[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>   
   >> 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   
   >>> "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.   
   >   
   > "Yesterdays" in our poem is a concept.   
   >>   
   >> Again, Creeley's "Days" appears from that line to signify increments of   
   >> time; whereas NancyGene's "Yesterdays" is a metaphor for "memories."   
   >>   
   > Absolutely.   
   >>   
   >>>>>> 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).   
   >   
   > Another "gotcha" moment!   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   > Something they can relate to, to think about, to return to.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>> "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?   
   >   
   > That would be a good idea, instead of entangling himself in more   
   > explanations for why he "recognized" a line in a poem that doesn't seem   
   > to exist but still insists that we somehow borrowed without attribution.   
   >>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > There was the Pink Floyd song that Mr. Dance chopped up and presented as   
   > his own poem, afterward claiming that he credited Pink Floyd on   
   > Facebook!   
      
   LOL!  I'd forgotten that one.   
      
   George certainly does have a problem with crediting the original   
   authors.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   > Pink Floyd's "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" - The George Dance link   
   > is:   
   > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bzA1DrZ   
   oSg/m/ldR4EOgMAgAJ   
   >   Note that George Dance presented the poem as his own and had even   
   > published it!   
   > Our uncovering of the theft is at:   
   > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/23_1oXV   
   uvg/m/Ebsf7PBjAAAJ   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   > And we provided enough proof to make our case.   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" - Pure theft.   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   > George Dance is sensitive when caught in his own web.   
   >>   
   >>>> 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)