Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mpsilvertone@yahoo.com (HarryLime)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: NastyGoon lifts a line
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:50:31 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <5bc664cfea53a1f83608173008d360fd@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> <2c41b69bca0b054b8264b1b7c163eaf7@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="3616231"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="9yNNWN6S3jCL2bQghupeZ7yt9QQF3aIiWb2guQimaIw";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: e04a750cbe04de725ce24a46bcc3953c76236e3b
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$J22gHKyv.jG32anbsPQNL.WuWU.TR4INZVP9GLHEGw9HRbbRvzlQy
Bytes: 17927
Lines: 385

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 6:54:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

> 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

We have both reposted NancyGene's statement, and we have both pointed
out exactly where you had falsified it.

>> 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.

No, George.  You pluck quotes out of context when the sentence
immediately following it modifies its meaning considerably; then repost
it without the modification under the pretense that the unmodified
statement had been my point.

It's a common debate tactic -- as are all the other little tricks you're
constantly trying to pull.

Unfortunately for you, everyone here is all too familiar with your
tricks to be taken in by them.


>> 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.

The only times I misquote anyone, is when I'm doing so from memory --
and I always make sure to label the paraphrased quote as such.

You, otoh, intentionally change the meaning of the quote -- as in saying
NancyGene *assumed* something when they actually said that they
*doubted* it.

FYI: Assumed means that they drew a conclusion without sufficient proof;
whereas doubt only means that they suspect your statement may not be
true, but, lacking sufficient to the contrary, are unable to draw a
conclusion.


>> 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

While we're on the topic of being unable to handle Usenet, you just
broke off in mid-sentence again.

NancyGene said that they doubted the Creeley poem existed.  they did not
assume that such was the case.  They merely doubted it.

And, as previously noted, your refusal to provide any evidence that the
poem exists, is raising a great deal of doubt on my part as well.


>>
>>>> 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?

Since their poem was recently posted, it might not have shown up in any
searches yet.  However, based on the context, and the fact that they
said "line" and not "poem," they appear to be saying the following: "Our
line also does not turn up in any search [as part of someone else's
poem.]"

The latter makes more sense contextually, since there is no reason why
NancyGene would tell you that their poem didn't turn up in a search.


>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========