On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 3:53:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
A good selection of Robert Creeley poetry at the Poetry Foundation:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/robert-creeley
No kidding. That's the first place I looked.
--
A good selection of Robert Creeley poetry at the Poetry Foundation:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/robert-creeley
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:18:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 3:53:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
A good selection of Robert Creeley poetry at the Poetry Foundation:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/robert-creeley
No kidding. That's the first place I looked.
--
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
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.
Mr. Dance has sunk to a new low. Just sayin'.
--
Yes, you're "just saying" but I already know from private conversations
with George Dance that he knows which Robert Creeley book the poem in question is located.
There's two volumes of Collected Poetry, perhaps with 60 books published
he may need THREE volumes.
Just saying.
We did our word search with the exact words that George Dance "quoted"
in the line. So, "newspapers," "unread," and "pile." No results for
those words or line for a poem called "The Days Pile Up" by Robert
Creeley. The searches were performed in both volumes of Mr. Creeley's "complete" poetry, plus other books that contained his collected works,
and one book that had an inventory of his works. No results for "The
Days Pile Up" or any similar poem in case Mr. Dance did not give the
exact title or line. Creeley did write some poems about "days" but
those poems were not the poem that starts with "The days pile up like
unread newspapers."
If this supposed poem is so obscure as to not come up in any search of
any of the books which contain Creeley's poetry, how (theoretically) did
we find this poem in the first place, in order for George-Dance-to-accuse-us-of-plagiarizing-it? Wouldn't it have been
easier for us to just write our own line (which we did)? We are fully capable of writing our own poetry.
Mr. Dockery claims that Mr. Dance told him the name of the book which features the phantom poem. If so, he has the obligation to post the
name of the book. Did Mr. Dockery find the book and see the poem there?
Why is this a secret? One would think that Messrs. Dance and Dockery
would be jumping up and down in their glee to share the original poem
and publication location.
--
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
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.
Mr. Dance has sunk to a new low. Just sayin'.
"The Collected Poems of Robert Creeley 1945 - 1975"
https://www.imghippo.com/i/gJIH8498pOk.jpg - Title page https://www.imghippo.com/i/QhcG5616is.jpg - Index of Titles and First
Lines, pp. 664-665
There is no poem listed called "The Days Pile Up," and there is no first
line of "The days pile up like unread newspapers,"
Your move, George Dance. The other book of Mr. Creeley's poems is at:
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No "The Days Pile Up" in there either. You are either a liar or know not
what you do.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No, Lying Michael, those links are not "the Collected Poems of Robert
Creeley in 2 volumes". The second one is a link to volume 2 (/Collected
Poems 1975-2005/), but the first one is a link to a /Selected Poems/ (Selected Poems 1945-2005/).
Not finding the poem in the your second link would show only that the
poem was not published after 1974, while not finding it using your first
link would show only it was not included in a a Selected Poems.
What you needed to do is what you claimed to be doing; providing links
to both the first and second volumes of his Collected Poems.
At least you've provided a link to the a site that one can crawl around looking for that missing first volume, so I guess that's something.
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?
Mr. Dance has sunk to a new low. Just sayin'.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 2:31:12 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"The Collected Poems of Robert Creeley 1945 - 1975"
https://www.imghippo.com/i/gJIH8498pOk.jpg - Title page
https://www.imghippo.com/i/QhcG5616is.jpg - Index of Titles and First
Lines, pp. 664-665
There is no poem listed called "The Days Pile Up," and there is no first
line of "The days pile up like unread newspapers,"
Your move, George Dance. The other book of Mr. Creeley's poems is at:
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No "The Days Pile Up" in there either. You are either a liar or know not
what you do.
Well, thank you for finding the volume that HarryLiar lied about giving
a link to. If it's in any /Collected Poems/ volume, that would be the
one. There's no sense in my downloading the file at this point.
I was given the information on the poem by a trusted source; but given
this claim of yours that it doesn't appear in /C, and Creeley's claim
(quoted on Amazon) that that book , I think I'll have to wait till the
copy I ordered on Amazon is in my hands and I can see for myself if it's actually in that book or not. I don't see any reason to make a move
until then, so you'll just l have to wait.
Since it will take me longer to receive the book than it would take you,
I've asked Will to not give the group any information on it. I've read HarryLiar's made-up stories about why Will won't tell you the name of
the book, so I think it's best for me to tell you that much at least.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 3:04:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 2:31:12 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"The Collected Poems of Robert Creeley 1945 - 1975"
https://www.imghippo.com/i/gJIH8498pOk.jpg - Title page
https://www.imghippo.com/i/QhcG5616is.jpg - Index of Titles and First
Lines, pp. 664-665
There is no poem listed called "The Days Pile Up," and there is no first >>> line of "The days pile up like unread newspapers,"
Your move, George Dance. The other book of Mr. Creeley's poems is at:
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No "The Days Pile Up" in there either. You are either a liar or know not >>> what you do.
Well, thank you for finding the volume that HarryLiar lied about giving
a link to. If it's in any /Collected Poems/ volume, that would be the
one. There's no sense in my downloading the file at this point.
I was given the information on the poem by a trusted source; but given
this claim of yours that it doesn't appear in [/Collected Poems of
Robert
Creeley 1945 - 1975/], and Creeley's claim (quoted on Amazon) that that
[book contains everything he published up till 1975,] I think I'll have
to wait till the
copy I ordered on Amazon is in my hands and I can see for myself if it's
actually in that book or not. I don't see any reason to make a move
until then, so you'll just l have to wait.
Since it will take me longer to receive the book than it would take you,
I've asked Will to not give the group any information on it. I've read
HarryLiar's made-up stories about why Will won't tell you the name of
the book, so I think it's best for me to tell you that much at least.
Well put, George.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:01:28 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 6:33:52 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:56:27 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 3:04:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 2:31:12 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"The Collected Poems of Robert Creeley 1945 - 1975"
https://www.imghippo.com/i/gJIH8498pOk.jpg - Title page
https://www.imghippo.com/i/QhcG5616is.jpg - Index of Titles and First >>>>>> Lines, pp. 664-665
There is no poem listed called "The Days Pile Up," and there is no first >>>>>> line of "The days pile up like unread newspapers,"
Your move, George Dance. The other book of Mr. Creeley's poems is at: >>>>>> https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No "The Days Pile Up" in there either. You are either a liar or know not >>>>>> what you do.
Well, thank you for finding the volume that HarryLiar lied about giving >>>>> a link to. If it's in any /Collected Poems/ volume, that would be the >>>>> one. There's no sense in my downloading the file at this point.
We have had the link (and access to the book) since we started looking
for the phantom poem. The poem is not in that book (or any other book). >>>>>
Was the trusted source your wife or your daughter? We don't think thatI was given the information on the poem by a trusted source;
anyone else might read these messages. Were they trying to protect you
against us? If so, they did considerable harm.
We posted pictures of the title page and the index. Do you think thatbut given
this claim of yours that it doesn't appear in [/Collected Poems of
Robert
Creeley 1945 - 1975/], and Creeley's claim (quoted on Amazon) that that >>>>> [book contains everything he published up till 1975,] I think I'll have >>>>> to wait till the
copy I ordered on Amazon is in my hands and I can see for myself if it's >>>>> actually in that book or not. I don't see any reason to make a move
until then, so you'll just l have to wait.
the physical book will show anything different?
Since it will take me longer to receive the book than it would take you, >>>>> I've asked Will to not give the group any information on it. I've read
??? Mr. Dockery has no information on it. We already have the book.
HarryLiar's made-up stories about why Will won't tell you the name of >>>>> the book, so I think it's best for me to tell you that much at least.
Mr. Dance, why don't you drop the silly name-calling? If anyone in this
thread is a liar, it is not Michael or us.
Well put, George.
Thanks for the kind words, Will, but on rereading I see the second
paragraph wasn't well-put at all, and needs a serious rewrite. Let me
add it in here so that (I hope) I'll just be able to paste it in if
NastyGoon can't understand what I'm saying.
We perfectly understand what you are saying. You are trying to cover
your ass.
I was given the information on the poem by a trusted source; but given
this claim of yours that it doesn't appear in /Collected Poems,
1945-1975/ plus Creeley's claim (quoted on Amazon) that that book
contains everything he published up until 1975, I think I'll have to
wait till the copy I ordered on Amazon is in my hands and I can see for
myself if it's actually in the book I ordered or not. I don't see a
reason to make any "move" till then, so you'll just have to wait.
It's up to you, but we will expect a full apology from you and Mr.
Dockery for calling us a "plagiarist" and "second hander." We write our
own poetry and have no need to plagiarize anyone else's.
--
Of course, I wrote a very similar opening line back in 1976 that has
been visible online for at least a decade, and I hadn't seen the Robert Creeley poem either, "The seconds have piled up at the floor..."
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=256444&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#256444
***
Shattered
The seconds have piled up
at the floor
lost here in some other guy's past
lying there
with your seconds piled
there went by a life
untold
unasked
going by
never caused and never traced
the future never ever appears here.
If some morning I wake
here for you
trying to find some reason to return
if I see things denied
I once defined
a life just passed me by there
slipped through my fingers
everything here now is real
so wait.
That portion of the finish
never comes.
Now that the lights are going so low
the dimming glow
falls on my ego
now that I'm falling
into my morning
here I am gazing into those
reflector eyes
morning light
is blasting my head clean too.
Morning's clearer
I've been forgetting it.
Your thoughts seem to stream
like a highway
dimming lights seem to streak
like hitch-hikers.
When does this dream end?
When do I get on up the road?
The light sped out
like a fire-fly
like gravestones
never noticed
never seen.
Like marbles
spilling from shattered minds.
-Will Dockery / August 20 1976
***
(Published March 1977 in the Carverlite, the Carver High School
newspaper, Columbus Georgia)
From:
https://shadowville-mythos.blogspot.com/2023/09/shattered.html?m=1
***
I didn't accuse you of borrowing my line, but they are very similar
opening lines.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 1:15:22 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No, Lying Michael, those links are not "the Collected Poems of Robert
Creeley in 2 volumes". The second one is a link to volume 2 (/Collected
Poems 1975-2005/), but the first one is a link to a /Selected Poems/
(Selected Poems 1945-2005/).
Not finding the poem in the your second link would show only that the
poem was not published after 1974, while not finding it using your first
link would show only it was not included in a a Selected Poems.
What you needed to do is what you claimed to be doing; providing links
to both the first and second volumes of his Collected Poems.
At least you've provided a link to the a site that one can crawl around
looking for that missing first volume, so I guess that's something.
I'm done searching for it, George.
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or provide a link.
Otherwise, I'm just going to conclude that you've made
the whole thing up.
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.
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such
proof exists.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:It's more than you did.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 1:15:22 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the
Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found)
they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a
copy of the poem in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't mean that
the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand evidence that
it exists.
George Dance, you are using extraordinary explanations for something
that should be quite simple. Someone (presumably your wife or daughter)
sent you a line
a poem by Robert Creeley called "The Days Pile Up." You accepted that
was true without checking it out yourself
our poem, and decided that we had plagiarized Robert Creeley.
Alternate
explanation: you made up the line.
You never had the book that [your
wife or daughter said] contained the poem.
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.
George Dance, you can look at the pdfs that we posted, which include the first page of the book and the relevant index pages.
If you doubt the
authenticity of the pages, you can search for some of Creeley's poems
that are listed on the page.
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or
provide a link.
Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results.
If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly
won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me
better than that.
Neither we nor Michael asked you to post the entire poem,
and you well
know that.
Your source should have been able to send you the entire
poem for your perusal.
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.
Yet you trusted your "source" without proof?
We would label that source
as unreliable.
The poem does not seem to exist as it is not in any
published volume of Creeley's poems.
is safeSince "collected" usually implies "as complete as possible," it
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.
The proof is that the poem does not seem to exist, is not listed in any volume of Creeley poetry
supposedly published in,
you could or would not supply even the second
line of the poem,
and you obfuscated with various attacks on us.
The
logical conclusion is that you made it up (or your wife or daughter
did).
It was not sent to you magically, the angels did not float down
one line to you, and the book did not fall open to the poem.
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such
proof exists.
As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line or the poem I
cited, you
(and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.
Someone seemingly did. Who was that?
BTW, you should try to get over your jealousy and fear of us. It's not
good for your well-being.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 1:15:22 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No, Lying Michael, those links are not "the Collected Poems of Robert
Creeley in 2 volumes". The second one is a link to volume 2 (/Collected
Poems 1975-2005/), but the first one is a link to a /Selected Poems/
(Selected Poems 1945-2005/).
Not finding the poem in the your second link would show only that the
poem was not published after 1974, while not finding it using your first >>> link would show only it was not included in a a Selected Poems.
What you needed to do is what you claimed to be doing; providing links
to both the first and second volumes of his Collected Poems.
At least you've provided a link to the a site that one can crawl around
looking for that missing first volume, so I guess that's something.
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found)
they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a
copy of the poem in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't mean that
the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand evidence that
it exists.
\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.
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or
provide a link.
Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results.
If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly
won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me better than that.
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.
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.
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such
proof exists.
As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line poem I cited, you
(and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:41:59 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:It's more than you did.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 1:15:22 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the
Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found)
they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a
copy of the poem in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't mean that
the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand evidence that
it exists.
George Dance, you are using extraordinary explanations for something
that should be quite simple. Someone (presumably your wife or daughter)
sent you a line
NastyGoon, why are you imagining that my "wife or daughter" are the
"trusted source" I asked. You're getting as bad as MMP ("HarryLiar" as I
call his new sock) in the way you leap to conclusions. You can do better
than that.
, after Michael praised our poem, that they said was from
a poem by Robert Creeley called "The Days Pile Up." You accepted that
was true without checking it out yourself
No, NastyGoon. As I already told you, even though I asked a trusted
source and got that information, I decided to check it out myself by
buying a copy of the book. You are getting to be as bad a liar as your slurpmonkey, MMP or
, compared that one line with
our poem, and decided that we had plagiarized Robert Creeley.
Alternate
explanation: you made up the line.
No, that was your only "explanation" - that I made up a line and a
title, and attributed it to Creeley. That's what you "assumed" and what
your slurpmonkey "concluded." You both accused me of writing something
and falsely attributing it to Creeley; which in literary circles is
called "forgery."
You never had the book that [your
wife or daughter said] contained the poem.
I never claimed to have the book - I've told you asked a "trusted
source". And, despite your new assumption that source was not my wife or daughter - you just made that up with no proof, no evidence, and no
reason.
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.
George Dance, you can look at the pdfs that we posted, which include the
first page of the book and the relevant index pages.
I haven't commented on the pdfs you posted, nor looked at them. When I examine the book I was told it was in, and if I find it, then I might
look at your pdfs. But not for proof, either way, since none of them are
pdfs of the book I was told the poem appeared in.
If you doubt the
authenticity of the pages, you can search for some of Creeley's poems
that are listed on the page.
There's no reason to "doubt the authenticity" of the pdfs on the sites.
Since none of them are books I believe the poem was in, why would I
doubt that? Why would you suggest that I might, except as a strawman?
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or >>>> provide a link.
Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results.
If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly
won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me
better than that.
Neither we nor Michael asked you to post the entire poem,
and you well
know that.
No, I know MMP gave me a second option, to post "four lines", after
first demanding that I "Post the entire poem". You are lying when you
said he didn't ask me something that he clearly did ask; and a stupid
liar since you left in the backthread where he did clearly ask that.
But, to not let your lie divert to much attention: I won't be posting
"four lines" of it either, since given your behavior you'll just accuse
me of forging those as well. Instead, I'll just cite the book, and the
page number, and if you question that you're free to order the book and verify it first-hand for yourself.
Your source should have been able to send you the entire
poem for your perusal.
Now you're just making up shit, NastyGoon. Since you have no idea who my source is (but just made up who it was), you have no idea what my source
is able to send me. OTOH, Amazon is able send me the entire poem, so
that's who I asked for that.
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.
Yet you trusted your "source" without proof?
Sure; I told you I trusted that source. Though, after you decided to challenge the information, I decided to check the book myself. As I've repeatedly told you by now.
We would label that source
as unreliable.
Of course you would, since my source's conclusions differ from yours.
But I would label that source more reliable than either you or your
monkey.
The poem does not seem to exist as it is not in any
published volume of Creeley's poems.
No, NastyGoon. All your research (assuming it's accurate, since I
haven't checked it and you three are unreliable) has proved is that
Creeley's poem is not in the Berkeley editions of Creeley's work. Since that's all you checked, that's all your research can prove.
is safeSince "collected" usually implies "as complete as possible," it
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.
The proof is that the poem does not seem to exist, is not listed in any
volume of Creeley poetry
No, NastyGoon; that is not something that you proved. You didn't check
every volume of Creeley's poetry (only the Berkeley editions of the
Selected and Collected Poems), so all you've proved (assuming your
claims are accurate) is that the poem is not in those three books.
, you would not name the book that it was
supposedly published in,
I already told you I'll give you the name of the book after I've
received my copy. I've also explained why I'm holding back: I'd like to
look at it myself first. Then, if it's there, I'll post the name of the
book and the page number; if it isn't, I'll post that and admit that my source is no more reliable than you or MMP.
you could or would not supply even the second
line of the poem,
I probably could - my source gave it to me, but I didn't write it down
and would have to go back and ask again. But that's irrelevant, as no
one has been discussing the second lines of the two poems. There's no
reason to post any more lines of Creeley's poem, including L2.
and you obfuscated with various attacks on us.
Like MMP, you have a bad habit of calling any disagreement with you an "attack".
I do consider you both trolls that can't be trusted, but that
hasn't colored anything I've said about the points in question: my
alleged "accusation of plagiarism" and your counter-accusation of
forgery.
The
logical conclusion is that you made it up (or your wife or daughter
did).
That's not logical at all. I can understand why you'd like to conclude
that Creeley's "poem" was made up by me (or by my wife or daughter), but
you certainly have not proved that in any logical way.
It was not sent to you magically, the angels did not float down
one line to you, and the book did not fall open to the poem.
Now you're making up more strawmen to attack.
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such >>>> proof exists.
As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line or the poem I
cited, you
(and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.
Someone seemingly did. Who was that?
Both you and MMP. All you've claimed is that I forged the title and one
line, but then again, it's all I've posted so far - it I posted the
complete poem, or any more lines, you're likely to accuse me of forging
that as well.
BTW, you should try to get over your jealousy and fear of us. It's not
good for your well-being.
I think you should get over your bad habit (which you've apparently
picked up from your "collegue" MMP) that those who disagree with you are jealous of you. As I've told you before, it makes you sound like a narcissist.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:14:33 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 1:15:22 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No, Lying Michael, those links are not "the Collected Poems of Robert >>>>> Creeley in 2 volumes". The second one is a link to volume 2 (/Collected >>>>> Poems 1975-2005/), but the first one is a link to a /Selected Poems/ >>>>> (Selected Poems 1945-2005/).
Not finding the poem in the your second link would show only that the >>>>> poem was not published after 1974, while not finding it using your first >>>>> link would show only it was not included in a a Selected Poems.
What you needed to do is what you claimed to be doing; providing links >>>>> to both the first and second volumes of his Collected Poems.
At least you've provided a link to the a site that one can crawl around >>>>> looking for that missing first volume, so I guess that's something.
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the
Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found)
they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a
copy of the poem in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't mean that
the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand evidence that
it exists.
AFAICS you charge of plagiarism hinges on the following:
1) the alleged similarity between the two poems (which, based solely on
the opening line of Creeley's poem that you apparently "quoted" from
your "trustworthy source's" memory), and
2) the probability of NancyGene's having been aware of, and had access
to.
Even if the poem does miraculously turn up in your copy of the book, I
fully doubt that it will meet either of the criteria of items 1) and 2).
\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 --
especially when the chances of the poem's existence are slim, and those
of its actually having been plagiarized, virtually nonexistent.
But as I've noted in the past, you'll do anything to win an argument
(and still end up losing it).
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or >>>> provide a link.
Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results.
If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly
won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me
better than that.
If you're attempting to show that plagiarism occurred, I'm afraid you'll
have to. At very least, you should make a copy available to NancyGene
or me via email.
The most likely outcome (assuming that such a poem exists) is that there
is some, superficial similarity between the opening line of each
(although they are describing very different things). Your Donkey has
reposted on of his own poems that has seconds piling up on the floor.
Did plagiarize Creeley's poem as well?
No, I had read about Robert Creeley in Jack Kerouac biographies but as
far as I can tell I haven't read any of his poetry until recently.
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.
Yes, I didn't use newspapers in my poem at all.
Otherwise, I'm just going to conclude that you've made
the whole thing up.
I'll just wait until Georgia Dance receives the Robert Creeley poetry
book and see how it goes from there.
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.
Good plan.
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:
"The opening line is very good. It's almost as good as the opening line
of Robert Creeleys poem, "The Days Pile Up":"
Granted, that's sure one elusive work of poetry, so far.
It turns out that you were only posturing.
You've also accused NancyGene of having plagiarized it *before* having
even received (much less examined) the relevant evidence first-hand.
George Dance didn't actually accuse Nancy Gene, he just pointed out the similarities with the Robert Creeley line.
And FWIW:
A document search for "newspaper" turned up 2 results -- neither of >>>>>> which is even remotely similar to the line George Dance quoted.
I noticed that, "newspapers" is definitely a key word here.
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.
You had posted an obscure poem by Leonard Cohen, without identifying it
(asking only something to the effect of "What do you think of this
poem?"). In context of the discussion in which it appeared; one of the
members had just negatively critiqued one of your poems, and you made it
seem as if the Cohen poem was being offered as another of your original
works.
Whether you stole it or not is moot, as you didn't specifically
attribute it to your hand.
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.
Are either of these incidents what you are referring to?
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such >>>> proof exists.
As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line poem I cited, you
(and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.
Again, I'm looking forward to seeing more details on the Robert Creeley
poem, in the near future.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the
Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found)
they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a
copy of the [line or title] in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't
mean that the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand
evidence that
it exists.
AFAICS you charge of plagiarism hinges on the following:
1) the alleged similarity between the two poems (which, based solely on
the opening line of Creeley's poem that you apparently "quoted" from
your "trustworthy source's" memory), and
2) the probability of NancyGene's having been aware of, and had access
to.
Even if the poem does miraculously turn up in your copy of the book, I
fully doubt that it will meet either of the criteria of items 1) and 2).
\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 -- especially when the chances of the poem's existence are slim, and those
of its actually having been plagiarized, virtually nonexistent.
But as I've noted in the past, you'll do anything to win an argument
(and still end up losing it).
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or
provide a link.
Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results.
If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly
won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me
better than that.
If you're attempting to show that plagiarism occurred, I'm afraid you'll
have to. At very least, you should make a copy available to NancyGene
or me via email.
The most likely outcome (assuming that such a poem exists) is that there
is some, superficial similarity between the opening line of each
(although they are describing very different things).
Your Donkey has
reposted on of his own poems that has seconds piling up on the floor.
Did your Donkey plagiarize Creeley's poem as well?
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.
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:
"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.
You've also accused NancyGene of having plagiarized it *before* having
even received (much less examined) the relevant evidence first-hand.
IIRC the first plagiarism charge leveled against you occurred longAnd 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.
before either NancyGene or I became a part of the group.
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.
Are either of these incidents what you are referring to?
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such
proof exists.
As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line [and title of the]
poem I cited, you
(and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.
No, George. I came to that conclusion based on 10 years of having
interacted with you here.
At best, you have admitted that you only know about the poem from
hearsay
and accused
NancyGene of having copied it.
Do you really think that's any better than if you had actually forged
it?
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:14:33 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 1:15:22 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No, Lying Michael, those links are not "the Collected Poems of Robert >>>>> Creeley in 2 volumes". The second one is a link to volume 2 (/Collected >>>>> Poems 1975-2005/), but the first one is a link to a /Selected Poems/ >>>>> (Selected Poems 1945-2005/).
Not finding the poem in the your second link would show only that the >>>>> poem was not published after 1974, while not finding it using your first >>>>> link would show only it was not included in a a Selected Poems.
What you needed to do is what you claimed to be doing; providing links >>>>> to both the first and second volumes of his Collected Poems.
At least you've provided a link to the a site that one can crawl around >>>>> looking for that missing first volume, so I guess that's something.
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the
Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found)
they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a
copy of the poem in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't mean that
the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand evidence that
it exists.
AFAICS you charge of plagiarism hinges on the following:
1) the alleged similarity between the two poems (which, based solely on
the opening line of Creeley's poem that you apparently "quoted" from
your "trustworthy source's" memory), and
2) the probability of NancyGene's having been aware of, and had access
to.
Even if the poem does miraculously turn up in your copy of the book, I
fully doubt that it will meet either of the criteria of items 1) and 2).
\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 --
especially when the chances of the poem's existence are slim, and those
of its actually having been plagiarized, virtually nonexistent.
But as I've noted in the past, you'll do anything to win an argument
(and still end up losing it).
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or >>>> provide a link.
Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results.
If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly
won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me
better than that.
If you're attempting to show that plagiarism occurred, I'm afraid you'll
have to. At very least, you should make a copy available to NancyGene
or me via email.
The most likely outcome (assuming that such a poem exists) is that there
is some, superficial similarity between the opening line of each
(although they are describing very different things). Your Donkey has
reposted on of his own poems that has seconds piling up on the floor.
Did your Donkey plagiarize Creeley's poem as well?
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.
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:
"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.
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.
You had posted an obscure poem by Leonard Cohen, without identifying it
(asking only something to the effect of "What do you think of this
poem?"). In context of the discussion in which it appeared; one of the
members had just negatively critiqued one of your poems, and you made it
seem as if the Cohen poem was being offered as another of your original
works.
Whether you stole it or not is moot, as you didn't specifically
attribute it to your hand.
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.
Are either of these incidents what you are referring to?
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such >>>> proof exists.
As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line poem I cited, you
(and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.
No, George. I came to that conclusion based on 10 years of having
interacted with you here.
At best, you have admitted that you only know about the poem from
hearsay, yet have quoted it from someone else's memory, and accused
NancyGene of having copied it.
Do you really think that's any better than if you had actually forged
it?
--
Probably, since you seem to have no problem with forgery and identity
theft when it's happening to your enemies, Pendragon.
Just saying.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:14:33 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 1:15:22 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No, Lying Michael, those links are not "the Collected Poems of Robert >>>>> Creeley in 2 volumes". The second one is a link to volume 2 (/Collected >>>>> Poems 1975-2005/), but the first one is a link to a /Selected Poems/ >>>>> (Selected Poems 1945-2005/).
Not finding the poem in the your second link would show only that the >>>>> poem was not published after 1974, while not finding it using your first >>>>> link would show only it was not included in a a Selected Poems.
What you needed to do is what you claimed to be doing; providing links >>>>> to both the first and second volumes of his Collected Poems.
At least you've provided a link to the a site that one can crawl around >>>>> looking for that missing first volume, so I guess that's something.
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the
Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found)
they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a
copy of the poem in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't mean that
the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand evidence that
it exists.
AFAICS you charge of plagiarism hinges on the following:
Actually, George Dance didn't exactly make a plagiarism accusation, he
simply pointed out that the first lines of both Nancy Gene and Robert
Creeley are very similar.
He did state "some people" might call it plagiarism, or words to that
effect.
1) the alleged similarity between the two poems (which, based solely on
the opening line of Creeley's poem that you apparently "quoted" from
your "trustworthy source's" memory), and
Right, as far as we know just two similar opening lines.
2) the probability of NancyGene's having been aware of, and had access
to.
Even if the poem does miraculously turn up in your copy of the book, I
fully doubt that it will meet either of the criteria of items 1) and 2).
I for one am looking forward to reading the Robert Creeley poem
eventually.
\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.
Yes, I see a copy of the Robert Creeley book with the poem is in a
library near me, or rather about 30 miles away.
I might go to the library and read the Robert Creeley poetry for my own personal enjoyment, but I'll not reveal the title or the contents until George Dance is ready to report on his findings.
That seems like a long way to go to prove a point/win an argument --
For poetry lovers it's not that much, enjoyable, in fact.
especially when the chances of the poem's existence are slim,
We'll just have to wait and see about that
of its actually having been plagiarized, virtually nonexistent.
Similar first line, actually.
But as I've noted in the past, you'll do anything to win an argument
(and still end up losing it).
I've read you say the same about yourself, Pendragon.
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or >>>> provide a link.
I'm sure George Dance will, when the time is right.
Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results.
If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly
won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me
better than that.
Fair enough, looking forward to reading about your findings.
If you're attempting to show that plagiarism occurred, I'm afraid you'll
have to. At very least, you should make a copy available to NancyGene
or me via email.
The Robert Creeley book is available in 916 libraries around the world,
so after George Dance posts his findings and the title is made
available, any of us can check out the poetry book from their local
library through the interlibrary loan program.
Go to the World Cat website for full details.
The most likely outcome (assuming that such a poem exists) is that there
is some, superficial similarity between the opening line of each
(although they are describing very different things). has
reposted on of his own poems that has seconds piling up on the floor.
Yes, my Shattered poem, written in 1976, published in 1977.
(Recently reposted on this newsgroup)
Did plagiarize Creeley's poem as well?
No, in 1976 I hadn't read any poetry yet by Robert Creeley.
He might not have mentioned newspapers, but the subject of his sentence
"The seconds have piled up at the floor, lost here in some other guy's past..."
is an increment of time (as is Creeley's), whereas that of NancyGene's
is memories.
Mine also touches on memory, "lost here in some other guy's past."
Otherwise, I'm just going to conclude that you've made
the whole thing up.
That's a little drastic don't you think?
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:
We're all familiar with Robert Creeley's poetry now.
"The opening line is very good. It's almost as good as the opening line
of Robert Creeleys poem, "The Days Pile Up":"
Key words" opening line."
It turns out that you were only posturing.
Key words "opening line."
You've also accused NancyGene of having plagiarized it
George Dance write that some people would call it that, probably meaning Nancy Gene herself.
*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,"
Although Robert Creeley certainly had the right to omit certain poems if
he wanted to, and possibly did.
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.
I don't think any actual accusations have been made yet.
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.
You had posted an obscure poem by Leonard Cohen, without identifying it
(asking only something to the effect of "What do you think of this
poem?"). In context of the discussion in which it appeared; one of the
members had just negatively critiqued one of your poems, and you made it
seem as if the Cohen poem was being offered as another of your original
works.
Whether you stole it or not is moot, as you didn't specifically
attribute it to your hand.
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.
Are either of these incidents what you are referring to?
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such >>>> proof exists.
As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line poem I cited, you
(and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.
And did so before all the evidence came in.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:14:33 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the
Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found)
they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a
copy of the [line or title] in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't
mean that the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand
evidence that
it exists.
AFAICS you charge of plagiarism hinges on the following:
1) the alleged similarity between the two poems (which, based solely on
the opening line of Creeley's poem that you apparently "quoted" from
your "trustworthy source's" memory), and
2) the probability of NancyGene's having been aware of, and had access
to.
As for (1) (the alleged similarity of the *lines*), we have the claim
from your colleague NastyGoon that one of the lines was changed only a
bit from the other (when they thought their line was written first). We
can go on to discuss (2) after we've seen whether the lines I quoted
were written by Robert Creeley, or were made up by me (or perhaps by my
wife or daughter). But of course that will all be speculative, if it
happens.
Even if the poem does miraculously turn up in your copy of the book, I
fully doubt that it will meet either of the criteria of items 1) and 2).
Since we're discussing one line, rather than a complete poem, there's no reason to wait for the poem to deal with that. As for how NG could have
got access to it, any theories about that will not be answered by
anything in the book.
\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 --
especially when the chances of the poem's existence are slim, and those
of its actually having been plagiarized, virtually nonexistent.
But as I've noted in the past, you'll do anything to win an argument
(and still end up losing it).
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.
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or >>>> provide a link.
Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results.
If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly
won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me
better than that.
If you're attempting to show that plagiarism occurred, I'm afraid you'll
have to. At very least, you should make a copy available to NancyGene
or me via email.
As I said, my interest at this point in dealing with your accusations of forgery. Buying you two copies of the book has nothing to do with that. Besides, (1) I don't have either of your addresses anyway, and (2) it's
a print copy which of course I can't "email" to you.
The most likely outcome (assuming that such a poem exists) is that there
is some, superficial similarity between the opening line of each
(although they are describing very different things).
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.
Your Donkey has
reposted on of his own poems that has seconds piling up on the floor.
"like newspapers"?
Did your Donkey plagiarize Creeley's poem as well?
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).
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.
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.
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).
"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.
You've also accused NancyGene of having plagiarized it *before* having
even received (much less examined) the relevant evidence first-hand.
IIRC the first plagiarism charge leveled against you occurred longAnd 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.
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.
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.
I remember NastyGoon and you accusing me of plagiarism for posting a
cento, and giving the source information on the thread in another post
rather than on the poem itself. I also remember NastyGoon accusing a lot
of other people of plagiarism - as I say, that was their schtick.
Are either of these incidents what you are referring to?
No, I'm referring to your accusation, in this thread, that I wrote
something and tried to pass it off as Robert Creeley's work.
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such >>>> proof exists.
As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line [and title of the] >>> poem I cited, you
(and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.
No, George. I came to that conclusion based on 10 years of having
interacted with you here.
You concluded that I forged it based on 10 years of seeing me forging
poems? Oh, do please give me one example.
At best, you have admitted that you only know about the poem from
hearsay
I did not, Lying Michael.
, yet have quoted it from someone else's memory,
Nor did I say that I quoted it from another person's memory, Lying
Michael.
and accused
NancyGene of having copied it.
Nor did I accuse NastyGoon of having "copied" it (since it was not
copied, but changed), Lying Michael.
That's three lies in a row from you, Lying Michael, all of them attempts
by you to change the meaning of something I did tell you.
Isn't that
what you were pre-emptively accusing me of doing in this thread just
today? Why, yes, it is. So go ahead and accuse me of playing "IKYABWAI" again.
Do you really think that's any better than if you had actually forged
it?
I think the worst thing one can accuse another writer of s forgery. So
you go on milking that charge; you still have over a week till the book arrives.
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 1:29:00 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:19:34 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:14:33 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the >>>>> Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found) >>>>> they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a >>>>> copy of the [line or title] in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't >>>>> mean that the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand
evidence that
it exists.
AFAICS you charge of plagiarism hinges on the following:
1) the alleged similarity between the two poems (which, based solely on >>>> the opening line of Creeley's poem that you apparently "quoted" from
your "trustworthy source's" memory), and
2) the probability of NancyGene's having been aware of, and had access >>>> to.
Yes, Mr. Dance has stated that the source gave him the second line, but
he (Dance) did not write it down. That implies that the first line,
title and author were given to him orally. So, Mr. Dance check with his source, and the source immediately (or so) remembered a line from Robert Creeley's poem that isn't in any of his books?
As for (1) (the alleged similarity of the *lines*), we have the claim
from your colleague NastyGoon that one of the lines was changed only a
bit from the other (when they thought their line was written first). We
We speculated that the writer changed the line "a bit," not "only a
bit." There is a difference in scale between those two descriptions.
We know that our line was written first because it is not the same as
the phantom line.
Because what we actually wrote doesn't fit in with Mr. Dance's excusescan go on to discuss (2) after we've seen whether the lines I quoted
were written by Robert Creeley, or were made up by me (or perhaps by my
wife or daughter). But of course that will all be speculative, if it
happens.
Why are you telling me what you think NancyGene said via an out of
context paraphrase?
for why he accused us of plagiarizing a poem that does not seem to
exist?
Also, what other words can a literate person use for newspapers that are
I told you that AFAICS your plagiarism charge hinges on two points --
neither of which you have established.
Ad per item 1) there is a superficial similarity between the two lines
(4 duplicate words, to be exact).
on top of each other? Stack and pile are about it.
The similes in each compare different
things to piled up newspapers. "Things are really piling up on me," is
a very common phrase, and one that has countless variations. It's not
unusual for commonly used expressions to turn up in different people's
poetry.
The ghostly line supposedly from Robert Creeley is not memorable enough
for a person to commit it to memory, at least without the rest of the
poem to support it. Which, of course, does not come up in any search of Creeley's poems.
In my poem, "Faded," I mention "A piled century of caking paint." In
"Where the Wild Fern Grows," I say "Shall be dry as the centuries of
dust/Piled high o'er your head."
In that context, you could have used "layer" or "layered," but
newspapers are not in layers. Cakes are, though.
And I'm sure that I can find at least a half dozen more. And, guessWe had not either. Obviously, our writing is, and never will be,
what?
I don't recall ever having read a Creeley poem until you made your
recent accusation.
influenced by his.
Or to feed a line into AI and ask it to write a similar line. Hmmm.
It's incredibly easy to randomly pluck any line from a poem, then search
the internet to find that a mildly similar line has been written by
someone else.
Or to ask Google or Bing to write one, because someone was jealous of
And that's really what is happening here.
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.
the praise given to more talented writers.
Mr. Dance might want to watch his language in the future, lest he have
They came up with one that vaguely matched, so you've been crying
"Plagiarist!" ever since.
to eat his words.
Even if the poem does miraculously turn up in your copy of the book, I >>>> fully doubt that it will meet either of the criteria of items 1) and 2).
We speculate that Mr. Dance will say that the poem appears in a rare
edition, not the commonplace ones that we have.
We had never read anything by Creeley and don't intend to in the future.
Since we're discussing one line, rather than a complete poem, there's no >>> reason to wait for the poem to deal with that. As for how NG could have
got access to it, any theories about that will not be answered by
anything in the book.
Wrong. The book will not provide any answers. 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.
Very similar to what Pickles used to do, with elaborate explanations for
\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 --
especially when the chances of the poem's existence are slim, and those >>>> of its actually having been plagiarized, virtually nonexistent.
But as I've noted in the past, you'll do anything to win an argument
(and still end up losing it).
why his lies did not stand up to any scrutiny.
We would also say that what Mr. Dance's "source" did was literary fraud.
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.
When I'm wrong, I always admit it. I have conceded several points to
PJR and others in the past.
And no. Forgery is not more serious than plagiarism.
The Regents of the University of California own the copyright for a significant portion of Creeley's writings. They could sue Mr. Dance's
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.
source for forgery, literary forgery and fraud.
We recall some writers and reporters losing their publishers and
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.
newspaper jobs because of plagiarism. It is a serious charge.
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or >>>>>> provide a link.
Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results. >>>>> If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly
won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me >>>>> better than that.
If you're attempting to show that plagiarism occurred, I'm afraid you'll >>>> have to. At very least, you should make a copy available to NancyGene >>>> or me via email.
As I said, my interest at this point in dealing with your accusations of >>> forgery. Buying you two copies of the book has nothing to do with that.
Besides, (1) I don't have either of your addresses anyway, and (2) it's
a print copy which of course I can't "email" to you.
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.
Mr. Dance has to protect his sources like a newspaper reporter?
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.
Highly suspicious and needlessly obtuse.
Even after you've finally come clean, admitted that you have never read
(nor previously heard of) the poem, and that you're waiting on the
receipt of a book you purchased before making your big reveal... your
refusal to simply tell us where we can find the poem remains suspicious.
We think you are being too generous to Mr. Dance, but we have access to
However, since you have said that you were at least going to reveal the
title of book the poem is in (once you've received your copy and checked
for the poem in it), I am once more giving you the benefit of the doubt.
all of Mr. Creeley's books, so once Mr. Dance makes the big reveal, we
will be able to check out his claim (if he has one).
The most likely outcome (assuming that such a poem exists) is that there >>>> is some, superficial similarity between the opening line of each
(although they are describing very different things).
According to the indices of the books, the first line starting with
"The" doesn't even match the newspapers line that Mr. Dance and his
source claim was written by Creeley.
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.
Let NancyGene speak for herself, George. I only see two lines thatNewspapers stack or pile. However, our poem was inspired by
contain different variations on a common expression (which also appears
in poetry by your Donkey and myself).
decluttering our (large) house. We came upon saved Christmas and
birthday cards, newspapers that were saved of "historic" occasions, and
more which just to look at brought back memories, and many of those
memories were unhappy.
However, to speak on newspapers: We subscribe to the print edition of a "major metropolitan newspaper" and also the county newspaper, which subscriptions cost us about $600 a year for 7-day-a-week home delivery.
We would not waste the money by not reading them. Once they are read,
they are put in a bag for recycling. We do not wish to revisit stories
of mass killings or disasters, and to look at the bag does bring up
those thoughts of human trauma.
And that is true. How many times does a person want to be reminded of
What I find praiseworthy in NancyGene's line is not the application of a
common expression to piled up newspapers, but the concept of piled up
newspapers as a symbol for the oppression of memory.
bad things that have happened to him? Memory can be debilitating.
There are some people who can remember everything in their lives (hyperthymesia), but most people are spared that "gift."
He also went to dinner with Elie Wiesel and Michael Crichton, a
Your Donkey has
reposted on of his own poems that has seconds piling up on the floor.
"like newspapers"?
Did your Donkey plagiarize Creeley's poem as well?
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.
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.
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.
Damn straight!
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.
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.
Absolutely.
Again, Creeley's "Days" appears from that line to signify increments of
time; whereas NancyGene's "Yesterdays" is a metaphor for "memories."
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!
Something they can relate to, to think about, to return to.
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.
"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.
IIRC the first plagiarism charge leveled against you occurred longYet 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.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. >>>>>
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!
So cut the crap and just answer the question: What specific accusation/sPink Floyd's "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" - The George Dance link
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.
is: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bzA1DrZGoSg/m/ldR4EOgMAgAJ
Note that George Dance presented the poem as his own and had even
published it!
Our uncovering of the theft is at: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/23_1oXVwuvg/m/Ebsf7PBjAAAJ
And we provided enough proof to make our case.
I remember NastyGoon and you accusing me of plagiarism for posting a
cento, and giving the source information on the thread in another post
rather than on the poem itself. I also remember NastyGoon accusing a lot >>> of other people of plagiarism - as I say, that was their schtick.
Thank you.
It's good to have some vague idea of what you're talking about. If you
remember the name of that cento, it would be much easier for me to
search for it, in order to refresh my memory regarding it.
"The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" - Pure theft.
George Dance is sensitive when caught in his own web.
From what *you've* written (above), it sounds like it was similar to the
Cohen incident... and, therefore, most likely the second example that I
claimed to have a very vague recollection of.
IOW: I'd guessed correctly, only to be accused of attempting to change
the subject and to be threatened with your opening another thread.
Someone did.
Are either of these incidents what you are referring to?
No, I'm referring to your accusation, in this thread, that I wrote
something and tried to pass it off as Robert Creeley's work.
We don't.
Don't bother. As previously noted, since you have promised to reveal
the source of this supposed poem (regardless of whether it appears in
your forthcoming copy), I have decided to once more grant you the
benefit of the doubt.
We don't have that long of an exposure to George Dance's postings, but
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such >>>>>> proof exists.
As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line [and title of the] >>>>> poem I cited, you
(and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.
No, George. I came to that conclusion based on 10 years of having
interacted with you here.
Mr. Dance paraphrases what other people write such that it changes the meaning, has selective memory, argues to the side of a point, and uses
silly nicknames for people he doesn't like.
And when he is wrong, he attacks the person who is right.
You concluded that I forged it based on 10 years of seeing me forging
poems? Oh, do please give me one example.
That is not what I said, George. I said that based on my past (and
current) exchanges with you, I believe that you are capable of doing
*anything* to win an argument ("forgery") included.
George Dance said that his source told him (by some method) the first
At best, you have admitted that you only know about the poem from
hearsay
I did not, Lying Michael.
, yet have quoted it from someone else's memory,
Nor did I say that I quoted it from another person's memory, Lying
Michael.
Just what did you say, George?
line, title, and book in which a poem by Robert Creeley was published.
The source told George Dance the second line, but George Dance did not
write that down. We assume that George Dance wrote down the first line,
the title, and the author of the poem, along with the book. We conclude
that George Dance was given this information orally, as otherwise it
would already be available in print (if in an email or a site on-line).
George Dance is feeling the heat in Canada.
NancyGene and I have been prying out your proverbial teeth to obtain
what little information you've revealed.
It would have saved what little "face" George Dance has.
Like I said: if you just tell the truth about what happened, we wouldn't
have to try to weave the little shreds of material you've given us
together in an attempt to figure out what you're (not) talking about.
If we were going to paraphrase our line, we would have changed the words
and accused
NancyGene of having copied it.
Nor did I accuse NastyGoon of having "copied" it (since it was not
copied, but changed), Lying Michael.
A copy needn't be exact, George.
that were changed in the "Creeley" version.
That's three lies in a row from you, Lying Michael, all of them attempts >>> by you to change the meaning of something I did tell you.
Again, all of them attempts to make sense out of what little you did
tell us.
Isn't that
what you were pre-emptively accusing me of doing in this thread just
today? Why, yes, it is. So go ahead and accuse me of playing "IKYABWAI"
again.
I don't know what you're talking about, George? You are saying that
I've pre-emptively accused you of telling three lies in a row? WTF does
that even mean?
Do you really think that's any better than if you had actually forged
it?
I think the worst thing one can accuse another writer of s forgery. So
you go on milking that charge; you still have over a week till the book >>> arrives.
Again, I am once more giving you the benefit of the doubt -- contingent
upon your revealing the source once your mysterious book arrives.
We assume that George Dance will examine, word by word, page by page,
every inch of the tome to make the momentous discovery of a new Robert Creeley poem!
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:31:43 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:23:00 +0000, NancyGene wrote:However, "piled" implies horizontal, and paint is usually applied
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 1:29:00 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:19:34 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:14:33 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the >>>>>>> Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found) >>>>>>> they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a >>>>>>> copy of the [line or title] in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't >>>>>>> mean that the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand >>>>>>> evidence that
it exists.
AFAICS you charge of plagiarism hinges on the following:
1) the alleged similarity between the two poems (which, based solely on >>>>>> the opening line of Creeley's poem that you apparently "quoted" from >>>>>> your "trustworthy source's" memory), and
2) the probability of NancyGene's having been aware of, and had access >>>>>> to.
Yes, Mr. Dance has stated that the source gave him the second line, but
he (Dance) did not write it down. That implies that the first line,
title and author were given to him orally. So, Mr. Dance check with his
source, and the source immediately (or so) remembered a line from Robert >>> Creeley's poem that isn't in any of his books?
We speculated that the writer changed the line "a bit," not "only a
As for (1) (the alleged similarity of the *lines*), we have the claim >>>>> from your colleague NastyGoon that one of the lines was changed only a >>>>> bit from the other (when they thought their line was written first). We >>>
bit." There is a difference in scale between those two descriptions.
We know that our line was written first because it is not the same as
the phantom line.
Because what we actually wrote doesn't fit in with Mr. Dance's excusescan go on to discuss (2) after we've seen whether the lines I quoted >>>>> were written by Robert Creeley, or were made up by me (or perhaps by my >>>>> wife or daughter). But of course that will all be speculative, if it >>>>> happens.
Why are you telling me what you think NancyGene said via an out of
context paraphrase?
for why he accused us of plagiarizing a poem that does not seem to
exist?
Also, what other words can a literate person use for newspapers that are >>> on top of each other? Stack and pile are about it.
I told you that AFAICS your plagiarism charge hinges on two points --
neither of which you have established.
Ad per item 1) there is a superficial similarity between the two lines >>>> (4 duplicate words, to be exact).
The similes in each compare different
things to piled up newspapers. "Things are really piling up on me," is >>>> a very common phrase, and one that has countless variations. It's not >>>> unusual for commonly used expressions to turn up in different people's >>>> poetry.
The ghostly line supposedly from Robert Creeley is not memorable enough
for a person to commit it to memory, at least without the rest of the
poem to support it. Which, of course, does not come up in any search of >>> Creeley's poems.
In my poem, "Faded," I mention "A piled century of caking paint." In
"Where the Wild Fern Grows," I say "Shall be dry as the centuries of
dust/Piled high o'er your head."
In that context, you could have used "layer" or "layered," but
newspapers are not in layers. Cakes are, though.
Thanks, NancyGene.
Yes, "layered" is a more accurate word. My Muse, however, insists on
"piled" because She wants the alliterative plosives of "piled" and
"paint." She tends to have a fetish for alliteration. "Piled," in this
case, is used to compare the centuries layers of paint that have been
piled on top of each other countless times.
vertically. I would not say that I was removing piles of paint from
frescos.
And I'm sure that I can find at least a half dozen more. And, guessWe had not either. Obviously, our writing is, and never will be,
what?
I don't recall ever having read a Creeley poem until you made your
recent accusation.
influenced by his.
Or to feed a line into AI and ask it to write a similar line. Hmmm.
It's incredibly easy to randomly pluck any line from a poem, then search >>>> the internet to find that a mildly similar line has been written by
someone else.
Or to ask Google or Bing to write one, because someone was jealous of
And that's really what is happening here.
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.
the praise given to more talented writers.
Mr. Dance might want to watch his language in the future, lest he have
They came up with one that vaguely matched, so you've been crying
"Plagiarist!" ever since.
to eat his words.
I doubt it. George has that lean and hungry look.
That's from always being last at the dinner table.
We speculate that Mr. Dance will say that the poem appears in a rareEven if the poem does miraculously turn up in your copy of the book, I >>>>>> fully doubt that it will meet either of the criteria of items 1) and 2). >>>
edition, not the commonplace ones that we have.
We had never read anything by Creeley and don't intend to in the future. >>>>
Since we're discussing one line, rather than a complete poem, there's no >>>>> reason to wait for the poem to deal with that. As for how NG could have >>>>> got access to it, any theories about that will not be answered by
anything in the book.
Wrong. The book will not provide any answers. 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.
Very similar to what Pickles used to do, with elaborate explanations for >>> why his lies did not stand up to any scrutiny.
\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 -- >>>>>> especially when the chances of the poem's existence are slim, and those >>>>>> of its actually having been plagiarized, virtually nonexistent.
But as I've noted in the past, you'll do anything to win an argument >>>>>> (and still end up losing it).
We would also say that what Mr. Dance's "source" did was literary fraud. >>>
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.
When I'm wrong, I always admit it. I have conceded several points to
PJR and others in the past.
And no. Forgery is not more serious than plagiarism.
The Regents of the University of California own the copyright for a
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.
significant portion of Creeley's writings. They could sue Mr. Dance's
source for forgery, literary forgery and fraud.
We recall some writers and reporters losing their publishers and
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.
newspaper jobs because of plagiarism. It is a serious charge.
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or
provide a link.
Once I've completed that first-hand examination, I'll give my results. >>>>>>> If the poem is there, or not, I'll post to that effect. I certainly >>>>>>> won't be posting a copyrighted poem in its entirety; you should know me >>>>>>> better than that.
If you're attempting to show that plagiarism occurred, I'm afraid you'll >>>>>> have to. At very least, you should make a copy available to NancyGene >>>>>> or me via email.
As I said, my interest at this point in dealing with your accusations of >>>>> forgery. Buying you two copies of the book has nothing to do with that. >>>>> Besides, (1) I don't have either of your addresses anyway, and (2) it's >>>>> a print copy which of course I can't "email" to you.
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.
Mr. Dance has to protect his sources like a newspaper reporter?
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.
all of Mr. Creeley's books, so once Mr. Dance makes the big reveal, we
Even after you've finally come clean, admitted that you have never read >>>> (nor previously heard of) the poem, and that you're waiting on the
receipt of a book you purchased before making your big reveal... your
refusal to simply tell us where we can find the poem remains suspicious. >>> Highly suspicious and needlessly obtuse.
However, since you have said that you were at least going to reveal the >>>> title of book the poem is in (once you've received your copy and checked >>>> for the poem in it), I am once more giving you the benefit of the doubt. >>> We think you are being too generous to Mr. Dance, but we have access to
will be able to check out his claim (if he has one).
It isn't that I'm generous to a fault or anything. I just can't imagine
anyone being so astoundingly stupid as to accuse someone of plagiarism
based on a non-existent poem. I think that George acted under the
belief that the line in question exists.
You see that George Dance is trying to do a dance around what he
actually posted. Who would be so malicious as to feed George Dance a
false quote?
Of course, this in no way justifies his "completely silly" accusations.Is "not quite" like "a bit" or "just a bit?"
I'm just saying that he's not quite the dunce everyone takes him to be.
"He can't handle the truth!"
The most likely outcome (assuming that such a poem exists) is that there >>>>>> is some, superficial similarity between the opening line of each
(although they are describing very different things).
According to the indices of the books, the first line starting with
"The" doesn't even match the newspapers line that Mr. Dance and his
source claim was written by Creeley.
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.
Once again, George Dance falls back on his old high school debating team
tactic of slightly modifying a statement in order to change its meaning.
He wouldn't have known a chicken bone from a dinosaur keister. He was soundly laughed at and ignored by everyone. Crazy hanger-on.
Let NancyGene speak for herself, George. I only see two lines thatNewspapers stack or pile. However, our poem was inspired by
contain different variations on a common expression (which also appears >>>> in poetry by your Donkey and myself).
decluttering our (large) house. We came upon saved Christmas and
birthday cards, newspapers that were saved of "historic" occasions, and
more which just to look at brought back memories, and many of those
memories were unhappy.
However, to speak on newspapers: We subscribe to the print edition of a >>> "major metropolitan newspaper" and also the county newspaper, which
subscriptions cost us about $600 a year for 7-day-a-week home delivery.
We would not waste the money by not reading them. Once they are read,
they are put in a bag for recycling. We do not wish to revisit stories
of mass killings or disasters, and to look at the bag does bring up
those thoughts of human trauma.
And that is true. How many times does a person want to be reminded of
What I find praiseworthy in NancyGene's line is not the application of a >>>> common expression to piled up newspapers, but the concept of piled up
newspapers as a symbol for the oppression of memory.
bad things that have happened to him? Memory can be debilitating.
There are some people who can remember everything in their lives
(hyperthymesia), but most people are spared that "gift."
He also went to dinner with Elie Wiesel and Michael Crichton, a
Your Donkey has"like newspapers"?
reposted on of his own poems that has seconds piling up on the floor. >>>>>
Did your Donkey plagiarize Creeley's poem as well?
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.
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?
Understandable, as there were so many instances of this.So, yes. I called him a pedophile and continue to maintain that he was. >>>>Damn straight!
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.
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.
Absolutely.
Again, Creeley's "Days" appears from that line to signify increments of >>>> time; whereas NancyGene's "Yesterdays" is a metaphor for "memories."
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!
Something they can relate to, to think about, to return to.
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.
"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. >>>>>
IIRC the first plagiarism charge leveled against you occurred long >>>>>> before either NancyGene or I became a part of the group.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.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. >>>>>>>
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.
George certainly does have a problem with crediting the originalGeorge Dance hasn't internalized the rule about keeping the attribution
authors.
with the poem.
It's true that we have had enough.So cut the crap and just answer the question: What specific accusation/s >>>> are your referring to?Pink Floyd's "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" - The George Dance link
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.
is:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/bzA1DrZGoSg/m/ldR4EOgMAgAJ
Note that George Dance presented the poem as his own and had even
published it!
Our uncovering of the theft is at:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/23_1oXVwuvg/m/Ebsf7PBjAAAJ
And we provided enough proof to make our case.
I remember NastyGoon and you accusing me of plagiarism for posting a >>>>> cento, and giving the source information on the thread in another post >>>>> rather than on the poem itself. I also remember NastyGoon accusing a lot >>>>> of other people of plagiarism - as I say, that was their schtick.
Thank you.
It's good to have some vague idea of what you're talking about. If you >>>> remember the name of that cento, it would be much easier for me to
search for it, in order to refresh my memory regarding it.
"The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" - Pure theft.
George Dance is sensitive when caught in his own web.
From what *you've* written (above), it sounds like it was similar to the >>>> Cohen incident... and, therefore, most likely the second example that I >>>> claimed to have a very vague recollection of.
IOW: I'd guessed correctly, only to be accused of attempting to change >>>> the subject and to be threatened with your opening another thread.
Someone did.
Are either of these incidents what you are referring to?
No, I'm referring to your accusation, in this thread, that I wrote
something and tried to pass it off as Robert Creeley's work.
We don't.
Don't bother. As previously noted, since you have promised to reveal
the source of this supposed poem (regardless of whether it appears in
your forthcoming copy), I have decided to once more grant you the
benefit of the doubt.
We don't have that long of an exposure to George Dance's postings, but
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such >>>>>>>> proof exists.
As I've just noted: since you failed to find the line [and title of the]
poem I cited, you
(and your Nasty "colleague") have concluded that I forged it.
No, George. I came to that conclusion based on 10 years of having >>>>>> interacted with you here.
Mr. Dance paraphrases what other people write such that it changes the
meaning, has selective memory, argues to the side of a point, and uses
silly nicknames for people he doesn't like.
Apparently you've had exposure enough, as you've described George to a
T.
Perhaps he mistook it for Mr. Dockery's insightful poem, written whenAnd when he is wrong, he attacks the person who is right.You concluded that I forged it based on 10 years of seeing me forging >>>>> poems? Oh, do please give me one example.
That is not what I said, George. I said that based on my past (and
current) exchanges with you, I believe that you are capable of doing
*anything* to win an argument ("forgery") included.
George Dance said that his source told him (by some method) the first
At best, you have admitted that you only know about the poem from
hearsay
I did not, Lying Michael.
, yet have quoted it from someone else's memory,
Nor did I say that I quoted it from another person's memory, Lying
Michael.
Just what did you say, George?
line, title, and book in which a poem by Robert Creeley was published.
The source told George Dance the second line, but George Dance did not
write that down. We assume that George Dance wrote down the first line, >>> the title, and the author of the poem, along with the book. We conclude >>> that George Dance was given this information orally, as otherwise it
would already be available in print (if in an email or a site on-line). >>>>
NancyGene and I have been prying out your proverbial teeth to obtainGeorge Dance is feeling the heat in Canada.
what little information you've revealed.
It would have saved what little "face" George Dance has.
Like I said: if you just tell the truth about what happened, we wouldn't >>>> have to try to weave the little shreds of material you've given us
together in an attempt to figure out what you're (not) talking about.
If we were going to paraphrase our line, we would have changed the words >>> that were changed in the "Creeley" version.
and accused
NancyGene of having copied it.
Nor did I accuse NastyGoon of having "copied" it (since it was not
copied, but changed), Lying Michael.
A copy needn't be exact, George.
That's three lies in a row from you, Lying Michael, all of them attempts >>>>> by you to change the meaning of something I did tell you.
Again, all of them attempts to make sense out of what little you did
tell us.
Isn't that
what you were pre-emptively accusing me of doing in this thread just >>>>> today? Why, yes, it is. So go ahead and accuse me of playing "IKYABWAI" >>>>> again.
I don't know what you're talking about, George? You are saying that
I've pre-emptively accused you of telling three lies in a row? WTF does >>>> that even mean?
Do you really think that's any better than if you had actually forged >>>>>> it?
I think the worst thing one can accuse another writer of s forgery. So >>>>> you go on milking that charge; you still have over a week till the book >>>>> arrives.
Again, I am once more giving you the benefit of the doubt -- contingent >>>> upon your revealing the source once your mysterious book arrives.
We assume that George Dance will examine, word by word, page by page,
every inch of the tome to make the momentous discovery of a new Robert
Creeley poem!
LOL! I'm guessing that he'll come to the conclusion that the elusive
line of poetry was written be someone else (unknown) and mistakenly
attributed to Creeley.
Dockery was a 22 year old junior in high school?
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 1:15:22 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No, Lying Michael, those links are not "the Collected Poems of Robert
Creeley in 2 volumes". The second one is a link to volume 2 (/Collected
Poems 1975-2005/), but the first one is a link to a /Selected Poems/
(Selected Poems 1945-2005/).
Not finding the poem in the your second link would show only that the
poem was not published after 1974, while not finding it using your first >>> link would show only it was not included in a a Selected Poems.
What you needed to do is what you claimed to be doing; providing links
to both the first and second volumes of his Collected Poems.
At least you've provided a link to the a site that one can crawl around
looking for that missing first volume, so I guess that's something.
I'm done searching for it, George.
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or
provide a link. Otherwise, I'm just going to conclude that you've made
the whole thing up.
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.
Since you repeatedly refuse to do so, I can only conclude that no such
proof exists.
George Dance already explained the delay earlier today.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 1:24:07 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 1:15:22 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No, Lying Michael, those links are not "the Collected Poems of Robert
Creeley in 2 volumes". The second one is a link to volume 2 (/Collected >>>> Poems 1975-2005/), but the first one is a link to a /Selected Poems/
(Selected Poems 1945-2005/).
Not finding the poem in the your second link would show only that the
poem was not published after 1974, while not finding it using your first >>>> link would show only it was not included in a a Selected Poems.
What you needed to do is what you claimed to be doing; providing links >>>> to both the first and second volumes of his Collected Poems.
At least you've provided a link to the a site that one can crawl around >>>> looking for that missing first volume, so I guess that's something.
I'm done searching for it, George.
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or
provide a link. Otherwise, I'm just going to conclude that you've made
the whole thing up.
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.
But if you wanted to accuse someone of accusing someone of plagiarism,
no proof is required?
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are available
on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title nor the line that
Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism are taken
very seriously.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 0:35:53 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 1:24:07 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 1:15:22 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 4:36:19 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Here are the Collected Poems of Robert Creeley in 2 volumes:
https://dokumen.pub/selected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19452005-9780520940949-9780520251960.html
https://dokumen.pub/the-collected-poems-of-robert-creeley-19752005-9780520941670.html
No, Lying Michael, those links are not "the Collected Poems of Robert >>>>> Creeley in 2 volumes". The second one is a link to volume 2 (/Collected >>>>> Poems 1975-2005/), but the first one is a link to a /Selected Poems/ >>>>> (Selected Poems 1945-2005/).
Not finding the poem in the your second link would show only that the >>>>> poem was not published after 1974, while not finding it using your first >>>>> link would show only it was not included in a a Selected Poems.
What you needed to do is what you claimed to be doing; providing links >>>>> to both the first and second volumes of his Collected Poems.
At least you've provided a link to the a site that one can crawl around >>>>> looking for that missing first volume, so I guess that's something.
I'm done searching for it, George.
Either post the entire poem (or at least the first four lines) here, or >>>> provide a link. Otherwise, I'm just going to conclude that you've made >>>> the whole thing up.
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.
But if you wanted to accuse someone of accusing someone of plagiarism,
no proof is required?
I've already explained how your post could not be read as anything other
than such an accusation.
If that isn't what you'd intended to say, offer your apologies and
retract it.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are available
on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title nor the line that
Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism are taken >>> very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop repeating
your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a seemingly
non-existent poem.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are available
on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title nor the line
that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism
are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop
repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of
your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a seemingly
non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of the
page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but I
will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will if
you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are available
on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title nor the line
that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism
are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop
repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of
your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a seemingly
non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of the
page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but I
will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will if
you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently, George.
Thrashing attracts predators.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are available
on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title nor the line
that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. Accusations of
plagiarism are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop
repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of
your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a seemingly
non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of the
page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but I
will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will if
you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently, George.
Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 3:32:42 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are
available on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title >>>>>>>> nor the line that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized.
Accusations of plagiarism are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop
repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of
your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a
seemingly non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of
the page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you
haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but
I will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will
if you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently, George.
Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
What a comeback. I'm devastated.
I didn't realize how badly you missed me. I just blundered through
the posts and spotted this. Given your obvious blundering through
life, I had hoped for a bit more sympathy.
Hello there Cujo, how's PJR doing these days?
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 1:30:25 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are available >>>>>>> on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title nor the line >>>>>>> that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism >>>>>>> are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop
repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of
your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a seemingly
non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of the
page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but I
will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will if
you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently, George.
Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 2:52:44 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 1:30:25 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are
available on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title >>>>>>>> nor the line that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized.
Accusations of plagiarism are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop
repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of
your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a
seemingly non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of
the page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you
haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but
I will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will
if you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently, George.
Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming from
the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I don't think
that PJ Ross was ever on that.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon, words to
the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going to waste time
looking for that quote, of course.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:29:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 2:52:44 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 1:30:25 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are available >>>>>>>>> on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title nor the line >>>>>>>>> that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism >>>>>>>>> are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop
repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of >>>>>>> your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a seemingly >>>>>>> non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of the >>>>>> page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you haven't). >>>>>>
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but I >>>>>> will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will if >>>>>> you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently, George.
Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming from
the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I don't think
that PJ Ross was ever on that.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon, words to
the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going to waste time
looking for that quote, of course.
I do remember that moment.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:38 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:29:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 2:52:44 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 1:30:25 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are
available on-line, as you found, and neither contain the
title nor the line that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. >>>>>>>>>> Accusations of plagiarism are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop >>>>>>>>> repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level >>>>>>>> of your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a
seemingly non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of >>>>>>> the page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you
haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey -
but I will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will >>>>>>> if you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently,
George. Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming
from the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I
don't think that PJ Ross was ever on that.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon, words
to the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going to waste
time looking for that quote, of course.
I do remember that moment.
I'm a bit surprised that Cuckoo has thrown in with Team Monkey, when
his former master PJ Ross wanted nothing to do with them. It shows a
bit more independence than I'd previously given him credit for (though
only "a bit").
Cuckoo may have come in, tag-team style, to substitute for NastyGoon,
whom I haven't noticed posting since I lost my temper and swore at
her, after she once again repeated the lie that I'd accused her of plagiarism. Pity; I'd like to apologize to NG for that (for swearing,
not for the accusation that never happened).
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in news:[email protected]:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:38 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:29:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 2:52:44 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 1:30:25 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are
available on-line, as you found, and neither contain the >>>>>>>>>>> title nor the line that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. >>>>>>>>>>> Accusations of plagiarism are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop >>>>>>>>>> repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level >>>>>>>>> of your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a >>>>>>>>> seemingly non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of >>>>>>>> the page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you >>>>>>>> haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey -
but I will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will >>>>>>>> if you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently,
George. Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming
from the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I
don't think that PJ Ross was ever on that.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon, words
to the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going to waste
time looking for that quote, of course.
I do remember that moment.
I'm a bit surprised that Cuckoo has thrown in with Team Monkey, when
his former master PJ Ross wanted nothing to do with them. It shows a
bit more independence than I'd previously given him credit for (though
only "a bit").
You misunderstand as usual, Dunce. Laughing at you or Dreckster requires
no such loyalties. You only need to read your nonsense and realize
something you don't.
"Being ridiculous attracts ridicule. It's practically a tautology".
You also have a kooky definition of "independence". It wasn't that long
ago when Pendragon was defending both you and Dreckster.
I was mildly disappointed that you declined to cite my being published
in the new "A Year of Sundays" book as further evidence that I'm part of
the conspiracy to mock you silly fuckers.
Cuckoo may have come in, tag-team style, to substitute for NastyGoon,
whom I haven't noticed posting since I lost my temper and swore at
her, after she once again repeated the lie that I'd accused her of
plagiarism. Pity; I'd like to apologize to NG for that (for swearing,
not for the accusation that never happened).
Stay kooky, George. Nobody gives a fuck about swearing.
PS: It's a little late to ask but did Little Willie Douchebag get you a
new set of kneepads for Xmas? Let me know.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:10:27 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:38 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:29:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 2:52:44 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 1:30:25 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are >>>>>>>>>>>> available on-line, as you found, and neither contain the >>>>>>>>>>>> title nor the line that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. >>>>>>>>>>>> Accusations of plagiarism are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please >>>>>>>>>>> stop repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest
level of your depravity. The lie was yours, that we
plagiarized a seemingly non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top >>>>>>>>> of the page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears >>>>>>>>> you haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - >>>>>>>>> but I will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and
will if you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently,
George. Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming
from the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I
don't think that PJ Ross was ever on that.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon, words
to the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going to
waste time looking for that quote, of course.
I do remember that moment.
I'm a bit surprised that Cuckoo has thrown in with Team Monkey, when
his former master PJ Ross wanted nothing to do with them. It shows a
bit more independence than I'd previously given him credit for
(though only "a bit").
You misunderstand as usual, Dunce. Laughing at you or Dreckster
requires no such loyalties. You only need to read your nonsense and
realize something you don't.
"Being ridiculous attracts ridicule. It's practically a tautology".
You also have a kooky definition of "independence". It wasn't that
long ago when Pendragon was defending both you and Dreckster.
I was mildly disappointed that you declined to cite my being
published in the new "A Year of Sundays" book as further evidence
that I'm part of the conspiracy to mock you silly fuckers.
Cuckoo may have come in, tag-team style, to substitute for
NastyGoon, whom I haven't noticed posting since I lost my temper and
swore at her, after she once again repeated the lie that I'd accused
her of plagiarism. Pity; I'd like to apologize to NG for that (for
swearing, not for the accusation that never happened).
Stay kooky, George. Nobody gives a fuck about swearing.
Like shit they don't, asshole. NastyGoon is two proper woman, who
don't appreciate fucking profanity from goddamn motherfuckers.
PS: It's a little late to ask but did Little Willie Douchebag get you
a new set of kneepads for Xmas? Let me know.
No, but I think I have some kneepads around somewhere. Of course, if
you decide to come over, you'll have to bring your own elbow pads.
We did our word search with the exact words that George Dance "quoted"
in the line. So, "newspapers," "unread," and "pile." No results for
those words or line for a poem called "The Days Pile Up" by Robert
Creeley. The searches were performed in both volumes of Mr. Creeley's "complete" poetry, plus other books that contained his collected works,
and one book that had an inventory of his works. No results for "The
Days Pile Up" or any similar poem in case Mr. Dance did not give the
exact title or line. Creeley did write some poems about "days" but
those poems were not the poem that starts with "The days pile up like
unread newspapers."
If this supposed poem is so obscure as to not come up in any search of
any of the books which contain Creeley's poetry, how (theoretically) did
we find this poem in the first place, in order for George-Dance-to-accuse-us-of-plagiarizing-it?
Wouldn't it have been
easier for us to just write our own line (which we did)? We are fully capable of writing our own poetry.
Mr. Dockery claims that Mr. Dance told him the name of the book which features the phantom poem. If so, he has the obligation to post the
name of the book. Did Mr. Dockery find the book and see the poem there?
Why is this a secret? One would think that Messrs. Dance and Dockery
would be jumping up and down in their glee to share the original poem
and publication location.
--
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:07:03 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
We did our word search with the exact words that George Dance "quoted"
in the line. So, "newspapers," "unread," and "pile." No results for
those words or line for a poem called "The Days Pile Up" by Robert
Creeley. The searches were performed in both volumes of Mr. Creeley's
"complete" poetry, plus other books that contained his collected works,
and one book that had an inventory of his works. No results for "The
Days Pile Up" or any similar poem in case Mr. Dance did not give the
exact title or line. Creeley did write some poems about "days" but
those poems were not the poem that starts with "The days pile up like
unread newspapers."
If this supposed poem is so obscure as to not come up in any search of
any of the books which contain Creeley's poetry, how (theoretically) did
we find this poem in the first place, in order for
George-Dance-to-accuse-us-of-plagiarizing-it?
No oue accused you of plagiarizing a line from Creeley, you silly cow.
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 1:29:00 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:19:34 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:14:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000,
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the >>>>> Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found) >>>>> they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a >>>>> copy of the [line or title] in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't >>>>> mean that the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand
evidence that
it exists.
AFAICS you charge of plagiarism hinges on the following:
Yes, Mr. Dance has stated that the source gave him the second line, but
he (Dance) did not write it down. That implies that the first line,
title and author were given to him orally.
So, Mr. Dance check with his
source, and the source immediately (or so) remembered a line from Robert Creeley's poem that isn't in any of his books?
As for (1) (the alleged similarity of the *lines*), we have the claim
from your colleague NastyGoon that one of the lines was changed only a
bit from the other (when they thought their line was written first). We
We speculated that the writer changed the line "a bit," not "only a
bit." There is a difference in scale between those two descriptions.
We know that our line was written first because it is not the same as
the phantom line.
Because what we actually wrote doesn't fit in with Mr. Dance's excuses
for why he accused us of plagiarizing a poem that does not seem to
exist?
Also, what other words can a literate person use for newspapers that are
on top of each other? Stack and pile are about it.
The ghostly line supposedly from Robert Creeley is not memorable enough
for a person to commit it to memory, at least without the rest of the
poem to support it. Which, of course, does not come up in any search of Creeley's poems.
In that context, you could have used "layer" or "layered," but
newspapers are not in layers. Cakes are, though.
I don't recall ever having read a Creeley poem until you made your
recent accusation.
We had not either. Obviously, our writing is, and never will be,
influenced by his.
Or to feed a line into AI and ask it to write a similar line. Hmmm.
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.
Or to ask Google or Bing to write one, because someone was jealous of
the praise given to more talented writers.
They came up with one that vaguely matched, so you've been crying
"Plagiarist!" ever since.
Mr. Dance might want to watch his language in the future, lest he have
to eat his words.
We speculate that Mr. Dance will say that the poem appears in a rare
edition, not the commonplace ones that we have.
The book will not provide any answers.
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.
\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 --
especially when the chances of the poem's existence are slim, and those >>>> of its actually having been plagiarized, virtually nonexistent.
Very similar to what Pickles* used to do, with elaborate explanationsBut as I've noted in the past, you'll do anything to win an argument
(and still end up losing it).
for
why his lies did not stand up to any scrutiny.
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.
When I'm wrong, I always admit it.
And no. Forgery is not more serious than plagiarism.We would also say that what Mr. Dance's "source" did was literary fraud.
The Regents of the University of California own the copyright for a significant portion of Creeley's writings. They could sue Mr. Dance's
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.
source for forgery, literary forgery and fraud.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Dance has to protect his sources like a newspaper reporter?
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.
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:23:00 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 1:29:00 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:19:34 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:14:33 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:01:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:10:42 +0000,
I'm done searching for it, George.
Fortunately, your "colleague" covered your ass and found a copy of the >>>>>> Collected Poems you didn't, so (barring my checking what they found) >>>>>> they can say that the search is complete; neither of you could find a >>>>>> copy of the [line or title] in Creeley's Collected Poems. Which doesn't >>>>>> mean that the poem doesn't exist; only that there's no second-hand >>>>>> evidence that
it exists.
AFAICS you charge of plagiarism hinges on the following:
This is the fifth day MMP has posted, multiple times a day, that I
accused NastyGoon of plagiarism; and by now he had pretty much everyone
on the group (including me, as we'll see) believing that's what I'd
donw. However, thanks to Will Dockery actually reading the thread, it
turns out that didn't happen: MMP simply made shit up, again.
Yes, Mr. Dance has stated that the source gave him the second line, but
he (Dance) did not write it down. That implies that the first line,
title and author were given to him orally.
No, NastyGoon. I wrote the first line down *here*, in my first post,
copied from another tab. This is a good illustration of how MMP and NG
make things up when they have no information.
So, Mr. Dance check with his
source, and the source immediately (or so) remembered a line from Robert
Creeley's poem that isn't in any of his books?
Completely false. My source actually gave me the name of a book, which
(as I've repeatedly told the group) I've ordered.
As for (1) (the alleged similarity of the *lines*), we have the claim
from your colleague NastyGoon that one of the lines was changed only a >>>> bit from the other (when they thought their line was written first). We
We speculated that the writer changed the line "a bit," not "only a
bit." There is a difference in scale between those two descriptions.
Oh, do please explain the difference in scale between only "a bit" and
"only a bit". I'm sure that will be fun. Your explanation goes here:
We know that our line was written first because it is not the same as
the phantom line.
That makes no sense. Knowing that two lines are not the same does not
mean you know which was written first.
Because what we actually wrote doesn't fit in with Mr. Dance's excuses
for why he accused us of plagiarizing a poem that does not seem to
exist?
Once again: there was no accusation of plagiarism, you silly puss.
Also, what other words can a literate person use for newspapers that are
on top of each other? Stack and pile are about it.
The ghostly line supposedly from Robert Creeley is not memorable enough
for a person to commit it to memory, at least without the rest of the
poem to support it. Which, of course, does not come up in any search of
Creeley's poems.
In that context, you could have used "layer" or "layered," but
newspapers are not in layers. Cakes are, though.
In your Original line, NG, you had the newspapers stacked up "in plies". Isn't a ply the same thing as a layer?
I don't recall ever having read a Creeley poem until you made your
recent accusation.
Notice how many times MMP keeps repeating his claim about the
non-existent accusation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 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" :)
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.
\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).
Very similar to what Pickles* used to do, with elaborate explanationsBut as I've noted in the past, you'll do anything to win an argument >>>>> (and still end up losing it).
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.
The Regents of the University of California own the copyright for a
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.
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.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:29:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 2:52:44 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 1:30:25 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are available >>>>>>>>> on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title nor the line >>>>>>>>> that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism >>>>>>>>> are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop
repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of >>>>>>> your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a seemingly >>>>>>> non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of the >>>>>> page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you haven't).
Exactly.
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but I >>>>>> will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will if >>>>>> you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently, George.
Thrashing attracts predators.
Is that an admission, Cujo?
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming from
the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I don't think
that PJ Ross was ever on that.
I remember that PJR hates Facebook.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon, words to
the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going to waste time
looking for that quote, of course.
That's true, PJR didn't like any of the new breed of trolls, including Michael Pendragon.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:59:58 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 4:21:32 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:29:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 2:52:44 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 1:30:25 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:47:52 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:35:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
Exactly."How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are available >>>>>>>>>>> on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title nor the line >>>>>>>>>>> that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism >>>>>>>>>>> are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop >>>>>>>>>> repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of >>>>>>>>> your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a seemingly >>>>>>>>> non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of the >>>>>>>> page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you haven't). >>>
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but I >>>>>>>> will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will if >>>>>>>> you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently, George. >>>>>>> Thrashing attracts predators.
Is that an admission, Cujo?
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming from >>>> the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I don't think >>>> that PJ Ross was ever on that.
I remember that PJR hates Facebook.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon, words to
the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going to waste time
looking for that quote, of course.
That's true, PJR didn't like any of the new breed of trolls, including
Michael Pendragon.
Even if he wouldn't ever admit it, I can see us hanging out all night in
a Greenwich Village bar, running up a sizeable bar tab while discussing,
poetry, music, philosophy, art, swapping friendly insults, etc.
--
Interestingly, about twenty years ago I had a dream in which I met PJR
and our interaction was similar to that.
Of course the fact that I had a dream about PJR caused such a ruckus
that I didn't discuss the details of the dream very much but there's no
doubt some posts in the Usenet newsgroup archives about this, probably
even my original post.
I'm seeing this morning that the Google Groups Usenet archives are still pretty well preserved, as I revisited another somewhat infamous thread
from a decade ago, "Listening to Dylan on LSD":
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.dylan/c/7rLq6LFsDhs/m/TW3SgUK8AgAJ
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:49:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:news:[email protected]:
George J. Dance wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. [email protected] (George J. Dance) wrote in
NancyGene wrote:
Exactly."How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are available >>>>>>>>>>>>> on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title nor the line >>>>>>>>>>>>> that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism
are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop >>>>>>>>>>>> repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level of >>>>>>>>>>> your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a seemingly >>>>>>>>>>> non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of the >>>>>>>>>> page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you haven't). >>>>>
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but I >>>>>>>>>> will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will if >>>>>>>>>> you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently, George. >>>>>>>>> Thrashing attracts predators.
Is that an admission, Cujo?
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming from >>>>>> the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I don't think >>>>>> that PJ Ross was ever on that.
I remember that PJR hates Facebook.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon, words to >>>>>> the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going to waste time >>>>>> looking for that quote, of course.
That's true, PJR didn't like any of the new breed of trolls, including >>>>> Michael Pendragon.
Even if he wouldn't ever admit it, I can see us hanging out all night in >>>> a Greenwich Village bar, running up a sizeable bar tab while discussing, >>>> poetry, music, philosophy, art, swapping friendly insults, etc.
--
Interestingly, about twenty years ago I had a dream in which I met PJR
and our interaction was similar to that.
I can imagine that. PJR would mention something about Homer, and you
would ponder it for a moment or two, and decide that you hadn't seen
that episode of "The Simpsons."
True, I've never really cared for lot of the old school poetry.
I'm pretty well versed on quite a few poets though, so we could probably
have an interesting discussion on some topics.
Face to face meetings can be different from online discussions. Fur
example, J. Corey Connor and I butted heads on Usenet but when we met in person at Doo-Nanny a few years ago we got along great for an entire
weekend.
George J. Dance wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are
available on-line, as you found, and neither contain the title >>>>>>>>> nor the line that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized.
Accusations of plagiarism are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop
repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level
of your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a
seemingly non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top of
the page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears you
haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - but
I will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and will
if you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently,
George. Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming
from the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I don't
think that PJ Ross was ever on that.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon, words to
the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going to waste time
looking for that quote, of course.
Yes, PJR wasn't fond of Michael Pendragon's gang of thugs, which
includes Nancy Gene, of course.
And so it goes.
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 2:30:32 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:�
[email protected] (W.Dockery) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
George J. Dance wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are
available on-line, as you found, and neither contain the >>>>>>>>>>> title nor the line that Mr. Dance maintains we plagiarized. >>>>>>>>>>> Accusations of plagiarism are taken very seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please stop >>>>>>>>>> repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest level >>>>>>>>> of your depravity. The lie was yours, that we plagiarized a >>>>>>>>> seemingly non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top
of the page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears
you haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey -
but I will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and
will if you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently,
George. Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming
from the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I
don't think that PJ Ross was ever on that.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon, words
to the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going to waste
time looking for that quote, of course.
Yes, PJR wasn't fond of Michael Pendragon's gang of thugs, which
includes Nancy Gene, of course.
And so it goes.
Point of order!
To which gang of thugs have you assigned me
You're with the PJR group, right?
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 3:10:19 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
[email protected] (W.Dockery) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 2:30:32 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:�
[email protected] (W.Dockery) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
George J. Dance wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are >>>>>>>>>>>>> available on-line, as you found, and neither contain the >>>>>>>>>>>>> title nor the line that Mr. Dance maintains we
plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism are taken very >>>>>>>>>>>>> seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please >>>>>>>>>>>> stop repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest >>>>>>>>>>> level of your depravity. The lie was yours, that we
plagiarized a seemingly non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the top >>>>>>>>>> of the page, and read what I actually wrote (since it appears >>>>>>>>>> you haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey - >>>>>>>>>> but I will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and >>>>>>>>>> will if you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently,
George. Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are coming
from the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS page). I
don't think that PJ Ross was ever on that.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon,
words to the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not going
to waste time looking for that quote, of course.
Yes, PJR wasn't fond of Michael Pendragon's gang of thugs, which
includes Nancy Gene, of course.
And so it goes.
Point of order!
To which gang of thugs have you assigned me
You're with the PJR group, right?
OMFG. I'll let PJE know.
PJE?
OMFG. I'll let PJR know.
Quick question!
Are you one of George Dunce's thugs or is George one of your thugs?
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 19:56:55 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
[email protected] (W.Dockery) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 3:10:19 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
[email protected] (W.Dockery) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 2:30:32 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:�
[email protected] (W.Dockery) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
George J. Dance wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 0:27:41 +0000, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:13:32 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
"How low can he go?"
Both of the collected works books of Robert Creeley are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available on-line, as you found, and neither contain the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> title nor the line that Mr. Dance maintains we
plagiarized. Accusations of plagiarism are taken very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seriously.
No one accused you of plagiarism, you silly cunt. Please >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop repeating your online friend's lie.
Evidently you, George Dance, have not reached the lowest >>>>>>>>>>>>> level of your depravity. The lie was yours, that we >>>>>>>>>>>>> plagiarized a seemingly non-existent poem.
Once again, no one accused you of plagiarizing. Go to the >>>>>>>>>>>> top of the page, and read what I actually wrote (since it >>>>>>>>>>>> appears you haven't).
I haven't called you a liar for that yet - just your Monkey >>>>>>>>>>>> - but I will begin to if you repeat it one more time.
Your jealousy is so deep and wide that you are now
resorting to vulgarities and misogyny.
Oh, grow up or get out. I can call you worse than that, and >>>>>>>>>>>> will if you continue to spread lies about me.
Is that all you have in your
argument arsenal? We call you George Dance.
Why the hell should I care what you call me?
Looks like someone swallowed the fleet. Spit it out gently, >>>>>>>>>>> George. Thrashing attracts predators.
Whatever, Cuckoo.
Wow, even Cujo is back.
Can PJR be far behind?
I doubt PJ Ross will be back. These new "contributors" are
coming from the Monkey Cage (MMP's "facebook version" of AYOS
page). I don't think that PJ Ross was ever on that.
Or was PJR actually "driven away" also?
Perhaps. I remember him saying, when he killfiled NastyGoon,
words to the effect that he didn't trust that one. I'm not
going to waste time looking for that quote, of course.
Yes, PJR wasn't fond of Michael Pendragon's gang of thugs, which >>>>>>> includes Nancy Gene, of course.
And so it goes.
Point of order!
To which gang of thugs have you assigned me
You're with the PJR group, right?
OMFG. I'll let PJE know.
PJE?
Typo
We all make mistakes, Cujo.
Don't get into such a tizzy over it
😏
[corrected and unsipped]
Unzipped?
OMFG. I'll let PJR know.
Quick question!
Are you one of George Dunce's thugs or is George one of your thugs?
[/corrected and unsipped]
Note that pounced on a type
That actually should be typo not type, Cujo.
HTH and HAND.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:18:40 |
| Calls: | 12,115 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,550 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
