[continued from previous message]   
      
   > Very similar to what Pickles used to do, with elaborate explanations for   
   > why his lies did not stand up to any scrutiny.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> Being accused of forgery (even one line) is a far more serious matter   
   >>> than being accused of plagiarism. That's what I'm most interested in. As   
   >>> a notorious last-worder, you'll never admit that you lost an "argument"   
   >>> no matter what, so I'm not interested in that at all.   
   >>   
   >> "Last Man Standing" is your Donkey's game, not mine.   
   >>   
   >> When I'm wrong, I always admit it.  I have conceded several points to   
   >> PJR and others in the past.   
   >>   
   >> 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).   
      
   It isn't that I'm generous to a fault or anything.  I just can't imagine   
   anyone being so astoundingly stupid as to accuse someone of plagiarism   
   based on a non-existent poem.  I think that George acted under the   
   belief that the line in question exists.   
      
   Of course, this in no way justifies his "completely silly" accusations.   
   I'm just saying that he's not quite the dunce everyone takes him to be.   
      
      
      
   >>>> 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.   
      
   Once again, George Dance falls back on his old high school debating team   
   tactic of slightly modifying a statement in order to change its 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.   
      
   Didn't he also discover a new species of dinosaur?   
      
      
   >> So, yes.  I called him a pedophile and continue to maintain that he was.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)