>> > >My whole point was that half of his poem was taken from keywords >> > >originated by someone else, padded with some of his own poetry, and >> > >presented as if he'd created the entire poem on his own (by signing >> > >it).
>> > He used well below 50% of the key words, which I'm assuming you mean by >> > any word >> > but "a, at, and, the, etc." Dale actually used more "key words" not >> > found in >> > Alacrity's. By more, I mean a greater percentage than 50%.
>> I decided to check that out for myself. I count 69 "key words" in >> Dale's poem: 26 are from Alacrity's, 14 are from Alacrity's but with >> changes (like adding or dropping an "s" or "ed"), and 29 are original >> to Dale. How does that compare to your figures?
> Well, that's 40 from Alacrity and only 29 from Houstman.
> The truth can't be any more obvious than that.
> You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
> (no, seriously...you can't. You're too narcisstic and stupid.)
Uh oh. The poets are slapping at each other again.
> >> > >My whole point was that half of his poem was taken from keywords > >> > >originated by someone else, padded with some of his own poetry, and > >> > >presented as if he'd created the entire poem on his own (by signing it).
> >> I decided to check that out for myself. I count 69 "key words" in > >> Dale's poem: 26 are from Alacrity's, 14 are from Alacrity's but with > >> changes (like adding or dropping an "s" or "ed"), and 29 are original > >> to Dale. How does that compare to your figures?
> > Well, that's 40 from Alacrity and only 29 from Houstman.
> > The truth can't be any more obvious than that.
> > You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
> > (no, seriously...you can't. You're too narcisstic and stupid.)
> Uh oh. The poets are slapping at each other again.
>>> > >My whole point was that half of his poem was taken from keywords >>> > >originated by someone else, padded with some of his own poetry, and >>> > >presented as if he'd created the entire poem on his own (by signing >>> > >it).
>>> > He used well below 50% of the key words, which I'm assuming you mean >>> > by any word >>> > but "a, at, and, the, etc." Dale actually used more "key words" not >>> > found in >>> > Alacrity's. By more, I mean a greater percentage than 50%.
>>> I decided to check that out for myself. I count 69 "key words" in >>> Dale's poem: 26 are from Alacrity's, 14 are from Alacrity's but with >>> changes (like adding or dropping an "s" or "ed"), and 29 are original >>> to Dale. How does that compare to your figures?
>> Well, that's 40 from Alacrity and only 29 from Houstman.
>> The truth can't be any more obvious than that.
>> You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
>> (no, seriously...you can't. You're too narcisstic and stupid.)
> Uh oh. The poets are slapping at each other again.
>> >> > >My whole point was that half of his poem was taken from keywords >> >> > >originated by someone else, padded with some of his own poetry, and >> >> > >presented as if he'd created the entire poem on his own (by signing >> >> > >it).
>> >> I decided to check that out for myself. I count 69 "key words" in >> >> Dale's poem: 26 are from Alacrity's, 14 are from Alacrity's but with >> >> changes (like adding or dropping an "s" or "ed"), and 29 are original >> >> to Dale. How does that compare to your figures?
>> > Well, that's 40 from Alacrity and only 29 from Houstman.
>> > The truth can't be any more obvious than that.
>> > You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
>> > (no, seriously...you can't. You're too narcisstic and stupid.)
>> Uh oh. The poets are slapping at each other again.
> The holiday festivites continue...
Duckery's holiday festivities involve getting drunk and passing out in a trash can. In other words, like every other day.
> "Orson Wells as CitizenCain" wrote: >>"Will Dockery" wrote:
>> > > Here's a repost of when the two poems, the original by Alacrity >> > > Stone, and >> > > the adaptation by Dale Houstman, based on AS's poem, showing they two >> > > were >> > > lined up side-by-side, just as I described:
>> PJR pretended
>> ...to be a girl by putting his penis between his legs and talking in a >> falsetto voice? Yea, that fucked-up pansy tends to do that sort of thing.
> Heh... you seem to have some really detailed fantasies about Peter J. > Ross there, Dink...
The only fantasies I have about PJR involve PJR, you, a car with its brake line cut and a California cliff.
> "Grand Mal" wrote: > > "Orson Wells as CitizenCain" wrote: > >> "Will Dockery" wrote: > >>>George Dance wrote: > >>> Karla wrote: > >>> >Will Dockery wrote:
> >>> > >My whole point was that half of his poem was taken from keywords > >>> > >originated by someone else, padded with some of his own poetry, and > >>> > >presented as if he'd created the entire poem on his own (by signing > >>> > >it).
> >>> > He used well below 50% of the key words, which I'm assuming you mean > >>> > by any word > >>> > but "a, at, and, the, etc." Dale actually used more "key words" not > >>> > found in > >>> > Alacrity's. By more, I mean a greater percentage than 50%.
> >>> I decided to check that out for myself. I count 69 "key words" in > >>> Dale's poem: 26 are from Alacrity's, 14 are from Alacrity's but with > >>> changes (like adding or dropping an "s" or "ed"), and 29 are original > >>> to Dale. How does that compare to your figures?
> >> Well, that's 40 from Alacrity and only 29 from Houstman.
> >> The truth can't be any more obvious than that.
> >> You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
> >> (no, seriously...you can't. You're too narcisstic and stupid.)
> > Uh oh. The poets are slapping at each other again.
> Dockery <slap>
Hey Dink, Karla Rogers just claims you've written and posted poetry here in the newsgroups at some point... is she lying or is this true?
> "Orson Wells as CitizenCain" wrote: >> "Grand Mal" wrote: >> > "Orson Wells as CitizenCain" wrote: >> >> "Will Dockery" wrote: >> >>>George Dance wrote: >> >>> Karla wrote: >> >>> >Will Dockery wrote:
>> >>> > >My whole point was that half of his poem was taken from keywords >> >>> > >originated by someone else, padded with some of his own poetry, >> >>> > >and >> >>> > >presented as if he'd created the entire poem on his own (by >> >>> > >signing >> >>> > >it).
>> >>> > He used well below 50% of the key words, which I'm assuming you >> >>> > mean >> >>> > by any word >> >>> > but "a, at, and, the, etc." Dale actually used more "key words" not >> >>> > found in >> >>> > Alacrity's. By more, I mean a greater percentage than 50%.
>> >>> I decided to check that out for myself. I count 69 "key words" in >> >>> Dale's poem: 26 are from Alacrity's, 14 are from Alacrity's but with >> >>> changes (like adding or dropping an "s" or "ed"), and 29 are original >> >>> to Dale. How does that compare to your figures?
>> >> Well, that's 40 from Alacrity and only 29 from Houstman.
>> >> The truth can't be any more obvious than that.
>> >> You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
>> >> (no, seriously...you can't. You're too narcisstic and stupid.)
>> > Uh oh. The poets are slapping at each other again.
>> Dockery <slap>
> Hey Dink, Karla Rogers just claims you've written and posted poetry > here in the newsgroups at some point... is she lying or is this true?
Hey Duckery, it wouldn't matter if I had -- none would be about you, so it wouldn't interest you.
> >> > > Here's a repost of when the two poems, the original by Alacrity > >> > > Stone, and > >> > > the adaptation by Dale Houstman, based on AS's poem, showing they two > >> > > were > >> > > lined up side-by-side, just as I described:
> >> PJR pretended
> >> ...to be a girl by putting his penis between his legs and talking in a > >> falsetto voice? Yea, that fucked-up pansy tends to do that sort of thing.
> > Heh... you seem to have some really detailed fantasies about Peter J. > > Ross there, Dink...
> The only fantasies I have about PJR involve PJR, you, a car with its brake > line cut and a California cliff.
So, you admit to having fantasies about PJR /and/ me... no surprise there, Orson.
They that have power to hurt and will do none, That do not do the thing they most do show, Who, moving others, are themselves as stone, Unmoved, cold, and to temptation slow, They rightly do inherit heaven's graces And husband nature's riches from expense; They are the lords and owners of their faces, Others but stewards of their excellence. The summer's flower is to the summer sweet, Though to itself it only live and die, But if that flower with base infection meet, The basest weed outbraves his dignity: For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds; Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
> For study, here's Dale Houstman's pastiche poem (signed and everything,
> ready to take away and attempt to pass off as his own original work,
> apparently), Gary Gamble's statement on borrowing (in this case a proven
> one) and after that, a copy of the original poem for study. This is the
> same method we used when Karla Rogers accused Tom Bishop of stealing her
> poem, switching the words around, and trying to pass it off as his own, so
> if it was acceptable then, then it should be acceptable in looking into
> the extent of Dale Houstman's poetry borrowing now, as well, am I right?
>> Mercury Mates With Clocks
>> Kissed into gold,
>> the first mercury of love
>> becomes a cylinder, a calendar, a compass
>> where a confusion of fingers
>> ties up the Christmas of veins
>> and - in dead union -
>> the soles of laughing soldiers
>> smoke the decaying mirrors.
>> Our lofty podiums,
>> wrinkled ovaries of jewels
>> in a featherless sky that cuts
>> flowers from each nodding head,
>> my human daffodils,
>> my gangrened begonias,
>> on whom water wonders
>> its haul of salvaged emeralds,
>> time dog-carted away by the scaffold's spiders.
>> And our money
>> priceless as ice in place of steel,
>> scarred with empire,
>> (but not as real)
>> and all good intentions shivering
>> like old cheeks in the new wind.
>> There is no art, no grace, no fiction
>> still secreted behind that purchase of fog.
>> We are imposed upon by the grass.
>> We are an ephemera of cares.
>> dmh
> Mercury Switches and The Mating of Clocks
> Kissed to death by gold whiskers
> was her lovely
> skate backwards around
> a sphere of mercury.
> From the first wet spark
> came a series of cylinders,
> calendar holders with
> fingers for handles,
> white Christmas babies
> with inscrutable veins.
> Their firsts steps in unison
> were on the soles of dead men -
> how they laughed,
> how they mirrored decay!
> The podium was that
> wrinkled uterus, the jewel
> encrusted grave
> you gave to us
> and Christ like
> a wingless blur
> hums the cut
> flowers nodding over her,
> the mercurial blood
> and phallic hats
> of heavy dafodils,
> of heavy water wombs
> where time (that savaged emerald)
> flows like scaffold spiders
> or money without price.
> And ice, cut wet with steel
> scars over the intention
> sends the scabbed vibration
> of shuddering cheeks
> into art, into grace and slides
> slick blades through fog,
> that impossible grass
> in our etherial core.
> Alacrity Stone
> When time permits, we can return to this post and, as with Karla's "April"
> and Bishop's "version", pick out how many words and entire lines DMH > borrowed
> in the construction of "his" poem... and wonder how many other of his
> works are similarly borrowed?
> For study, here's Dale Houstman's pastiche poem (signed and everything,
> ready to take away and attempt to pass off as his own original work,
> apparently), Gary Gamble's statement on borrowing (in this case a proven
> one) and after that, a copy of the original poem for study. This is the
> same method we used when Karla Rogers accused Tom Bishop of stealing her
> poem, switching the words around, and trying to pass it off as his own, so
> if it was acceptable then, then it should be acceptable in looking into
> the extent of Dale Houstman's poetry borrowing now, as well, am I right?
>> Mercury Mates With Clocks
>> Kissed into gold,
>> the first mercury of love
>> becomes a cylinder, a calendar, a compass
>> where a confusion of fingers
>> ties up the Christmas of veins
>> and - in dead union -
>> the soles of laughing soldiers
>> smoke the decaying mirrors.
>> Our lofty podiums,
>> wrinkled ovaries of jewels
>> in a featherless sky that cuts
>> flowers from each nodding head,
>> my human daffodils,
>> my gangrened begonias,
>> on whom water wonders
>> its haul of salvaged emeralds,
>> time dog-carted away by the scaffold's spiders.
>> And our money
>> priceless as ice in place of steel,
>> scarred with empire,
>> (but not as real)
>> and all good intentions shivering
>> like old cheeks in the new wind.
>> There is no art, no grace, no fiction
>> still secreted behind that purchase of fog.
>> We are imposed upon by the grass.
>> We are an ephemera of cares.
>> dmh
> Mercury Switches and The Mating of Clocks
> Kissed to death by gold whiskers
> was her lovely
> skate backwards around
> a sphere of mercury.
> From the first wet spark
> came a series of cylinders,
> calendar holders with
> fingers for handles,
> white Christmas babies
> with inscrutable veins.
> Their firsts steps in unison
> were on the soles of dead men -
> how they laughed,
> how they mirrored decay!
> The podium was that
> wrinkled uterus, the jewel
> encrusted grave
> you gave to us
> and Christ like
> a wingless blur
> hums the cut
> flowers nodding over her,
> the mercurial blood
> and phallic hats
> of heavy dafodils,
> of heavy water wombs
> where time (that savaged emerald)
> flows like scaffold spiders
> or money without price.
> And ice, cut wet with steel
> scars over the intention
> sends the scabbed vibration
> of shuddering cheeks
> into art, into grace and slides
> slick blades through fog,
> that impossible grass
> in our etherial core.
> Alacrity Stone
> When time permits, we can return to this post and, as with Karla's "April"
> and Bishop's "version", pick out how many words and entire lines DMH > borrowed
> in the construction of "his" poem... and wonder how many other of his
> works are similarly borrowed?
> Will Dockery: Hitting the stage of old SoHo for the first time in a long
> while, with Henry Conley, Geno Woolfolk, and players t-b-a around
> 10:30pm... any brave souls who want to join us, love to see you. A glimpse
> of SoHo's stage in the video below, for those who can't make it:
> > Will Dockery: Hitting the stage of old SoHo for the first time in a long
> > while, with Henry Conley, Geno Woolfolk, and players t-b-a around
> > 10:30pm... any brave souls who want to join us, love to see you. A glimpse
> > of SoHo's stage in the video below, for those who can't make it:
> > "Autograph of Zorro" recorded at SoHo 2005 for the Shadowville-Netherlands
> > cross cultural exchange project.
> > Will Dockery- vocals
> > Jocelyn Lammons- vocals
> > Henry Conley- guitar
> > Robert Earl Lowery- bass
> > Rick Edwards- mandolin
Your "vocals" sound like Popeye the Sailor if he decided to turn
homosexual and drink warm beer laced with dead bees the rest of his
life.
Your "lyrics" are about as entertaining as a prostate exam.
Your "talent" lays between the areas of seaweed washed up on the beach
and the question of "does a bear crap in the woods?"
Your overall "personality" is about as likable as Hurricane Sandy and
your ego is so large I am surprised you can intake oxygen into your
lungs for it smothering your person.
You should stop "writing" and "singing" and go into a field that would
be better suited for your "abilities"; goat herder or vivisection
tester, for instance.
