[continued from previous message]   
      
   > And no.  Forgery is not more serious than plagiarism.   
   We would also say that what Mr. Dance's "source" did was literary fraud.   
      
   >   
   > Had you forged the "Days pile up" line, what's the worst that you've   
   > done?  You've wasted your, my, and NancyGene's time arguing over a troll   
   > post.   
   The Regents of the University of California own the copyright for a   
   significant portion of Creeley's writings.  They could sue Mr. Dance's   
   source for forgery, literary forgery and fraud.   
      
   >   
   > OTOH, a writer who is shown to plagiarize the work of others could end   
   > up having their work boycotted.  Who wants to publish a poem if it's   
   > going to turn out to have been stolen?  Not only do you look like a fool   
   > for not having Googled for it, but you could end up getting sued.   
   We recall some writers and reporters losing their publishers and   
   newspaper jobs because of plagiarism.  It is a serious charge.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>> Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or   
   >>>>> provide a link.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results.   
   >>>> If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly   
   >>>> won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me   
   >>>> better than that.   
   >>>   
   >>> If you're attempting to show that plagiarism occurred, I'm afraid you'll   
   >>> have to.  At very least, you should make a copy available to NancyGene   
   >>> or me via email.   
   >>   
   >> As I said, my interest at this point in dealing with your accusations of   
   >> forgery. Buying you two copies of the book has nothing to do with that.   
   >> Besides, (1) I don't have either of your addresses anyway, and (2) it's   
   >> a print copy which of course I can't "email" to you.   
      
   We (and Michael) have already seen pdfs of the books of Robert Creeley.   
   We are surprised that George Dance didn't ask us to send him print   
   copies of the book so that he could look for the poem.   
      
   >   
   > And as I've said, I had given you the benefit of the doubt until after   
   > you had repeatedly refused to reveal where the supposed Creeley poem   
   > could be found.   
   Mr. Dance has to protect his sources like a newspaper reporter?   
      
   >   
   > Even after you've finally come clean, admitted that you have never read   
   > (nor previously heard of) the poem, and that you're waiting on the   
   > receipt of a book you purchased before making your big reveal... your   
   > refusal to simply tell us where we can find the poem remains suspicious.   
   Highly suspicious and needlessly obtuse.   
   >   
   > However, since you have said that you were at least going to reveal the   
   > title of book the poem is in (once you've received your copy and checked   
   > for the poem in it), I am once more giving you the benefit of the doubt.   
   We think you are being too generous to Mr. Dance, but we have access to   
   all of Mr. Creeley's books, so once Mr. Dance makes the big reveal, we   
   will be able to check out his claim (if he has one).   
   >   
   >>> The most likely outcome (assuming that such a poem exists) is that there   
   >>> is some, superficial similarity between the opening line of each   
   >>> (although they are describing very different things).   
      
   According to the indices of the books, the first line starting with   
   "The" doesn't even match the newspapers line that Mr. Dance and his   
   source claim was written by Creeley.   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   We never said "only a bit."  "A bit" is not measurable.  The   
   lost-and-found line of the "source" is not what we wrote, and has a   
   different meaning.   
      
   >   
   > 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).   
   Newspapers stack or pile.  However, our poem was inspired by   
   decluttering our (large) house.  We came upon saved Christmas and   
   birthday cards, newspapers that were saved of "historic" occasions, and   
   more which just to look at brought back memories, and many of those   
   memories were unhappy.   
      
   However, to speak on newspapers:  We subscribe to the print edition of a   
   "major metropolitan newspaper" and also the county newspaper, which   
   subscriptions cost us about $600 a year for 7-day-a-week home delivery.   
   We would not waste the money by not reading them.  Once they are read,   
   they are put in a bag for recycling.  We do not wish to revisit stories   
   of mass killings or disasters, and to look at the bag does bring up   
   those thoughts of human trauma.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
   And that is true.  How many times does a person want to be reminded of   
   bad things that have happened to him?  Memory can be debilitating.   
   There are some people who can remember everything in their lives   
   (hyperthymesia), but most people are spared that "gift."   
   >   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   He also went to dinner with Elie Wiesel and Michael Crichton, a   
   professor gave Pickles a copy of his unpublished manuscript, and his   
   imaginary daughter was licensed to practice law in every state in the   
   U.S. and all the countries of the world.  Pickles went to the Dylan   
   Symposium but just sat in the parking lot, not going in.   
   >   
   > 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.   
   Damn straight!   
   >>   
   >> No, Harry Liar. The subject of both Creeley's poem his sentence was   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)