[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> Your support of a pedophile (and, briefly, of NAMBLA) was the final   
   >> straw for him.   
   >   
   > What are you going on about?   
      
   I'm not about to search the archives to repost a thread that I've   
   already reposted dozens of times in the past.   
      
   The basic scenario ran as follows:   
      
   1) The late, unlamented Pickles openly supported NAMBLA, and mentioned   
   that he'd dined with NAMBLA members and listened to speeches at NAMBLA   
   conventions.   
      
   2) I criticized him for supporting a group that wishes to legalize   
   statutory rape.   
      
   3) You then criticized me for attacking what you described as "the   
   organization that has done the most to support LGBT rights" (quotation   
   paraphrased from memory).   
      
      
   >   
   >>>> When Jim asked to have his poetry removed from your blog (I forget how   
   >>>> long, but it was at least a year after you posted it)   
   >>>   
   >>> (Seven years later, in 2017.)   
   >>   
   >> Don't you think that an author's allowing his poetry to be tied up for   
   >> seven years on a non-paying blog is extremely generous?   
   >   
   > No, Michael; submitting poetry to a journal, and then demanding that   
   > they change that issue by removing it 7 years later is not what I'd   
   > call "generous".   
      
   For what must be the 50th time, I'm going to attempt to explain this to   
   you:   
      
   Both amateur and established poets want to get the poetry published in   
   as many venues as possible.  They also prefer to be remunerated for   
   their work.   
      
   Publishers, otoh, prefer to include only previously unpublished material   
   in their literary journals.   
      
   This means that when a poet allows you to post one of their poems on   
   your blog, they are invalidating that poem for consideration in an   
   established literary publication.   
      
   IOW: When a poet grants you first time publication rights to their poem,   
   gratis, they are doing you a huge favor.   
      
   If you were the editor of an established literary journal like Poetry,   
   or AGNI, the prestige from having their poem appear in your publication   
   would be compensation enough -- with the payment being icing on the   
   cake.   
      
   But you are not the editor/publisher of Poetry Magazine.  You are a just   
   a blogger who is using their poetry to boost the visibility of his blog.   
      
   Fortunately, for authors, some literary journals will accept reprints   
   (and a few even offer payment for them).  Most of these stipulate that   
   the poem must have been out of circulation (social media/blogs included)   
   for a period of at least 5 years.   
      
   Traditional (print) journals may keep back issues of their publication   
   in stock, but past issues are considered "out of circulation" the moment   
   that the next issue comes out.  This makes it convenient for authors,   
   who don't have to tie their poetry up indefinitely, by having published.   
      
   Most writers expect one-time publication rights to mean that an "issue"   
   will only remain in print for a given amount of time: weekly, monthly,   
   quarterly, etc.   
      
   When you asked to include my poem, "Demeter's Tears" in your "April   
   issue," I assumed that you publication was a monthly forum, and that my   
   poem would be freed up again in May.  That is the normal expectation any   
   writer would have under such circumstances.   
      
   Unfortunately, "first publication rights" insofar as you are concerned   
   translates to "in perpetuity."   
      
   Suffice to say that writers don't appreciate their poetry being   
   published in perpetuity by a non-paying blogger.   
      
      
      
   >> As I've explained to you in the past, the few poetry journals that   
   >> accept reprints insist that the submitted poems are not currently   
   >> available online.   
   >   
   > And as I've explained to you, that's completely irrelevant, since   
   > Jim didn't want to pubish his poems in a journal, and apparently   
   > never did.   
      
   How do you presume to know where Jim wanted to publish his poetry?   
      
   I certainly wanted to publish my poetry in other venues.  I just crossed   
   my fingers and hoped that your blog content wouldn't turn up on Google   
   searches.   
      
   In my case, I considered you to be a friend, and allowed you to keep my   
   poem active out of friendship.  I did this under the assumption that,   
   should I ever need to have it removed for publication elsewhere, you   
   would be glad to do so in return.   
      
   Oh well.  Live and learn.   
      
      
      
   >   
   >>> , you started   
   >>>> launching attacks on him.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, Lying Michael; I told him I wanted to keep his poems in the journal,   
   >>> so we disagreed; but it wouldn't have made sense to attack for that. (I   
   >>> did take them off line, so they couldn't be seen, until I figured out   
   >>> what to do.)   
   >>   
   >> You told him you wanted to keep his poems on your blog (and out of   
   >> circulation), *because* he'd asked you to remove them.   
   >   
   > Well, d-uh! Why would I have told I wanted to keep his poems in /April/   
   > if he weren't demanding I take them out?   
      
   What you were trying to do is 1) a violation of an author's rights to   
   their work, and 2) considered a highly disreputable practice.   
      
   In fact, it was only when I discovered that you were attempting to hold   
   perpetual publication rights to Jim's poetry that I demanded my own   
   poetry be removed as well.   
      
   Strangely, you're still incapable of understanding how what you did   
   constituted an attempt at literary theft.  As someone who has been   
   published extensively in the small press, and who has had some success   
   as a small press publisher, I can tell you that such practices are   
   inexcusable.   
      
   Since you refuse to comprehend this, I strongly suggest that you limit   
   yourself to public domain poetry in the future.   
      
      
   >> And why did he   
   >> ask you to remove them, George?   
   >   
   > The immediate cause was: he demanded I remove them because I'd called   
   > him out for posting something libelous about another group member,   
   > on one of my threads, multiple times. You remember that: NancyGene   
   > wrote it, and you and JIm were flooding the group with it.  If that   
   > was anything more than just a hissy-fit on his part, one can only   
   > speculate. My speculation is that you told him to; you'd got the idea   
   > of removing poems from a journal from Corey Connor (or told it to him),   
   > and decided you'd get all the poets who contributed to /April/ to take   
   > their poems out.   
      
   Your paranoia is well established within this group, George.   
      
   No one got Jim to do anything.   
      
   Again, it is considered unscrupulous for publishers to claim publication   
   right in perpetuity (especially without offering substantial   
   remuneration).  Jim and I allowed you to keep our poetry "active"   
   because we considered you to be our friend.  When you started attacking   
   us online, our loyalties were no longer a consideration.   
      
      
   >> Answer: When I saw that your Donkey was not the victim that he pretends   
   >> to be, I stopped supporting him in his troll wars. Desperately in need   
   >> of another ally, your Donkey recruited a deranged pedophile into the   
   >> group. The pedophile's job was to a) back your Donkey in arguments, and   
   >> b) draw some of the fire away from him.   
   >>   
   >> When the pedophile started revealing himself, Jim (who found his   
   >> pedophilic statements sickening) got sucked into a flame war with him.   
   >>   
   >> Because you knew that the pedophile was your Donkey's ally, you chose to   
   >> support him: attacking Jim, myself and others, and even going so far as   
   >> to erroneously claim that NAMBLA had done more for LGBT rights than any   
   >> other organization.   
   >>   
   > Yes, I'm sure you do remember the libelous stuff NancyGene was writing,   
   > and you and Jim were flooding the group with. This pedophile stuff was   
   > your own add-on later, of course.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)