[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   You have since reposted your poem, and I have since reread it.  I see no   
   reason to alter anything I've said regarding it.   
      
   >>>> 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 "   
      
   You claimed that I was what?  You've broken off in mid-sentence again   
   without actually having made your supposed point.   
      
      
   >> "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?   
      
   Only you can answer those "ethical" questions, George.   
      
   What's "ethical" to you, is not necessarily "ethical" to others.  As   
   Nietzsche has famously stated "Man is beyond Good and Evil."   
      
   My ethics are my own personal set of values that I have developed over   
   the course of my life.  I believe that it is wrong to harm, kill, eat,   
   and wear the skins of animals.  Otoh, I believe that it is right to kill   
   humans whose acts harm others.  You may or may not share those beliefs,   
   as ethical beliefs are not universal, but vary from individual to   
   individual.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
      
   I have explained much about my ethics to you on numerous occasions, so I   
   can only conclude that you have either forgotten our past discussions,   
   or that you are lying.   
      
   I have a very strong code of personal ethics, George.  You may not like   
   them.  You may not agree with them.  You may think that they are   
   thoroughly amoral.  Whatever.   
      
   They remain *my* ethics.  They are the ethical code that I choose to   
   live by.   
      
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Three stories that someone else you were got into flame wars with done   
   > something to start them. What was the point of your writing all that, if   
   > whether you  got into a flame war with them or not really had nothing to   
   > do with what they'd done?   
      
   I didn't say that my getting into the above-listed flame wars had   
   nothing to do with what they'd done.  Once again, you're playing the   
   duplicitous Dance and restating my words to mean something quite   
   different from what I'd originally said.   
      
   I said that I did not initiate any of the flame wars you'd accused me of   
   having started.  And I have re-explained to you (having already done so   
   in another thread) as to how those flame wars actually began.   
      
      
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)