[continued from previous message]   
      
   actual statement is immediately above your falsified restatement of it?   
      
      
   > It's what I've called his "Big Lie" technique:   
   > repeat a false claim enough, and eventually everyone will believe it,In   
   > this thread, it worked, temporarily.   
      
   Well, yes... that's exactly what you just did.  One can only conclude   
   that you are describing your own patented technique.   
      
      
   >> We had not either.  Obviously, our writing is, and never will be,   
   >> influenced by his.   
   >   
   > Once again: I never said you got the line from Creeley, you silly   
   > rutabaga.   
      
   Once again, you're lying, George:   
      
      
   "I do hope "Dr." NastyGoon credited Mr. Creeley; otherwise that would be   
   something they would call, you know -- "plagiarism"."   
      
      
   >> Or to feed a line into AI and ask it to write a similar line.  Hmmm.   
   >   
   > Hmmm yourself. I suspect that's how you write your poemsy, NG. MMP, as   
   > well: we've actually seen poems that he has written using AI.   
      
   Which poems were those, duplicitous George?   
      
   I recall having experimented with the poetry writing app during the   
   course of a discussion in order to see how it fared.  I would never have   
   passed the end result off as my own work (as your above statement   
   strongly implies).   
      
      
      
   >>> I praised a line of poetry by NancyGene.  You were jealous of my praise,   
   >>> and asked a "trusted source" (which could, for all I know refer to   
   >>> Google or Bing) if they knew any lines that sounded similar to it.   
   >   
   > Notice MMP repeating another line constantly: that I'm jealous of him   
   > slurping his allies. To the contrary, one expects him to slurp his   
   > allies; it's part of his M.O.   
      
   Notice how you've misquoted me (via paraphrase) yet again.  I have never   
   said that I "slurp[ed my] allies."  I do not "slurp" anyone's poetry:   
   never have, never will.  I also do not have any "allies."  You've   
   managed to fit two flat-out lies about me into your paraphrased   
   restatement which bears little-to-no resemblance to what I actually   
   wrote.   
      
   I wrote that "I praised a line of poetry by NancyGene.  You were jealous   
   of my praise..."   
      
      
   >   
   >> Or to ask Google or Bing to write one, because someone was jealous of   
   >> the praise given to more talented writers.   
   >   
   > Google and Bing are search engines, you silly goose. Search engines   
   > don't write poetry; you need an AI (which you already apparently have)   
   > for that   
   >   
   >>> They came up with one that vaguely matched, so you've been crying   
   >>> "Plagiarist!" ever since.   
   >   
   > Actually, as noted, I haven't "cried 'Plagiarist!' even once. It's   
   > HarryLiar himself who's been repeating that on average more than once a   
   > day (which would mean more than ten times by this date).   
      
      
   Lie.   
      
      
   "I do hope "Dr." NastyGoon credited Mr. Creeley; otherwise that would be   
   something they would call, you know -- "plagiarism"."   
      
      
   >   
   >> Mr. Dance might want to watch his language in the future, lest he have   
   >> to eat his words.   
   >   
   > Unlike HarryLiar or Nasty Goon, my ego is not threatened by being wrong   
   > about something. Being wrong is how we learn, which is how we gain   
   > knowledge. Only narcissists see the possibility of being wrong as a   
   > threat to their petty egos.   
      
   Agreed.   
      
   So why not admit that you were wrong, and apologize?   
      
      
   >> We speculate that Mr. Dance will say that the poem appears in a rare   
   >> edition, not the commonplace ones that we have.   
   >   
   > I hope not, since I ordered a trade edition of the book (which NG does   
   > not have).   
      
   The books NancyGene posted links to sure looked like pdfs of a trade   
   edition to me.  What do you think they were, George?   
      
      
   >>> The book will not provide any answers.   
   >   
   > Not if the line's not there. However, if it is in the book, it will   
   > answer NG's claim that they wrote it first, and I plagiarized, changing   
   > it only "a bit" (as opposed to "only a bit" :)   
      
   Which won't alter the fact that the only similarity in the lines is that   
   they use piled up newspapers as a representation of different concepts.   
      
      
   >>> It may or may not   
   >>> contain the poem in question.  But unless you're purchasing a used copy   
   >>> with NancyGene's signature on the inside cover, you have no evidence   
   >>> (not even circumstantial evidence) that NancyGene had ever read the   
   >>> poem.   
   >   
   >> We had never read anything by Creeley and don't intend to in the future.   
   >   
   > Once again, NastyGoon: no one has accused you of reading anything by   
   > Creeley, or of any other poets FTM. And no one has accused you of   
   > plagirizing any, you silly cockroach.   
      
   Someone certainly has:   
      
   "I do hope "Dr." NastyGoon credited Mr. Creeley; otherwise that would be   
   something they would call, you know -- "plagiarism"."   
      
   Aside: I see that George is going all out in this post, calling   
   NancyGene every negative animal/insect term he can think of.  Apparently   
   this is a new form of "dunce logic" wherein whoever calls someone the   
   most childish names in a given exchange wins.   
      
      
   >   
   >>>>>> \the next step (which I've already begun, though it will take time to   
   >>>>>> complete) is to get some first-had evidence; to look at the book I was   
   >>>>>> 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.   
      
   No, duplicitous George.  To NancyGene and I, a charge of "plagiarism" is   
   true, if a given poetry amounts to little more than a slight rewording   
   of another.  It cannot be proved by finding a slightly similar line in   
   some previously published poem.   
      
   >   
   >>>>> 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).   
      
   Once again, George Dance claimed that:   
      
      
   "I do hope "Dr." NastyGoon credited Mr. Creeley; otherwise that would be   
   something they would call, you know -- "plagiarism"."   
      
      
      
   >   
   >>>>> 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.   
      
   Once again, duplicitous George lies about what I have supposedly said   
   and done.   
      
      
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Lie.   
      
   Since I don't lie, I don't get caught.   
      
   I "go silent" on a thread, when I have finished with it.   
      
   At that point, you and your Donkey can repeat your false claims till   
   you're blue in the face.  I have already successfully refuted them.   
      
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)