[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> (although they are describing very different things).   
   >   
   > HarryLiar, we've all seen the opening lines we're discussing. You   
   > claimed they're completely different, while your NastyGoon colleague   
   > claimed that one is changed only a bit from the other. I agree with your   
   > colleague.   
      
   Let NancyGene speak for herself, George.  I only see two lines that   
   contain different variations on a common expression (which also appears   
   in poetry by your Donkey and myself).   
      
   What I find praiseworthy in NancyGene's line is not the application of a   
   common expression to piled up newspapers, but the concept of piled up   
   newspapers as a symbol for the oppression of memory.   
      
      
   >> Your Donkey has   
   >> reposted on of his own poems that has seconds piling up on the floor.   
   >   
   > "like newspapers"?   
   >   
   >> Did your Donkey plagiarize Creeley's poem as well?   
   >   
   > I wouldn't say so. But don't give NastyGoon any ideas. They're the part   
   > of the team that goes around calling other people on the group   
   > plagiarists (while you're the one who goes around calling other people   
   > on the group pedophiles).   
      
   Earth to George!  Pickles claimed that he deflowered two 14-year old   
   girls, that he supported incest, that he attended NAMBLA meetings, and   
   that he treated NAMBLA members to dinner.   
      
   So, yes.  I called him a pedophile and continue to maintain that he was.   
      
   When you claimed that NAMBLA had done the most for LGBT rights, and   
   supported their "right" to hold and express their beliefs, I called you   
   a child rapist by association.  And I maintain that anyone who argues to   
   have "Legal Age" laws abolished is criminally responsible for any   
   children who are raped (with or without consent) as a result.   
      
   When you recanted your NAMBLA statement, I removed your   
   predator-by-proxy status.   
      
   As to "Jordy," when a homosexual man insists on being called by his   
   nephew's name (out of admiration for him), he is openly displaying his   
   feelings of sexual attraction to his nephew -- to such an extent that   
   they border on obsession.  So, yes, I honestly believe that Jordy is   
   also a pedophile.   
      
   And, finally, based on Chuck Lysaght's "poem" which read something out   
   of "Penthouse Letter," depicting sex between a presumed adult with a   
   minor he's supposed to be babysitting, makes me suspect that he was a   
   pedophile as well.   
      
   I can't help it if you hang around (virtually) with a bunch of pedos.   
      
      
   >> He might not have mentioned newspapers, but the subject of his sentence   
   >> is an increment of time (as is Creeley's), whereas that of NancyGene's   
   >> is memories.   
   >   
   > No, Harry Liar. The subject of both Creeley's poem his sentence was   
   > "Days" while the subject of NastyGoon's was some days ("Yesterdays").   
   > Both lines were similes comparing some days with newspapers. Reread   
   > Will's line; it doesn't mention days and doesn't compare them with   
   > anything.   
      
   Again, Creeley's "Days" appears from that line to signify increments of   
   time; whereas NancyGene's "Yesterdays" is a metaphor for "memories."   
      
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> 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:   
   >   
   > I thought I recognized it, which is why I turned to my source (which   
   > wasn't my wife or daughter, BTW).   
      
   A common characteristic of great literary lines is that they strike the   
   reader as something they've heard before... something they've always   
   known to be true.   
      
   >> "The opening line is very good. It's almost as good as the opening line   
   >> of Robert Creeleys poem, "The Days Pile Up":"   
   >>   
   >> It turns out that you were only posturing.   
   >   
   > No, Lying Michael. It "turns out" that I don't currently have a copy of   
   > the book, which is a completely different thing.   
      
   I'm only trying to piece together the tiny bits of supposed truth that   
   you grudgingly decide to reveal.   
      
   You now seem to be implying that you once owned a copy of Creeley's   
   poem.  That's the first I've heard of it (assuming that this even counts   
   as having heard of it).   
      
   Why don't you just come clean and tell us the whole story?   
      
   >> You've also accused NancyGene of having plagiarized it *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," 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.   
   >>>   
   >> IIRC the first plagiarism charge leveled against you occurred long   
   >> before either NancyGene or I became a part of the group.   
   >   
   > I see you're trying to change the subject again. If you want, I can open   
   > a discussion of this new one on a different thread. Let me know.   
      
   The last thing I want is another thread by you.   
      
   You claimed that NancyGene and I have accused you of plagiarism in the   
   past.  You didn't say *what* we claimed you'd plagiarized.  Since you're   
   not coming forward with this information, as well, I told you the only   
   such incidences that I remember, and asked you if you were referring to   
   one of those.   
      
   So cut the crap and just answer the question: What specific accusation/s   
   are your referring to?   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > I remember NastyGoon and you accusing me of plagiarism for posting a   
   > cento, and giving the source information on the thread in another post   
   > rather than on the poem itself. I also remember NastyGoon accusing a lot   
   > of other people of plagiarism - as I say, that was their schtick.   
      
   Thank you.   
      
   It's good to have some vague idea of what you're talking about.  If you   
   remember the name of that cento, it would be much easier for me to   
   search for it, in order to refresh my memory regarding it.   
      
   From what *you've* written (above), it sounds like it was similar to the   
   Cohen incident... and, therefore, most likely the second example that I   
   claimed to have a very vague recollection of.   
      
   IOW: I'd guessed correctly, only to be accused of attempting to change   
   the subject and to be threatened with your opening another thread.   
      
      
   >> Are either of these incidents what you are referring to?   
   >   
   > No, I'm referring to your accusation, in this thread, that I wrote   
   > something and tried to pass it off as Robert Creeley's work.   
      
   Don't bother.  As previously noted, since you have promised to reveal   
   the source of this supposed poem (regardless of whether it appears in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)