[continued from previous message]   
      
   > Mine also touches on memory, "lost here in some other guy's past."   
   >   
   >>>> Otherwise, I'm just going to conclude that you've made   
   >>>> the whole thing up.   
   >   
   > That's a little drastic don't you think?   
      
   Not really.  I gave George the benefit of the doubt until after he   
   continually refused to name the book it appeared in, provide a link to   
   the poem, repost the first 4 lines, or reveal the identity of the "Deep   
   Throat" style informant who provided him with the line he claims to be   
   quoting.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> Actually, George, you did make up at least a part of your initial   
   >> statement.  The opening line of your initial post in this thread   
   >> strongly implies that you are familiar with Mr. Creeley's poem:   
   >   
   > We're all familiar with Robert Creeley's poetry now.   
      
   That's debatable.  I've read a few samples... and have already forgotten   
   them.   
      
   >   
   >> "The opening line is very good. It's almost as good as the opening line   
   >> of Robert Creeleys poem, "The Days Pile Up":"   
   >   
   > Key words" opening line."   
      
   How many fairytales open with "Once upon a time"?  Many poems open by   
   presenting the primary metaphor the rest of the poem will be backing   
   up/elaborating on.   
      
      
   >> It turns out that you were only posturing.   
   >   
   > Key words "opening line."   
   >   
   >> You've also accused NancyGene of having plagiarized it   
   >   
   > George Dance write that some people would call it that, probably meaning   
   > Nancy Gene herself.   
      
   I'm sure.   
      
   But again, George's accusation (whether by him or by "some people")   
   remains contingent upon a credit that he knows would not be there.   
      
      
   >> *before* having   
   >> even received (much less examined) the relevant evidence first-hand.   
   >>   
   >>>>>> And FWIW:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> A document search for "newspaper" turned up 2 results -- neither of   
   >>>>>> which is even remotely similar to the line George Dance quoted.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Since "collected" usually implies "as complete as possible,"   
   >   
   > Although Robert Creeley certainly had the right to omit certain poems if   
   > he wanted to, and possibly did.   
      
   Key word: possibly.   
      
   >>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > I don't think any actual accusations have been made yet.   
      
   I do.   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> IIRC the first plagiarism charge leveled against you occurred long   
   >> before either NancyGene or I became a part of the group.   
   >>   
   >> You had posted an obscure poem by Leonard Cohen, without identifying it   
   >> (asking only something to the effect of "What do you think of this   
   >> poem?").  In context of the discussion in which it appeared; one of the   
   >> members had just negatively critiqued one of your poems, and you made it   
   >> seem as if the Cohen poem was being offered as another of your original   
   >> works.   
   >>   
   >> Whether you stole it or not is moot, as you didn't specifically   
   >> attribute it to your hand.   
   >>   
   >> I have a vague impression that you may have posted some other poem   
   >> without attribution as well, after NancyGene and I had joined.  I could   
   >> be mistaken on that count, and willingly admit as much.   
   >>   
   >> Are either of these incidents what you are referring to?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>> 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 poem I cited, you   
   >>> (and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.   
   >   
   > And did so before all the evidence came in.   
      
   Had George been more forthcoming with his evidence, I would not have   
   made that conclusion.   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)