMP's "third man" intervention into the flame war   
   >> Mr. Chimp had begun; and the new points I made in that respect were   
   >> enough to merit a new reply.   
   >>   
   >>> OTOH, I doubt Jim has given it a single thought.   
   >>   
   >> That's possibly true. It's questionable whether Mr. Chimp gives anything   
   >> he does much thought.   
   >   
   > Since the little green monkey boy Michael Pendragon is obviously trying   
   > to bury your correct opening post, let's bump it to the top for   
   > /context/.   
      
   What are you bumping, Donkey?   
      
   George claimed that I was back because... I'm here.   
      
   George claimed that he arranged some elaborate trap to get me to admit   
   that I am "Harry Lime," when I've never made any secret of that fact.   
   I'm sure you recall that "The Third Man" is my all-time favorite movie,   
   and that I'd said if I had to pick someone living or dead to play me, it   
   would be Orson Welles (and many other similar remarks).   
      
   Harry Lime is one of several usernames I commonly select (as for my   
   Instagram account).   
      
   I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but to avoid future confusion, I'll   
   set it out for you in no uncertain terms.   
      
   The following are aliases I go by on the internet:   
      
   Michelangelo Scarlotti   
   Harry Lime   
   Harry Powell   
   Richard Blaine   
   Stanton Carlisle   
   Harry Carlisle   
   Yellow-Eyed Demon (YED for short)   
      
   As I told George, I'm here because he started a thread about me.  This   
   thread, to be exact.   
      
   There's really nothing else to say regarding the opening post in this   
   thread, and certainly nothing to bury.   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)