[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Lie.   
      
   NancyGene hasn't threatened to do anything.   
      
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   It is still a serious charge, and it can still ruin a writer's career.   
      
      
   >> 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!   
      
   This entire post is just you restating what we've written (quoted   
   directly above your rewrite) to mean something that it obviously did   
   not.  Why should you think that anyone should fall for that?   
      
   Since nothing you do makes any sense, one should expect you to behave   
   nonsensically.   
      
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Are you claiming not to have written this?   
      
      
   "I do hope "Dr." NastyGoon credited Mr. Creeley; otherwise that would be   
   something they would call, you know -- "plagiarism"."   
      
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Why not?  If the book is still in print, it might be at a Barnes & Noble   
   where one could check it.  It may also be in a local library where one   
   could check it.   
      
   You don't want to reveal the book's title, because you don't want anyone   
   to prove you wrong.   
      
      
   >>>> 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.   
      
   Lie.   
      
   NancyGene wrote "a bit."   
      
   "Only a bit" was your falsified restatement of what she wrote.   
      
   And as explained above, "a bit" can mean "a large amount," whereas "only   
   a bit" can only mean a very small amount.   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)