[continued from previous message]   
      
   It is not a false name, George.  It is the name that I have been   
   published under in over 200 different small press publications.  It's   
   the name that I have published 4 literary journals, and various books   
   under.  It's the name that appears in WhosWho (Marquise).  It's the name   
   that I was recently nominated for a Rhysling award under.  It's the name   
   on my Facebook account.  It's the name on my Youtube account.  It's the   
   name that my friends (real life var.) address me by (even though they   
   know what my legal name is).   
      
   Many writers use pennames, George.  Are you calling Mark Twain a sock,   
   too?   
      
      
   >>  You are free to address and/or refer to me as either of the above.  Any   
   >> other name will be treated as the childish name-calling that it is.   
   >   
   > IOW, you'll whine like a little baby about being called a name, in one   
   > breath,  while calling your your own perceived enemies the same types of   
   > names in the next breath. A paradigm example of duplicity.   
      
   Stop it, George.   
      
   It is an archived fact that you adopted the word *after* I had used it   
   to describe "Whiny Will."   
      
   Your titting for tats only serves to negate any relevance your posts   
   might otherwise have had.  Who can believe a word you write, when   
   everything you say is just another variation on IKYABWAI?   
      
   In this case, the IKYABWAI is stemming from several posts made   
   (approximately 7 years ago) -- but that only makes their Pee-wee   
   Hermanesque nature less readily apparent.   
      
   >>>> The reason I am pointing this out is because it appears in the Subject   
   >>>> header for this thread -- indicating that this thread is about me; and   
   >>>> that it purportedly presents my opinions (reworded by Mr. Dance, of   
   >>>> course) on the topics of Pickles Pickering and NAMBLA.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, Lying Michael; this thread was a response to comments that you were   
   >>> making about your flaming of Stephan (in another thread for deflection   
   >>> purposes, as per your M.O.) You comments were quoted fairly and   
   >>> accurately, not "reworded" in the slightest.   
   >>>   
   >>> You're welcome to talk about them here; but be warned that going   
   >>> forward, if you attempt to deflect by talking about something else, your   
   >>> comments will be snipped here, and moved to the appropriate thread where   
   >>> necessary.   
   >>   
   >> Since my comments appeared in the context of another thread, I cannot   
   >> directly assess the validity of your claim.   
   >   
   > Why the hell not? You know what thread your comments appeared in; you   
   > can check to see whether I "reworded" any of them or not.   
      
   I don't know which of the "Lime sock" threads you're referring to, nor   
   do I know in which of the now dozens of posts in each of these threads   
   they appeared.   
      
   That's one of the problems with starting new threads every time I say   
   something that you don't like -- it removes the context from any   
   previously made posts.   
      
      
   >> I can only conclude that your reason for opening a new thread in   
   >> response to my statements (made in another thread) was to disguise the   
   >> context in which they originally arose, and to make it difficult for me   
   >> to check on the accuracy of the statement that you quoted.   
   >   
   > Whatever. I've already told you why I keep reposting your statements in   
   > new threads. You can choose to believe it or not.   
      
   Do what you will, George.   
      
   The results of your continually launching into new threads of the same   
   name (loss of context, loss of ability to check accuracy, deflection   
   from a point that you have lost, etc.) remain the same.   
      
      
   >>>> Mr. Dance was whining that I am butting in on what was intended to be a   
   >>>> conversation between the two of you.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, Lying Michael. I am "whining" about you (once again) immediately   
   >>> trying to change the subject of the discussion to something else. Your   
   >>> first comment in this thread was to call me a liar (presumably just for   
   >>> preemption).   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   That isn't true, George.  I minored in Psychology in college.  I am well   
   versed on the subject and have a thorough understanding how the science   
   works.   
      
   I also know the difference between Transference and Counter   
   Transference.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   What does it matter who I've made the statement to?  It's funny.   
      
   Nor is it a lie.  It's a matter of perception/belief.  My curse may have   
   affected Pickles at a subconscious level -- that's one of the ways in   
   which curses are traditionally believed to work.   
      
      
   >> 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,   
      
   WTF does that even mean?  I can read it in this thread because we've   
   discussed it in some different thread?  That doesn't make a lick of   
   sense.   
      
   You're Donkeying out on me again, George.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   I didn't claim to have never said them in the above-quoted passage.   
   That's another one of your Straw Men arguments.  It's probably true that   
   I never said any of them, but it is impossible for me to confirm or deny   
   them when you refuse to tell me what they are.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)