[continued from previous message]   
      
   > source is (but just made up who it was), you have no idea what my source   
   > is able to send me. OTOH, Amazon is able send me the entire poem, so   
   > that's who I asked for that.   
   >   
   >>>> Otherwise, I'm just going to conclude that you've made   
   >>>> the whole thing up.   
   >>>   
   >>> HarryLiar, you've *already* concluded that. Since I know I did not   
   >>> "ma[k]e the whole thing up" (see below), I prefer to examine the only   
   >>> relevant evidence first-hand before leaping to any conclusions.   
   >   
   >> Yet you trusted your "source" without proof?   
   >   
   > Sure; I told you I trusted that source. Though, after you decided to   
   > challenge the information, I decided to check the book myself. As I've   
   > repeatedly told you by now.   
      
   You should know better than to trust any source without proof when   
   leveling a serious accusation against a fellow writer, George.   
      
      
   >> We would label that source   
   >> as unreliable.   
   >   
   > Of course you would, since my source's conclusions differ from yours.   
   > But I would label that source more reliable than either you or your   
   > monkey.   
      
   Regardless of how implicitly you trust your wife, daughter, or fellow   
   retired book packager, you should never make serious accusations against   
   anyone without first having obtained proof.   
      
      
   >> The poem does not seem to exist as it is not in any   
   >> published volume of Creeley's poems.   
   >   
   > No, NastyGoon. All your research (assuming it's accurate, since I   
   > haven't checked it and you three are unreliable) has proved is that   
   > Creeley's poem is not in the Berkeley editions of Creeley's work. Since   
   > that's all you checked, that's all your research can prove.   
      
   Again, *Collected* poems generally denotes *complete.*   
      
      
   > \>>>>> Since "collected" usually implies "as complete as possible," it   
   > is safe   
   >>>>>> to conclude that George Dance modified a line of NancyGene's poetry in   
   >>>>>> order to falsely accuse her of plagiarism.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So you're "concluding" the same thing your online friend was "assuming"   
   >>>>> yesterday. My, my, who'd have expected that?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If I wanted to accuse someone of plagiarism, I would provide proof.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yet you and your NastyGoon "colleague" had no trouble accusing me of   
   >>> forgery (a far worse accusation) on as little proof. So I have to say   
   >>> that I don't believe you.   
   >   
   >> The proof is that the poem does not seem to exist, is not listed in any   
   >> volume of Creeley poetry   
   >   
   > No, NastyGoon; that is not something that you proved. You didn't check   
   > every volume of Creeley's poetry (only the Berkeley editions of the   
   > Selected and Collected Poems), so all you've proved (assuming your   
   > claims are accurate) is that the poem is not in those three books.   
   >   
   > , you would not name the book that it was   
   >> supposedly published in,   
   >   
   > I already told you I'll give you the name of the book after I've   
   > received my copy. I've also explained why I'm holding back: I'd like to   
   > look at it myself first. Then, if it's there, I'll post the name of the   
   > book and the page number; if it isn't, I'll post that and admit that my   
   > source is no more reliable than you or MMP.   
      
   Which would be a proven lie: seeing how NancyGene and I would have been   
   proven correct, we would necessarily be *more* reliable than your   
   "trusted source."   
      
   >> you could or would not supply even the second   
   >> line of the poem,   
   >   
   > I probably could - my source gave it to me, but I didn't write it down   
   > and would have to go back and ask again. But that's irrelevant, as no   
   > one has been discussing the second lines of the two poems. There's no   
   > reason to post any more lines of Creeley's poem, including L2.   
      
   IOW: The second line bore no similarity to NancyGene's.   
      
      
   >> and you obfuscated with various attacks on us.   
   >   
   > Like MMP, you have a bad habit of calling any disagreement with you an   
   > "attack".   
      
   LOL!   
      
   That's what I've been saying about you for years!   
      
   I, OTOH, have been involved in many *friendly* arguments with PJR and   
   others, wherein they disagreed with my position, facts, etc.  I never   
   accused them of personally attacking me.   
      
      
   > I do consider you both trolls that can't be trusted, but that   
   > hasn't colored anything I've said about the points in question: my   
   > alleged "accusation of plagiarism" and your counter-accusation of   
   > forgery.   
      
   What colors your statements is your perception that your accusation was   
   a "Tit" for some "Tat" (some charge of plagiarism we had supposedly made   
   about you in the past) that you mentioned in your previous post (to me)   
   in this thread.   
      
   >> The   
   >> logical conclusion is that you made it up (or your wife or daughter   
   >> did).   
   >   
   > That's not logical at all. I can understand why you'd like to conclude   
   > that Creeley's "poem" was made up by me (or by my wife or daughter), but   
   > you certainly have not proved that in any logical way.   
      
   If a poem doesn't exist in a poet's "Collected Poems" volume, the   
   logical thing to conclude is that someone (whether intentionally or   
   through faulty memory) made it up.   
      
      
   >> It was not sent to you magically, the angels did not float down   
   >> one line to you, and the book did not fall open to the poem.   
   >   
   > Now you're making up more strawmen to attack.   
      
   Seriously???  Do you really think NancyGene is arguing that angels have   
   been known to descend to earth with the express purpose of researching   
   poetry for you?   
      
      
   >   
   >>>> Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such   
   >>>> proof exists.   
   >>>   
   >>> As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line or the poem I   
   >>> cited, you   
   >>> (and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.   
   >   
   >> Someone seemingly did.  Who was that?   
   >   
   > Both you and MMP. All you've claimed is that I forged the title and one   
   > line, but then again, it's all I've posted so far - it I posted the   
   > complete poem, or any more lines, you're likely to accuse me of forging   
   > that as well.   
      
   You seem to be wheedling for a promise that we will not do so   
   beforehand.   
      
      
   >> BTW, you should try to get over your jealousy and fear of us.  It's not   
   >> good for your well-being.   
   >   
   > I think you should get over your bad habit (which you've apparently   
   > picked up from your "collegue" MMP) that those who disagree with you are   
   > jealous of you. As I've told you before, it makes you sound like a   
   > narcissist.   
      
   Your jealously of, and corresponding animosity toward, NancyGene has   
   been evident since shortly after she joined AAPC.  You have continually   
   launched new attack threads against her, or attacked her in existing   
   discussions in which she wasn't a participant.  Even after I pointed out   
   that she was abstaining from the discussions, you proceeded to continue   
   with your attacks.   
      
   For the moment, I shall similarly abstain from telling you how your   
   posts make you appear -- as I intend to continue addressing you in a   
   civil a manner as possible.   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)