[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> 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 professor gave Pickles a copy of his unpublished manuscript, and his   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?   
   He wouldn't have known a chicken bone from a dinosaur keister.  He was   
   soundly laughed at and ignored by everyone.  Crazy hanger-on.   
   >   
   >>> 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   
   >>>> "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.   
   Understandable, as there were so many instances of this.   
      
   > George certainly does have a problem with crediting the original   
   > authors.   
   George Dance hasn't internalized the rule about keeping the attribution   
   with the poem.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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/bzA1Dr   
   GoSg/m/ldR4EOgMAgAJ   
   >>   Note that George Dance presented the poem as his own and had even   
   >> published it!   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)