[continued from previous message]   
      
   > I have called you a liar, because your opening statement was patently   
   > false.   
   >   
   > Here is what you wrote: "Since MMP is trying to disrupt his   
   > psychoanalysis by attempting[sic] to change the subject..."   
   >   
   > 1) You are not a psychologist, I am not your patient, and no   
   > "psychoanalysis" ever occurred.   
      
   I'm as much of an armchair psychologist as you are, you're as much my   
   patient as I was yours, and my psychoanalysis had as much validity as   
   yours.   
      
   > 2) I was not "disrupting" any thread, but responding to Will Donkey's   
   > false accusations of having driven Pickles away.  I neither attempted,   
   > nor succeeded in driving the Late Unlamented Pickles away from AAPC.  I   
   > killed him.   
      
   You know, if you'd made that reply to Will in the thread, I'd probably   
   have left your post alone. Knowing your sense of humor, I'd have flagged   
   it immediately as one of our "funny" lies.   
      
      
   > 3) Since your Donkey brought up Pickles as an example of my having   
   > driven members away from AAPC, I could not be seen as changing the   
   > subject by responding to his claims.   
      
   > In short, your opening statement contained three lies.  Three lies in   
   > half of a sentence.  For anyone else that would have to be a record, but   
   > for you it's just par for the course.   
      
   >> Your second was a misrepresentation of something I'd said   
   >> in the "Psychology of MPP" thread which I'd already dealt with on that   
   >> thread, so you simply repeated it here.   
   >   
   > Since you don't say what "something" my second comment was made in   
   > response to, I cannot address the supposed "misrepresentation."  Since   
   > you don't even bother to repeat what my "second comment" was, I can't   
   > even make an educated guess.   
      
   You could try reading this thread. Since we've discussed it in other   
   threads,   
      
   > But then that's typical George Dance tactics as well: to put forth   
   > accusations in such general terms, and in reference to unspecified   
   > comments in unspecified threads, that they appear to be in relation to   
   > specific offenses, when no such offenses exist.   
      
   You don't know what statement of yours I'm talking about, but you're   
   sure you never said it. That sounds like a typical MPP tactic. Deny   
   everything, just for the sake of denial.   
      
   >> Your third comment contained   
   >> 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.   
      
   Oh, well, it's there if you want to look at it. If you don't, fine with   
   me.   
      
   >>> 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 [most of] 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   
      
   Once again you try to change context. I'd claimed that you were "   
      
   > "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."   
      
   "Jump in and start spewing false statements about something else." How   
   many times are you planning to misstate that? Until you believe it?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Your second statement is true. Your first one doesn't even sound   
   sensible. Take some examples: Is it right or wrong to shoot other   
   people? Hurt other people? Lie to other people?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   To repeat; as far as I know, you have no actual ethics at all. So your   
   complaints really don't bother me.   
   >   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)