[continued from previous message]   
      
   > bearing any resemblance to NancyGene's (apart from a handful of words in   
   > the opening line are also few to none.   
   >   
   >>> Your source should have been able to send you the entire   
   >>> poem for your perusal.   
   >>   
   >> Now you're just making up shit, NastyGoon. Since you have no idea who my   
   >> 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.   
      
   Fair enough.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Still, hopefully with these discussions about the poem a complete copy   
   will eventually emerge online so we can all  read and enjoy it.   
      
   > IOW: The second line bore no similarity to NancyGene's.   
      
   Again, I'm looking forward to finally seeing the Robert Creeley poem.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   PJR never told you to "get cancer and die?"   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Definitely not.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Or more likely, Robert Creeley decided not to include that poem in his   
   later collection for whatever reason.   
      
   >>> 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?   
      
   Pendragon, you believe in Muses and little fairy men already, why not   
   angels?   
      
   >>>>> 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.   
      
   At this point it's definitely best to wait for the Robert Creeley poetry   
   book the poem is included in to discuss this.   
      
   I'm looking forward to reading this poem.   
      
   😏   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)