[continued from previous message]   
      
   > both a lie and a faked quote about my poem "My Father's House". (Both   
   > the latter two have been moved to the "My Father's House" thread Will   
   > opened, if you're willing to talk about them there.)   
      
   Again, you have made it extremely difficult for me to identify and/or   
   address your charges in this thread.  I can say that have never lied   
   about your poem.  As to the alleged "faked quote," such would have been   
   paraphrased from memory, and would either have been identified as such,   
   either with a specific label, or from the context of the discussion.   
      
   I do not have a copy of your poem in front of me, but I remember it   
   quite well.  Not because it was a good poem (it wasn't), but because my   
   colleague, Dr. NancyGene, and I had examined so thoroughly in the past.   
      
      
   >> I am pointing out that this   
   >> so-called conversation is a one-sided affair in which Mr. Dance attempts   
   >> to put forth libelous statements about me.   
   >   
   > It's hardly a one-sided conversation, HarryLiar, when and all my posts   
   > in it (including the OP) have been replies to you, and you've written   
   > more posts in it than I have,  Please stop whining about being excluded   
   > from it, since you obviously are not.   
      
   Um... you're the one who'd claimed that I was "jumping into" and   
   "disrupting" a conversation between you and your Donkey.  And since your   
   Donkey's contributions invariably amount to nothing more than "Well   
   said, George," it is fair to call your "conversations" with him   
   "one-sided at best."   
      
   >> If Mr. Dance had not wanted me to "butt in" on his "conversation," he   
   >> would not have included my name (his latest name for me, that is) in the   
   >> Subject header.   
   >   
   > Now you're supporting your earlier lie with fake quotes, which did not   
   > come from anything I said, but came from you.   
      
   Now, you're just being your typical petty self.   
      
   I mistakenly said "butt in" when you had actually said "Jump in."  Mea   
   Culpea.  Although the meanings of the two phrases are interchangeable.   
      
   >>> Tit for Tat is a concept that still seems to go over his head.   
   >>>   
   >>> And so it goes.   
   >>   
   >> Tit for Tat is a concept that I abandoned somewhere before having   
   >> attended Kindergarten.  Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you and   
   >> George.   
   >   
   > No, Lying Michael. You continually rely on the concept. You may not   
   > believe in govern your own behavior by reciprocal ethics - there's no   
   > sign that your behavior is governed by any ethics - but you clearly pay   
   > lip service to T4T to try to justify your behavior.   
      
   Tit for Tat is only a system of ethics (reciprocal or otherwise) to a   
   5-year old child (give or take a few years in either direction).   
      
   It boils down to this: Do unto others as they do unto you.   
      
   That is not a matter of ethics, but a system of rewards and punishments.   
      
   Ethics should not be dependent upon the actions of others.  Ethics   
   should be based upon your own beliefs regarding the concepts of "right"   
   and "wrong," "fair" and "unfair," "just" and "unjust," etc.   
      
   I certainly do not pay lip service to your childish "system," which I   
   find to be morally abominable, childish, petty, and having no purpose   
   beyond that of endlessly perpetuating hostilities.  In short, it's a cop   
   out justification for fighting.   
      
   > For instance, every time that you "attack" (troll and flame) someone,   
   > you try to justify it with a story (sometimes true, sometimes not) that   
   > they attacked you first.   
      
   That is *not* what I do, George.   
      
   I have pointed out the reasons for my flame wars with each of the   
   individuals your Donkey named.  To wit:   
      
   1) My flame war with your Donkey began in earnest (although my opinion   
   of him had suffered considerably prior to this time) when he supported   
   Pickles' accusation that I was a "paedophile."   
   2) My flame war with Pickles began when he and Jim were discussing   
   Ginsberg's preference for 13-year old boys as sex partners.  It's really   
   irrelevant as to which one of us first attacked the other (HINT: It was   
   Pickles who'd attacked me when I'd innocently questioned one of his   
   posts some time earlier.)  Our different stances on the questions of   
   legal age, incest, and NAMBLA automatically cast us in a confrontational   
   position.  Which is why poetry group discussions should be about poetry,   
   not pedophilia or politics.   
   3) Antti flew off the handle with me because I'd made derogatory   
   comments about General Zid, started trying to dig up personal   
   information on me (stalking), and so on.  I remained calm and,   
   reasonably, polite through out.  You'll note that I didn't call him any   
   childish names like Lobotomy Boy.   
      
   And so on.   
      
   As to you, while we had engaged in many minor skirmishes off and on over   
   the course of the Donkey War, I continually tried to negotiate peace   
   treaties between us, and between you and the rest of the group.  I   
   invited you to participate in the Official AAPC FB Group, published your   
   poetry in AYoS, and constantly defended you against my pretended   
   "allies."   
      
   My break with you came when you falsely accused me of having an   
   editorial policy based on personal alliances.  I have always published   
   the best poems for each and every one of our contributors -- without   
   exception.  And for you to have made such accusations (even after I had   
   published your own poetry), was simply unforgiveable.  And, yes, AFAICS,   
   you started it.   
      
   Have I ever started a flame war with anyone?   
      
   Yes.  When I first came here, I picked fights with PJR and his friends   
   because I mistakenly saw them as trolls who were attacking other members   
   of the group.  I have picked fights with others who I saw as trolls --   
   including NancyGene when she first arrived.   
      
   > That's been the gist of every one of your   
   > on-topic statements about the Team Monkey flamewar; that you and your   
   > team went after Stephan, Will, and myself because they "attacked" you   
   > first.   
      
   Aha!  Now I see what you're up to.   
      
   You want to sweep all of the statements that I'd made in other threads   
   under the carpet, and relabel them as examples of T4T.   
      
   No, George.  That isn't happening.   
      
   There is no "Team Monkey," and those of us you label as such have our   
   own reasons for our own fights.  Jim's fight Will started when the   
   Donkey scammed him out of $50.  I don't know who through the first   
   "punch" in your fight with NancyGene, but even when she first arrived   
   here, she was limiting her attacks to Pickles (who she followed here   
   from another forum), and those who attacked her in a misguided display   
   of Pickle support.  I don't know how or where her fight with Pickles   
   began, and have never claimed that he attacked her first (although,   
   based on my own interactions with him, I feel safe in assuming that he   
   did).   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)