[continued from previous message]   
      
   > who'd started defending the Donkey at some point in the past, and now   
   > feels that he has to continue doing so.  He also suggested that you   
   > reevaluate and reconsider your stance.   
   >   
   > Since you didn't reconsider, I don't recall him having had any   
   > non-confrontational discussions with you. But then again, I wasn't   
   > keeping count.   
   >   
   > And I still maintain that you have always (again, since I've been here)   
   > come across as being jealous of Jim.  Your continual attacks and   
   > challenges exhibit an almost obsessive desire to prove yourself better   
   > than him.  The need to prove yourself better than someone else is   
   > generally indicative of jealousy.   
   >   
   >>> and since   
   >>> Pickles was a friend of your lifetime ally, Will Donkey,   
   >>   
   >> Now, that is absurd, Lying Michael. Will and I have never even met; and   
   >> while I had as good a relationship with him on the group as I did with   
   >> Jim, we were hardly conversing in those days.   
   >   
   > You're hardly conversing with him now.  In fact, I don't ever remember   
   > you two conversing (other than endlessly which of his poems you were   
   > going to include in his book).   
   >   
   > The fact that you've never met the Donkey is beside the point.  Internet   
   > friendships and alliances are usually with people one has never met.   
   > I've never met Jim or NancyGene, but you repeatedly insist that we have   
   > formed a "Team."   
   >   
   > When I first came to AAPC, you and the Donkey were defending each other   
   > from attacks by PJR and his friends.  As Jim had proposed (in the first   
   > post that I remember him addressing you in), you seem like you got roped   
   > into supporting the Donkey, and have reached a point where you feel   
   > compelled to remain doing so -- even when he's being a total ass.   
   >   
   >>> you jumped into   
   >>> the fray as well.   
   >>   
   >>> You not only supported both Ginsberg and Pickles   
   >>   
   >> I agreed with both of them (and SCOTUS and most legal scholars) that   
   >> NAMBLA had a First Amendment right to talk about such things.   
   >   
   > That's not something you should be boasting about, George.   
   >   
   > Our rights end where another's rights begin.  That's something you've   
   > never understood.   
   >   
   > NAMBLA's rights to push for the legalization of adult-child sex end   
   > where the rights of a 13-year old to be protected from sexual predators   
   > begins.  IOW: That child's rights should never be taken away -- nor   
   > should NAMBLA, or anyone else, advocate for taking those rights away.   
   >   
   > Similarly, in a public group like AAPC, one's rights are contingent upon   
   > their not violating the rights of the other members.  If Member A is   
   > offended by Member B's boasting about how he had sex with 14-year old   
   > girls, then Member B should limit his boasting to private emails.  If   
   > Member C is bothered by Member D's burying everyone else's posts by   
   > constantly reposting poems/thanking and rethanking his socks, etc., then   
   > Member D should cut down on his posts.   
   >   
   > Group rights are determined by the needs, desires, preferences, and   
   > dislikes of the majority of the group's members.  However, it is a   
   > matter of common courtesy to respect the feelings of each of the group's   
   > members (even if they constitute the minority) by refraining from doing   
   > things that they find offensive.   
   >   
   > It's only when one member refuses to respect the feelings of other   
   > members that groups, like AAPC, turn into battlegrounds.   
   >   
   >> , but   
   >>> you mistakenly claimed that NAMBLA had done more to support LGBT rights   
   >>> than any other organization.   
   >>   
   >> No, Lying Michael. I told you that I agreed that gay sex for anyone   
   >> above the age of consent should be legal, pointed out that NAMBLA was   
   >> the only   
   >> group in Canada campaigning for that, and even called you a "homophobe"   
   >> when   
   >> you insisted that it should continue to be illegal.   
   >   
   > I have your original statement on file, George, and can repost it if   
   > necessary.   
   >   
   >>> You later retracted that claim, but the   
   >>> damage to your reputation had already been done.   
   >>   
   >> No, Lying Michael. I still believe that gay sex between "children" above   
   >> the   
   >> age of consent should be legal, while you continue to lie and   
   >> misrepresent   
   >> that claim.   
   >   
   > No one ever said that sex, gay or straight, between two people above the   
   > age of consent should not be legal, George.   
   >   
   > This is yet another attempt at a straw man argument on your part -- not   
   > to mention a pathetic attempt to turn the discussion away from what   
   > you'd actually said.   
   >   
   > Which means that I'm going to have to repost your *actual* statement in   
   > context:   
   >   
   > MMP: As previously noted (do try to get some reading comprehension   
   > skills, old man), I have never made an issue of the participants' sex.   
   >   
   > DUNCE: Another Pedodragon lie. You've ranted and raved for a month about   
   > the group that's done the most to fight the above discrimination.   
   >   
   > MMP: NAMBLA??? Are you seriously attempting to argue that NAMBLA is   
   > spearheading the fight against sexual discrimination???   
   >   
   > [END OF QUOTED PASSAGE]   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>> BTW: Who is MFH?  I'm having difficulty placing the initials.  Is it a   
   >>> typo?   
   >>   
   >> MFH = "My Father's House". That's a poem of mine you may have read.   
   >   
   > --   
      
   The me sin problem with Stephan Pickering posting here on the poetry   
   newsgroup was the determination of Jim Senetto and Michael Pendragon to   
   drive him away at any cost, and they both tried to strongarm me into   
   joining them with this hostile agenda.   
      
   When I refused to participate, both Michael Pendragon and Jim Senetto   
   then turned on me with malicious attacks, even threats of violence, that   
   lasted for many years.   
      
   And so it goes.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)