[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)