[continued from previous message]   
      
   > Creeley, or of any other poets FTM. And no one has accused you of   
   > plagirizing any, you silly cockroach.   
   >   
   >>>>>> \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.   
   >   
   >>>>> 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   
      
   Again, looking forward to seeing the results of the examination of   
   Robert Creeley's poem.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)