[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> told it appeared in, and see if the poem is there.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That seems like a long way to go to prove a point/win an argument --   
      
   To an empiricist like myself, it's the only way to establish the truth   
   or falsity). It's true that the line is in the poem that's in the book   
   iff the line is in the poem that's in the book - whereas, to HarryLiar   
   and NG, whether it's true or false depends on what other people are   
   saying.   
      
   >>>> especially when the chances of the poem's existence are slim, and those   
   >>>> of its actually having been plagiarized, virtually nonexistent.   
      
   Once again, there was no claim (except by NastyGoon) that the line was   
   plagiarized (NG accused me of "plagiarizing" it from them).   
      
   >>>> But as I've noted in the past, you'll do anything to win an argument   
   >>>> (and still end up losing it).   
   > Very similar to what Pickles* used to do, with elaborate explanations   
   > for   
   > why his lies did not stand up to any scrutiny.   
      
   * This from the NastyGoon who whines and cries when called a name.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   If that were true, Michael Monkey would have left aapc weeks ago, as he   
   promised. One can expect him to stay here, making the same arguments,   
   forever.   
      
   >> When I'm wrong, I always admit it.   
      
   Usually, when MMP is caught out in a lie, he'll simply go silent on that   
   thread.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Ha! NG is now threatening Ko0KsOots.   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   I some career; not all. In the United States, a proven plagiarism (Joe   
   Biden) can even be elected President.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Why would I ask for print copies of books no one claimed the poem was   
   in? And why WTF would I ask you for them rather than Indigo or Amazon?   
   Think!   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   HarryLiar may have said that, but it is not true. In fact, he falsely   
   accused me of this "accusation of plagiarism" in his very first post on   
   the subject, and has been repeating it since.   
      
   > Mr. Dance has to protect his sources like a newspaper reporter?   
      
   There's no point revealing the source before knowing whether their   
   information (line, poem, author, *and* book) was true or false. That   
   will be in a little more than a week.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Don't backtrack, NastyGoon. You've already told us (in this post - see   
   above) that "a bit" is larger than "only a bit", and we're waiting to   
   see your explanation.   
      
   snip   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)