Re: j r's sick obsession of will continues...
Will Dockery
ilya_shambat2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> the messenjah wrote:
> > every day j r is obsessed with will dockery's life. now he falsely
> > accuses him of leaving his wife and kids for drugs and alcohol. and
> > more recently he speaks of will's deceased wife in the most
> disgusting
> > ways. congratulations j r sherman. you're a fucking cowardly kook
> with
> > no sense of decency.
>
> I saw that in him all along.
>
> I have no idea how these jerks justify being on rec.arts.poems. I've
> seen no more un-poetic group of people anywhere (well, except maybe
the
> "skeptics" on alt.astrology).
>
> The project of revitalizing poetry most certainly does include
fighting
> off these people & their ilk. Which is a project that I am happy to
> perform.
Now is a good time for it, with both JRS *and* Michael Cook having
nailed themselves to the wall these last few days.
In JRS' own words:
"...here i am, just a really foul person, with my rape jokes and
my mocking the dead..." -J.R. Sherman.
And Cook's publicly and stupidly stated plans to steal my poetry video
and copyright it in his name:
"...I'll have a copyright notice on it by tomorrow
and a DMCA complaint filed with every site that hosts MY Video..."
-Michael Cook
Cook, of course, has been a documented thief on Usenet now for years,
so this is simply a part of his pattern, jacked up a level.
--
"Mirror Twins" [Will Dockery]
http://www.lulu.com/items/29000/29085/preview/Will_Dockery_-_03_-_Track__3.mp3
"God Smiles/Sleepy Lizard Girl" [Will Dockery]
http://www.lulu.com/items/26000/26881/preview/Irony_Waves_-_Track__5.mp3
Barbara's Cat
Will Dockery <shamank...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> ilya_shambat2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > the messenjah wrote:
> > > every day j r is obsessed with will dockery's life. now he falsely
> > > accuses him of leaving his wife and kids for drugs and alcohol. and
> > > more recently he speaks of will's deceased wife in the most
> > disgusting
> > > ways. congratulations j r sherman. you're a fucking cowardly kook
> > with
> > > no sense of decency.
> >
> > I saw that in him all along.
> >
> > I have no idea how these jerks justify being on rec.arts.poems. I've
> > seen no more un-poetic group of people anywhere (well, except maybe
> the
> > "skeptics" on alt.astrology).
> >
> > The project of revitalizing poetry most certainly does include
> fighting
> > off these people & their ilk. Which is a project that I am happy to
> > perform.
>
> Now is a good time for it, with both JRS *and* Michael Cook having
> nailed themselves to the wall these last few days.
Wishful thinking on your part, idiot.
--
Cm~
Will Dockery
> every day j r is obsessed with will dockery's life. now he falsely
> accuses him of leaving his wife and kids for drugs and alcohol. and
> more recently he speaks of will's deceased wife in the most disgusting
> ways. congratulations j r sherman. you're a fucking cowardly kook with
> no sense of decency.
Not even JRS will deny that his obsession has reached a frightening and
shrill level.
JRS loves to ask questions, but never answers. My question to him was had he
ever had a wife and kids, since he's so fascinated with mine... in typical
JRS fillibuster dodge, he ignores this to repeat his undocumented, unproven
accusations.
In his own words:
"...here i am, just a really foul person, with my rape jokes and
my mocking the dead..." -J.R. Sherman.
How can the man have any respect for someone elses' life if he doesn't even
respect his own... JRS shows signs of a deep self hatred, and doesn't bother
to try to hide it in his rabidly shrine whining.
aquaria
Cat <c...@127.0.0.1> writes
I was thinking that once you'd nailed one hand to the wall, nailing the
second one down would be a trick that could probably make a fair amount
of money.
>
--
sophie
Aratzio
<sophie-usenet...@blueyonder.co.uk> transparently proposed:
Chuckwit and Dorkery could accomplish the feat, the density of their
heads would be more than sufficient to pound nails using just the
forehead.
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
aquaria
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> writes
they must have Exceptionally Long Necks.
chuck and will, giraffe-necked goons of usenet.
--
sophie
j r sherman
>
>the messenjah wrote:
>> every day j r is obsessed with will dockery's life. now he falsely
>> accuses him of leaving his wife and kids for drugs and alcohol. and
>> more recently he speaks of will's deceased wife in the most disgusting
>> ways. congratulations j r sherman. you're a fucking cowardly kook with
>> no sense of decency.
>
>Not even JRS will deny that his obsession has reached a frightening and
>shrill level.
>
>JRS loves to ask questions, but never answers. My question to him was had he
>ever had a wife and kids, since he's so fascinated with mine... in typical
>JRS fillibuster dodge, he ignores this to repeat his undocumented, unproven
>accusations.
>
>In his own words:
>
>"...here i am, just a really foul person, with my rape jokes and
>my mocking the dead..." -J.R. Sherman.
oh, certainly i have made rape jokes, and on occasion mock the dead. that's just
bad manners.
but abandoning your blood family requires a special kind of cowardice. your kind
of cowardice, dockery. the cowardice of the bullshit fake artist?
did it just become too hard, dockery? you wanted to drink and fuck off and they
expected you to have a job, or at least help out?
kids are so unreasonable.
don't ever speak to me about the morals of anyone, dockery, would you please?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"I saw a werewolf drinkin' a pina colada at Trader Vic's
And his hair was perfect."
Warren Zevon
------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Dockery
And, of course, there's also your sick obsession with the life of Will
Dockery.
--
"I saw a werewolf drinkin' a pina colada at Trader Vic's
And his hair was perfect." -Warren Zevon
The Netherlands/Shadowville cross cultural exchange
project <http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm>
Autograph Of Zorro" {from *Shadowville Live*}:
<http://www.kannibaal.nl/zorro.mp3>
Joy Yourcenar
>I was thinking that once you'd nailed one hand to the wall, nailing the
>second one down would be a trick that could probably make a fair amount
>of money.
>>
>
>--
>sophie
Sophie!
That's really all. I'm just rebelling in the fact that you are here.
=)
Joy
Joy Yourcenar
Mythologies: www.evolvingbeauty.com/myth
icon/graphy: www.evolvingbeauty.com/icon
Poetry is the needle that pricks your finger.
Everything else is the haystack.
~Rob Evans~
Joy Yourcenar
wrote:
>In article <aaa50$4288ecb2$18d62363$29...@KNOLOGY.NET>, Will Dockery says...
>>
>>the messenjah wrote:
>>> every day j r is obsessed with will dockery's life. now he falsely
>>> accuses him of leaving his wife and kids for drugs and alcohol. and
>>> more recently he speaks of will's deceased wife in the most disgusting
>>> ways. congratulations j r sherman. you're a fucking cowardly kook with
>>> no sense of decency.
>>
>>Not even JRS will deny that his obsession has reached a frightening and
>>shrill level.
>>
>>JRS loves to ask questions, but never answers. My question to him was had he
>>ever had a wife and kids, since he's so fascinated with mine... in typical
>>JRS fillibuster dodge, he ignores this to repeat his undocumented, unproven
>>accusations.
>>
>>In his own words:
>>
>>"...here i am, just a really foul person, with my rape jokes and
>>my mocking the dead..." -J.R. Sherman.
>
>oh, certainly i have made rape jokes, and on occasion mock the dead. that's just
>bad manners.
And the Helen Keller jokes. Don't forget about them.
j r sherman
says...
why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
but seriously, why do you seem so hesitant to speak of the fact that you dumped
your wife and kids so that you could pursue a life of drunken nothingness? you
always seem ready to discuss the most unimportant details of your life, why not
discuss this subject?
here's your chance for some real attention, dockery! you can become the most
famous deadbeat dad on usenet! think of the attention you'll receive from being
the man who on one hand questions the morals of everyone who dares to disagree
with him, but on the other hand thinks nothing of abandoning his own children to
pursue a life of drunken irresponsibility because being a father requires too
much work.
come, dockery, be open and honest! here's your chance to have all the attention
you could ever need. isn't that what you want?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"I saw a werewolf drinkin' a pina colada at Trader Vic's
And his hair was perfect."
Warren Zevon
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Hammes' Sword
On 2005-05-16 jr...@earthlink.net said:
> Will Dockery says...
>
> > And, of course, there's also your sick obsession with
> > the life of Will Dockery.
>
> why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
>
> but seriously, why do you seem so hesitant to speak of the
> fact that you dumped your wife and kids so that you could
> pursue a life of drunken nothingness? you always seem ready
> to discuss the most unimportant details of your life, why not
> discuss this subject?
>
> here's your chance for some real attention, dockery! you can
> become the most famous deadbeat dad on usenet! think of the
> attention you'll receive from being the man who on one hand
> questions the morals of everyone who dares to disagree with
> him, but on the other hand thinks nothing of abandoning his
> own children to pursue a life of drunken irresponsibility
> because being a father requires too much work.
Looks like Dockery isn't the ONLY attention junkie 'round
these parts, Susan.
Just let it go, girl.
Apparently you've gotten so 'into' this sock-troll persona
that you've become a buffoon-like parody of yourself.
And frankly, Sue, it's embarrassing. It's making you look
totally pathetic.
Besides, if you'd been paying attention, you'd already know
that Dockery DIDN'T dump his wife and kids.
They dumped HIM, Suzy.
Whether that dumping was justified or not is another story.
But the plain truth is, you've got the facts wrong.
Seems that you're no longer capable of producing even a semi-
credible 'troll.' You're not 'winning' any more, Suze.
Honesty, that's a rather sad end to your formerly illustrious
Usenet troll-career.
Better quit, Susan, while you're still marginally ahead. All
you're doing now is whipping up additional sympathy for Dockery.
And clearly, you don't want THAT.
Anyway, Dockery can't take back his past behavior -- just as
Renay's ex-spouse can't take back the split lips and the torn
stitches, and just as you can't take back your odiferous, uh,
'poetry.'
So consider giving it a rest, Sue. Y'know?
j r sherman
>
>
>On 2005-05-16 jr...@earthlink.net said:
>
> > Will Dockery says...
> >
> > > And, of course, there's also your sick obsession with
> > > the life of Will Dockery.
> >
> > why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
> >
> > but seriously, why do you seem so hesitant to speak of the
> > fact that you dumped your wife and kids so that you could
> > pursue a life of drunken nothingness? you always seem ready
> > to discuss the most unimportant details of your life, why not
> > discuss this subject?
> >
> > here's your chance for some real attention, dockery! you can
> > become the most famous deadbeat dad on usenet! think of the
> > attention you'll receive from being the man who on one hand
> > questions the morals of everyone who dares to disagree with
> > him, but on the other hand thinks nothing of abandoning his
> > own children to pursue a life of drunken irresponsibility
> > because being a father requires too much work.
>
>Looks like Dockery isn't the ONLY attention junkie 'round
>these parts, Susan.
i don't cross post to six different newsgroups in hopes that someone will come
and tell me i'm wonderful. i already know i'm wonderful.
besides, the only people who are reading these posts are me, the carp-boy, and
you. a few drop in on occasion, but mostly it's us.
one wonderful person, me, and the two Ringos.
>Just let it go, girl.
you're a killjoy, tommy. besides, i do the Lord's work. stupid people must be
made to look stupid, or they will start to realize that they're our equals. god
as ordained that this cannot happen. ergo, i do the Lord's work.
i cannot go against god, tommy. it would be wrong.
>Apparently you've gotten so 'into' this sock-troll persona
>that you've become a buffoon-like parody of yourself.
i like being a buffoon-like parody of myself.
>And frankly, Sue, it's embarrassing. It's making you look
>totally pathetic.
oh certainly! but not HALF as pathetic as dockery, so, i'm still ahead of the
game, as it were.
and here's the killer-phyllis-diller part of it! i can be even WORSE than i am
now (and that's a lot. i have not unleashed the full force of my arsenal) and
people will still like me!!!
isn't it crazy??? i can be infant-terrible (and when am i not?), and people
still love my mean-and-sorry Irish-Portuguese ass!
>Besides, if you'd been paying attention, you'd already know
>that Dockery DIDN'T dump his wife and kids.
>They dumped HIM, Suzy.
no doubt. who in their right mind wouldn't dump him? who in their insane mind
would stay with such a catch?
but i think there's more to the story. dockery is so willing to give the most
minute details of his life to the "archives", why not this story?
>Whether that dumping was justified or not is another story.
>But the plain truth is, you've got the facts wrong.
we shall see, won't we, tommy?
>Seems that you're no longer capable of producing even a semi-
>credible 'troll.' You're not 'winning' any more, Suze.
when you do the Lord's work, tommy, you're always "winning!"
what scares me is a bunch of Fundy-Prods are gonna steal that line from me and
make it their own.
but i would enjoy the irony.
>Honesty, that's a rather sad end to your formerly illustrious
>Usenet troll-career.
sing it in E, tommy, add some strings. i've been counted out by usenet
professionals, you're a small time minor leaguer.
>Better quit, Susan, while you're still marginally ahead. All
>you're doing now is whipping up additional sympathy for Dockery.
i don't believe that could ever happen.
ever. not in a billion years.
ever. not in this world or the next.
and besides, look at the fun i can have smacking around those who might come to
his defense.
actually... who in the fuck would come to his defense? now i would have a
serious fight on my hands if Ms. Karla, or Ms. Renay, or Ms. Yourcenar, or Mr.
Gamble, or Mr. Ross, or B'sC, or Jonathan (or some others i'm sure i'm
forgetting, but i have a cold this week, and the mind is not what it used to be)
were to come to to his aid. but like THAT'S gonna happen? please.
>And clearly, you don't want THAT.
i have absolutely no fears that it would ever happen.
>Anyway, Dockery can't take back his past behavior -- just as
>Renay's ex-spouse can't take back the split lips and the torn
>stitches, and just as you can't take back your odiferous, uh,
>'poetry.'
we must pay for our sins, tommy. i must do the Lord's work. it's what i was
destined to do.
>So consider giving it a rest, Sue. Y'know?
let me think about it.
i have.
no.
if that's it, take it easy.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
Renay
"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d6d43...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ms. Karla, or Ms. Renay, or Ms. Yourcenar, or Mr.
> Gamble, or Mr. Ross, or B'sC, or Jonathan (or some others i'm sure i'm
> forgetting, but i have a cold this week, and the mind is not what it used
> to be)
Rik. pls. add Rik to your list. he and I have both
been left off so many lately. I want to make sure
he's included.
Renay
Will Dockery
>
> Rik. pls. add Rik to your list.
Rik would have some interesting comments about Michael Cook's threats
to steal my work, if he were here.
Rik's opinion of plagiarists and thieves:
----
From: Rik Roots (r...@kalieda.org)
Subject: Tom Bishop: Plagiarist and Thief
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Date: 2004-04-14 06:33:20 PST
Having shaded my eyes to protect me from the laughable web design, I
finally took time out to visit Little Tommy Tosser's parasitic
shitebar. The results are worse than I anticipated. I indeed found two
of my poems listed on the shitebar, though I had to go hunting for
them - they were hidden in the "Tom Bishop" listing. Strange that.
Stranger still is what people see when the two poems are displayed.
For instance:
Author: Tom Bishop
NotQuit...@Yahoo.com
Date: 10 Apr 2004 18:41:39 -0700
Subject: Gran Says (By Rikky Rootser)
<snip *my* poem>
(Poem & image copyrights belong to the posting authors.)
Now, a little test. If a person was to stumble across the shitebar and
in a fit of absent mindedness investigate Little Tommy Tosser's own
folder of work, and then display the poem "Gran Says (By Rikky
Rootster)":
- would it be reasonable for them to assume that the *subject* is in
fact the /title/ of the poem?
- would it also be reasonable for them to assume that the *author* was
the person who wrote the poem?
- if you answered "yes" to the above two questions, and subsequently
learned that the poem was actually written by a person called Rik
Roots, would a reasonable conclusion be that the alleged author "Tom
Bishop" is in fact a plagiarist?
Answers in a response to this post, please.
Plagiarism is a serious accusation, and so is theft. Looking at the
bottom of the shitebar's display page - where the plagiarised work is
displayed - we find that Little Tommy Tosser has included a
disclaimer: "Poem & image copyrights belong to the posting authors".
That's nice. Especially when the "posting author" for this particular
(plagiarised) poem happens to be "Tom Bishop" and not Rik Roots. A
shorter test:
- does this disclaimer make it look like "Tom Bishop" is claiming to
be the copyright holder for a poem that was in fact written by Rik
Roots?
- if you answered "yes", then is this not an act of theft?
Again, answers in a response to this post please.
I *hate* plagiarists, and I *despise* thieves. I trust that most other
people on this newsgroup feels likewise. If you do, then please do not
hesitate to make your feelings known to Little Tommy Tosser (also
known as "Tom Bishop", alongside many other morphing usenet posting
names) in any way that you see fit.
Rik, knee deep.
----
Rik wrote "I *hate* plagiarists, and I *despise* thieves. I trust that
most other
people on this newsgroup feels likewise."
So much for trust. Those here that don't applaud and award the thief
simply shrug and look the other way.
Rik's not here, Renay, but if he were, I *trust* he'd be on a different
list than your fould company.
--
"Karma Bombs" [Will Dockery]
http://www.lulu.com/items/32000/32109/preview/Karma_Bombs.mp3
j r sherman
how could i miss Rik? what kind of thoughtless beast am i?
um, let me rephrase that.
"how could i miss Rik? of course i'm a thoughtless beast, that's pretty evident,
but how could i miss Rik? how will i ever live down the shame? Rik, i apologize
a thousand times, and beg your forgiveness! i have a cold that makes Captain
Trips feel like 3 Vicodins and a shot of expensive whiskey, and this is why i
had forgotten you, i'm so stoned on Actifed i'm feeling practically dockery-like
(except for the need to crosspost to a thousand different newsgroups and i
possess no desire to pass out flyers). i would never win a war of words with
you, Rik ever!"
just because i do the Lord's work doesn't mean i have a right to be thoughtless
to my betters, like Rik.
thanks for reminding me, Ms. Renay.
Renay
"Will Dockery" <shamank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116349841.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Renay wrote:
>>
>> Rik. pls. add Rik to your list.
>
> Rik would have some interesting comments about Michael Cook's threats
> to steal my work, if he were here.
>
> Rik's opinion of plagiarists and thieves:
FORCHRISSAKEYOUFUCKENHARPY
shut up once in awhile.
Renay
Will Dockery
Renay wrote:
> "Will Dockery" wrote
> >>
> >> Rik. pls. add Rik to your list.
> >
> > Rik would have some interesting comments about Michael Cook's
threats
> > to steal my work, if he were here.
> >
> > Rik's opinion of plagiarists and thieves:
>
> FORCHRISSAKEYOUFUCKENHARPY
>
> shut up
Sure. I'll let Boss have the floor. Here's *his* interested thoughts on
copyright thieves on the internet/usenet:
----
From: Peter J Ross (p...@NOSPAMpatchword.com)
Subject: Re: Tom Bishop: Plagiarist and Thief
View: Complete Thread (23 articles)
Date: 2004-04-15 21:57:36 PST
I'm crossposting to AAPC because this issue affects both groups.
On 15 Apr 2004 00:31:56 -0700, Jonathan Penton wrote:
> r...@kalieda.org (Rik Roots) wrote in message
news:<c76660b9.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> I have been using Usenet 11 years. I have read many of Tom's rants on
> what he intends his site to be. Nonetheless, if I were not pointed to
> the poem by you, I would be confused as to who the author was. I
> imagine anyone who has not read Tom's rants on these newsgroups would
> assume he was the author. Certainly anyone unfamiliar with Usenet
> would assume he was the author, and that's the majority of poets
using
> the web.
There are several sites that archive Usenet posts, and nobody
complains because the service is generally agreed to be useful. As
usual with his bright ideas, Tommy is reiventing the wheel without
succeeding in making it round. However, in this case, he's also using
spokes stolen from other people's wheels and labelling them "handmade
by Tom Bishop", which invalidates any claim that he's providing a
useful service.
> He also claims copyrights to your poem. There's no arguing about
> meaning there.
>
> I think you, and anyone treated similarly, should contact d'huit
about
> his lawyer.
d'huit is a she (Kate) not a he. I'm not convinced that a lawyer is
needed, when removal of the site by appeal to Tommy's service provider
is such a simple option.
The abuse addresses for his web provider are ab...@pbi.net and
ab...@pacbell.net. Other abuse adresses are probably relevant only to
abuse on Usenet and in email.
> I also think a press release should be issued to the wider poetry
> community. PJR did an excellent job of informing the world of Chuck's
> crimes.
Most of the credit for that belongs to Jim Sheard. I merely
distributed the information once it was available.
> Tom's issues are more complicated, but I'm sure the word can
> be eloquently and clearly spread to those unfamiliar with Usenet.
The big difference is that chuckles had work published on various
websites (which was removed) and had described himself as a writer on
a few other sites (where his entry was either removed or had a note
attached giving details of the plagiarism). Tommy has no reputation as
a writer at all, as far as I can tell, and therefore doesn't have a
reputation to lose.
Another problem with Tommy is that the evidence is likely to
disappear. chuckles can't nuke the posts in the Google archives
because he's lost the accounts he used to make them, but he's been
able to remove the page from archive.org that constituted about half
the evidence. Tommy can probably wipe all the evidence out - he's
already done it with the evidence of posts by his imaginary
girlfriend, for instance. This leaves us with nothing to rely on but
our own archived copies of his Usenet posts and downloads from his
site, and while these are better evidence *in law* than links to
Google, they would be less convincing to ordinary Web users.
I think it's simpler to go after his website and see if he learns a
lesson after losing it. There's nothing *I* can complain about, since
nothing of mine has been stolen, but I can probably give advice on
where to send complaints and how to format them to ensure that they
won't be ignored.
However, I'll try to compile the evidence we have into a FAQ during
the next few days and make it available on the Web for people to link
to. Help with this would be much appreciated.
> I don't know of any IP lawyers reading this group.
This is the sort of issue that might usefully be discussed in one of
the legal newsgroups.
> I personally doubt
> the project, as originally described, would be found criminal,
It was certainly possible to take the charitable view that the
intention was to provide a kind of searchable Usenet archive, but
those of us who have been observing Tommy since his arrival here have
long ago stopped taking the charitable view. You've missed the
threats, spamming, killfile-evasion and other tricks that have earned
him his pariah's reputation.
> but the
> intended CafePress shops, the print-on-demand service, and especially
> the presentation of Rik's poetry just go beyond any sane
> interpretation of the law.
I have three further suggestions:
1. Whenever anybody posts a poem, add a line at the bottom to the
effect that permission is explicitly denied to poetic.zapto.org to
archive the post.
2. Do not in any circumstances provide feedback on the site. Laughing
at the design and mentioning that it crashes visitors' computers is
OK, but advising Tommy how to fix it verges on collaboration. I admit
that on a couple of occasions I've pointed out exactly what the
beginner-type errors were in order to let other people in on the joke,
but I now think it was a mistake to do so.
3. Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not.
--
PJR :-)
----
Things change. Thieves are now applauded, awarded, and defended. But
also archived.
Barbara's Cat
Will Dockery <shamank...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> Renay wrote:
> > "Will Dockery" wrote
> > >>
> > >> Rik. pls. add Rik to your list.
> > >
> > > Rik would have some interesting comments about Michael Cook's
> threats
> > > to steal my work, if he were here.
> > >
> > > Rik's opinion of plagiarists and thieves:
> >
> > FORCHRISSAKEYOUFUCKENHARPY
> >
> > shut up
>
> Sure. [snipped]
It'll never happen.
--
Cm~
Will Dockery
> "how could i miss Rik? of course i'm a thoughtless beast, that's
pretty evident,
> but how could i miss Rik? how will i ever live down the shame? Rik, i
apologize
> a thousand times, and beg your forgiveness! i have a cold that makes
Captain
> Trips feel like 3 Vicodins and a shot of expensive whiskey, and this
is why i
> had forgotten you, i'm so stoned on Actifed i'm feeling practically
dockery-like
> (except for the need to crosspost to a thousand different newsgroups
and i
> possess no desire to pass out flyers). i would never win a war of
words with
> you, Rik ever!"
>
> just because i do the Lord's work doesn't mean i have a right to be
thoughtless
> to my betters, like Rik.
>
> thanks for reminding me
Rik's words are well worth remembering, I agree:
"Plagiarism is a serious accusation, and so is theft..." -Rik Roots
"I *hate* plagiarists, and I *despise* thieves. I trust that most other
people on this newsgroup feels likewise. If you do, then please do not
hesitate to make your feelings known..."
Your better, JRS? You ain't even on the same planet as Rik.
Karla
The writing's on the wall. He's all but played out. Why would he drop his
victim gig when it's all he's got left? Nope, he's going to whine here rather
than actually find the balls to do anything about it. It's the Dockery way.
Why actually stand up for yourself (in court?) if you can stagger around on
usenet?
Karla
j r sherman
>
>
>Renay wrote:
>> "Will Dockery" wrote
>> >>
>> >> Rik. pls. add Rik to your list.
>> >
>> > Rik would have some interesting comments about Michael Cook's
>threats
>> > to steal my work, if he were here.
>> >
>> > Rik's opinion of plagiarists and thieves:
>>
>> FORCHRISSAKEYOUFUCKENHARPY
>>
>> shut up
>
>Sure. I'll let Boss have the floor. Here's *his* interested thoughts on
>copyright thieves on the internet/usenet:
yes, dockery, but it's a question of morals.
is a man who threatens to steal something that has little to no worth at all
equal in immorality to a man who abandon's his kids so that he can pursue of
life of drunken irresponsibility, like you did?
see, Michael Cook, god, didn't actually steal your international embarrassment.
but you DID abandon your wife and kids out of purely selfish reasons.
so really, who's more immoral?
by any way you measure it, it has to be you.
Will Dockery
> It's the Dockery way.
While the "Karla way" is to shrug and look the other way until she
feels it's safe to come out and join in with the jeers.
Time to join the side that defends, applauds and awards copyright
thieves now, right, Karla. You know you wanna.
"That's my way." -Baal
PJR
> Renay wrote:
>> "Will Dockery" wrote
>> >>
>> >> Rik. pls. add Rik to your list.
>> >
>> > Rik would have some interesting comments about Michael Cook's
>> > threats to steal my work, if he were here.
>> >
>> > Rik's opinion of plagiarists and thieves:
>>
>> FORCHRISSAKEYOUFUCKENHARPY
>>
>> shut up
>
> Sure. I'll let Boss have the floor. Here's *his* interested thoughts
> on copyright thieves on the internet/usenet:
>
> ---- From: Peter J Ross (p...@NOSPAMpatchword.com)
<snip>
Repeated posting of copyright material where it has no relevance could
easily be construed as theft, Drunkery, expecially since you're using
copyright material far more interesting than anything you could write
in the hope that people will click on the commercial spam links in
your .sig.
Do you want me to send Google a DMCA complaint, or would you rather
negotiate a suitable fee for reproduction of my writings?
PJR :-)
--
alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQ:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/
[To reply by email, remove "NOSPAM".]
Will Dockery
PJR wrote:
> >> "Will Dockery" wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> Rik. pls. add Rik to your list.
> >> >
> >> > Rik would have some interesting comments about Michael Cook's
> >> > threats to steal my work, if he were here.
> >> >
> >> > Rik's opinion of plagiarists and thieves:
> >
thoughts
> > on copyright thieves on the internet/usenet:
> >
> > ---- From: Peter J Ross (p...@NOSPAMpatchword.com)
>
> <snip>
>
> Repeated posting of copyright material where it has no relevance
No relevance?
I enjoy this bit from you:
"3. Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
-Peter J. "Boss" Ross, 2004-04-15 21:57:36 PST
That's why they call you "Boss", after all, Boss.
--
"I saw a werewolf drinkin' a pina colada at Trader Vic's
j r sherman
says...
>
>Karla wrote:
>
>> It's the Dockery way.
>
>While the "Karla way" is to shrug and look the other way until she
>feels it's safe to come out and join in with the jeers.
this is unfair. Ms. Karla has been jeering you from the very beginning.
and because you're drunk all the time, you've probably forgotten that she's
kicked your ass, oh, roughly three to six times a week for the last three
months.
>Time to join the side that defends, applauds and awards copyright
>thieves now, right, Karla. You know you wanna.
but since no theft took place, she stands on absolute moral highground in being
a valuable officer in the 89th Foul Division of the Lord's Army.
in fact all members to the 89th Foul Division of the Lord's Army stand on the
highest of moral highgrounds.
you cannot say the same, dockery. you never could.
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery says...
> >Karla wrote:
> >
> >> It's the Dockery way.
> >
> >While the "Karla way" is to shrug and look the other way until she
> >feels it's safe to come out and join in with the jeers.
>
> this is unfair.
Karla's dipped out three times at least, so far. First with the
smallpox blanket and child rape jokes, and now with the defense of the
God of Usenet Thieves.
Cook's criminal activities have now met with almost unanamous approval
from the poetry newsgroup regulars, thus making copyright theft and
other abuses of creators accepted, applauded, and rewarded.
In the immortal words of the Boss himself:
"3. Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
-Peter J. Ross on the importance of exposing thieves.
Perhaps the Boss was just lying (fishing)?
--
"I saw a werewolf drinkin' a pina colada at Trader Vic's
pandora
> j r sherman wrote:
> > Will Dockery says...
> > >Karla wrote:
> > >
> > >> It's the Dockery way.
> > >
> > >While the "Karla way" is to shrug and look the other way until she
> > >feels it's safe to come out and join in with the jeers.
> >
> > this is unfair.
>
> Karla's dipped out three times at least, so far. First with the
> smallpox blanket and child rape jokes, and now with the defense of the
> God of Usenet Thieves.
>
> Cook's criminal activities have now met with almost unanamous approval
> from the poetry newsgroup regulars, thus making copyright theft and
> other abuses of creators accepted, applauded, and rewarded.
>
> In the immortal words of the Boss himself:
>
> "3. Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
> which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
> because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
> of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
> ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
> -Peter J. Ross on the importance of exposing thieves.
>
> Perhaps the Boss was just lying (fishing)?
It was, probably, all part of his Usenet personna. In other words, he
didn't mean it. It just sounded good, at the time, to say that and he hoped
that others would agree with him and approve of him. They did. No more.
Marg
j r sherman
>
>On Tuesday 17 May 2005, Will Dockery wrote in rec.arts.poems:
>
>> Renay wrote:
>>> "Will Dockery" wrote
>>> >>
>>> >> Rik. pls. add Rik to your list.
>>> >
>>> > Rik would have some interesting comments about Michael Cook's
>>> > threats to steal my work, if he were here.
>>> >
>>> > Rik's opinion of plagiarists and thieves:
>>>
>>> FORCHRISSAKEYOUFUCKENHARPY
>>>
>>> shut up
>>
>> Sure. I'll let Boss have the floor. Here's *his* interested thoughts
>> on copyright thieves on the internet/usenet:
>>
>> ---- From: Peter J Ross (p...@NOSPAMpatchword.com)
>
><snip>
>
>Repeated posting of copyright material where it has no relevance could
>easily be construed as theft, Drunkery, expecially since you're using
>copyright material far more interesting than anything you could write
>in the hope that people will click on the commercial spam links in
>your .sig.
>
>Do you want me to send Google a DMCA complaint, or would you rather
>negotiate a suitable fee for reproduction of my writings?
>
>PJR :-)
Pete, you realize his eyes glazed over and he went reaching for the cheap vodka
at "Repeated", right?
:D
love and kisses,
j r "Commander, 89th Foul Division of the Lord's Army" sherman
Rik Roots
Thanks, Renay.
Who do I make the cheque out to?
Or would you prefer a photo of Peter's nekkid ass?
> Renay
>
Rik, knee deep.
--
http://www.kalieda.org/poems
Pop in for a browse, when you have a moment to spare ...
Stuart Leichter
pan...@peak.org wrote on 5/17/05 4:23 PM:
>
> "Will Dockery" <shamank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1116359520.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It was, probably, all part of his Usenet personna. In other words, he
> didn't mean it. It just sounded good, at the time, to say that and he hoped
> that others would agree with him and approve of him. They did. No more.
>
> Marg
What do you have against 'Sword', Marg?
Will and 'Sword' like you a lot.
(Personna made razor blades. Ross cuts?)
Rik Roots
<snip>
> Rik's opinion of plagiarists and thieves:
>
I enjoyed composing that post.
Thanks for reminding me of it.
Rik Roots
> In article <APmdnbZ0Zc9...@comcast.com>, Renay says...
>>
>>
>>"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:d6d43...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>>Ms. Karla, or Ms. Renay, or Ms. Yourcenar, or Mr.
>>> Gamble, or Mr. Ross, or B'sC, or Jonathan (or some others i'm sure i'm
>>> forgetting, but i have a cold this week, and the mind is not what it
>>> used to be)
>>
>>Rik. pls. add Rik to your list. he and I have both
>>been left off so many lately. I want to make sure
>>he's included.
>>
>>Renay
>
> how could i miss Rik? what kind of thoughtless beast am i?
>
The starlets said you were quite cuddly, in a firm and manly way of course.
> um, let me rephrase that.
>
> "how could i miss Rik? of course i'm a thoughtless beast, that's pretty
> evident, but how could i miss Rik? how will i ever live down the shame?
> Rik, i apologize a thousand times, and beg your forgiveness! i have a cold
> that makes Captain Trips feel like 3 Vicodins and a shot of expensive
> whiskey, and this is why i had forgotten you, i'm so stoned on Actifed i'm
> feeling practically dockery-like (except for the need to crosspost to a
> thousand different newsgroups and i possess no desire to pass out flyers).
> i would never win a war of words with you, Rik ever!"
>
You make oi larf!
> just because i do the Lord's work doesn't mean i have a right to be
> thoughtless to my betters, like Rik.
>
You can be forgiven many things, but "whiskey"?
> thanks for reminding me, Ms. Renay.
>
> love and kisses,
>
> j r sherman
>
>
PJR
> PJR wrote:
>> >> "Will Dockery" wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Rik. pls. add Rik to your list.
>> >> >
>> >> > Rik would have some interesting comments about Michael Cook's
>> >> > threats to steal my work, if he were here.
>> >> >
>> >> > Rik's opinion of plagiarists and thieves:
>> >
>> > Sure. I'll let Boss have the floor. Here's *his* interested
>> > thoughts
>> > on copyright thieves on the internet/usenet:
>> >
>> > ---- From: Peter J Ross (p...@NOSPAMpatchword.com)
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Repeated posting of copyright material where it has no relevance
>
> No relevance?
It would be relevant if the subject under discussion were your
repeated thefts of copyright material to use in your attempts at
flaming, but you were just whining about being trolled, as usual.
> I enjoy this bit from you:
>
> "3. Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
> which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
> because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
> of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
> ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
> -Peter J. "Boss" Ross, 2004-04-15 21:57:36 PST
Try to remember it next time you have a friendly chat with chuckles
the thieving clown, hypocritical copyright-abuser.
> That's why they call you "Boss", after all, Boss.
"They"?
Renay
"Will Dockery" <shamank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116359520.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Will Dockery says...
>> >Karla wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's the Dockery way.
>> >
>> >While the "Karla way" is to shrug and look the other way until she
>> >feels it's safe to come out and join in with the jeers.
>>
>> this is unfair.
>
> Karla's dipped out three times at least, so far. First with the
> smallpox blanket and child rape jokes, and now with the defense of the
> God of Usenet Thieves.
>
> Cook's criminal activities have now met with almost unanamous approval
> from the poetry newsgroup regulars, thus making copyright theft and
> other abuses of creators accepted, applauded, and rewarded.
>
> In the immortal words of the Boss himself:
>
> "3. Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame war in
> which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with Tommy
> because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects *all*
> of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to be
> ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
> -Peter J. Ross on the importance of exposing thieves.
>
> Perhaps the Boss was just lying (fishing)?
found your slippers. apparently they're stuck up Drunkery's ass.
he's definitely got something lodged there.
Renay
the messenjah
Will Dockery wrote:
> j r sherman wrote:
> > Will Dockery says...
> > >Karla wrote:
> > >
> > >> It's the Dockery way.
> > >
> > >While the "Karla way" is to shrug and look the other way until she
> > >feels it's safe to come out and join in with the jeers.
> >
> > this is unfair.
>
> Karla's dipped out three times at least, so far. First with the
> smallpox blanket and child rape jokes, and now with the defense of
the
> God of Usenet Thieves.
>
> Cook's criminal activities have now met with almost unanamous
approval
> from the poetry newsgroup regulars, thus making copyright theft and
> other abuses of creators accepted, applauded, and rewarded.
Of course, they're all one big happy family of hypocrites.
PJR
Please, never accuse me - even in jest - of overestimating Dorkery's
intelligence. Have I not shown a consistently realistic view of
Dorkery's intelligence for many months and years? So just don't DO IT
AGAIN, OK?!?
>:D
Accusing me - even in jest - of thinking that Dorkery would understand
any of my posts is NOT FUNNY, OK?!?
> love and kisses,
>
> j r "Commander, 89th Foul Division of the Lord's Army" sherman
Where do I sign up, Uncle Sam/Jim?
I bet this army has never raped any women and children from Delaware
- even in jest. That's what I call *ethical warfare*!
aquaria
<pene...@evolvingbeauty.com> writes
>On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:04:43 +0100, aquaria
><sophie-usenet...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I was thinking that once you'd nailed one hand to the wall, nailing the
>>second one down would be a trick that could probably make a fair amount
>>of money.
>>>
>>
>>--
>>sophie
>
>
>Sophie!
Joy!!
>That's really all. I'm just rebelling in the fact that you are here.
armed rebellion?
I work with a lady called Joy. Every so often I get annoyed that she
doesn't write poetry with words like "limned" in it, but I can't tell
her that.
--
sophie
PJR
> Renay wrote:
>
>>
>> "j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:d6d43...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>> Ms. Karla, or Ms. Renay, or Ms. Yourcenar, or Mr.
>>> Gamble, or Mr. Ross, or B'sC, or Jonathan (or some others i'm sure i'm
>>> forgetting, but i have a cold this week, and the mind is not what it used
>>> to be)
>>
>> Rik. pls. add Rik to your list. he and I have both
>> been left off so many lately. I want to make sure
>> he's included.
>>
> Thanks, Renay.
>
> Who do I make the cheque out to?
>
> Or would you prefer a photo of Peter's nekkid ass?
I TOLD YOU NEVER TO MENTION THAT IN RAP!!!!!
Oh wait.. you meant Peter Stewart Richards.
Forget I spoke.
j r sherman
i know. i apologize. like i said to Rik, i'm stoned on Actifed.
which is not a bad high!
>>:D
>
>Accusing me - even in jest - of thinking that Dorkery would understand
>any of my posts is NOT FUNNY, OK?!?
it's not. what was i thinking. why don't i just insult your nationality?
wait, i've done that.
well, you know what i mean.
>> love and kisses,
>>
>> j r "Commander, 89th Foul Division of the Lord's Army" sherman
>
>Where do I sign up, Uncle Sam/Jim?
all are welcome. we do the Lord's work. we fight against the stupid.
we can't LEGALLY keep them from breeding, but we're working on that.
>I bet this army has never raped any women and children from Delaware
>- even in jest. That's what I call *ethical warfare*!
but we'll make a MILLION jokes about it!
and our prisons for the stupid will be like a US Army prison in Iraq, only we'll
torture our prisoners by making them watch Branagh's version of Hamlet a lot,
and then we'll smack them around when they say, "Hey, what's the guy from Planet
of the Apes doing in this??"
and make them watch non-stop Tom Stoppard plays, then force them to tell us what
they mean!
NO, Ibsen plays! YEAH! we'll make them watch Ibsen plays, but we'll tell them
that they're light COMEDIES!!!! (do you KNOW how much i've always wanted to do
that? make stupid people watch Ibsen plays, and tell them they're light
comedies?)
this is what they get for being stupid!
we will be cruel but fair.
because we always are.
love and kisses,
j r "today the stupid, tomorrow the world!" sherman
Will Dockery
j r sherman wrote:
> i know. i apologize.
Apology accepted, JRS.
jonatha...@gmail.com
> > In the immortal words of the Boss himself:
> >
> > "3. Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame
war in
> > which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with
Tommy
> > because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects
*all*
> > of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to
be
> > ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
> > -Peter J. Ross on the importance of exposing thieves.
> >
> > Perhaps the Boss was just lying (fishing)?
>
> It was, probably, all part of his Usenet personna. In other words,
he
> didn't mean it. It just sounded good, at the time, to say that and
he hoped
> that others would agree with him and approve of him. They did. No
more.
Horseshit.
Perhaps you didn't quite follow. Peter wasn't talking about Dockery or
Cook in the above paragraph, he was talking about the plagiarist, Tom
Bishop. No one's accusing Cook of plagiarism; he's being accused of
inappropriate trolling. Will is trying to equate these two activities,
despite the fact that Cook violated no copyright.
*This* is a normal flame war. Take Dockery's side, take Cook's side, no
one cares. I strongly suspect neither Peter, nor I, nor jr, nor Renay
would support the plagiarism of someone we didn't like. Would you?
--
Jonathan Penton
http://www.unlikelystories.org
jonatha...@gmail.com
> i have a cold that makes Captain
> Trips feel like 3 Vicodins and a shot of expensive whiskey,
I'm sending a hanky, a ziplock bag, and $5. Thanks in advance.
Will Dockery
> pandora wrote:
> > > In the immortal words of the Boss himself:
> > >
> > > "3. Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame
> war in
> > > which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with
> Tommy
> > > because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects
> *all*
> > > of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to
> be
> > > ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
> > > -Peter J. Ross on the importance of exposing thieves.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the Boss was just lying (fishing)?
> >
> > It was, probably, all part of his Usenet personna. In other words,
> he
> > didn't mean it. It just sounded good, at the time, to say that and
> he hoped
> > that others would agree with him and approve of him. They did. No
> more.
>
> Horseshit.
Clean your stable, Jon.
> Perhaps you didn't quite follow. Peter wasn't talking about Dockery
or
> Cook in the above paragraph, he was talking about the plagiarist, Tom
> Bishop. No one's accusing Cook of plagiarism; he's being accused of
> inappropriate trolling. Will is trying to equate these two
activities,
> despite the fact that Cook violated no copyright.
Cook's violated *plenty* of copyrights. He's used countless porn and
religious sites, as well as MGM's Oz.
One I've particularly liked was the one of "me" holding the giant
pizza, and probably only Cook knows where the pizza joint really is,
who made the pizza, or who the pizza-boy was that my face replaced:
<http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/CE/50/ColumbusGAgettogether/d/7f.jpg>
It ain't Pizza Roma or Sopranos.
He's stolen 'intellectual property', photos of people's faces, mine
included, and pasted them onto the stolen copyrighted images for his
lampoons. Funny, admittedly, and "fair use", but copyright violations,
since unlike Mad, Cracked or even Nat Lamp, he didn't "create" any of
the images... simply swiped them.
Even the Mp3 below, "Karma Bombs", was originally posted by Michael
Cook on not just Usenet, but the internet at large, without permission.
I happened to kind of like it, so since it was written by me, I've kept
it.
If you take sides, fine, but you would, it seems, have a bit more
integrity when it comes to the ownership and "fair use" of another
man's work... if Cook winds this, it might not be *just* me, next time
around.
Every poet will be fair game.
jonatha...@gmail.com
> He's stolen 'intellectual property', photos of people's faces, mine
> included, and pasted them onto the stolen copyrighted images for his
> lampoons. Funny, admittedly, and "fair use", but copyright
violations,
> since unlike Mad, Cracked or even Nat Lamp, he didn't "create" any of
> the images... simply swiped them.
Uh, Will? Something can't be both fair use and a copyright violation.
You see, fair use means fair and violation means unfair.
> Even the Mp3 below, "Karma Bombs", was originally posted by Michael
> Cook on not just Usenet, but the internet at large, without
permission.
> I happened to kind of like it, so since it was written by me, I've
kept
> it.
OK, I listened to that. That was pretty fucking hideous. But no matter.
I'm sure you'll be happy to post the thread where he announced this mp3
and you said that you liked it, since you're such a fan of the
archives.
> If you take sides, fine, but you would, it seems, have a bit more
> integrity when it comes to the ownership and "fair use" of another
> man's work...
Since that makes no sense in English, could you translate it from
Dockerese?
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > He's stolen 'intellectual property', photos of people's faces, mine
> > included, and pasted them onto the stolen copyrighted images for
his
> > lampoons. Funny, admittedly, and "fair use", but copyright
> violations,
> > since unlike Mad, Cracked or even Nat Lamp, he didn't "create" any
of
> > the images... simply swiped them.
>
> Uh, Will? Something can't be both fair use and a copyright violation.
> You see, fair use means fair and violation means unfair.
That's why I put "fair use" in quotes.
> > Even the Mp3 below, "Karma Bombs", was originally posted by Michael
> > Cook on not just Usenet, but the internet at large, without
> permission.
> > I happened to kind of like it, so since it was written by me, I've
> kept
> > it.
>
> OK, I listened to that. That was pretty fucking hideous. But no
matter.
> I'm sure you'll be happy to post the thread where he announced this
mp3
> and you said that you liked it, since you're such a fan of the
> archives.
Yeah, I'll look for it. It must have been around 2003.
Googles "cook" & "karma bombs"... okay, got it:
----
From: Michael Cook (cook36...@ameritech.net)
Subject: Text to Speech
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 05:18:38 PST
Text to Speech
>From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery"
Karma Bombs.mp3
>From "Strange People in Isle 9"
Ladies,.mp3
>From "Give Anna a Personality for Christmas"
Anna.mp3
Control conversion
The_Gods_of_the_Copy.mp3
http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info
----
My response:
----
From: Will Dockery
Subject: Re: Text to Speech
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 15:18:41 PST
Added music would be great, Michael! In fact, I intend to get with some
musicians after the holidays and do just that to your cover of "Karma
Bombs":
http://www.lulu.com/content/32109
----
Also:
----
From: Will Dockery
Subject: Re: Text to Speech
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, rec.arts.poems
Date: 2003-12-22 14:32:09 PST
> "Michael Cook" <cook36...@ameritech.net> wrote
> > > Text to Speech
> > >
> > > From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery"
> > > Karma Bombs.mp3
I thought this one was pretty interesting/amusing, and shows me the
poems
flows really well in a spoken context. Thanks, Cook!
Will
----
You can go to the thread to read the additional comments.
> > If you take sides, fine, but you would, it seems, have a bit more
> > integrity when it comes to the ownership and "fair use" of another
> > man's work...
>
> Since that makes no sense in English, could you translate it from
> Dockerese?
Are you on the side of the fence that applauds, awards, and defends
Michael Cook's copyright violations and/or his threats of copyright
violation?
Barbara's Cat
posted 17 May 2005 23:02:56 -0700,
Will Dockery <shamank...@hotmail.com> said:
> Cook's violated [ pizzabitchbabblewhine snipped ]
nothing. Get over it, child.
--
Cm~
Dale Houstman
Will Dockery wrote:
> jonathanpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He's stolen 'intellectual property', photos of people's faces, mine
>>>included, and pasted them onto the stolen copyrighted images for
>>
> his
>
>>>lampoons. Funny, admittedly, and "fair use", but copyright
>>
>>violations,
>>
>>>since unlike Mad, Cracked or even Nat Lamp, he didn't "create" any
>>
> of
>
>>>the images... simply swiped them.
>>
>>Uh, Will? Something can't be both fair use and a copyright violation.
>>You see, fair use means fair and violation means unfair.
>
>
> That's why I put "fair use" in quotes.
You could have put it in galoshes; it still doesn't make any sense, even
as supposed irony or sarcasm.
dmh
Dennis Hammes' Sword
On 2005-05-17 rena...@yahoo.com said:
> found your slippers. apparently they're stuck up Drunkery's ass.
Thanks; nice sleuthing. But they can't be mine. Wrong color.
> he's definitely got something lodged there.
>
> Renay
Might be Susan. The ol' gal seems to have developed a severe
case of Gluteo-Cranial Inversion Syndrome of late.
j r sherman
says...
>
>
>j r sherman wrote:
>
>> i know. i apologize.
>
>Apology accepted, JRS.
please, drunky-cracker, like i have anything to apologize to you for.
but seriously, back to more important matters. could you give us the genesis of
how you ended up dumping your wife and children so that you could pursue a life
time of drinking and doing nothing?
did you just one day decide that being a man wasn't for you, and you just walked
out?
did you do the ol-tried-and-true "i need to get a pack of cigarettes" thing, and
then just never came back?
did you give a short speech before you abandoned your family? you know, talk
about how dumping your wife and kids was the best thing for everyone concerned,
or some such bullshit?
did you promise that you would always be there for them, but secretly you knew
that you wouldn't be?
is the reason that you seek the most menial, brain-dead and cash-only kinds of
jobs is so you can escape having your wages attached to pay for child support? i
mean, i think we all know know how blood-sucking women can get when it comes to
wanting to take care of their kids, and in this case your kids.
did you have the feeling that you were trapped into being a father, so that you
abandoning them was perfectly ok, since you never wanted to be father in the
first place?
i'm just curious as to what lies you tell yourself to asuage whatever guilt you
must have about abandoning your own flesh and blood.
come on, dockery! you know you want to tell us everything.
why not now?
Will Dockery
j r sherman wrote:
> Will Dockery says...
> >j r sherman wrote:
> >
> >> i know. i apologize.
> >
> >Apology accepted, JRS.
>
> please
Consider it done, old pal.
Barbara's Cat
Will Dockery <shamank...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> j r sherman wrote:
> > Will Dockery says...
> > >j r sherman wrote:
> > >
> > >> i know. i apologize.
> > >
> > >Apology accepted, JRS.
> >
> > please
>
> Consider it done, old pal.
Running scared, Dodgeweave Duck?
--
Cm~
pandora
<jonatha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116395068.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> pandora wrote:
> > > In the immortal words of the Boss himself:
> > >
> > > "3. Don't imagine that this is some kind of trivial Usenet flame
> war in
> > > which the people who are against "us" can reasonably side with
> Tommy
> > > because he's also against "us". Net-abuse of this kind affects
> *all*
> > > of us, whichever "side" we're usually on, and the abuser needs to
> be
> > > ostracised whether he says flattering things about you or not."
> > > -Peter J. Ross on the importance of exposing thieves.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the Boss was just lying (fishing)?
> >
> > It was, probably, all part of his Usenet personna. In other words,
> he
> > didn't mean it. It just sounded good, at the time, to say that and
> he hoped
> > that others would agree with him and approve of him. They did. No
> more.
>
> Horseshit.
>
> Perhaps you didn't quite follow.
Perhaps you're an ass.
Peter wasn't talking about Dockery or
> Cook in the above paragraph, he was talking about the plagiarist, Tom
> Bishop.
Indeed.
No one's accusing Cook of plagiarism; he's being accused of
> inappropriate trolling. Will is trying to equate these two activities,
> despite the fact that Cook violated no copyright.
>
> *This* is a normal flame war. Take Dockery's side, take Cook's side, no
> one cares. I strongly suspect neither Peter, nor I, nor jr, nor Renay
> would support the plagiarism of someone we didn't like.
Uhuh.
Marg
>
j r sherman
says...
>
>
>j r sherman wrote:
>> Will Dockery says...
>> >j r sherman wrote:
>> >
>> >> i know. i apologize.
>> >
>> >Apology accepted, JRS.
>>
>> please
>
>Consider it done, old pal.
then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned your wife and kids?
what are you afraid of?
Will Dockery
j r sherman wrote:
> >> Will Dockery says...
> >> >j r sherman wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> i know. i apologize.
> >> >
> >> >Apology accepted, JRS.
> >>
> >> please
> >
> >Consider it done, old pal.
>
> then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned your wife
and kids?
Simple answer, JRS: because I didn't.
> what are you afraid of?
"Nothing, neither alive nor dead.", JRS.
Thanks for the apology, though... it's long overdue.
j r sherman
says...
>
>
>j r sherman wrote:
>> >> Will Dockery says...
>> >> >j r sherman wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> i know. i apologize.
>> >> >
>> >> >Apology accepted, JRS.
>> >>
>> >> please
>> >
>> >Consider it done, old pal.
>>
>> then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned your wife
>and kids?
>
>Simple answer, JRS: because I didn't.
that's not what i've heard. all the signs are there. the cheap jobs you take so
you don't have to pay child support. the constant drinking to blot out the
guilt.
if you've made mistakes in your life, you can at least be honest enough to admit
them. you keep insisting that you're all about honesty.
Will Dockery
j r sherman wrote:
> >j r sherman wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> i know. i apologize.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Apology accepted, JRS.
> >> >>
> >> >> please
> >> >
> >> >Consider it done, old pal.
> >>
> >> then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned your wife
> >and kids?
> >
> >Simple answer, JRS: because I didn't.
>
> that's not what i've heard.
Kinda like when I heard that you're a cripple?
My archived poetry tells the entire story, and unlike you, I don't
repeat myself... I move forward.
--
"I saw a werewolf drinkin' a pina colada at Trader Vic's
Karla
Galoshes. Love that word. It deserves to be used in a poem.
Barbara's Cat
Will Dockery <shamank...@hotmail.com> said:
> [trimmed] and unlike you, I don't
> repeat myself... I move forward.
This is one of the biggest lies you've told yet, Dodgeweave Duck. You
*never* move forward from any of the ridiculous bullshit you post and
habitually repeat it over and over again on USENET. What? Do you think
the people here have stepped in fresh off the street and haven't seen
any of your multitudes of posts? You're only lying to yourself, Duckie
(which obviously is a normal habit of yours.)
--
Cm~
Dale Houstman
Karla wrote:
> In article <428B22F6...@skypoint.com>, Dale Houstman says...
>
>>
>>You could have put it in galoshes; it still doesn't make any sense, even
>>as supposed irony or sarcasm.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> Galoshes. Love that word. It deserves to be used in a poem.
>
THERE WERE NO GALOSHES IN ANCIENT SPAIN WORTH TALKING ABOUT
There were no galoshes in ancient Spain worth talking about, even if
the afternoon were free and other topics somewhat depleted by the fact
half the town had been destroyed by a plague.
Still, there were no galoshes worth talking about. Yes, there were
boot-like objects (some of them were children), and a few of those were
accidentally waterproofed by skin oils and drips of cheese and butter,
but they weren't attractive in the way a shiney black modern galosh can
be in the right light on a rainy night. An almost electrical vision,
the portable neon of footwear, and the one piece of utilitarian footwear
that can be worn happily by a dominatrix. Even basements can get wet.
dmh
Barbara's Cat
Karla <kar...@sbcglobal.net> said:
Galoshes? Aren't those the islands where the big lizards live?
--
Cm~
jonatha...@gmail.com
> > Horseshit.
> >
> > Perhaps you didn't quite follow.
>
> Perhaps you're an ass.
Marg, you senile old fool, I've been an ass since you were a
Peter-slurper. Keep up.
> Peter wasn't talking about Dockery or
> > Cook in the above paragraph, he was talking about the plagiarist,
Tom
> > Bishop.
>
> Indeed.
>
> No one's accusing Cook of plagiarism; he's being accused of
> > inappropriate trolling. Will is trying to equate these two
activities,
> > despite the fact that Cook violated no copyright.
> >
> > *This* is a normal flame war. Take Dockery's side, take Cook's
side, no
> > one cares. I strongly suspect neither Peter, nor I, nor jr, nor
Renay
> > would support the plagiarism of someone we didn't like.
>
> Uhuh.
>
> Marg
Is this your version of cynicism? Are you attempting to justify your
own lack of morals by assuming others have none?
You are mistaken.
j r sherman
>
>
>j r sherman wrote:
>> >j r sherman wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> i know. i apologize.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Apology accepted, JRS.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> please
>> >> >
>> >> >Consider it done, old pal.
>> >>
>> >> then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned your wife
>> >and kids?
>> >
>> >Simple answer, JRS: because I didn't.
>>
>> that's not what i've heard.
>
>Kinda like when I heard that you're a cripple?
but you've said i am a horrible liar. so are you now saying that you're a
horrible liar?
>My archived poetry tells the entire story, and unlike you, I don't
>repeat myself... I move forward.
then how come you post the same material over and over again?
you don't move on, dockery.
so why not be honest about your past. why did you abandon your kids? why?
i thought you were all about honesty? or are you lying about that as well?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"I saw a werewolf drinkin' a pina colada at Trader Vic's
And his hair was perfect."
Warren Zevon
------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Dockery
j r sherman wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote some, too:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> i know. i apologize.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Apology accepted, JRS.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> please
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Consider it done, old pal.
> >> >>
> >> >> then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned your
wife
> >> >and kids?
> >> >
> >> >Simple answer, JRS: because I didn't.
> >>
> >> that's not what i've heard.
> >
> >Kinda like when I heard that you're a cripple?
>
> but you've said i am a horrible liar.
When did I "say" that, JRS? I *never* speak of you... you're
*unspeakable shit*.
--
"Evocation: Laura Redwood" [Will Dockery]
http://www.lulu.com/items/26000/26961/preview/Irony_Waves_-_Track__6.mp3
"Fawn Greyhound" [Will Dockery]
http://www.lulu.com/items/26000/26968/preview/Track__3.mp3
jonatha...@gmail.com
> j r sherman wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote some, too:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> i know. i apologize.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >Apology accepted, JRS.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> please
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Consider it done, old pal.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned your
> wife
> > >> >and kids?
> > >> >
> > >> >Simple answer, JRS: because I didn't.
> > >>
> > >> that's not what i've heard.
> > >
> > >Kinda like when I heard that you're a cripple?
> >
> > but you've said i am a horrible liar.
>
> When did I "say" that, JRS? I *never* speak of you... you're
> *unspeakable shit*.
On Usenet, "say" is a commonly-accepted metaphor for "type."
"I move on" is not a commonly-accepted metaphor for "I whine for years
about the most trivial slight, perceived or real."
I hope that helps.
Will Dockery
jonathanpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > j r sherman wrote:
> > > Will Dockery wrote some, too:
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> i know. i apologize.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >Apology accepted, JRS.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> please
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >Consider it done, old pal.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned
your
> > wife
> > > >> >and kids?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Simple answer, JRS: because I didn't.
> > > >>
> > > >> that's not what i've heard.
> > > >
> > > >Kinda like when I heard that you're a cripple?
> > >
> > > but you've said i am a horrible liar.
> >
> > When did I "say" that, JRS? I *never* speak of you... you're
> > *unspeakable shit*.
>
> On Usenet, "say" is a commonly-accepted metaphor for "type."
Just as on Usenet, "liar" is a commonly-accepted "shout" when a nerve
has been hit.
As I hit 'em here, daily. After all, my aim is true.
Barbara's Cat
Will Dockery <shamank...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> jonathanpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote:
> > > j r sherman wrote:
> > > > Will Dockery wrote some, too:
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> i know. i apologize.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >Apology accepted, JRS.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> please
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >Consider it done, old pal.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned
> your
> > > wife
> > > > >> >and kids?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Simple answer, JRS: because I didn't.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> that's not what i've heard.
> > > > >
> > > > >Kinda like when I heard that you're a cripple?
> > > >
> > > > but you've said i am a horrible liar.
> > >
> > > When did I "say" that, JRS? I *never* speak of you... you're
> > > *unspeakable shit*.
> >
> > On Usenet, "say" is a commonly-accepted metaphor for "type."
>
> Just as on Usenet, "liar" is a commonly-accepted "shout" when a nerve
> has been hit.
>
> As I hit 'em here, daily. After all, my aim is true.
<snicker> Simply delusional.
--
Cm~
jonatha...@gmail.com
> > Just as on Usenet, "liar" is a commonly-accepted "shout" when a
nerve
> > has been hit.
> >
> > As I hit 'em here, daily. After all, my aim is true.
>
> <snicker> Simply delusional.
Yeah, that's a good one.
jonatha...@gmail.com
violation.
> > You see, fair use means fair and violation means unfair.
>
> That's why I put "fair use" in quotes.
So you've managed to be incoherent and wrong at the same time.
Impressive!
> ----
> From: Michael Cook (cook36...@ameritech.net)
> Subject: Text to Speech
> Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, rec.arts.poems
> Date: 2003-12-22 05:18:38 PST
>
> Text to Speech
>
> >From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery"
> Karma Bombs.mp3
>
> >From "Strange People in Isle 9"
> Ladies,.mp3
>
> >From "Give Anna a Personality for Christmas"
> Anna.mp3
>
> Control conversion
> The_Gods_of_the_Copy.mp3
>
> http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info
That doesn't look right. Am I missing anything? Did you know about the
project beforehand?
--
Jonathan Penton
http://www.unlikelystories.org
P.S. Your attempts to put me on the "side of a fence" is roughly like a
cow trying to herd Diana.
j r sherman
says...
>
>
>j r sherman wrote:
>> Will Dockery wrote some, too:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> i know. i apologize.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Apology accepted, JRS.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> please
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Consider it done, old pal.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned your
>wife
>> >> >and kids?
>> >> >
>> >> >Simple answer, JRS: because I didn't.
>> >>
>> >> that's not what i've heard.
>> >
>> >Kinda like when I heard that you're a cripple?
>>
>> but you've said i am a horrible liar.
>
>When did I "say" that, JRS? I *never* speak of you... you're
>*unspeakable shit*.
there's no need to lie, dockery. you've call me a liar several times, it's in
the archives.
but how come you can't be honest, ever? why not just give the details of about
how you abandoned your wife and children?
i'm certainly willing to say that they probably left you, but only because you
were probably more interested in drinking and doing nothing than you were about
being a good father and husband.
i'm sure you abandoned them emotionally and morally long before your wife had
the good sense to leave you.
with your rather pathetic and frightening sense of denial, i'm sure you probably
manipulated their leaving you so that you could, in the final analysis, accuse
them of dumping you. you deeply enjoy playing the victim, so i'm sure you
arranged things so that you could wallow in your pigsty of victimization, and
blame them for all of the bad things that have happened to you.
you definetely drink because that helps blot out the guilt.
the truth lies here, dockery, not in your moronic writings. your writings are
only the some of the many lies you use to blot out the truth of your wasted
life.
j r sherman
>
>
>jonathanpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Will Dockery wrote:
>> > j r sherman wrote:
>> > > Will Dockery wrote some, too:
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> i know. i apologize.
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >Apology accepted, JRS.
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> please
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >Consider it done, old pal.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> then how come you won't tell us about when you abandoned
>your
>> > wife
>> > > >> >and kids?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >Simple answer, JRS: because I didn't.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> that's not what i've heard.
>> > > >
>> > > >Kinda like when I heard that you're a cripple?
>> > >
>> > > but you've said i am a horrible liar.
>> >
>> > When did I "say" that, JRS? I *never* speak of you... you're
>> > *unspeakable shit*.
>>
>> On Usenet, "say" is a commonly-accepted metaphor for "type."
>
>Just as on Usenet, "liar" is a commonly-accepted "shout" when a nerve
>has been hit.
so then when you called me a liar because i was pointing out the truth cncerning
your abandoning your wife and children, i did hit a nerve with you and therefore
the truth?
and you did call me a liar on just that issue, dockery.
it's in the archives.
see, if you were more honest, with at least yourself, you wouldn't end up
looking stupid all the time, like you do now.
Will Dockery
My answer to your question is in the archives, not that I called you a
liar.
Dale Houstman
No, that's the Big Galoot Islands, not to be confused with the Lesser
Gilligans. Galoshes are a delicious part of the British diet, consisting
of boiled boiler gaskets, pre-digested potato skins, and herringbone vests.
dmh
j r sherman
says...
yes, dockery, you've called me a liar a couple of times in the last week.
and you have not answered me as to why you abandoned your wife and kids.
why not give the details of how that happened and be honest for once?
Joy Yourcenar
wrote:
With or without hard sauce?
Joy
Joy Yourcenar
Mythologies: www.evolvingbeauty.com/myth
icon/graphy: www.evolvingbeauty.com/icon
Poetry is the needle that pricks your finger.
Everything else is the haystack.
~Rob Evans~
Dale Houstman
Joy Yourcenar wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:44:23 -0500, Dale Houstman <dm...@skypoint.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Barbara's Cat wrote:
>>
>>>In article <d6fto...@drn.newsguy.com>, Karla
>>><kar...@sbcglobal.net> said:
>>>
>>
>>>>Galoshes. Love that word. It deserves to be used in a poem.
>>>
>>>
>>>Galoshes? Aren't those the islands where the big lizards live?
>>>
>>
>>No, that's the Big Galoot Islands, not to be confused with the Lesser
>>Gilligans. Galoshes are a delicious part of the British diet, consisting
>>of boiled boiler gaskets, pre-digested potato skins, and herringbone vests.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> With or without hard sauce?
>
> Joy
Personal taste of course, but I prefer to eat it from baby seal skin
dishes and literally adrift in a small icy sea of reglauconized eel
brain fluids. This can be a difficult dish to find, but in London there
is a small restaurant (near Buckingham Pigsty) called "The Puckered
Colon" which will serve you up a heaping 20 kilogram bowl of the stuff
for merely the courage it takes to eat it.
dmh
Karla
Eel brain fluids are HIGH in omega 3 fatty acids. Way to go, limey. I thought
it would be a decade or two until you guys figured that out.
Karla
Will Dockery
jonatha...@gmail.com wrote:
> pandora wrote:
> > > Horseshit.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you didn't quite follow.
> >
> > Perhaps you're an ass.
>
> Marg, you senile old fool
No, that's Karla.
Stuart Leichter
wrote on 5/18/05 1:52 PM:
Hemingway used them to suggest contraception in The Cat in the Rain.
He tried college, but Kubrick, Gore Vidal, and Eric Arthur Blair, to name 3
overlapping well-known contemporaries never went to college.
--
Stuart
Renay
"Will Dockery" <shamank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116437184....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't
> repeat myself...
fucken liar.
Renay
Renay
"pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:eKudnacUV6J...@scnresearch.com...
> Perhaps you're an ass.
asshole. I have it on good authority that he's an asshole.
I can only bear witness. the typer is dead.
he was an asshole, too.
I miss him like fucken mad.
Renay
Karla
says...
>
>
>jonatha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> pandora wrote:
>> > > Horseshit.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps you didn't quite follow.
>> >
>> > Perhaps you're an ass.
>>
>> Marg, you senile old fool
>
>No, that's Karla.
How very disappointing for you that you can't make your allegation stick.
Karla
ggamble
<shamank...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't
>repeat myself... I move forward.
> I don't
>repeat myself... I move forward.
> I don't
>repeat myself... I move forward.
> I don't
>repeat myself... I move forward.
> I don't
>repeat myself... I move forward.
Stuart Leichter
wrote on 5/18/05 10:07 PM:
Not bad at all. I wonder if a brand-newbie can appreciate the levels of
layers, how it makes the constant, archival one-word critiques practically
indispensible.
I wonder if Will is smiling appreciatively.
jonatha...@gmail.com
> > ----
> > From: Michael Cook (cook36...@ameritech.net)
> > Subject: Text to Speech
> > Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, rec.arts.poems
> > Date: 2003-12-22 05:18:38 PST
> >
> > Text to Speech
> >
> > >From "Karma Bombs. by Will Dockery"
> > Karma Bombs.mp3
> >
> > >From "Strange People in Isle 9"
> > Ladies,.mp3
> >
> > >From "Give Anna a Personality for Christmas"
> > Anna.mp3
> >
> > Control conversion
> > The_Gods_of_the_Copy.mp3
> >
> > http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info
>
> That doesn't look right. Am I missing anything? Did you know about
the
> project beforehand?
You seem quiet on this issue, Will. Did you know about this project
Will Dockery
> >
> >> I don't
> >> repeat myself... I move forward.
> >
> >> I don't
> >> repeat myself... I move forward.
> >
> >> I don't
> >> repeat myself... I move forward.
> >
> >> I don't
> >> repeat myself... I move forward.
> >
> >> I don't
> >> repeat myself... I move forward.
>
> Not bad at all. I wonder if a brand-newbie can appreciate the levels
of
> layers, how it makes the constant, archival one-word critiques
practically
> indispensible.
>
> I wonder if Will is smiling appreciatively.
It reminds me of Godard:
"Cinema is Truth, 24 Times a Second"
-- Jean-Luc Godard
Repeat the truth enough times... it still is the *truth*.
--
"Greybeard Cavalier" [0x0000/Fowler/Dockery]
http://www.lulu.com/items/26000/26663/preview/Track__1.mp3
"Black Eagle Lady" [Conley/Dockery]
http://www.lulu.com/items/26000/26894/preview/Irony_Waves_-_Track__1.mp3
Will Dockery
No, I didn't know about this *project* beforehand, Jon.
I wasn't in contact with Michael Cook at that time, except through
Usenet postings.
I gave Cook no permission to use my poem in *any* way, if that's the
question. It was completely unauthorised. In other words, he took it.
But he *did* give me credit as the writer, and I approved it *after the
fact*.
jonatha...@gmail.com
> jonatha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You seem quiet on this issue, Will. Did you know about this project
> > beforehand?
>
> No, I didn't know about this *project* beforehand, Jon.
>
> I wasn't in contact with Michael Cook at that time, except through
> Usenet postings.
>
> I gave Cook no permission to use my poem in *any* way, if that's the
> question.
That was the question, yes. If you have described the situation to me
accurately, what he did was totally unacceptable. People like Tom and
Chuck who brag that they can get away with plagiarism forfeit their
rights. Incredibly annoying people such as yourself still have rights.
> But he *did* give me credit as the writer, and I approved it *after
the
> fact*.
That's a cool attitude for you to take, Will. I take that, and your
current distribution of the .mp3, to mean that it's water under the
bridge. Tou weren't obliged to be so hip. I'm glad things worked out.
If described accurately, this is revealing about Cook. It also hammers
home the point that you really did know you were being trolled, all
along.
jonatha...@gmail.com
Eh? What?
Brian the beaver shooter isn't dead, is he? I assumed you had written
that. If it's mcn, didn't realize he had such a strong opinion. Whoever
it was was in good company.
Ima gonna call Brian.
Will Dockery
jonathanpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > jonatha...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > You seem quiet on this issue, Will. Did you know about this
project
> > > beforehand?
> >
> > No, I didn't know about this *project* beforehand, Jon.
> >
> > I wasn't in contact with Michael Cook at that time, except through
> > Usenet postings.
> >
> > I gave Cook no permission to use my poem in *any* way, if that's
the
> > question.
>
> That was the question, yes. If you have described the situation to me
> accurately, what he did was totally unacceptable. People like Tom and
> Chuck who brag that they can get away with plagiarism forfeit their
> rights. Incredibly annoying people such as yourself still have
rights.
>
> > But he *did* give me credit as the writer, and I approved it *after
> the
> > fact*.
>
> That's a cool attitude for you to take, Will. I take that, and your
> current distribution of the .mp3, to mean that it's water under the
>
> If described accurately, this is revealing about Cook. It also
hammers
> home the point that you really did know you were being trolled, all
> along.
Yeah, it's *in the archives*.
Will Dockery
Karla wrote:
> Will Dockery says...
> >jonatha...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> pandora wrote:
> >> > > Horseshit.
> >> > >
> >> > > Perhaps you didn't quite follow.
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps you're an ass.
> >>
> >> Marg, you senile old fool
> >
> >No, that's Karla.
>
> How very disappointing for you that you can't make your allegation
stick.
You came out in favor of a known thief, Michael Cook. Given the choice
of being a senile old fool, or a hypocritical defender of copyright
theft, which would you *rather* be, Karla?
Perhaps just "confused".
jonatha...@gmail.com
> Yeah, it's *in the archives*.
Well, yes.
Just out of curiosity, did you read what you were agreeing with?
Will Dockery
jonatha...@gmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > Yeah, it's *in the archives*.
>
> Well, yes.
>
> Just out of curiosity, did you read what you were agreeing with?
I read it twice, maybe three times.
I'll read it again and get back to you.
Dale Houstman
These days, college is good for eating up your parents' bank account and
for meeting CIA headunters. If you're stupid enough to go into the
Humanities (as opposed to Nuclear Death Culture Aesthetics and Punching
Your Way To The Top Economics), you might be lucky enough to get some
trim out affecting an English accent in the poetry discussion group, but
eventually you'll end up drinking your way through life and regretting
your education.
Knowledge is its own reward. Bring it in dead or alive...
dmh
Barbara's Cat
posted 18 May 2005 22:44:27 -0700,
Will Dockery <shamank...@hotmail.com> said:
> Stuart Leichter wrote:
> > ggamble at f...@net.com wrote on 5/18/05 10:07 PM:
> > > On 18 May 2005 10:26:24 -0700, "Will Dockery" wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't
> > >> repeat myself... I move forward.
> > >
> > >> I don't
> > >> repeat myself... I move forward.
> > >
> > >> I don't
> > >> repeat myself... I move forward.
> > >
> > >> I don't
> > >> repeat myself... I move forward.
> > >
> > >> I don't
> > >> repeat myself... I move forward.
> >
> > Not bad at all. I wonder if a brand-newbie can appreciate the levels
> of
> > layers, how it makes the constant, archival one-word critiques
> practically
> > indispensible.
> >
> > I wonder if Will is smiling appreciatively.
>
> It reminds me of Godard:
>
> "Cinema is Truth, 24 Times a Second"
> -- Jean-Luc Godard
>
> Repeat the truth enough times... it still is the *truth*.
Repeat your lies endlessly... and they'll still be lies.
--
Cm~
ggamble
<shamank...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah, it's *in the archives*.
ggamble
<shamank...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I gave Cook no permission to use my poem in *any* way, if that's the
>question. It was completely unauthorised. In other words, he took it.
> I don't
Will Dockery
jonatha...@gmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > jonatha...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > You seem quiet on this issue, Will. Did you know about this
project
> > > beforehand?
> >
> > No, I didn't know about this *project* beforehand, Jon.
> >
> > I wasn't in contact with Michael Cook at that time, except through
> > Usenet postings.
> >
> > I gave Cook no permission to use my poem in *any* way, if that's
the
> > question.
>
> That was the question, yes. If you have described the situation to me
> accurately, what he did was totally unacceptable. People like Tom and
> Chuck who brag that they can get away with plagiarism forfeit their
> rights.
Something Cook's on record as bragging about, as well.
>Incredibly annoying people such as yourself still have rights.
>
> > But he *did* give me credit as the writer, and I approved it *after
> the
> > fact*.
>
> That's a cool attitude for you to take, Will. I take that, and your
> current distribution of the .mp3, to mean that it's water under the
> bridge. You weren't obliged to be so hip. I'm glad things worked out.
>
> If described accurately, this is revealing about Cook. It also
hammers
> home the point that you really did know you were being trolled, all
> along.
Yeah, Cook's history as a copyright thief I was well aware of by the
time he made the offer to use my material in his live broadcast.
Will Dockery
Heh... at least he's moved back from stealing music, poetry, and video
to simple theft of intellectual property today, so far..:
<http://www.ypsiarbor.com/drunk.htm>
As in the past, some funny stuff. Stolen, but funny.
Michael Cook, thief or troll? Both, obviously.