Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: George J. Dance@novabbs.com (George J. Dance)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: NastyGoon lifts a line
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:54:07 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <2c41b69bca0b054b8264b1b7c163eaf7@www.novabbs.com>
References: <c120480a19034181aef31ea4a03df8d8@www.novabbs.com> <98a0df5328dc351e2cc63252f536ee4e@www.novabbs.com> <9bbb169b15307d7f30da9d8ea285c282@www.novabbs.com> <ec086e2a7ce950cf2cd3b3e536ffdbf4@www.novabbs.com> <e666255c5379f101e167cce62e9151ed@www.novabbs.com> <61b84520fab85916c4cfc8469596462c@www.novabbs.com> <8d95051c123a61db9d5c185b9b11e3aa@www.novabbs.com> <e001163e7d4deb15fe09cd0779a5aefe@www.novabbs.com> <289339f410fecb18358fb0c895de1168@www.novabbs.com> <7ad768b9be86f18f1e222ae784380f4b@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3537385"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="8+dz2rsm3jrbG2zIijE9ZpD7dtD/aCelSs77CawmFcg";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$ElpZ2oQ76r8h9na8Z7/2WeRNhcSi.ucrY4rG86yo/PIZh79/bK4yy
X-Rslight-Posting-User: da88b0d4e721c88c814af4f3bade12e63975cfc7

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 4:17:13 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:42:42 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:18:10 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
>>
>>> George Dance:  "I did hear back from "Dr." NastyGoon; they left a
>>> comment in this
>>> thread. Their story, which they admit they've only assumed, is that
>>> Creeley's poem doesn't even exist. (They didn't say whether they assumed
>>> Creeley exists or not.)"

>>> The above is a typical George Dance reply.  What we said, which Mr.
>>> Dance did not quote
>>
>> NastyGoon, your post appears on this thread, which Will has probably
>> read. I quoted your post in my reply to you; don't expect me to quote it
>> every time I mention it.
>
> Of course you're not going to quote NancyGene's statement, George.

> It
> would show your misquote for the bald-faced lie that it is.

If either of you thought it showed a "lie" or a "misquote" then you'd
quote the whole thing yourself. Since

> You're certainly being true to you M.O., though, duplicitous George.
> That's probably the nicest thing anyone can honestly say about you.  One
> could almost say you have a sense of loyalty in light of how
> unswervingly you stick to your patterns of deceit.

> You never quote anyone.  I can testify to this from my own experiences
> with you.

I constantly quote your statements to show when you're contradicting
yourself,  HarryLiar. Your response is to whine that it was "out of
context", repost the entire paragraph showing that you'd said exactly
what I'd claimed you did, and then drop the subject for a few months,
when you do it all again.

> You misquote.
>
> You rephrase your so-called quotes in the form of seemingly innocent
> paraphrases , often in the form of questions beginning with phrases like
> "So you're saying...".

No, when I use that, I'm pointing out what your statements imply,
logically. (You do know what "imply" means, since you constantly try to
do the same thing, the only difference being that you don't check if
they're really saying that; you you just claim that's what they did say.

> I have already pointed out your lies regarding NancyGene's statement,
> yet you insist upon repeating them.

That's probably not true, but



>>> was:  "Thank you, Michael.  We have strong doubts
>>> that a poem titled "The Days Pile Up" by Robert Creeley exists."  We did
>>> not "assume," we doubted.
>>
>> See? You can quote your own post. Though I notice you only quoted part
>> of it. You went on to "assume" that the line I quoted was not written by
>> Creeley. Are you now claiming it's possible that the poem I referenced
>> exists, but the line I quoted was not in it?

> Stop playing the dunce, George.  Nobody could be as stupid as make
> yourself out to be (your Donkey excepted, of course).

> NancyGene is explaining the difference between the words "assume" and
> "doubt," since your post makes it clear that you believe the two are
> synonymous.

No, HarryLiar. You didn't understand either what your Goon wrote or what
I wrote. NastyGoon began by "doubting" that Creeley wrote the poem I
referenced, but by the end of their post was "assuming" that Creeley
didn't write the opening line that I quoted. opening line of his poem,
then she's "assuming" that Creeley didn't write it. I know you can't
handle usenet unless you're drunk, but that doesn't excuse comp

>
>>> The poem and that line does not come up in
>>> any search for poems by Creeley or anyone else.  (Our line also does not
>>> come up in any search.)
>>
>> Actually your line does come up in searches, as in this one:
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cluttering+my+mind+and+obstructing+my+day%22+used+in+poetry&rlz=1C1CHBD_enCA859CA859&oq=%22Cluttering&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MgYIARBFGDsyBggCEEUYOzIHCAMQABiABDIGCAQQRRg5MgcIBRAAGIAEMgwIBhAAGEMYgAQYigUyBwgHEAAYgAQyBwgIEAAYgAQyBwgJEAAYgATSAQoxMTA2NGowajE1qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

>> Your problem finding it may be that you had the yesterdays "stack up in
>> plies". Obviously if you try a search with "piles" spelled
>> [in]correctly,
>> google won't find an exact match.
>
> No one is claiming that NancyGene's poem doesn't exist, George.  Nor are
> we claiming that NancyGene's poem doesn't turn up in google searches

Wrong, Lying Michael. NastyGoon just told us that their poem doesn't
turn up in any web searches:
>>> (Our line also does not
>>> come up in any search.)

You'll tell any lie if you think it helps you win a flamewar, won't you?
>
> We are saying that Mr. Creeley's poem (at this point, one should say
> "alleged poem") does not.

>>> NG: "Mr. Dance posted one line, which was not the same as what we wrote
>>> in our original poem. We have to assume..."
>>>
>>> Mr. Dance took the word "assume" and disingenuously put it into another
>>> context.
>>>
>>> NG: "...that Mr. Dance was so jealous of our talents that he took the
>>> first line
>>> of our poem, changed it a bit, and claimed that we plagiarized it,
>>> thinking that no one would challenge him."
>>
>> If you're "assuming" that I wrote the line in question, then you're
>> "assuming" that Robert Creeley did not write it.
>
> How many times do you need to be told that NancyGene hasn't assumed
> anything?

How many times do you think you have to say that before it becomes true?
As NG just said, they had to "assume" that Creeley didn't write the
opening line of his poem. (They're "assuming that I wrote it instead.)
As I just told them, it makes no sense to "assume" that Creeley didn't
write the opening line, and deny you're not "assuming" that he didn't
write the poem.

> She has expressly stated that she *doubted* the poem's existence.  While
> a doubt may lead to an assumption, the two are very different things.

Yes, a doubt may lead to an assumption; and in this case it took NG only
one paragraph to go from doubt to assumption. (With you it usually takes
at least one more post.)

> For the past 10 years or so, I have been urging your Donkey to enroll in
> free online course in basic English.  I now urge you to do the same.

If it's the course you took, Mr. Peabrain, I'll pass.

> If you're incapable of understanding the differences between words like
> "doubt" and "assume," you have no business discussing anything in a
> public forum -- much less one that's supposedly intended for writers.

Since you like to toss the word "strawman" around so freely, let me
point out that that is exactly what you're doing here. I did not say
that the words had the same meaning. I said that NastyGoon started by
"doubting" that Creeley wrote the poem, and ended by "assuming" that he
didn't write its opening line - which is logically no different from
claiming that he didn't write it.

>>> George Dance, if you are going to accuse us of plagiarizing a poem,
>>> posting one "line" from a poem that does not seem to have been published
>>> anywhere is not sufficient proof.
>>
>> Your failure to find the poem via a google search does not indicate that
>> it was not published. After all, Creeley is a published poet who wrote
>> the bulk of his poetry before the web existed.
>
> Which is precisely why we have both asked you to provide us with either
> a link to the poem, or with information regarding the book/journal in
> which it appeared.

So you want me to do your research again; but we both know how that will
turn out. If I gave you the name of the book, you'd "doubt" that the
poem was really in it, and demand that I prove that. if I then gave you
the table of contents, showing the poem title, you'd "doubt" that it
contained the line and demand that I produce the entire poem. If I then
gave you the entire poem, you'd go back to "doubting" that Creeley wrote
it and "assuming" that I did (which, once again, come to the same
thing.) You're simply trolling again, this time with your most faithful
ally.

OTOH, if you're actually interested in reading Creeley's poem, not just
simply trolling for once, there's no reason you can't look for it
yourself. Get off your asses and do what we used to do before the
internet existed. NG claims to use a local library; let them start
there.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========