: In <jrdavisDn92ru....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
: >
: >Bill Palmer (wilh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In <jrdavisDn63yy....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)

: Bill Palmer addressed Woof Davis:
: >
: >: No. You ARE an "attack mutt".  That fits you to a "t".  You
: >: are so crazy for revenge for getting your lazy and shiftless
: >: hide singed by my flames that you jump in immediately to
: >: defend your pals no matter how atrocious their behavior.  
: >
: ><burp>  Naw.  My "owner" doesn't give me enought to eat.  She says I
: have
: >to lose some weight.  I just take the occasional bite out of your leg
: >because I'm hungry.

: Joke all you want to, the facts prove otherwise, Woof Davis.
: You have taken it upon yourself to vociferously inject your
: lying mouth into any situation where I am first attacked by
: a third party--usually a sleazy and pseudonymous pal of yours--
: to defend anyone who attacks me.  

: When they get their tails singed for attacking me first,
: you--against all evidence--pretend that *I* attacked them
: for no reason; that their vile and often obscene slurs were
: harmless criticism.  You are a bullying phony, Woof Davis--
: AND an attack mutt.

        Whistle while you shake.
        Make believe you make them bake.
        Don't look behind.
        Or else you'll find
        The ghost of all you wrote,
        And that's little of note,
        Pointing an accusing finger.
        Daring you to linger,
        Until the vote
        That'll get your goat.
        Because you'll be named,
        Or is that defamed,
        As usenet Kook of The Month.

: >: Take the case of Ken Fair; he engages in an obvious theft
: >: of my poem, and the ignorant old attack mutt Davis has got
: >: to jump in to defend fair while Ken the Unfair hides behind
: >: his desk, after having his pilferage exposed.
: >
: >Actually, If you go back and read that exchange, you will see that
: _you_
: >said you were going to except Ken's changes to your limerick and claim

: >them as your own.  Ken just pointed out that everything he posts to
: >usenet, including improvements on your work, are his intellectual
: >property and you better not try to steal it.  So being denyed the
: >opportunity to seal Ken's ideas you call him a thief.  That is they
: kind
: >of twisted thinking we have all come to expect and despise from you

: This demonstrates "we" are attack mutt Woof's pals.   Only a
: sub, sub-literate such as yourself would insult me such a
: specious argument.  When did you ever get the stupid idea
: in your"brain" that when someone makes gratuitous changes
: in the work of another--the self-styled editor comes to
: own the work?

He owns whatever he contributed.  I never said he owned the portion you
wrote, but you don't own the portion he wrote.  If you post the original
you can say, written by Bill Palmer.  If you post the improved version you
must say, written by Bill Palmer and Ken Fair.  Everybody get his own
credit.  Does that seem strange to you?

: If you believe that, then I have an "improved" version of
: THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY I'll sell you the rights to.
: You see, Woof, in your zeal to defend Fair--and in your
: ignorance and malice--you  insult every writer who has ever
: lived, and "writer" certainly does not include you.

There is a great difference to a piece of usenet flamage and someones
novel.  But yes, if you took the plot of someones novel and changed the
characters and location and what people said but used many of the same
themes, there is not much the author can do about it.  He would have to
prove that you copied a significant amount of his intellectual work.  As
a clue Punchie, I believe I read some where that there are only about 800
possible plots for a fiction story.  That would seem to indicate that
they have all been used thousand of times.  So unless you are totally
stupid and lift an entire passage from the original book you're home
free.  Of course you would have to write awfully well yourself to get
away with it, and have anything anyone would want to read.  In that case,
it may be that you didn't steal the work but were mearly influenced by it.

: The has NEVER been any principle that someone who takes it
: on himself to improve  the work of another becomes  the owner
: of the work (UNLESS we speak of a public domain work; we don't).

Ken never said he owned your work. He told you, you couldn't claim his
contribution as your own writing.  Is that concept that hard for you to
grasp?

: Fair has no more business copyrighting his "improved" version
: of my limerick than I would have copyrighting my hypothetical
: version of BRIDGES.  The moral principle is exactly the same
: despite the attempts of you and your pals to howl down the
: value of my work, vainly trying to make me look silly for
: attempting to defend my property rights.

He doesn't have to copyright it.  By posting it, it is automaticly
copywritten.  Just like your post I am following up to is copywritten and
my post will be when I post it.  I can only use your words in my post if I
give them proper attribution.  I must give you and anyone else quoted in
my articles proper credit for their efforts.  Furthermore, netiquette says,
I must not take another person's words out of context or change them to
shade the meaning.

Once I post this article, anyone can follow up to it and quote all or as
much as needed to put their comments, on what I have written, in context;
as long as they properly attribute my words to me.  By posting to usenet, I
give that implicit permission.  Usenet wouldn't work otherwise, and there
would be no reason to post.  Is that really so hard to understand?

: What business would I have to copyright "my" BRIDGES?  Even
: if I used ten-pecent of the true writer's words, I could be
: arrested for selling "my" version.  Clearly, the act of my
: copyrighting my "improved" version would raise very serious
: questions about my character and intentions.

We've already covered that red herring.

: Woof. You care nothing about logic.  You are singed
: and spoiling for revenge for your many deserved humili-
: ations from my flames.  You think by vociferously supporting
: pal Fair you can blur the issue here.  That's what attack
: mutts like you are for.

So far I'm the only one who's tried to use logic here.  You have
resorted, as usual, to red herrings and ad hominem attacks.

: Morally or ethically Fair doesn't have a leg to stand on--
: any more than I would in the hypothetical BRIDGES example,
: or anyone would who gratuitously alters the intellectual
: property of another and claims it for his own.

He never claimed your portion as his.  He refused to allow you to rip
of his portion and claim it as your own.  If you want to use it, you must
give him credit.  Why can't you understand that?

: By the way, your stupid manner of turning things around
: to suggest I wanted to steal Fair's work shows you utter
: lack of intelligence and morality.  The fact is, I have
: written and posted many excellet limericks, at least
: 40 of themfar better than Fair's edited version of one
: of my worst efforts.

I didn't turn your words around, that's what you said in your post before
Ken cut you off at the knees in his post.  That was what his post was all
about.  An answer to your post saying you liked the changes and were
going to except them as your own.  I read both articles.  

Why do you insist on believing each article stands on it's own and what
you don't like just goes away?  Usenet is about conversation.  You say
something, then I say something, then you respond, then someone else jumps
in with their opinion, You have no right and certainly no power to say who
can respond to what, and how they must respond.  You can't ignore what was
said in some other subject thread either, if you change the subject line
anyone is free to being in facts or statements from another subject thread
to counter what you say.  You can't hide and you can't run away.  Most of
us have real newsreaders.

No one cares how many limericks you've written.  Your limerick production
is irrelevant in this discussion.  Here we are concerned with only one
limerick.  The Ken Fair improved limerick.  You can't claim it as yours
because it's not.  Part of it is Ken fair's.

: Now, Woof, I'm not going to spend much time with the rest
: of your sorry attempt to support pal Fair's theft while
: trying to get revenge on me for your many deserved
: singeings.

Still whistling, if you're "singeing" me so bad everybody knows it.  If
you aren't, saying you are, won't make anyone believe it.

: >  
: >: As if "character witness" singed mutt Davis has anything
: >: legitimate to do with the situation other than run his
: >: huge mouth!  But then, that's the what attack mutts do--
: >: they jump in to get their deserving kicks.
: >
: >Funny you should mention that.  Every time you try to kick me, you get
: you
: >foot bit off.
: >
: >: But you're so crazy and desperate that you'll jump
: >: in anyplace!
: >
: >Whistling that same sad tune, aren't you Punchie.
: >
: >: >Note:  Punchy doesn't know what to say so he makes up titles for
: >: people.
: >
: >: Not at all.  You ARE a woofing loudmouth, so "Woof" Davis
: >: fits perfectly.  And you have been playing the roll of
: >: "attack mutt" for others--so that fits you "t".  Your
: >: behavior has earned you your titles.
: >
: >Why take it out of context, Punchie?  Could it be that the context it
: was
: >in showed what an ass you are?
: >
: >: Fair sits at one of the best universites and steals--and
: >: old attack mutt who Davis, singed tail and all, rushes
: >: out of the alley to defend his theft!

: Boy, I sure had it right that time!  And then the old Woof
: rushed out again foaming at the mouth...
: >
: >Ken didn't steal anything.

: Since there is no honest reason for his copyrighting my
: ...

read more »

No, that's his head.

--
Lee M.Thompson-Herbert  lee @crl.com   All spelling lames will be cheerfully
    Chaos Monger        KD6WUR         deleted.  If your hands were as mangled
         and                           as mine, you might type funny too.
  Jill-of-all-Trades    Member, Knights of Xenu (1995)  

In <jrdavisDnB5BA....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
writes:

I DEFY you to insult the readers of rec.arts.poems
where you have been posting a lot dishonest, poorly
written (naturally) prose lately with this egregiously
bad doggerel.

And have no fear.  I stand proudly behind everything
I've written (except for my typos).  And I reaffirm
the fact that--despite your flood of lies to the con-
trary--anyone who got flamed by me attacked me first.

One of the most significant things about the way you
handle your role as the absent Ken's spokesman, is the
way you turn things around and try to accuse me of
stealing my OWN limerick!

Clearly, in your rush to interject yourself as attack mutt
in this property dispute, you were so sure  that you could
bully me you that your never make a line by line com-
parison  of the limericks.   If you ever bother to do that
you  will see that a significant percantage of what's
in "Ken's limerick" is mine.  

Too bad you never bothered to do that.  But of course,
Woof, you didn't exactly rush woofing into this matter
between Ken and myself as a disinterested party.  Every-
thing you said in this affair fits  very well your true
role as bully turned angry flame victim as well as  attack
mutt for the plagiarist Ken Fair who sits behind the big
desk and has you and few others on his key chain.

In your ridiculus bombast under this header you heap
lie on lie, attack mutt Davis.  You have the gall to
talk about "red herrings" but everything you have said
since you woofed your way into this dispute between Ken
and I has been a red herring.

The issue is this:  I wrote a limerick.  Ken Fair took
it on himself to edit my limerick.  Then he rushed out to
copyright his edited version of my work.  Since when
does the one who edits gratuitously become the owner?

Nothing in your lying and moronic blather here changes
the situation.   I'm not going to waste my time refuting
such stupidities.  Copyright courts make line by line
comparisons;  I'm confident that the such a comparison
will support my claim.   Even if your interjected
stupidities and lies run to 300K, they won't change a
thing, "Disinterested Copyright Judge" Woof Davis.

Your attempts to demean me with your flood of lies
don't change anything at all; nor do your interminable
failed tries at demeaning  my work.  The phoniest thing
of all comes  your attempt to portray yourself other
than angry bully who got singed and now spoils for
revenge with lengthy "articles" containing an idiot's
rotten stew of false allegation and absurd
pronouncements.

: In <jrdavisDnB5BA....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
: >
: >Bill Palmer (wilh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In <jrdavisDn92ru....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
: >: >
: >: >Bill Palmer (wilh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: >: In <jrdavisDn63yy....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
: >
: >: Bill Palmer addressed Woof Davis:
: >: >
: >: >: No. You ARE an "attack mutt".  That fits you to a "t".  You
: >: >: are so crazy for revenge for getting your lazy and shiftless
: >: >: hide singed by my flames that you jump in immediately to
: >: >: defend your pals no matter how atrocious their behavior.  
: >: >
: >: ><burp>  Naw.  My "owner" doesn't give me enought to eat.  She says
: I
: >: have
: >: >to lose some weight.  I just take the occasional bite out of your
: leg
: >: >because I'm hungry.
: >
: >: Joke all you want to, the facts prove otherwise, Woof Davis.
: >: You have taken it upon yourself to vociferously inject your
: >: lying mouth into any situation where I am first assaulted by
: >: a third party--usually a sleazy and pseudonymous pal of yours--
:    >
: >: When they get their tails singed for attacking me first,
: >: you--against all evidence--pretend that *I* attacked them
: >: for no reason; that their vile and often obscene slurs were
: >: harmless criticism.  You are a bullying phony, Woof Davis--
: >: AND an attack mutt.
: >
: >  Whistle while you shake.
: >  Make believe you make them bake.
: >  Don't look behind.
: >  Or else you'll find
: >  The ghost of all you wrote,
: >  And that's little of note,
: >  Pointing an accusing finger.
: >  Daring you to linger,
: >  Until the vote
: >  That'll get your goat.
: >  Because you'll be named,
: >  Or is that defamed,
: >  As usenet Kook of The Month.

: I DEFY you to insult the readers of rec.arts.poems
: where you have been posting a lot dishonest, poorly
: written (naturally) prose lately with this egregiously
: bad doggerel.

Why belabor the obvious, Punchie.  I know it stinks.  Unlike you I can
take an objective look at what I write.  That little rhyme took all of
five minutes to compose.  It's only purpose was to get your goat.  It
looks like it did it's job quite well.

: And have no fear.  I stand proudly behind everything
: I've written (except for my typos).  And I reaffirm
: the fact that--despite your flood of lies to the con-
: trary--anyone who got flamed by me attacked me first.

We know you do, Punchie, that's what's so funny.  What you write gives you
a perfect reason to lie.  If I wrote that crap I would be trying like hell
to pin it on you.

: >
: >: >: Take the case of Ken Fair; he engages in an obvious theft
: >: >: of my poem, and the ignorant old attack mutt Davis has got
: >: >: to jump in to defend fair while Ken the Unfair hides behind
: >: >: his desk, after having his pilferage exposed.
: >: >
: >: >Actually, If you go back and read that exchange, you will see that
: >: _you_
: >: >said you were going to except Ken's changes to your limerick and
: claim
: >
: >: >them as your own.  Ken just pointed out that everything he posts to

: >: >usenet, including improvements on your work, are his intellectual
: >: >property and you better not try to steal it.  So being denyed the
: >: >opportunity to seal Ken's ideas you call him a thief.  That is they
: >: kind
: >: >of twisted thinking we have all come to expect and despise from you

: One of the most significant things about the way you
: handle your role as the absent Ken's spokesman, is the
: way you turn things around and try to accuse me of
: stealing my OWN limerick!

No, Punchie, I readily admit you wrote your limerick.  It says,
Punchinello all over it.  I'm claiming you tryed to steal Ken's revision
of your limerick.  Even if we didn't have the proof Ken wrote it, I can't
see how you could think you could get away with claiming it.  Ken's version
both scans and rhymes.  Yours seldom do either and never do both at the
same time.

: >
: >: This demonstrates "we" are attack mutt Woof's pals.   Only a
: >: sub, sub-literate such as yourself would insult me such a
: >: specious argument.  When did you ever get the stupid idea
: >: in your "brain" that when someone makes gratuitous changes
: >: in the work of another--the self-styled editor comes to
: >: own the work?
: >
: >He owns whatever he contributed.  I never said he owned the portion
: you
: >wrote, but you don't own the portion he wrote.

: Clearly, in your rush to interject yourself as attack mutt
: in this property dispute, you were so sure  that you could
: bully me you that your never make a line by line com-
: parison  of the limericks.   If you ever bother to do that
: you  will see that a significant percantage of what's
: in "Ken's limerick" is mine.  

I've already posted that information, Punchie.   If you would learn to
stay under one subject line, you wouldn't always be a day late and a
dollar short.  BTH:  Who, besides yourself ever claimed otherwise.  Everyone
concedes that Ken rewrote your limerick.  So what?  That still doesn't
mean you can claim you wrote Ken's rewrite, and you did.  I also posed
that evidence.  

: Too bad you never bothered to do that.  But of course,
: Woof, you didn't exactly rush woofing into this matter
: between Ken and myself as a disinterested party.  Every-
: thing you said in this affair fits  very well your true
: role as bully turned angry flame victim as well as  attack
: mutt for the plagiarist Ken Fair who sits behind the big
: desk and has you and few others on his key chain.

I never rush "woofing" into anything.  I always check my facts.  That's
why I'm seldom proved wrong.  Why are you so seldom proved right?

There you go Punchie whistling the flame victim tune again.  Who is it
who is whining and crying and gnashing their teeth?  Now look in the
mirror.  Repeat after me, "Me Punchinello, me crying."  Now that should
give you an indication as to who the burn victim is.

: In your ridiculus bombast under this header you heap
: lie on lie, attack mutt Davis.  You have the gall to
: talk about "red herrings" but everything you have said
: since you woofed your way into this dispute between Ken
: and I has been a red herring.

Whistle on, Punchie.  I've posted the evidence.  You stand exposed as
someone who would claim to have written what someone else actually wrote.  
I guess you really do understand how badly you write.

: The issue is this:  I wrote a limerick.  Ken Fair took
: it on himself to edit my limerick.  Then he rushed out to
: copyright his edited version of my work.  Since when
: does the one who edits gratuitously become the owner?

He didn't rush out and copyright his work.  That happens automaticly when
you post.  I've pointed that out to you before.  When you post the work is
copywritten.  When I post this article, this article becomes my
copywritten property.  By posting it, I give people the right to respond
to it and to quote however much of it they need to to put their comments
in context for the purpose of discussion.  When they post their reply,
their reply is copywritten, and the cycle starts all over again. Why is
that so hard for you to understand?

: Nothing in your lying and moronic blather here changes
: the situation.   I'm not going to waste my time refuting
: such stupidities.  Copyright courts make line by line
: comparisons;  I'm confident that the such a comparison
: will support my claim.   Even if your interjected
: stupidities and lies run to 300K, they won't change a
: thing, "Disinterested Copyright Judge" Woof Davis.

How would you know what a court does?  I doubt you have ever been near a
copyright case.  The claim that Ken rewrote your limerick is undisputed.
Now, if you will admit that you tryed to claim his rewritten limerick as
your work, we can go on to your next loss.

: Your attempts to demean me with your flood of lies
: don't change anything at all; nor do your interminable
: failed tries at demeaning  my work.  The phoniest thing
: of all comes  your attempt to portray yourself other
: than angry bully who got singed and now spoils for
: revenge with lengthy "articles" containing an idiot's
: rotten stew of false allegation and absurd
: pronouncements.

My lengthy articles are point by point refutations of your lies. If you
write shorter articles with fewer lies and redundancies my articles
wouldn't be near so long.    

Oh dear, the movie motto game.  Let me see, what comes to mind.  Well
let's try try this.

        Punchinello "The Days of Whine and Limericks of Usenet" Palmer

Watch Punchie stumble around drunkenly, mistaking Ken's limerick for his
own.  Comming soon to a newsgroup near you.

--
              A_A    
John Davis   (o o)    Temperance in all things, especially sobriety.      
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~             I said that.

I reserve the right to post, at my discretion, any nasty or harassing
e-mail I receive.  Repeated occurrences of such e-mail will be referred to
the senders postmaster with a request for action.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $100/hour (minimum one
(1) hour).  

In <jrdavisDnGGMB....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
writes:

Truer words were never spoken by Woof Davis!

 Unlike you I can

You wasted five minutes of your worthless time!

  It's only purpose was to get your goat.  It

Are you too stupid to see that your lie is easily refuted
by the fact that if he SUBTRACTED his own words (which he
is welcomed--no, encouraged to do--the sum of HIS words  
won't equal a limerick by any stretch of the imagination!)
You keep woofing your lies, Attack Mutt Woof, but you
intentionally miss the obvious and simple truths at the
heart of the matter.

 So being denyed the

Perfect illustration of the Woof Davis BIG LIE machine.  Now
I want to steal my own property!

 That is they

you

Woof, you prove yourself a gargantuan liar every time
you open your mouth.

Now, you are back to your BIG LIE, Woof.  Any reasonable
person will see that what you call "Ken's limerick"
is merely a revised version of mine.   Why, if you
had ever bothered to compare the two poems, before
you pushed into the dispute your loud and igrnorant
woofing mouth, you would have seen that most of the
lines are very similar and line five is, except for
one syllable--exactly the same as mine!

Do you delude yourself that any intellectual
property court would mark that down to coincidence?
You see, your big woofs have changed nothing in this
case of NET ABUSE BY THEFT.  The person who takes
it upon himself to edit the work of someone else,
does not suddenly become the owner.

Now, since THAT is at the heart of my dispute with Ken,
and since all you do in the rest of this paper is try
and confuse the issue with your usual bizzard of BIG
LIES, I'll close here.  

Your little pose as "disinterested party/copyright
expert" fools no one.  You are ignorant about property
rights, and your are highly biased as a bully turned
woofing flame victim hanging on Ken Fair's key ring.

wilh...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer ) writes:

        What, now you're upset with me for not flaming you?  Sorry 'bout
that.  Fine, your writing sucks.  You feel better now?

        I don't know what thoughts you express.  I suspect that you
don't have any thoughts to express, actually, but instead are having a
hell of a time pounding on your keyboard until something slightly
coherent comes out.

        I wouldn't be so sure about that; I mean, you seem to have not
found yourself an ally yet, in the months of your spewage...

                                - Tim Skirvin (tskir...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a>
<a href="http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/killfile.html">The Daemons</a>

In <4h2i2a$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
|wilh...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer ) writes:
|>Now we get the inevitable reminder that Skirvin is not alone
|>in his views.   I'm well  aware that a  clique includes more
|>than one person, Skirvin.

|       I wouldn't be so sure about that; I mean, you seem to have not
|found yourself an ally yet, in the months of your spewage...

If there's a club for people who think that Bill Palmer is a
weak-worded dickweed, I'd like to join.

Sign me up.
--
                                        Paul J. Zanca <p...@sccsi.com>
                                        http://www.sccsi.com/pjz
"Oh, Brick.  Is it possible for you to be _any_ dumber?"
"I don't see how..."

wilh...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer ) writes:

        That's because we don't understand the Usenet Guide as well.
You're the God of it.  I mean, you exemplify every point of it with your
Power Posting...

        Is it March yet?  You didn't win KotM last time...

                                - Tim Skirvin (tskir...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a>
<a href="http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/killfile.html">The Daemons</a>

        [Much silliness deleted]

: Are you too stupid to see that your lie is easily refuted
: by the fact that if he SUBTRACTED his own words (which he
: is welcomed--no, encouraged to do--the sum of HIS words  
: won't equal a limerick by any stretch of the imagination!)
: You keep woofing your lies, Attack Mutt Woof, but you
: intentionally miss the obvious and simple truths at the
: heart of the matter.

Are you to blind with greed to see that it doesn't matter how much is
deleted from that limerick, you didn't write it.  No one contests your
right to the limerick you wrote.  However you can't lay claim to what Ken
wrote, just because it is based on what you wrote.  You keep trying with
all your might to run away from your own words, "I wrote it."  That's a
lie Punchie, Ken wrote it.  That is the simple truth.  Whether you like
it or not, Ken wrote the better limerick and you can't claim you wrote
it.  All the smoke screening in the world will not change the facts.  Ken
wrote a limerick based on a previous one by you.  You coveted it and
tried to claim it.  You got caught.  Now you are trying to deny the
facts, but we won't let you.  As long as you continue to try to squirm
out of your deceit by trying to smear others, I will continue to post the
true facts.

        [More snipage]

: Now, you are back to your BIG LIE, Woof.  Any reasonable
: person will see that what you call "Ken's limerick"
: is merely a revised version of mine.   Why, if you
: had ever bothered to compare the two poems, before
: you pushed into the dispute your loud and igrnorant
: woofing mouth, you would have seen that most of the
: lines are very similar and line five is, except for
: one syllable--exactly the same as mine!

No Punchie, any reasonable person will see that you are not only a liar and
a coward, but covetous as well.  No matter that he "revised" your
limerick.  The "revision" constitutes a total rewrite.  He changed most
of the words.  He change the meter.  He changed the tone.  In fact there
isn't a single thing about the limerick he didn't change, and for the
better.  It is Ken's limerick.  The more I look at the two limericks the
less I see of you in Ken's.  Really the only thing similar is the intent
to roast Ogden.  As for that last line.  That one word change made all
the difference.  It changed it from a discordant out of rhythm annoyance to
a balanced metrical statement.

: Do you delude yourself that any intellectual
: property court would mark that down to coincidence?
: You see, your big woofs have changed nothing in this
: case of NET ABUSE BY THEFT.  The person who takes
: it upon himself to edit the work of someone else,
: does not suddenly become the owner.

No one has said it is a coincidence.  No one has tryed to say your
limerick wasn't the precursor of Ken's limerick.  No One has tried to
steal your writing.  No one is trying to claim ownership of your
limerick.  *You* Punchie, only you, are trying to lay claim to someone
elses writing.  *You* Punchie, only you, ever said, "I wrote that," when
referring to another's writing.  *You Punchie, only you, have continuously
tryed to make the fact that someone else "revised" something you wrote, a
reason to claim credit for their work.

: Now, since THAT is at the heart of my dispute with Ken,
: and since all you do in the rest of this paper is try
: and confuse the issue with your usual bizzard of BIG
: LIES, I'll close here.  

No Punchie, that is how you would like to reshape the dispute.  You would
like to make a nonissue the heart of the matter.  The fact is that
there is no dispute over the fact that Ken "revised" your limerick.  The
issue is, and always has been, your attempt to claim ken's "revision" as
your own work.  It wasn't then, it isn't now, it never will be.  The only
BIG LIES here are yours.  Ken did not try to steal you limerick.  He
rewrote your limerick, and has always said that is what he did.  *You*
Punchie, tried to claim Ken's rewrite as you own work.  You said, "I
wrote that."  I can repost the entire article with complete headers, If
you want me to.  You said it, you know you said it, you can't run from
that simple truth.  You are a want-to-be plagiarist.  You stand condemned
by your own words.  It's not surprising, since you write so poorly, that you
should grab whatever comes your way to boost the overall average level of
your writing.  

: Your little pose as "disinterested party/copyright
: expert" fools no one.  You are ignorant about property
: rights, and your are highly biased as a bully turned
: woofing flame victim hanging on Ken Fair's key ring.

I'm not posing as anything Punchie.  Unlike you I can just let *me* hang
out there.  I don't have to make gratuitous claims.  I'm comfortable with
who I really am.  You, on the other hand, must continue to put other people
down and claim enormous highs for yourself.  

All I can say about that key ring bit is, if anyone ever found you on
their key ring they would take a napkin and very carefully wipe you off.
After flushing the napkin and washing their hands, they would probably
wonder where that mess came from.

By the way, I read your reply to Ken.  Did you really think you attempt to
act like you were engaged in a dispute over poetic trivia would fool anyone.
You completely ignored the main parts of Ken's post to focus on an
unimportant side issue.  You didn't make any points there.  You just
conceded every point Ken made.  You must agree with what he said, you
only challenged his views on poetry structure.  That's what happens each
time you try and avoid the facts, you concede the facts.  You concede a
lot of points, Punchie, because you lack the skills to make a structured
argument.  Just another reason why your writing stinks.

--
              A_A    
John Davis   (o o)    Temperance in all things, especially sobriety.      
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~             I said that.

I reserve the right to post, at my discretion, any nasty or harassing
e-mail I receive.  Repeated occurrences of such e-mail will be referred to
the senders postmaster with a request for action.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $100/hour (minimum one
(1) hour).  

In article <4h2vp9$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,

But what about Tim?

I hereby nominate Bill Palmer as March's KotM.

--
      "Not only is God dead, but just try to find a plumber on weekends."
                                  -- Woody Allen

In <4h8r2e$...@crash.microserve.net> d...@frackit.com (Dave Ratcliffe)
writes:

That's right, sleazeball.  You were talking about me behind
my back.  And by the way, it seems to me I have records of
any number of times when you jumped on ME when I was by no
stretch of the imagination "addressing you"--so don't
be too surprised where my posts pop up, you hypocritical
little twit.

Lying is certainly easy for a sleazeball like you, Ratcliffe.

On 2 Mar 1996 08:39:32 GMT, wilh...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer ) wrote:
-In <4h8r2e$...@crash.microserve.net> d...@frackit.com (Dave Ratcliffe)
-writes:
->...and on, and on, and..... 63 more lines of fertilizer. That's a
->helluva response. And I wasn't even addressing _him_.
-
-That's right, sleazeball.  You were talking about me behind
-my back.

Oh, do be so kind as to tell me how writing anything in an open forum is
talking about you behind your back.

Besides, you saw the post so it wasn't so far "behind your back" as to be
invisible to you now was it?

-And by the way, it seems to me I have records of
-any number of times when you jumped on ME when I was by no
-stretch of the imagination "addressing you"--

Bill, Bill, Bill. I was remarking at the number of LINES you posted in
response to a message that wasn't even _directed_ at you. I could care less
that you chose to spew forth more of your pedestrian verbiage in my
direction. Open forum. Get it? Probably not.

-so don't be too surprised where my posts pop up, you hypocritical
-little twit.

You don't surprise me at all Bill. The only thing that WOULD surprise me is
if you suddenly realized that your chain has been pulled so much lately
that it's now 6 feet longer than when you started, and decide to shut up
for awhile.

->Ghod, this is too easy.
-
-Lying is certainly easy for a sleazeball like you, Ratcliffe.

Right Bill. Remember, _EVERYTHING_ I say is a lie.

(wonder if he'll figure it out......)

--
Dave Ratcliffe                           d...@frackit.com
Harrisburg, Pa.
Email to this account may be posted to the net

In article <4h91g4$...@cloner4.netcom.com>, wilh...@ix.netcom.com (Bill

(In reply to Dave Ratcliffe)

I think the "talking behind the back" comment proves beyond a doubt that
Bill Palmer is actually another Grubormorph.

Okay, maybe not, but he's doing a good impersonation....

--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law  | Power Mac! | Net since '90 | Net.cop
kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu | CABAL(tm) Member | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
 WARNING: I will send at least five copies of any unsolicited email
 advertising I receive back to the sender.  You have been warned.

In article <4h2p3u$...@lurch.sccsi.com>, p...@sccsi.com (Paul J. Zanca) wrote:

Don't think a meeting-hall has been built yet that would hold all the
possible members. It would probably include any whose IQ is greater than
or equal to
"the answer". Daft, bugger Bill will doubtfully understand the item in quotes.
It does require one to have read something other than one's own works....

And us as well.

--
You never know which of us is posting, unless we specifically say so.
                         Guy and/or Karen

We do have a question though, Is 'Palmer' an alternative spelling for 'Cassidy', which as we all know IS an alternative spelling for 'Babak'.