Re: Mercury Switches and The Mating of Clocks
Will Dockery
>
> 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
First off, great title, and the poem continues to snap with image
after image in a surreal, rapid-fire montage. Reminds me a lot of the
work of Dale Houstman when he was still firing on all cylanders, on
our local Usenet level, and with echoes from masters from Rimbaud to
Kerouac... to Patti Smith and John Cale. In other words, some top-
shelf poetry.
I'm now a fan, I must say.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6BGlXmtzE8
Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
"Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
Video by Doug Cole
Will Dockery
On Feb 20, 10:19 am, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:
> (gibberishsnip)
>
> So, you got a fridge magnet poetry set for christmas and you're just now
> trying it out?
>
> It's been years now and you've yet to write anything readable.
> It's a good thing you have that construction labourer job to fall back on.
> Have you ever read any poetry?
>
> jesus fuck
So, this is the "critique" that casual readers feel the poet should be
"glad ass happy" to recieve--- snip the poem, make a one liner insult,
a personal "real life" insult, and then a repetitive and stale "jesus
fuck"?
I'll keep that in mind... heh.
--
Art, music & poetry of Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
On Feb 22, 9:16 am, "ggamble" <gga...@burnout.net> wrote:
> On 22-Feb-2009, George Dance wrote:
>
> > > Do, please, explain what makes me a "casual reader", George.
>
> > > g.
>
> > Well, actually, Gwyneth, I've got no evidence that you've read
> > anything on aapc in the last couple of years.
>
> So, she has to now *prove* that she's read aapc in
> the last few years
Why should Gwyneth have to do that, ggasfly? After all, she's already
proven that if she *has* read a.a.p.c. in "the last few years", she's
read it very selectively if she's missed the hundreds of vicious
attacks you've made on various (usually female, for some odd reason we
don't have to get into here, except that his generous critique to them
includes such statements as "crazy old bitch" and other choice
misogynies) poets that you (or your Royal We you use when you feel
like it, and other times deny) feel the need to drive from the
newsgroups by any means you can...
But hold on, you're pretending to killfile me, so you can't even come
back and try to call me a liar... never mind that every statement I've
made about "Gary Gamble" is true and can be backed up in the archives,
although even a "casual reader" should have been able to see at least
a few of them without going to any of that trouble.
Anyway, thanks for another amusing morning on Usenet, Ggasfly.
Alacrity
> Vocals: Will Dockery. Music: The Shadowville Allstars. Based on
> "Greybeard Cavalier" by Will Dockery, 0x0000 and Brian Fowler.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I regret to say that the poem is definitely not as good as you sayit
is.
I suspect that you're just trying to piss Dale off and I think you may
succeed.
Alacrity
Dale Houstman
Hardly. I scarcely noticed the comments or the poem. It would not "piss
me off" no matter what Will said: he doesn't have the critical/aethetic
chops to make his comments register as worthwhile.
I still think your poetry lacks metaphorical integration. It is only
superficially like my poetry, in that it "piles" up words toward some
ambiguous end. But despite the statements made by Tom "I'm A Twat"
Bishop and his ilk, I NEVER merely allowed the accidents of either note
cards or whatever to dictate the poem. That would be the real adventure
here - that I work through chance and ambiguity toward a metaphorical
unity. What that might revolve about I do not know, but it's probably an
emotional/political stance in this world. And your uneasy thoughts on
religion continue to make the poems difficult to take. For me. And then
there are the images themselves (or rather "word groupings), far too
often they come off as merely cliches: "mercurial blood" "phallic hats"
and so on. Then there are those groups which although not strictly
cliches lack much impact (sometimes because like much poetry they lack a
sensory element - i.e. they remain merely overblown abstractions:
"inscrutable veins" "etherial [sic] core" [which is a terrible blah of a
line to end with] "impossible grass" and so on. Frankly, the work always
seems to be bits and pieces. They do - as you suggest - lack integrity,
which you seem (at least not yet) to have the language skills to
effectively edit toward energy.
As for Will's comment about when I was firing on all "cylanders" - I am
STILL firing on all cylanders. It's this group which has lost it power
train.
dmh
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
msifg
"Alacrity" <alacri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a4aa24d-1a7a-4bde...@x9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Alacrity
*haha-
yeah, like you were probably trying to kiss
his ass by coming down like a wingless vulture
on my "the lion and the liar" lyrics when he
was taking his obligatory crap on them.
you never even mentioned listening to the song.
and you call yourself a lyricists?
i hope your not a musician.
anyway, going by those circumstances alone,
you have absolutely no skills
as a lyricist or a musician that interest
me in the least. so, refrain from using
me to kiss dale's ass in the future, ok?
just buy a stick of brown lipstick and
have some fun in the mirror.
Orsen Wells w/Citizen Cain
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c20156e-3646-4898...@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
How about turning yourself off and throwing yourself in a landfill then?
Orsen Wells w/Citizen Cain
>
> So, this is the "critique" that casual readers feel the poet should be
> "glad ass happy" to recieve--- snip the poem, make a one liner insult,
> a personal "real life" insult, and then a repetitive and stale "jesus
> fuck"?
>
You do it all the time, Mr. Hypocrite.
Will Dockery
> Alacrity wrote:
>
> As for Will's comment about when I was firing on all "cylanders" - I am
> STILL firing on all cylanders.
Sounds like another of your desperate "self-critiques", Dale, like
when you declared your garbage-poem "Pot Holder Day" to be "charming".
That was quite a laugh.
Another example of "plagiarism in the post-art era", eh?
--
"Shadowville Speedway" & other song-poems by Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>> Alacrity wrote:
>>
>> As for Will's comment about when I was firing on all "cylanders" - I am
>> STILL firing on all cylanders.
>
> Sounds like another of your desperate "self-critiques", Dale, like
> when you declared your garbage-poem "Pot Holder Day" to be "charming".
> That was quite a laugh.
Purely subjective on your part. You are free to laugh as much as you
wish - happiness is in short enough supply, so even joy generated by
years of alcohol abuse might be welcome. The fact remains that just
because you declare something to be garbage doesn't mean it is. And you
have proven - beyond any consideration of your relative lack of critical
acumen - that your "poetic life" is nothing but an act of desperate
self-critique, albeit one of diminished capability.
And you're a lying thief on top of it.
Such a talent...
dmh
You don't know what plagiarism is do you? That wasn't it. That would be
taking someone's ACTUAL words without their permission and pretending
you had created them yourself. Like stealing someone's comments and
pretending they were part of an interview you conducted, for example.
Since in the above I make no pretense to either having fully created the
poem, nor do I attempt to profit from the re-creation/critique of the
original poem, it comes nowhere near being a matter of theft. In other
words - I didn't take the actual original poem and present it - without
the writer's permission and/or knowledge - as MY work in another forum.
Get it, foam noggin?
dmh
Will Dockery
Sure I do, and I just saw an example of it in this poem you rewrote a
bit and signed your initials to, "dmh".
That wasn't it. That would be
> taking someone's ACTUAL words without their permission and pretending
> you had created them yourself.
Which is exactly what you did in your re-write of the poem above,
"dmh".
> Since in the above I make no pretense to either having fully created the
> poem
Sorry, pal, but you /did/.
You signed it "dmh", thus attempting to pass it off as your own
original work.
That's plagiarism, pal.
Alacrity
It's a stinking world we live in when all approval is deemed flattery
and all criticism derogatory.
But that isn't my world.
I only post very rough work here. This is as it should be, I think. I
feel like a panhandler whose dumped a little sack of dusty ore on a
jewler's counter. When I finish this peice I'll post it again and look
forward to being able to have the benefit of your learned opinion.
Sicerely,
Alacrity
Alacrity
Hi Dale,
I missed your rewrite, being in a rush yesterday. Thank you. I learn
most from this kind of play/teaching. I hope you'll look in on this
thread in a day or so as I'd like to post a rewrite tempered by your
and George's efforts.
With sincerity,
A. Stone
Will Dockery
George Dance wrote:
> On Feb 27, 11:46 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
> > > On Feb 23, 8:39 am, Alacrity wrote:
> >
> > > Houstman's comment was different, of course; he also told you what he
> > > thought wasn't worked on enough in your poem, but called attention to
> > > what is highly developed (if not hypertrophied), your set of images,
> > > by using it to write his own poem --
> >
> > And claimed all the credit for the poem, although he'd lifted most (If
> > not all, I haven't laid them side-by-side yet to check, as I did when
> > Tom Bishop did the same thing with one of Karla's poems a couple of
> > years ago. If it was widely agreed that it was plagiarism then, then
> > it should follow that Houstman is a plagiarist now.) of the words and
> > images from another man's poem, shuffled them up in his deck of index
> > cards, and re-typed them here, signing his own name at the bottom.
> >
> > and in the process showed you how
> >
> > > he'd develop them.
> >
> > That part was useful, it was the deceptive way Houstman presented the
> > poem that stands out here, he posted "his" (stolen) poem in a thread
> > where the original had been snipped days before, /then/ signed it as
> > an original Dale M. Houstman poem...
>
>
> Yes, I see your point; and I have to agree that putting his name on it
> like that was at least inadvertent plagiarism (I would call it
> inadvertent if this one post is as far as it goes; if "Mercury Mates
> with Clocks" gets published elsewhere that will of course be a
> different story).
Makes me wonder if this isn't something he does often... it could be
possible that Dale's hodgepodge works are /all/ stolen, like this one?
That's one reason I haven't put my name on 'Round
> the Mercury,' and won't until I've got things straight with Alacrity.
It just seems the right thing to do with this sort of obvious
"collaboration"... and as stated before, it would have been one thing
for Houstman to do a rewrite, that A.S. could possibly use, which may
have warrented an "editor" credit of some sort, but to sign his name
to another man's poem gives new perspectives on stupidity and/or
dishonesty on D.M.H's part... and to think he's constantly projecting
this "theif" lie on other poets...
I'll get back to more of this, I need to get out of the superliit
Krystal hamburger joint and back to the house before daylight hits,
back at ya later, george.
--
Shadowville Speedway and other song-poems:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
> > Rik Roots expounded and
> > complained about such a tactic also, years ago, and everyone
> > (including Houstman, probably, I'll have to check back) agreed that if
> > a "casual reader" can mistake a poem written by one person to be
> > written by another (esp. when the person /signs/ the poem), then the
> > move is an act of plagiarism:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&q=%22rik+roots%22+%22pla...
> >
>
> I snipped Roots's comments, due to length, but left the link so anyone
> can read them.
>
> >
> > > I did the same thing as he did, yesterday and today, so I hope it's of
> > > similar benefit to you -- even though I'm sure it's nothing like the
> > > poem you're working toward. I like it myself, because it deals with a
> > > subject, and in a way, that I normally wouldn't.
> >
> > > If you want to claim co-authorship because it uses your subject and
> > > image set, say so; I want clarity around that from the beginning, so
> > > please respond to this point.
> >
> > > Round the Mercury
> >
> > > Kissed by gold whiskers
> > > her lovely
> > > skate backwards
> > > round the mercury.
> >
> > > From the first spark
> > > brass candle holders,
> > > Christmas cherubs,
> > > bronze cylinders.
> >
> > > He laughs, their steps
> > > in unison
> > > mirroring soles
> > > of frozen men --
> >
> > > Their podium
> > > the uterus,
> > > that wrinkled jewel
> > > bequeathed to us
> >
> > > and Jesus like
> > > a wingless blur
> > > hums the daffodils
> > > over her.
> >
> > > Time flows like money
> > > without price.
> > > Cold steel scars
> > > and cuts the ice,
> >
> > > vibration shuddering
> > > your heart,
> > > into grace
> > > and into art.
> >
> > This one reads pretty good, a bit smoother than Aclarity's original,
> > and I'm reposting his below, again, so a comparison can be made... at
> > first glance you look like you've taken it significantly further than
> > Dale's Houstman's plagiarism, and of course didn't quietly try to take
> > full credit (and statutory copyright) by signing it and, as Rik points
> > out trying to "pass it off as your own":
> >
>
> Yeah, I did take it in my own direction. One thing I did was turn it
> into rhyming verse; if you look closely, you'll see it's really
> (loosely iambic) tetrameter couplets, with each line broken into two
> shorter lines (the idea being to emphasize more key words by putting
> them at line endings). So I really consider this my poem. But, as you
> say, I'm not just going to unilaterally declare that it is; I owe
> Alacrity for what he did here, and if I simply take that without
> permission and credit, I'd consider that to be plagiarism just as you
> say.
>
> In that light, I'm glad you did repost MS&tMoC, just so readers have a
> chance to see what RtM owes to it.
Will Dockery
Dale Houstman plagiarized:
> Alacrity Stone wrote:
For study, here's Dale Houstman's plagiarized poem (signed and everything,
ready to take away and attempt to pass off as his own original work,
apparently), Gary Gamble's statement on plagiarists (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 theft now, as well, am I right?
> dmh
Here's what Gary Gamble has to say about the future of a proven plagiarist
in the newsgroups:
ggamble wrote:
>
> I have no idea who wrote it; you're alleging that you wrote it.
>
> But, since everything you've ever posted, or ever will post from now on is
> of questionable authorship, I don't see how anyone can say for sure.
>
> You have no credibility.
>
> You say you wrote it. Maybe you did.
>
> It certainly is hackneyed enough to resemble some of the other pieces
> you've
> posted under your own name.
>
> We'll probably never know.
Poor Dale Houstman... wonder if he ever wrote an original poem in his life?
Now here's the original poem Dale Houstman swiped his words and images from,
reshuffled them around in a different order and a bit of rewriting, then
signed his name to it, claiming it was his own original work:
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 stole
in the construction of "his" poem... and wonder how many other of his works
are similarly stolen?
--
Abstract paintings of George Sulzbach:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=92593&id=620409362&l=37aa2
Karla
wrote:
I'll probably regret giving my opinion on this...
1) Dale did not take Alacrity's exact poem, in exact same word order (the second
poem you posted) and sign his name to it. If he had done so, that would be
plagiarism.
2) Perhaps you're trying to make a case for copyright infringement? I sued
Bishop for copyright infringement and won. I did not sue Bishop for plagiarism.
3) I first read through both Alacrity's original work and then Dale's poem. I
don't think that Dale infringed based on a quick read-through. I then dumped
both poems into Word side by side. Still no similarities. I didn't spot one
phrase or line that was exactly the same as Alacrity's.
4) I then sorted Dale's lines and Alacrity's line in alphabetical order to best
see at a glance if any lines were exact. None were.
5) Dale has used many of the same words that Alacrity used BUT created new and
different phrases, expressions, etc. Again, not one phrase copied Alacrity's in
word order. (Please correct me if you spot one - it's late). This is quite
different than Bishop's infringement. Bishop did not change word order. He took
my exact poem, maintained word order and only added a couple of words in what he
took. Anyone looking at my poem and his infringement could readily tell that it
was my poem.
6) I'm not a judge. This is just my opinion based on what I learned through the
whole process of suing Bishop.
Karla
Will Dockery
"Karla" wrote:
Thanks for responding, Karla, and yes, it /is/ late, almost 4am on this side
of the land... so just a couple of quick thoughts...
1) Yes, Bishop's use of your "April" was like the earlier use Michael Cook
made of my "Karma Bombs" poem, almost word-for-word (and in fact Cook's
theft of my poem /was/ word-for-word) except... when it came to the two
little words at the bottom of the poem... "Karla Rogers". Interestingly, the
same bit Cook for some reason left off of his theft.
2) I want to get this straight, and we can come back to this in the course
of the discussion: In your opinion, it is "okay" to take a poem written by
someone else, a unique formation of words, or fairly unique, since what's
the chances of two men (or women) coming up with the same set of words, and
reshuffling these same words around to make what /appears/ to be a different
poem, signing the poem and releasing it -okay, it is late, and I may restate
this later if it jumbles too much- under his name, ignoring the fact that
there's another, earlier poem written by another person, with all the same
"unique" words contained in the same small box, the poem?
This lessens the "value" of the original poem, the /impact/ of the words,
since here they are, in the same form (a poem), in another poem supposedly
written by someone else.
It may be legal, but it sure seems unethical, or something like that.
3) And so, the doors are open to take a poem loaded with striking and
powerful words, "unique" words grouped into the small area called a "poem",
reshuffle them into another order, sign it and call the poem our own?
I'll get back to this, and hope others on the group will also chime in...
because the way it stands now, this is a valid form of poem writing, and
could make for an interesting group experiment... not to mention what
amounts to the Dale Houstman method of "no-brainer unoriginal poetry", which
he's always whining so much about... interestingly, he's the master at
"post-art plagiarism and collage".
Karla
wrote:
>
Unfortunately, you're not going to "get this straight" in any black & white way.
During my lawsuit, I reviewed a couple of treatises on copyright (these are
multi-volume sets), case law and of course the U.S.C. It's complex and gave me
a headache!
A few things were clear: the new work infringed if it used much of the original
and in the same order as the original work. The number of words in the original
work matters. I'm guessing that it would be a lot more difficult to claim a new
work from jumbled words of William Carlos Williams very short poem, The Red
Wheelbarrow. Why? It's all of 16 words. And yet, I'm not a judge, and it's
theoretically possible to create a new work from it.
With respect to the poems in question, this was all done on usenet, right? Very
often a writer will comment and suggest changes, perhaps rewrite the whole poem.
Sometimes it's helpful, sometimes it's a flame. There's an argument to be made
though that it's all done to comment on and critique the original poem. The new
poem created isn't taken elsewhere and published. But, in this particular case,
it's my opinion that Dale could do that. He's created a new work, and not a
derivative work.
>This lessens the "value" of the original poem, the /impact/ of the words,
>since here they are, in the same form (a poem), in another poem supposedly
>written by someone else.
>
>It may be legal, but it sure seems unethical, or something like that.
>
>3) And so, the doors are open to take a poem loaded with striking and
>powerful words, "unique" words grouped into the small area called a "poem",
>reshuffle them into another order, sign it and call the poem our own?
If the poem has, say, five words, it becomes riskier. However, if no words are
paired or ordered as the original, it's probably not infringement.
I still remember the judge's expression when he looked at my poem and Bishop's
derivative work. He looked up surprised and said something to the effect of "you
haven't changed one word! All the lines and phrases are in the same exact
order!" It didn't matter that Bishop had deleted lines. It mattered that enough
of my original work was retained, exactly as I had written it, so that anyone
could look at each of them side by side and see the obvious similarity. That's
just not so with Dale's and Alacrity's.
Karla
Will Dockery
I did a quick scanning count of the poem, and with Houstman's stolen
version of the poem having about 100 words, about 50 of them were
taken from the original work, and in the same order in the course of
the poem, though slightly shuffled here and there.
Looking at the two side-by-side, the similarity is hard to miss.
I'm guessing that it would be a lot more difficult to claim a new
> work from jumbled words of William Carlos Williams very short poem, The Red
> Wheelbarrow. Why? It's all of 16 words. And yet, I'm not a judge, and it's
> theoretically possible to create a new work from it.
>
> With respect to the poems in question, this was all done on usenet, right? Very
> often a writer will comment and suggest changes, perhaps rewrite the whole poem.
> Sometimes it's helpful, sometimes it's a flame. There's an argument to be made
> though that it's all done to comment on and critique the original poem. The new
> poem created isn't taken elsewhere and published. But, in this particular case,
> it's my opinion that Dale could do that. He's created a new work, and not a
> derivative work.
See below, Dale Houstman swiped fully half of the original poem to
create his plagiarism... nd signed his name on it at the bottom,
obviously making it look like he was attempting to pass it off as his
own completely original work, while he's only a co-writer, at best.
> >This lessens the "value" of the original poem, the /impact/ of the words,
> >since here they are, in the same form (a poem), in another poem supposedly
> >written by someone else.
>
> >It may be legal, but it sure seems unethical, or something like that.
>
> >3) And so, the doors are open to take a poem loaded with striking and
> >powerful words, "unique" words grouped into the small area called a "poem",
> >reshuffle them into another order, sign it and call the poem our own?
>
> If the poem has, say, five words, it becomes riskier. However, if no words are
> paired or ordered as the original, it's probably not infringement.
Over half the poem's words were created by Alacrity, and they /are/
placed in the same order in the poem, though, as noted earlier,
shuffled around slightly.
> I still remember the judge's expression when he looked at my poem and Bishop's
> derivative work. He looked up surprised and said something to the effect of "you
> haven't changed one word! All the lines and phrases are in the same exact
> order!" It didn't matter that Bishop had deleted lines. It mattered that enough
> of my original work was retained, exactly as I had written it, so that anyone
> could look at each of them side by side and see the obvious similarity. That's
> just not so with Dale's and Alacrity's.
Just a quick note here on that, which I'll get back to here, later:
Dale Houstman's stolen poem contains about 100 words (including words
like "a", "the", "of"), and about 50 of those are taken directly
(with, as I mentioned, some reshuffling of order, but I notice that he
still uses them in the same /postion/ in the poem, so they do stand
out if you're looking for them) from Alacrity's poem, so it can be
noted that over half of Houstman's stolen poem was written by
Alacrity. Obviously, "the right thing" to do would have been to
include AS's name on the poem, or better (and more ethically) yet, not
signed his name to it to try to pass it off as his own.
As you noted earlier, it is beyond late, now, and things are pretty
hectic here lately, but wanted to toss that fact in, and will return
to it in more detail later.
> >I'll get back to this, and hope others on the group will also chime in...
> >because the way it stands now, this is a valid form of poem writing, and
> >could make for an interesting group experiment... not to mention what
> >amounts to the Dale Houstman method of "no-brainer unoriginal poetry", which
> >he's always whining so much about... interestingly, he's the master at
> >"post-art plagiarism and collage".
--
Mark
>
> Poor Dale Houstman... wonder if he ever wrote an original poem in his life?
> - Show quoted text -
Dale's mystique is his shiek critique
Pot shots from the peanut gallery
Don't judge him too harshly
What greater affliction can one suffer
Than guilt based self loating
Like a turd in the punch bowl
He seeks buoyancy among the living
---
Mark
Dale Houstman
>
> 3) I first read through both Alacrity's original work and then Dale's poem. I
> don't think that Dale infringed based on a quick read-through. I then dumped
> both poems into Word side by side. Still no similarities. I didn't spot one
> phrase or line that was exactly the same as Alacrity's.
Even if there had been several lines that were exactly the same, it
wouldn't be plagiarism for rather obvious reasons: there was clearly no
intent to defraud. It was merely an instructional example, the sort of
thing thousands of professors do every day. It was "published" so as to
clearly reference its original, and this is implied attribution. I could
have perfectly reproduced the original poem under these circumstances
with much less educational value, a little more Borges-like irony, but
not a scintilla more plagiarism. It's all a red herring in the mouth of
a canard being chased by a wild goose, and they know it.
>
> 4) I then sorted Dale's lines and Alacrity's line in alphabetical order to best
> see at a glance if any lines were exact. None were.
>
> 5) Dale has used many of the same words that Alacrity used BUT created new and
> different phrases, expressions, etc. Again, not one phrase copied Alacrity's in
> word order. (Please correct me if you spot one - it's late). This is quite
> different than Bishop's infringement. Bishop did not change word order. He took
> my exact poem, maintained word order and only added a couple of words in what he
> took. Anyone looking at my poem and his infringement could readily tell that it
> was my poem.
If Tom HAD taken your poem in its entirety and did what I did, again
there would have been no infringement, due to the context. It would have
been a bit of shitty pedantry, but not thievery. Of the sort Dockery
indulged in, where he took my words and - without informing me -
reproduced my words exactly interspersed with his "questions" and had
them reproduced in an on-line magazine as an "interview" with me. There
is a clear intent to defraud.
dmh
dmh
Will Dockery
Dale Houstman wrote:
> Karla wrote:
>
> > 3) I first read through both Alacrity's original work and then Dale's poem. I
> > don't think that Dale infringed based on a quick read-through. I then dumped
> > both poems into Word side by side. Still no similarities. I didn't spot one
> > phrase or line that was exactly the same as Alacrity's.
Over 50 words out of the 100 that make up Dale's stolen poem were
Alacrity's, and they /were/ kept in the same order through the course
of the poem, though slightly shuffled.
Print them out and lay them side-by-side, and you'll see the
similarities begin to pop out... no wonder, the entire poem is just a
rewrite of Alacrity Stone's poem, with very minimal tinkering.
Just goes to show that Dale Houstman is one of the main practicioners
of what he calls "plagiarism & collage in the post-art world".
> Even if there had been several lines that were exactly the same, it
> wouldn't be plagiarism for rather obvious reasons: there was clearly no
> intent to defraud.
Wrong, Dale, as I pointed out from the start. You gave the biggest
sign of all that there was "intent to defraud", since you signed your
name at the bottom of your stolen poem, which, to a casual reader
would make it appear that you had written the poem.
That, more than anything else is what signalled you unethical
intentions of stealing over half of another man's poem, yet taking
full credit for it.
Rob Evans
"Karla" <kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:b2tpq416eq9c2pg9o...@4ax.com...
>
> A few things were clear: the new work infringed if it used much of the
> original
> and in the same order as the original work. The number of words in the
> original
> work matters. I'm guessing that it would be a lot more difficult to claim
> a new
> work from jumbled words of William Carlos Williams very short poem, The
> Red
> Wheelbarrow. Why? It's all of 16 words. And yet, I'm not a judge, and it's
> theoretically possible to create a new work from it.
I think so.
i
so much
depends upon
a red wheelbarrow
glazed with rainwater
beside the white chickens.
Clearly plagiarism because only the linebreaks have been butchered.
ii
beside the white chickens,
a red wheelbarrow
glazed with rainwater.
So much depends upon it.
Still plagiarism because although inverted and with one word added, the
direct sense has been maintained.
iii
So?
The white chickens,
glazed with much rainwater,
upon a red wheelbarrow?
Depends.
IMO not plagiarism. All but one of the words and many of the phrases are
identical to WCW's but the sense has changed with the assertion (albeit
enigmatic) of his poem being answered with uncertainty and offering an
alternative enigma. It's a hasty unworthy thing (borderline nonsensical)
that would benefit from a few extra words (thus underlining the spare
elegance of WCW) but it is no copy and at least aspires to find an original
twist.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
-----------
Poetry is the needle that pricks your finger;
everything else is the haystack.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Rob Evans
>
>
> Wrong, Dale, as I pointed out from the start. You gave the biggest
> sign of all that there was "intent to defraud", since you signed your
> name at the bottom of your stolen poem, which, to a casual reader
> would make it appear that you had written the poem.
>
Casual reader: someone as dumb as a duck.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
-----------
When I see a swine,
I reach for 45-calibre pearls
Peter J Ross
<shado...@knology.net> wrote:
<snip>
Did Rick and Dale give you permission to repost their poems, Dreckery?
If not, you might be able to claim fair use, but it seems unlikely
when your only reason for quoting the poems in full was to attempt to
defame one of the authors.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
In rec.arts.poems on Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:54:05 -0500, Will Dockery
<shado...@knology.net> wrote:
> I want to get this straight
No you don't. You want to make false accusations of plagiarism because
Dale doesn't like your "poetry" and you're only too aware that his
dislike is justified.
You've tried this before with other writers who you secretly know to
be your superiors, and it's never worked in the past. You must be even
stupider than I thought if you imagine that it will work this time.
Will Dockery
Rob "Mushmouth poet" Evans wrote:
>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > Wrong, Dale, as I pointed out from the start. You gave the biggest
> > sign of all that there was "intent to defraud", since you signed your
> > name at the bottom of your stolen poem, which, to a casual reader
> > would make it appear that you had written the poem.
>
> Casual reader:
The sort of person Rik Roots described, who might come across the
stolen poem, see Dale Houstman's name on it, and assume that he wrote
it. That point was made in the first post on the subject of Houstman's
plagiarism, with Rik's explanation of how "casual readers" could be
folled into thinking Houstman was the writer of the poem, since it has
his name on it:
It was the deceptive way Houstman presented the poem that stands out
here, he posted "his" (stolen) poem in a thread where the original had
been snipped days before, /then/ signed it as an original Dale M.
Houstman poem... Rik Roots expounded and complained about such a
tactic also, years ago, and everyone (including Houstman, probably,
I'll have to check back) agreed that if a "casual reader" can mistake
a poem written by one person to be written by another (esp. when the
person /signs/ the poem), then the move is an act of plagiarism:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&q=%22rik+roots%22+%22pla...
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. [...]
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.
----
Glad to help try to bring you up to speed, mushmouth, since you
obviously haven't been paying attention... now sniff on, old son.
Will Dockery
Manwolf wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > Even if there had been several lines that were exactly the same, it
> > wouldn't be plagiarism for rather obvious reasons: there was clearly no
> > intent to defraud.
Houstman signed his name to a work that over half of which was written
by someone else... that sure smacks of "intent to defraud" from this
side of the fence.
As Rik Roots put it in reference to a similar case of poetry theft:
"Now, a little test. If a person was to stumble across [...] 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
[Alacrity Stone], would a reasonable conclusion be that the alleged
author [Dale Houstman] is in fact a plagiarist?"
It was merely an instructional example, the sort of
> > thing thousands of professors do every day.
>
> Ah, so now you are the professor and Usenet is your classroom. This
> fantasy makes perfect sense.
Except most professors aren't teaching classes on how to "legally"
steal another man's poetry.
Will Dockery
"Rob Evans" <mushmou...@spew.com> wrote:
The big difference in playing with a world-famous poem, similarly to when
George Dance quoted Leonard Cohen the other day, is that the results looks,
or can be said to be, or is, a "reference to a famous poem" or an homage.
Dale Houstman swiped his poem from an obscure unknown poet, where there
original will almost certainly not be remembered by anyone.
Alacrity
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 02:48:28 -0500, "Will Dockery" <shadowvi...@knology.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would never post anything in this group that I intended to seek
copyright protection for. If I've inspired Dale in any way, if he
takes something from my solo and then his subsequent colaberative/
instructive effort, then I am well pleased. Dito you. He's given my
work so much of his valuable time, attention and effort that it only
seems fair (It's a pity that gratitude is a dirty word for most of you
post canibals).
Cheers,
Alacrity
Alacrity
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow. I can't
Will Dockery
> I would never post anything in this group that I intended to seek
> copyright protection for.
Well, by US Copyright Law, you own your words in the combinations you
created them in (in this case, a poem), at the moment of creation, and
you signed your work and posted it here... it was already "protected"
under what i believe they call "statutory copyright" already. I think
to win the big bucks, like Karla could have done with her problem with
Tom Bishop, it has to be regestered at the Library of Congress. But
your original is protected to some extent.
If I've inspired Dale in any way, if he
> takes something from my solo and then his subsequent colaberative/
> instructive effort, then I am well pleased.
That's good, and it was really Dale's fault, lack of moral and ethical
that he decided to create a poem over half of which was written by
you, without a nod of credit to you... even if you give your blessings
and permission, it doesn't change the fact that he commited plagiarism
to begin with, by claiming the poem as his own original work, when he
signed his name at the bottom of it.
--
Abstract Expressionist paintings by George Sulzbach:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=92593&id=620409362&l=37aa2
Towse
> That's good, and it was really Dale's fault, lack of moral and ethical
> that he decided to create a poem over half of which was written by
> you, without a nod of credit to you... even if you give your blessings
> and permission, it doesn't change the fact that he commited plagiarism
> to begin with, by claiming the poem as his own original work, when he
> signed his name at the bottom of it.
Heh.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
Will Dockery
Alacrity wrote:
> > See below, Dale Houstman swiped fully half of the original poem to
> > create his plagiarism... nd signed his name on it at the bottom,
> > obviously making it look like he was attempting to pass it off as his
> > own completely original work, while he's only a co-writer, at best.
> >
> > > >This lessens the "value" of the original poem, the /impact/ of the words,
> > > >since here they are, in the same form (a poem), in another poem supposedly
> > > >written by someone else.
> >
> > > >It may be legal, but it sure seems unethical, or something like that.
> >
> > > >3) And so, the doors are open to take a poem loaded with striking and
> > > >powerful words, "unique" words grouped into the small area called a "poem",
> > > >reshuffle them into another order, sign it and call the poem our own?
> >
> > > If the poem has, say, five words, it becomes riskier. However, if no words are
> > > paired or ordered as the original, it's probably not infringement.
> >
> > Over half the poem's words were created by Alacrity, and they /are/
> > placed in the same order in the poem, though, as noted earlier,
> > shuffled around slightly.
>
> Wow. I can't
Looks like this post is so long that Google chopped off your
response... and i don't see a follow up, yet.
--
Will Dockery information:
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Will_Dockery
Rob Evans
Our resident King Dumbass squits...
>> "Karla" wrote:
You're an idiot and Dale's poem stands a better chance of being remembered.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
-----------
When I see a swine,
I reach for 45-calibre pearls
Rob Evans
Our resident King Dumbass squipped
>>
>>
>> Casual reader:
>
> The sort of person
Not really worth paying attention to butchered prose.
Will Dockery
Rob "Mushmouthed poet" Evans wrote:
>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > The big difference in playing with a world-famous poem, similarly to when
> > George Dance quoted Leonard Cohen the other day, is that the results
> > looks, or can be said to be, or is, a "reference to a famous poem" or an
> > homage.
> >
> > Dale Houstman swiped his poem from an obscure unknown poet, where there
> > original will almost certainly not be remembered by anyone.
>
> Dale's poem stands a better chance of being remembered.
That's the point, when Houstman's plagiarism is remembered, and the
original he ripped it off from is forgotten, Mushmouth.
Rob Evans
>>
>> > when
>> > George Dance quoted Leonard Cohen the other day, is that the results
>> > looks, or can be said to be, or is, a "reference to a famous poem" or
>> > an
>> > homage.
George wasn't doing that. But I don't think he was being a plagiarist
either.
>> >
>> > Dale Houstman swiped his poem from an obscure unknown poet, where there
>> > original will almost certainly not be remembered by anyone.
>>
>> Dale's poem stands a better chance of being remembered.
>
> That's the point, when Houstman's plagiarism
No plagiarism - Karla's side-by-side comparison proves that. Dale is
certainly not interested in publishing so there wouldn't be any plagiarism
or copyright issues anyway.
You remain stupid and it's probably Dale's observation of that fact - when
he dubbed you our resident King Dumbass - that has prompted this latest
whining about the person who used to be a favourite of yours.
Will Dockery
Rob "Mushmouth" Evans wrote:
>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >> > Dale Houstman swiped his poem from an obscure unknown poet, where there
> >> > original will almost certainly not be remembered by anyone.
> >>
> >> Dale's poem stands a better chance of being remembered.
> >
> > That's the point, when Houstman's plagiarism
>
> No plagiarism -
Since over half the poem was written by someone else and Dale Houstman
claimed authorship of all of it, the it can be called plagiarism,
Mushmouth.
> Karla's side-by-side comparison proves that.
No it didn't Mushmouth, and Karla didn't claim that it proved
anything.
In fact, a side-by-side comparison shows that over half of Houstman's
version is taken directly from Alacrity's original.
> Dale is certainly not interested in publishing
But Houstman /was/ obviously interested in claiming author's credit
for a piece that's at best only half his original ideas, if that, and
by signing his name to the poem he attempted to pass it off as his
own, which is plagiarism, Mushmouth.
Dale Houstman
>
>>
> You're an idiot and Dale's poem stands a better chance of being remembered.
>
> Rob
He IS an idiot, and the chance that any of the work that has appeared
here over the years will be remembered (including mine) is so clear to
zero that it scarcely merits neither our attention nor our
consternation. Some people write for the ages, but the vast majority of
ALL art is destined to float away on a sea of white static. for those
who think as highly of themselves as Dockery and his many dockerettes,
this might be psychically troubling, but the rest of us knew a long time
ago that the ego in artists is almost guaranteed a raking over, a
dismissal, and a dispersal.
dmh
Dale Houstman
>
> You remain stupid and it's probably Dale's observation of that fact -
> when he dubbed you our resident King Dumbass - that has prompted this
> latest whining about the person who used to be a favourite of yours.
>
> Rob
Oh, the sad and ugly unwinding of unrequited love... Now he must return
to being affectionate toward the sensuous forms of beer bottles, and to
eliciting love from drunken audience members in the local "Rodney's
Roadhouse of Poetry - Now Serving Pickled Eggs on Thursdays!
dmh
Will Dockery
"Dale Houstman" wrote:
>
> He IS an idiot,
You're a poetry thief, a plagiarist... I don't blame you for pitching a
little hissy-fit at that revelation.
But you shouldn't be that troubled at being exposede as a plagiarist poetry
thief, Dale, since after all you've championed the new age of "post-art
collage & plagiarism" all along... you were just getting it wrong and
projecting your own vices onto others.
> and the chance that any of the work that has appeared here over the years
> will be remembered (including mine) is so clear to zero that it scarcely
> merits neither our attention nor our
Yet you took the extra time and vanity to make sure you signed /your/ name
to the poem that you stole at least half of to write... interesting
contradiction in your thoughts and actions there, Dale.
> consternation. Some people write for the ages, but the vast majority of
> ALL art is destined to float away on a sea of white static. for those who
> think as highly of themselves as Dockery and his many dockerettes, this
> might be psychically troubling
No, because none of us will be around to even know which art will survive
and which will be forgotten... but chances are that from your troubling
habit of stealing other men's poetry and putting your name on it, you'll be
remembered at least a while for /that/, Dale.
--
"Shadowville Speedway" and other song-poems:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
> >> > Dale Houstman swiped his poem from an obscure unknown poet, where
> >> > there
> >> > original will almost certainly not be remembered by anyone.
> >>
> >> Dale's poem stands a better chance of being remembered.
> >
> > That's the point, when Houstman's plagiarism
>
> No plagiarism -
Since over half the poem was written by someone else and Dale Houstman
claimed authorship of all of it, the it can be called plagiarism, Mushmouth.
> Karla's side-by-side comparison proves that.
No it didn't Mushmouth, and Karla didn't claim that it proved anything.
In fact, a side-by-side comparison shows that over half of Houstman's
version is taken directly from Alacrity's original.
> Dale is certainly not interested in publishing
But Houstman /was/ obviously interested in claiming author's credit for a
piece that's at best only half his original ideas, if that, and by signing
his name to the poem he attempted to pass it off as his own, which is
plagiarism, Mushmouth.
Will Dockery
"Dale Houstman" wrote:
>
> Oh, the sad and ugly unwinding of unrequited love... Now he must return to
> being affectionate toward the sensuous forms of beer bottles, and to
> eliciting love from drunken audience members in the local "Rodney's
> Roadhouse of Poetry - Now Serving Pickled Eggs on Thursdays!
Well, now I have to wonder every time I see a "Dale M. Houstman" poem where
you stole the ideas and words from.
As Gary Gamble puts it, and as it applies so unfortunately for you as a
poet:
> I have no idea who wrote it; you're alleging that you wrote it.
> But, since everything you've ever posted, or ever will post from now on is
> of questionable authorship, I don't see how anyone can say for sure.
> You have no credibility.
> You say you wrote it. Maybe you did.
> It certainly is hackneyed enough to resemble some of the other pieces
> you've posted under your own name.
> We'll probably never know.
> Poor [Dale Houstman]... wonder if he ever wrote an original poem in his
> life?
Good luck on your plans to be forgotten, Dale... if you're not going to
write any original poetry perhaps you know you don't deserve to be
remembered?
Rob Evans
>>
>> >> > there
>> >> > original will almost certainly not be remembered by anyone.
>> >>
>> >> Dale's poem stands a better chance of being remembered.
>> >
>> > That's the point, when Houstman's plagiarism
>>
>> No plagiarism -
>
> Since over half the poem was written by someone else and Dale Houstman
> claimed authorship of all of it, the it can be called plagiarism,
> Mushmouth.
>
>> Karla's side-by-side comparison proves that.
>
> No it didn't Mushmouth, and Karla didn't claim that it proved
> anything.
I didn't say that she did claim that.
I'm saying that I believe she proved that. Keep up.
>
> In fact, a side-by-side comparison shows that over half of Houstman's
> version is taken directly from Alacrity's original.
>
>> Dale is certainly not interested in publishing
>
> But Houstman /was/ obviously interested in claiming author's credit
> for a piece that's at best only half his original ideas, if that, and
> by signing his name to the poem he attempted to pass it off as his
> own, which is plagiarism, Mushmouth.
See above, lardarse - repeating your stupidity does not convert it to truth.
Just like repeated references to your unspeakable shit does not convert it
into poetry.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
-----------
When I see a swine,
I reach for 45-calibre pearls
>
> --
> "Shadowville Speedway" and other song-poems:
> http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Rob Evans
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:CJKdnZBVXtyh_jPU...@skypoint.com...
(alphabetical) in Webster's. Cease this shameful plagiarism, immediately!
Rob
Alacrity
There's a proverb that's applicable here. But Dale keeps throwing
pearls
indescriminately before all manner of beasts.
Alacrity
Orsen Wells w/Citizen Cain
"Will Dockery" <shado...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:bac9b$49ace0d3$4b4c70b9$17...@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
>
> Dale Houstman plagiarized:
>> Alacrity Stone wrote:
>
> For study, here's Dale Houstman's plagiarized poem (signed and everything,
> ready to take away and attempt to pass off as his own original work,
> apparently), Gary Gamble's statement on plagiarists (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 theft now, as well, am I right?
>
= snip =
You really should find yourself a steady boyfriend, Will.
Will Dockery
Rob Evans wrote:
Alacrity Stone
> All of the above words have been used, albeit in a different order
Actually, if you lay the two poems side-by-side, you'll see the words
come in the same order throughout the poem.
Will Dockery
>>> >> > the original will almost certainly not be remembered by anyone.
>>> >>
>>> >> Dale's poem stands a better chance of being remembered.
>>> >
>>> > That's the point, when Houstman's plagiarism
>>>
>>> No plagiarism -
>>
>> claimed authorship of all of it, the it can be called plagiarism,
>> Mushmouth.
>>
>>> Karla's side-by-side comparison proves that.
>>
>> No it didn't Mushmouth, and Karla didn't claim that it proved
>> anything.
>
> I didn't say that she did claim that.
>
> I'm saying that I believe she proved that. Keep up.
>>
>> In fact, a side-by-side comparison shows that over half of Houstman's
>> version is taken directly from Alacrity's original.
>>
>>> Dale is certainly not interested in publishing
>>
>> But Houstman /was/ obviously interested in claiming author's credit
>> for a piece that's at best only half his original ideas, if that, and
>> by signing his name to the poem he attempted to pass it off as his
>> own, which is plagiarism, Mushmouth.
>
> See above
Or see below, Mushmouth. Here are the two poems, the original and Dale's
plagiarism of it:
For study, here's Dale M. Houstman's plagiarized poem (signed and
everything, ready to take away and attempt to pass off as his own original
work, apparently), Gary Gamble's statement on plagiarists (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 M. Houstman's poetry theft now, as well, am I right?
Now here's the original poem Dale M. Houstman swiped his words and images
from, reshuffled them around in a different order and a bit of rewriting,
then signed his name to it, claiming it was his own original work:
Mercury Switches and The Mating of Clocks
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 Dale M.
Houstman stole in the construction of "his" poem... and wonder how many
other of his works are similarly stolen?
--
FarStar
He's been doing that to a bunch of my poems
eating 'em like termites and pooping out like a tool
sometimes I thought he was commenting on me
but then I noticed he rarely was saying anything pertinent to the
conversation...
and like you said, recycling the words and images into a funhouse mirror
for reference see 'In Clayton, last day of summer'
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subjugate the rhyme and rawk with the rhythm
Only got one line to balk all the schizm
with god and laugh, bring all to shocking rose
with rod and staff we walk a rocky road
SteepleJack Beer
http://www.lulu.com/content/5611390
Will Dockery
"FarStar" wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>> "Rob Evans" <mushmo...@whistle-lisp.com> wrote:
>>>Will Dockery wrote:
>
>>>> >> > Dale M. Houstman swiped his poem from an obscure unknown poet,
>>>> >> > where
>>>>> >> > the original will almost certainly not be remembered by anyone.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > That's the point, when Houstman's plagiarism
>>>>
>>>> plagiarism, Mushmouth.
>>>>
>>>>> Karla's side-by-side comparison will show the many similarities in the
>>>>> original and the stolen one.
Yes, Houstman has apparently been using poets to think up his ideas,
concepts, his very /words/, which he buffs up and then puts his name on, to
pass off as a "Dale M. Houstman" original, at best, he's a poet as an Andy
Warhol or Roy Litchenstein type, burbling up copies of empty soup cans... at
worst, he's a petty poetry thief.
Here was one of the comments he made earlier this year, setting up an
explanation of perhaps he's just a victim of the times, which leaves him no
choice but to steal ideas, since modern society and culture has drained his
imagination and creativity dry:
"...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
"post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't happen
because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the ubiquity
of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like, has
become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the quiet
and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
Then again, given the lack of confidence his "work" commands, who can be
sure if houstman even wrote that?
> and like you said, recycling the words and images into a funhouse mirror
> for reference see 'In Clayton, last day of summer'
I'll look that up, is that a poem of yours Dale Houstman has stolen?
--
"Shadowville Speedway" and other song-poems:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Houstman
>
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:CJKdnZBVXtyh_jPU...@skypoint.com...
>> Rob Evans wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You remain stupid and it's probably Dale's observation of that fact
>>> - when he dubbed you our resident King Dumbass - that has prompted
>>> this latest whining about the person who used to be a favourite of
>>> yours.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>>
>> Oh, the sad and ugly unwinding of unrequited love... Now he must
>> return to being affectionate toward the sensuous forms of beer
>> bottles, and to eliciting love from drunken audience members in the
>> local "Rodney's Roadhouse of Poetry - Now Serving Pickled Eggs on
>> Thursdays!
>>
> All of the above words have been used, albeit in a different order
> (alphabetical) in Webster's. Cease this shameful plagiarism, immediately!
>
> Rob
>
> --
You signed your name below my comments without adding attribution. I am
deeply offended, somewhat out of pocket, and apt to release the hell
hounds on you next time you visit my House of Village Idiots.
dmh
Peter J Ross
<dm...@skypoint.com> wrote:
It says at the top of this post "Dale Houstman ... wrote", but you
didn't write the words I'm typing now. Please stop lying about who
wrote what!
--
PJR :-)
Will Dockery
<kar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c93568ce-b4bf-40fc...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 4, 1:26 am, Manwolf <manwolf.destinysch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> karl...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 9:57 am, Rik Roots <r...@nowayhosay.org> wrote:
> >> Karla wrote:
> >>> 2) Perhaps you're trying to make a case for copyright infringement? I
> >>> sued
> >>> Bishop for copyright infringement and won. I did not sue Bishop for
> >>> plagiarism.
>
> >>> Karla
>
> >> Rik, knee deep.
>
> > Thanks Rik! And thank you, Jeanne and a couple of other unnamed
> > sources for helping with attorney fees to get the job done.
>
> > I decided not to pursue collection of the monetary damages awards
> > ($100,000 and attorney fees); I was happy enough with the injunction
> > and moral victory.
>
> > Thanks for your moral support as well!
>
> > Karla
>
> I really can't see any judge awarding this much, or any amount really,
> for a probably rudimentary poem posted here or on the internet. It does
> make for coffee table humor though. So thanks!
Are you:
1. calling me a liar,
2. demonstrating your ignorance of copyright law,
3. playing the fool, or
4. all of the above?
Karla
//Well, Manwolf wasn't here for all that action... probably would be better
to give a little explanation on what happened and how that prize came about?
kar...@comcast.net
> <karl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Well, Manwolf's not being around didn't stop him from making stupid
remarks without trying to google it. Besides, the facts are contained
in this thread. Bishop infringed, I sued him, I won.
You would do well to review my statements in this thread. You are
libeling Dale. He did not infringe or plagiarize Alacrity. After all
that you've read about copyright! How can you fail to see that?
Karla
Will Dockery
> On Mar 4, 4:21 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
> >Karla wrote:
>
> > //Well, Manwolf wasn't here for all that action... probably would be better
> > to give a little explanation on what happened and how that prize came about?
>
> Well, Manwolf's not being around didn't stop him from making stupid
> remarks without trying to google it. Besides, the facts are contained
> in this thread. Bishop infringed, I sued him, I won.
That's true...
> You would do well to review my statements in this thread.
I have, and compared the two poems, myself... there's no doubt that
over half of Dale's poem is "borrowed" from Alacrity's. Maybe you
should review the two a little closer, such as print the two and lay
them side-by-side, as I have? You'll see how Dale's poem is a step by
step rewrite of Alacrity's... except Dale claims all the credit for
the work by signing his name at the end of his version.
> You are libeling Dale.
No, every statement I've made about Dale is based on evidence posted
here, truth, I've not lied about any of it.
No, not at all, and if I, or any number of other poets here had done
what Dale seems to do on a regular basis, no doubt the reactions might
be much different. In a poem of just over 100 words, over 50 of them
he swiped from Alacrity's poem, then signed it, claiming the entire
poem as his original work.
There's no libel there, simply an observation of archived facts.
> He did not infringe or plagiarize Alacrity.
Sure he did, since over half the poem comes directly from Alacrity's
original... take a bit more time before responding and look at the two
again. You remember, it was late at night the first time you checked,
and made your statements.
> After all that you've read about copyright! How can you fail to see that?
Fully half of Dale's poem was originally in Alacrity's poem, as well
as the ideas and concepts... I'm curious how you seem to not be able
to see that?
kar...@comcast.net
> Karla wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 4:21 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
> > >Karla wrote:
>
> > > //Well, Manwolf wasn't here for all that action... probably would be better
> > > to give a little explanation on what happened and how that prize came about?
>
> > Well, Manwolf's not being around didn't stop him from making stupid
> > remarks without trying to google it. Besides, the facts are contained
> > in this thread. Bishop infringed, I sued him, I won.
>
> That's true...
>
> > You would do well to review my statements in this thread.
>
> I have, and compared the two poems, myself... there's no doubt that
> over half of Dale's poem is "borrowed" from Alacrity's. Maybe you
> should review the two a little closer, such as print the two and lay
> them side-by-side, as I have? You'll see how Dale's poem is a step by
> step rewrite of Alacrity's... except Dale claims all the credit for
> the work by signing his name at the end of his version.
You do realize that copyright protects expression, not ideas, right?
What has Alacrity expressed? What has Dale expressed?
> > You are libeling Dale.
>
> No, every statement I've made about Dale is based on evidence posted
> here, truth, I've not lied about any of it.
I missed your line by line comparison. Please link it.
> No, not at all, and if I, or any number of other poets here had done
> what Dale seems to do on a regular basis, no doubt the reactions might
> be much different. In a poem of just over 100 words, over 50 of them
> he swiped from Alacrity's poem, then signed it, claiming the entire
> poem as his original work.
Forget the chip on your shoulder. I read your initial post here about
Dale's alleging plagiarizing Alacrity with great interest, and not
with any view to excuse bad behavior. I didn't see repeated phrases or
lines.
> There's no libel there, simply an observation of archived facts.
Again, link to your line by line, or other analysis. Simply posting
the two poems doesn't work as they are vastly different (unlike
Bishop's infringement where he didn't change phrases, lines or topic
at all. At a glance, a judge knew it was infringement. That isn't true
at all with Dale's poem.
> > He did not infringe or plagiarize Alacrity.
>
> Sure he did, since over half the poem comes directly from Alacrity's
> original... take a bit more time before responding and look at the two
> again. You remember, it was late at night the first time you checked,
> and made your statements.
I've looked and since then asked an attorney.
> > After all that you've read about copyright! How can you fail to see that?
>
> Fully half of Dale's poem was originally in Alacrity's poem, as well
> as the ideas and concepts... I'm curious how you seem to not be able
> to see that?
You're nuts! Just look at the first line of each poem:
1) Kissed to death by gold whiskers
2) Kissed into gold
In the first example something is kissed to death by gold whiskers; in
the second example, something is kissed into gold. Completely
different.
Do you understand each poem?
Karla
George Dance
> Karla wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 4:21 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
> > >Karla wrote:
>
> > > //Well, Manwolf wasn't here for all that action... probably would be better
> > > to give a little explanation on what happened and how that prize came about?
>
> > Well, Manwolf's not being around didn't stop him from making stupid
> > remarks without trying to google it. Besides, the facts are contained
> > in this thread. Bishop infringed, I sued him, I won.
>
> That's true...
>
> > You would do well to review my statements in this thread.
>
> I have, and compared the two poems, myself... there's no doubt that
> over half of Dale's poem is "borrowed" from Alacrity's. Maybe you
> should review the two a little closer, such as print the two and lay
> them side-by-side, as I have? You'll see how Dale's poem is a step by
> step rewrite of Alacrity's... except Dale claims all the credit for
> the work by signing his name at the end of his version.
>
Reading this thread, I noticed that Dale's "dmh" signature appears on
every post he makes, which leads me to think it's a post sig (not
something he types in every time). If so, then the fact that it
appears right under his poem means only that, as soon as he finished
writing his poem, he posted it. Given that, I can't say that he
actually signed his name to the thing; it's likely that it just
appeared at the end of the poem by accident or coincidence.
msifg
this dogshit called dmh has accused me of
"inept thievery" concerning one of the songs
i wrote called "maryjane."
anyone is welcome to scroll down and check it out.
when i called him on it, he disappeared.
(your welcome to come up with the "inept
thievery" claim anytime you want, dogshit.)
anyway, i like this crap coming down on him
for that reason alone. i don't believe he
stole Alacrity's poem, per se. however, i
like the idea of him on the hotseat.
how does it feel, dogshit?
Will Dockery
msifg wrote:
> i'd like to chime in here:
>
> this dogshit called dmh has accused me of
> "inept thievery" concerning one of the songs
> i wrote called "maryjane."
And nobody rushed in with a flurry of confusion to accuse him of
libel.
Interesting that this "thievery" thing has been on Dale Houstman's
"critique template" for months now... and then it turns out /he/ is
the actual thief!
> anyone is welcome to scroll down and check it out.
>
> when i called him on it, he disappeared.
Exactly... apparently, he was too busy out looking for his next poem
to steal to bother with posting proof of his libels directed at you.
> (your welcome to come up with the "inept
> thievery" claim anytime you want, dogshit.)
>
> anyway, i like this crap coming down on him
> for that reason alone. i don't believe he
> stole Alacrity's poem, per se. however, i
> like the idea of him on the hotseat.
>
> how does it feel, dogshit?
Not outright "stole" the entire poem, but he sure did "borrow" it to
supplement his own drained imagination.
--
"Shadowville Speedway" and other song-poems:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
> > //Well, Manwolf wasn't here for all that action... probably would be better
> > to give a little explanation on what happened and how that prize came about?
>
> Well, Manwolf's not being around didn't stop him from making stupid
> remarks without trying to google it. Besides, the facts are contained
> in this thread. Bishop infringed, I sued him, I won.
That's true...
> You would do well to review my statements in this thread.
I have, and compared the two poems, myself... there's no doubt that
over half of Dale's poem is "borrowed" from Alacrity's. Maybe you
should review the two a little closer, such as print the two and lay
them side-by-side, as I have? You'll see how Dale's poem is a step by
step rewrite of Alacrity's... except Dale claims all the credit for
the work by signing his name at the end of his version.
> You are libeling Dale.
No, not at all, and if I, or any number of other poets here had done
Will Dockery
> On Mar 4, 4:21 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
>>Karla wrote:
Karla, I have to run to make it to a performance, so i'll get back to
this more completely later, now that I have this newfangled laptop, I
can report in from anywhere that has WiFi... just a couple of quick
responses to your increasing and illogical defensiveness:
> > > > //Well, Manwolf wasn't here for all that action... probably would be better
> > > > to give a little explanation on what happened and how that prize came about?
> >
> > > Well, Manwolf's not being around didn't stop him from making stupid
> > > remarks without trying to google it. Besides, the facts are contained
> > > in this thread. Bishop infringed, I sued him, I won.
> >
> > That's true...
> >
> > > You would do well to review my statements in this thread.
> >
> > I have, and compared the two poems, myself... there's no doubt that
> > over half of Dale's poem is "borrowed" from Alacrity's. Maybe you
> > should review the two a little closer, such as print the two and lay
> > them side-by-side, as I have? You'll see how Dale's poem is a step by
> > step rewrite of Alacrity's... except Dale claims all the credit for
> > the work by signing his name at the end of his version.
>
> You do realize that copyright protects expression, not ideas, right?
> What has Alacrity expressed? What has Dale expressed?
You don't get it that out of a little over 100 words, over 50 were
created by Alacrity?
Don't believe me? Count and compare.
> > > You are libeling Dale.
> >
> > No, every statement I've made about Dale is based on evidence posted
> > here, truth, I've not lied about any of it.
>
> I missed your line by line comparison. Please link it.
>
> > No, not at all, and if I, or any number of other poets here had done
> > what Dale seems to do on a regular basis, no doubt the reactions might
> > be much different. In a poem of just over 100 words, over 50 of them
> > he swiped from Alacrity's poem, then signed it, claiming the entire
> > poem as his original work.
>
> Forget the chip on your shoulder.
There is none... I see what is obviously theft of over half a poem,
and if nothing else, we'll establish that this is acceptable in
poetry. I had assumed until now that a poem should be original work,
not a pilfering of another man's poem. Maybe I'm wrong, and the words
and ideas of others /are/ fair game to take as we please... I don't
expect to follow that fashion, if so, though.
Forget your apparent need to defend Dale, and look at it fairly, as I
have.
More later.
Dale Houstman
>
> Forget the chip on your shoulder. I read your initial post here about
> Dale's alleging plagiarizing Alacrity with great interest, and not
> with any view to excuse bad behavior. I didn't see repeated phrases or
> lines.
>
You're correct, but it isn't quite the point. There is simply no
plagiarism even if I had repeated the entire original poem word for
word, because I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS MY OWN. And - as for all-important
intent - I have done the same thing (reworked a person's poem for
educational purposes) countless times - my intent has a searchable
history. Also I always put "dmh" at the end of my posts. AND - very
important - the person whose poem I did this to understands what I was
doing, sees no problem with it, and - thus - there can be no plagiarism.
It goes on and on...
But the real point is this: the guys who are accusing me of plagiarism
don't believe it themselves (even though at least one of them IS a
plagiarist): it is just to distract us from telling them how horrible
they are at poetry. So it really makes no difference how astute your
argument might be, or how you martial your reserves of logic, because
they are not arguing in good faith: i.e. they are lying.
It is best if we now end this little (typically pathetic) game of theirs
and just get back to either thrashing them about their atrophied heads
(both ends) or actually doing something they arer incapable of: writing
and discussing poetry.
dmh
dmh
Karla
wrote:
>Karla wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 4:21 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
>>>Karla wrote:
>
>Karla, I have to run to make it to a performance, so i'll get back to
>this more completely later, now that I have this newfangled laptop, I
>can report in from anywhere that has WiFi... just a couple of quick
>responses to your increasing and illogical defensiveness:
>
>> > > > //Well, Manwolf wasn't here for all that action... probably would be better
>> > > > to give a little explanation on what happened and how that prize came about?
>> >
>> > > Well, Manwolf's not being around didn't stop him from making stupid
>> > > remarks without trying to google it. Besides, the facts are contained
>> > > in this thread. Bishop infringed, I sued him, I won.
>> >
>> > That's true...
>> >
>> > > You would do well to review my statements in this thread.
>> >
>> > I have, and compared the two poems, myself... there's no doubt that
>> > over half of Dale's poem is "borrowed" from Alacrity's. Maybe you
>> > should review the two a little closer, such as print the two and lay
>> > them side-by-side, as I have? You'll see how Dale's poem is a step by
>> > step rewrite of Alacrity's... except Dale claims all the credit for
>> > the work by signing his name at the end of his version.
>>
>> You do realize that copyright protects expression, not ideas, right?
>> What has Alacrity expressed? What has Dale expressed?
>
>You don't get it that out of a little over 100 words, over 50 were
>created by Alacrity?
Alacrity created words? hahahaha Dockery - quit stalling and post your proof.
That means post proof that Alacrity used combinations of words that were then
copied by Dale in the same order. Unless you're sticking to your statement that
Alacrity created words. hahahahaha Which he didn't. And Dale didn't infringe or
plagiarize.
So quit stalling. Put up or shut up.
Karla
Karla
>kar...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>
>> Forget the chip on your shoulder. I read your initial post here about
>> Dale's alleging plagiarizing Alacrity with great interest, and not
>> with any view to excuse bad behavior. I didn't see repeated phrases or
>> lines.
>>
>
>
>You're correct, but it isn't quite the point. There is simply no
>plagiarism even if I had repeated the entire original poem word for
>word, because I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS MY OWN. And - as for all-important
>intent - I have done the same thing (reworked a person's poem for
>educational purposes) countless times - my intent has a searchable
>history. Also I always put "dmh" at the end of my posts. AND - very
>important - the person whose poem I did this to understands what I was
>doing, sees no problem with it, and - thus - there can be no plagiarism.
>It goes on and on...
Dale, I covered this point in an earlier post. Many of us over the years have
commented on poems, and in so doing, re-worked the poem for - well whatever we
thought fit our comments.
>But the real point is this: the guys who are accusing me of plagiarism
>don't believe it themselves (even though at least one of them IS a
>plagiarist): it is just to distract us from telling them how horrible
>they are at poetry. So it really makes no difference how astute your
>argument might be, or how you martial your reserves of logic, because
>they are not arguing in good faith: i.e. they are lying.
Sadly, you are right. Add to that, they might not have the capacity to
understand it. Dockery in his most recent post where he claims Alacrity "created
words" clearly doesn't understand it.
Karla
Peter J Ross
kar...@comcast.net <kar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Bishop infringed, I sued him, I won.
Potential thieves really ought to take note of this fact.
Tommy Bishop infringed, Karla sued him, Karla won.
Is that good news for us all or what?
Karla
I forgot to add here that if I agree to end it, you may well be depriving me
(and others) of watching Dockery attempt to show that he understood your poem or
Alacrity's poem, which is necessary to satisfy at least one of the elements of a
claim of infringement. Ah, the hilarity!
-sigh-
Karla
>>dmh
>>
>>dmh
msifg
<kar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:76bf84cd-aacb-4996...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Forget the chip on your shoulder.
Karla
*he's welcome to forget any chip on his shoulder,
however, i'm NEVER going to forget the chip on mine.
for this whole ordeal, Will has shown his loyalty to
the truth. he has my support here.
dmh has been firing those verbal rockets for quite some
time now. he has been using the talents and tools God
graced him with to hurt, ridicule, and abuse his peers
on usenet, which, btw, he does not consider to be peers
at all, but inferiors.
now, the opportunity has come to put this piece of white
trash, dogshit on the hotseat.
listen, karla:
you had your prize.
why don't you stand back and let some others have theirs.
this will only sting for a little while. you don't have
to cry like a baby, but if you want, that'll add some
interesting sound effects. so, by all means, cry away.
(maybe add a few more textures to the pitch of your moan.)
thanks.
Peter J Ross
Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Karla, I have to run
away.
It's lucky for you that Mr Michael Cook was kinder to you than Karla
was to Tommy Bishop, isn't it?
It's difficult to believe that anybody could continue plagiarising a
sound recording years after the plagiarism was first detected, but
here's Will Dockery continuing to claim Michael Cook's sound recording
as his own work:
<http://www.lulu.com/content/audio_media/karma_bombs/32109>
I wonder if even the unspeakable shit that Dockery posts as if it were
poetry is really his own work. If he plagiarised Mr Cook, he can
plagiarise anybody.
msifg
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrngquh8...@pjr.gotdns.org...
> In rec.arts.poems on Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:59:08 -0800 (PST), Will
> Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Karla, I have to run
> away.
>
> It's lucky for you that Mr Michael Cook was kinder to you than Karla
> was to Tommy Bishop, isn't it?
>
> It's difficult to believe that anybody could continue plagiarising a
> sound recording years after the plagiarism was first detected, but
> here's Will Dockery continuing to claim Michael Cook's sound recording
> as his own work:
>
> <http://www.lulu.com/content/audio_media/karma_bombs/32109>
bwahahahaha-
one has to pay a dollar to hear it.
so, why don't you pay the dollar, ross, and
we'll take your word for it.
oh, and tell a friend and so on and so on.
maybe Will will be able to quit his dayjob
and live off the royalties.
i'll tell you what, i'll send this link to
my friends.
let's all do it, shall we?
this is what is called a petard, eh ross?
haha
Peter J Ross
<dm...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> kar...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>
>> Forget the chip on your shoulder. I read your initial post here about
>> Dale's alleging plagiarizing Alacrity with great interest, and not
>> with any view to excuse bad behavior. I didn't see repeated phrases or
>> lines.
>>
>
> You're correct, but it isn't quite the point. There is simply no
> plagiarism even if I had repeated the entire original poem word for
> word, because I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS MY OWN.
You've spoilt a lot of fun at Dockery's expense by revealing this fact
prematurely.
> And - as for all-important
> intent - I have done the same thing (reworked a person's poem for
> educational purposes) countless times - my intent has a searchable
> history.
I've seen you doing it since at least 2000.
> Also I always put "dmh" at the end of my posts.
"It seems, apparently, that that's WRONG, as many would agree."
> AND - very
> important - the person whose poem I did this to understands what I was
> doing, sees no problem with it, and - thus - there can be no plagiarism.
> It goes on and on...
There is no limit to Dockery's envy.
>
> But the real point is this: the guys who are accusing me of plagiarism
"guys" (plural)? Surely there's only one.
> don't believe it themselves (even though at least one of them IS a
> plagiarist):
Will Dockery is certainly a plagiarist. E.g., he claims this sound
recording as his own work, when in fact Michael Cook created it:
http://www.lulu.com/content/audio_media/karma_bombs/32109
> it is just to distract us from telling them how horrible
> they are at poetry.
Well, duh! If I wanted to count the number of times I've been accused
of plagiarism by semi-literate duffers on my fingers, I'd need at
least three hands.
Usually, they start making groundless accusations of plagiarism after
being detected perpetrating plagiarism themselves.
> So it really makes no difference how astute your
> argument might be, or how you martial your reserves of logic, because
> they are not arguing in good faith: i.e. they are lying.
I expect Karla is aware that they/he/it are/is lying. But Karla is
kind to kooks.
> It is best if we now end this little (typically pathetic) game of theirs
> and just get back to either thrashing them about their atrophied heads
> (both ends) or actually doing something they arer incapable of: writing
> and discussing poetry.
Surely we can do all three?
Peter J Ross
<gm...@cx.nt> wrote:
> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrngquh8...@pjr.gotdns.org...
>> In rec.arts.poems on Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:59:08 -0800 (PST), Will
>> Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Karla, I have to run
>> away.
>>
>> It's lucky for you that Mr Michael Cook was kinder to you than Karla
>> was to Tommy Bishop, isn't it?
>>
>> It's difficult to believe that anybody could continue plagiarising a
>> sound recording years after the plagiarism was first detected, but
>> here's Will Dockery continuing to claim Michael Cook's sound recording
>> as his own work:
>>
>> <http://www.lulu.com/content/audio_media/karma_bombs/32109>
>
> bwahahahaha-
> one has to pay a dollar to hear it.
>
> so, why don't you pay the dollar, ross, and
> we'll take your word for it.
I don't have to pay a dollar, because I heard it when Dockery heasrd
it.
Unlike Dockery, I didn't steal it.
> oh, and tell a friend and so on and so on.
>
> maybe Will will be able to quit his dayjob
> and live off the royalties.
>
> i'll tell you what, i'll send this link to
> my friends.
>
> let's all do it, shall we?
>
> this is what is called a petard, eh ross?
>
> haha
This is perhaps what is called being an accesory to copyright abuse.
I strongly advise you not to assist Dockery in making money out of
somebody else's work.
Btw, you probably have many hobbies, but have you ever considered
making "basic literacy" one of them?
msifg
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
hahaha-
you may be a smart ass but you ain't no lawyer.
YOU were the one that posted the pay to play link.
remember? or, what that too long ago for you?
>
> I strongly advise you not to assist Dockery in making money out of
> somebody else's work.
hahahaha-
gotchya!
>
>
> Btw, you probably have many hobbies, but have you ever considered
> making "basic literacy" one of them?
petard:
would you like me to share the definition with you?
"caught in ones own trap."
did that work?
did ya read it?
Will Dockery
Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> You're correct, but it isn't quite the point. There is simply no
> plagiarism even if I had repeated the entire original poem word for
> word, because I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS MY OWN.
Sorry pal, but you signed it "dmh" at the bottom of the poem, which is
really how all this got started. You used half the guy's poem (or
more) in the body of the poem (and used the words in the same order),
then took credit for it... as Rik Roots pointed out once in a similar
situation, a reader without all the background knowledge would assume
you were the writer.
After all, the poem has your initials at the end of it, with
Alacrity's nowhere to be seen.
Orsen Wells w/Citizen Cain
I called the health inspector on your House of Village Idiots. Also you
burned my pancake order, you bitch.
Orsen Wells w/Citizen Cain
"Meat Plow" <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:2khsqf....@news.alt.net...
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0800 (PST), Will Dockery
> <will.d...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>, lack of moral and ethical
>
> Nice self description.
Are you sure that was a Dockery self description? Nowhere did I see
arrogant, bisexual, ignorant, narcisstic or even dumb.
Will Dockery
Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> It's lucky for you that Mr Michael Cook was kinder to you than Karla
> was to Tommy Bishop, isn't it?
Well, Bishop seems to have gotten the idea /from/ Michael Cook, who
did exactly the same thing: took my poem "Karma Bombs", made an exact
copy of it without my knowledge or permission, and posted the
recording on his website, without crediting me as the writer.
Of course, when Cook did it, he had defenders (Hopefully Karla wasn't
one of them, I don't remember.), which obviously includes you to this
very day, and then, a year or so later, Bishop decided to do the same,
since pretty much nobody here seemed to have any problem with taking a
poem and copying it word-for-word. Obviously, it depends on who is
doing the stealing and who's poem they steal for it to make any
difference here, so it was worth it to show the hypocrisy that exists
here.
Later, down the road, if someone else does exactly what Dale Houstman
did, steal half a poem and call it his own, I've no doubt the
reactions will be quite different.
I took my property back, Cook's gone and so I feel that it all worked
out fine.
> It's difficult to believe that anybody could continue plagiarising a
> sound recording years after the plagiarism was first detected, but
Since Cook left my name off his stolen copy of my poem, it can be
considered a plagiarism, yes.
> here's Will Dockery continuing to claim Michael Cook's sound recording
> as his own work:
I wrote the poem "Karma Bombs" so under US copyright law, of course I
own all rights to the poem and any uses of it... the law may be
different over in your country, but that's the way it is over here.
By your logic, then, Bishop owns his video of Karla Rogers' "April"
poem?
I know you're following this thread, Karla... are you going to agree
with PJR now, that Cook had the right to steal my poem, record it, and
put it on his website without my permission or credit to me? I look
forward to your response on that.
> <http://www.lulu.com/content/audio_media/karma_bombs/32109>
I have that at another site now, which I can post the link to if
anyone wants to check it out, a bit weary to bother, right now.
Will Dockery
Sure, he created the /combination/ of words (which I'm sure I stated
clearly elsewhere, if not here) that made up the poem, and Dale's
ripoff poem follows the same pattern A.S. set really closely, if not
exactly.
quit stalling and post your proof.
Here's a word list from both poems, showing something like 50 words
out of the 100 word (approximately) poem that are the same, and in
the same oder Alacrity /created/:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2219724&l=82892&id=620409362
> That means post proof that Alacrity used combinations of words that were then
> copied by Dale in the same order.
Absolutely, and I'm surprised you don't already know that's the way
the poems are put together... in fact, I suspect you do, but you find
it more useful or entertaining to lie about it. That wouldn't be any
real surprise to me, since it won't be the first time you've flat-out
lied about something that relates to me, for whatever reason you felt
you needed to.
> >Don't believe me? Count and compare.
> >
> >> > > You are libeling Dale.
You're lying about that and other aspects of this situation... for
reasons that aren't quite clear yet, Karla.
I observed Dale taking half a poem, reshuffling and touching up bits
of it, and signing his initials at the bottom of it. I'm calling it as
I'm seeing it, which is posted in the archives for all to see.
You want proof? You got it, right here, in black and white text.
> >> > No, every statement I've made about Dale is based on evidence posted
> >> > here, truth, I've not lied about any of it.
> >>
> >> I missed your line by line comparison. Please link it.
> >>
> >> > No, not at all, and if I, or any number of other poets here had done
> >> > what Dale seems to do on a regular basis, no doubt the reactions might
> >> > be much different. In a poem of just over 100 words, over 50 of them
> >> > he swiped from Alacrity's poem, then signed it, claiming the entire
> >> > poem as his original work.
> >>
> >> Forget the chip on your shoulder.
> >
> >There is none... I see what is obviously theft of over half a poem,
> >and if nothing else, we'll establish that this is acceptable in
> >poetry. I had assumed until now that a poem should be original work,
> >not a pilfering of another man's poem. Maybe I'm wrong, and the words
> >and ideas of others /are/ fair game to take as we please... I don't
> >expect to follow that fashion, if so, though.
> >
> >Forget your apparent need to defend Dale, and look at it fairly, as I
> >have.
> >
> >More later.
--
George Dance
> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in messagenews:slrngquh8...@pjr.gotdns.org...
>
> > In rec.arts.poems on Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:59:08 -0800 (PST), Will
>
> >> Karla, I have to run
> > away.
>
> > It's lucky for you that Mr Michael Cook was kinder to you than Karla
> > was to Tommy Bishop, isn't it?
>
> > It's difficult to believe that anybody could continue plagiarising a
> > sound recording years after the plagiarism was first detected, but
> > here's Will Dockery continuing to claim Michael Cook's sound recording
> > as his own work:
>
> > <http://www.lulu.com/content/audio_media/karma_bombs/32109>
>
> bwahahahaha-
> one has to pay a dollar to hear it.
>
> so, why don't you pay the dollar, ross, and
> we'll take your word for it.
>
> oh, and tell a friend and so on and so on.
>
> maybe Will will be able to quit his dayjob
> and live off the royalties.
>
> i'll tell you what, i'll send this link to
> my friends.
>
> let's all do it, shall we?
>
> this is what is called a petard, eh ross?
>
> haha
>
>
I was going to buy a copy, but that would have required setting up a
Paypal account or giving a credit card #. I decided it was easier to
look for a free version of "Karma Bombs" online, and found this one:
Mark
chance to go outside and see that spring is
coming soon to North America.
We are all on a blue and green ball suspended
in outer space, just whizzing along don't ya know.
Tell someone you love them today.
Mark
George Dance
> karl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Forget the chip on your shoulder. I read your initial post here about
> > Dale's alleging plagiarizing Alacrity with great interest, and not
> > with any view to excuse bad behavior. I didn't see repeated phrases or
> > lines.
>
> You're correct, but it isn't quite the point. There is simply no
> plagiarism even if I had repeated the entire original poem word for
> word, because I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS MY OWN. And - as for all-important
> intent - I have done the same thing (reworked a person's poem for
> educational purposes) countless times - my intent has a searchable
> history. Also I always put "dmh" at the end of my posts. AND - very
> important - the person whose poem I did this to understands what I was
> doing, sees no problem with it, and - thus - there can be no plagiarism.
> It goes on and on...
>
> But the real point is this: the guys who are accusing me of plagiarism
> don't believe it themselves
Oh; they told you that, did they?
> (even though at least one of them IS a
> plagiarist)
If you mean msifg (the guy you previously accused of stealing the song
"Mary Jane"), then you should realize that he did not accuse you of
plagiarizing Alacrity's poem.
Will Dockery
> On Mar 4, 10:45 pm, "msifg" wrote:
>
> > > <http://www.lulu.com/content/audio_media/karma_bombs/32109>
> >
> > bwahahahaha-
> > one has to pay a dollar to hear it.
> >
> > so, why don't you pay the dollar, ross, and
> > we'll take your word for it.
> >
> > oh, and tell a friend and so on and so on.
> >
> > maybe Will will be able to quit his dayjob
> > and live off the royalties.
> >
> > i'll tell you what, i'll send this link to
> > my friends.
> >
> > let's all do it, shall we?
> >
> > this is what is called a petard, eh ross?
> >
> > haha
>
> I was going to buy a copy, but that would have required setting up a
> Paypal account or giving a credit card #. I decided it was easier to
> look for a free version of "Karma Bombs" online, and found this one:
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/KarmaBombsByWillDockery
Glad you found that one, since I haven't been to the Lulu site in
years, lost the password, and wouldn't even get the dollar now
anyway... heh.
--
"Shadowville Speedway" and other song-poems:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
msifg wrote:
> first of all, idon't like either of these pieces
> of trash. however, i'll make the claim that dmh's version,
> which followed alacrty's version, can be an official
> example of "inept thievery" on his part, if dogshit
> can be given a gender.
>
> i suppose the fact that it's "inept" would safeguard it
> from entering into copyright infringement.
>
> "inept thievery:"
>
> not a very nice thing to be accused of, eh dogshit?
>
> hahaha-
> enjoy!
>
> msifg
>
> 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
>
> vs.
>
> 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
There they are, and there are the words. Count 'em. Look at the order
they fall in through the poem. Look at the bylines on each.
Next, check for which was written first.
Case closed.
Almost as simple as seeing what Bishop did with Karla Roger's poem
"April", or what Michael Cook did with my "Karma Bombs" poem.
And as with that, where Cook was defended (possibly even by Karla,
since she did so love to join in with the thieves, thugs and liars of
these newsgroups back then, though I don't think she was in on this
one) and applauded for stealing my poem, Bishop was called (rightly) a
thief, I suspect that if you or I attempted the inept thievery that
Dale M. Houseman got caught at, and is currently being defended with
every deceptive trick Karla, Mushmouth and others can cook up, the
screams of "plagiarism!" and "poetry theft!" would rise from all sorts
of cracks in their stinking Usenet woodwork... in fact, its almost
worth trying on a couple of poems just to see the results.
But no, I'll leave the lazy thievery to folks like Houstman who lack
the imagination to create their own sets of words, and write their own
original poetry.
Manwolf wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> > kar...@comcast.net wrote:
<Karla & Dale slurpfest snipped>
> You two should think about doing a collaboration. Even though Karla may
> have a little more panache, I think your styles are both fairly similar
> enough that it would have off fairly seamlessly.
I think you've hit on it, Manwolf!
A great (and legal, obviously) idea would be to take half of a Dale
Houstman poem (if there is such a thing, at least a poem with his name
signed on it) and half a Karla Rogers poem, and combine the two...
now /that/ sounds interesting, and they should of course by "glad ass
happy" someone took the time to do it, am I right?
Of course, as with Dale's "versions" of other people's poetry, they
won't get any credit on the finished, "original" work... the person
taking the words from each poem will deserve /all/ of that.
Anyone game? Perhaps as a Usenet Collective porject?
Dale Houstman
>
> Sadly, you are right. Add to that, they might not have the capacity to
> understand it. Dockery in his most recent post where he claims Alacrity "created
> words" clearly doesn't understand it.
Fri-grt, exmon-eeee-yollayolla. Wquin? Morgaflan!
dmh
rik....@gmail.com
<snip>
> That's good, and it was really Dale's fault, lack of moral and ethical
> that he decided to create a poem over half of which was written by
> you, without a nod of credit to you... even if you give your blessings
> and permission, it doesn't change the fact that he commited plagiarism
> to begin with, by claiming the poem as his own original work, when he
> signed his name at the bottom of it.
>
Oh, Will!
You misunderstand the essential point about plagiarism. Let's look at
the two poems:
Mercury Switches and The Mating of Clocks (Alacrity Stone)
----------------------------------------------------------
Key points: the central image here is the ice rink. The N appears to
be an observer, watching a couple learn about each other through the
routine of learning to do an iceskate dance - possibly a recreation of
a famous dance (such as Torvill'n'Dean's Bolero routine?). Most of the
images tie closely to the ice arena (though the second half of S5 is a
bit confusing). In S6 the N lifts away from the specific to the
general, making the point about the ephemerality of dance and art;
here the 'our' is not the N and the Other, but rather all humanity.
Mercury Mates With Clocks (dmh)
-------------------------------
Key points: the narrator of the poem appears to be addressing the
issue of love with the person s/he loves. In S1, the N describes how s/
he envisions love as a formless entity that then grows in space and
time to make a structure for them both to inhabit. S2 - is a bit more
confusing. But I think the N is asserting that specific events in the
world of the two lovers, or the memories of them, can be compared to
jewels in the structure of love. In S3 the N makes the point that the
structure is not real except to them.
See, Will, the thing about plagiarism is that the plagiarist not only
takes the words of another, s/he also takes the meanings of those
words in context to each other, takes the images and metaphors, takes
the structure, the voice of the narrator, the array of characters
presented by the narrator - the plagiarist takes all these things,
without change, and puts his/her own name to that text. The plagiarist
claims the 'work' as their own, not the words.
The two poems above share many words. They even share some phrases.
But they are very different works, with very different narrators,
characters and themes. They are unique poems in their own right, with
their own strengths and weaknesses. The fact that Dale's poem may have
been inspired after reading Alacrity's poem is interesting, but not
essential to the integrity of his poem.
Plagiarism: its more than just counting the fucking words.
Rik, knee deep.
Dale Houstman
It's like watching an amoeba trying to fill up Grand Central Station. I
understand the allure.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Me wrote...
>
>> It is best if we now end this little (typically pathetic) game of theirs
>> and just get back to either thrashing them about their atrophied heads
>> (both ends) or actually doing something they arer incapable of: writing
>> and discussing poetry.
>
PJR done writted...
> Surely we can do all three?
>
>
Me rote...
Don't let me spoil your haddock...Sail on, Ahabitude!
dmh
Dale Houstman
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:odqdnZTJT76JlDLU...@skypoint.com...
>> Rob Evans wrote:
>>> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
>>> news:CJKdnZBVXtyh_jPU...@skypoint.com...
>>>
>>> --
>> You signed your name below my comments without adding attribution. I am
>> deeply offended, somewhat out of pocket, and apt to release the hell
>> hounds on you next time you visit my House of Village Idiots.
>>
>
> I called the health inspector on your House of Village Idiots. Also you
> burned my pancake order, you bitch.
>
>
That not burn, Drear Cusstumor: that black discharge from Angry God
Worm! He loove you. Be next victim/wife of Shra-Tor-Gooma, Master of All
He Crawls Over!
dmh
Will Dockery
rik.ro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 4, 6:07 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > That's good, and it was really Dale's fault, lack of moral and ethical
> > that he decided to create a poem over half of which was written by
> > you, without a nod of credit to you... even if you give your blessings
> > and permission, it doesn't change the fact that he commited plagiarism
> > to begin with, by claiming the poem as his own original work, when he
> > signed his name at the bottom of it.
> >
> Oh, Will!
>
> You misunderstand the essential point about plagiarism. Let's look at
> the two poems:
<good stuff snipped for brevity>
> Plagiarism: its more than just counting the fucking words.
So you're saying Dale's a word thief but not a plagiarist?
I was under the understanding that a person who signs his name to
words he didn't write was a plagiarist, but "word thief" may fit
Dale's case better.
rik....@gmail.com
> In rec.arts.poems on Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:47:44 -0800 (PST),
>
> > Bishop infringed, I sued him, I won.
>
> Potential thieves really ought to take note of this fact.
>
> Tommy Bishop infringed, Karla sued him, Karla won.
>
judgment).
> Is that good news for us all or what?
>
Some of the things that Little Tommy Tosser was doing verged on the
criminal, in my view. Stealing people's poems and then adding them to
pornographic images, for instance (which he claimed to be doing,
though by that time I had learned not to follow any of the Tosser's
posted links).
But it's good to know there's now some case law to act as a precedent.
Little Tommy Tosser always liked to point to case law to support his
delusional arguments; how ironic that he ended up as a citation for
others to point to.
Isn't there a special kook prize for those whose usenet activities
land them on the wrong side of the law?
> PJR :-)
>
Rik, knee deep.
rik....@gmail.com
Dictionary should sue Websters?
Did you bother reading what I wrote? Have you no comments to make on
my analyses of the two poems? No disagreements?
You're the one making accusations of plagiarism. You need more proof
than word counts to make the accusation stick.
Rik, knee deep.
Will Dockery
rik.ro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 5, 11:52 am, Will Dockery wrote:
> > rik.ro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 6:07 am, Will Dockery wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > > > That's good, and it was really Dale's fault, lack of moral and ethical
> > > > that he decided to create a poem over half of which was written by
> > > > you, without a nod of credit to you... even if you give your blessings
> > > > and permission, it doesn't change the fact that he commited plagiarism
> > > > to begin with, by claiming the poem as his own original work, when he
> > > > signed his name at the bottom of it.
> >
> > > Oh, Will!
> >
> > > You misunderstand the essential point about plagiarism. Let's look at
> > > the two poems:
> >
> > <good stuff snipped for brevity>
> >
> > > Plagiarism: its more than just counting the fucking words.
> >
> > So you're saying Dale's a word thief but not a plagiarist?
> >
> > I was under the understanding that a person who signs his name to
> > words he didn't write was a plagiarist, but "word thief" may fit
> > Dale's case better.
> >
> So Websters can sue us all, yes? Or maybe the Oxford English
> Dictionary should sue Websters?
No, and I'm pretty sure you know that's not what I mean.
A poem (or song) is a compact little set of words, not just every word
in the fucken dictionary, but a few "unique" words chosen by the poet
for his poem.
Rather than argue anymore about whether or not Dale was wrong in
swiping most of the words from Alacrity to use in his poem, maybe I
should just take your word for it that there's nothing wrong with
taking most of the words from another person's poem (including the
words of the title, which by US copyright law can't be copyrighted
anyway) and making a "new" poem from it, and try a few of these
myself.
Perhaps there's already even a name for this method of poetry writing?
Also, the idea Manwolf gave me last night is interesting, take, say,
half of one of your poems and half of another person's, say dale or
Karla, and jam the two halves into one poem. This would add a bit of
zest to the mundane thievery of Houstman's slop.
A good place to begin would be with your recent one that I really
liked anyway, so why not take the words from it that I liked and just
make my own poem from it? This could be interesting, if slightly
"wrong" seeming, fun:
Portsmouth Thongs
marksman's
lead threaded
in his spine,
they took him
down to settle
in the rocking dark
alert the
crackheads of battle:
splintering wood
powdery
teabags hefty
copper store
cannon;
sharp
wine in water;
shouts;
sweat.
He bled
ship of skin,
three hours
reach death.
We know him
by his ship
caught in a
glass display
barber-surgeon
sunk and drowned
his chest
knives and herbs,
his leather shoe
dice and coins,
his bone
nit-comb
tombed
Solvent soaked muds
to wait on
God's restoration.
His name is
with his bones;
I do not know his face.
want
stitch wounds,
make whole
the world
this hand
hold a needle
once the air
breathed
food
mite-meal.
We are the
blood and bone of
suffice.
Nice little set of words to build an original poem out of, I must
say... now to chop out half of that and mix in half a poem by another
of our beloved Usenet poets, and force-collaborate you with someone.
And this is okay with you, not to mention perfectly legal, when I
credit it to "Will Dockery", just as Dale Houstman took credit for
his, right?
Rik Roots
>> So Websters can sue us all, yes? Or maybe the Oxford English
>> Dictionary should sue Websters?
>
> No, and I'm pretty sure you know that's not what I mean.
>
To be honest, Will, I have no idea what bone you're gnawing at at the
moment, but let's ride this trolley through the canteen and see how many
buns we can drop on the way, yes?
> A poem (or song) is a compact little set of words, not just every word
> in the fucken dictionary, but a few "unique" words chosen by the poet
> for his poem.
>
No. A poem (or song) is more than the sum of its words. Words and
phrases have contexts - their semantic meanings change in relation to
the words surrounding them. They are used to build a narrative structure
(or not, if you're going to be post-avant about it); they describe or
investigate scenes and scenarios they introduce us to characters - most
importantly the Narrator, the voice of the poem or song. These all go
into making the 'work', of which the words are just the surface realisation.
Your determination to equate the poem to the words is like trying to
describe a smile as a set of muscle contractions and spatial vectors,
when any child could tell you that a smile is far more than a shape on
the face.
> Rather than argue anymore about whether or not Dale was wrong in
> swiping most of the words from Alacrity to use in his poem, maybe I
> should just take your word for it that there's nothing wrong with
> taking most of the words from another person's poem (including the
> words of the title, which by US copyright law can't be copyrighted
> anyway) and making a "new" poem from it, and try a few of these
> myself.
>
Leave copyright out of this: they're different things.
> Perhaps there's already even a name for this method of poetry writing?
>
If you had a sense of the history of poetry, you wouldn't be busy making
such a fool of yourself, yes? Try parody, for starters.
> Also, the idea Manwolf gave me last night is interesting, take, say,
> half of one of your poems and half of another person's, say dale or
> Karla, and jam the two halves into one poem. This would add a bit of
> zest to the mundane thievery of Houstman's slop.
>
The use of the term 'theft' is libellous, you know, unless you have good
evidence to back up your assertions. Which in this case you have so
far failed to demonstrate.
> A good place to begin would be with your recent one that I really
> liked anyway, so why not take the words from it that I liked and just
> make my own poem from it? This could be interesting, if slightly
> "wrong" seeming, fun:
>
<snip>
> Nice little set of words to build an original poem out of, I must
> say... now to chop out half of that and mix in half a poem by another
> of our beloved Usenet poets, and force-collaborate you with someone.
>
Have at it, Willatio! Morpheal's been doing this sort of exercise on
these very Usenet groups for decades. Knock yourself out trying to
improve on his efforts.
> And this is okay with you, not to mention perfectly legal, when I
> credit it to "Will Dockery", just as Dale Houstman took credit for
> his, right?
>
If you manage use the words in a way that creates a unique poem - in a
manner similar to that which Dale achieved using Alacrity Stone's words
(which I discussed in an earlier post, and which you have studiously
ignored since) - then the results will be your poem, and yours alone.
Though something tells me that with even the best set of ingredients to
start with, you'll still end up serving us gruel.
Rik, knee deep.
Will Dockery
Rik Roots wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >> So Websters can sue us all, yes? Or maybe the Oxford English
> >> Dictionary should sue Websters?
> >
> > No, and I'm pretty sure you know that's not what I mean.
> >
> To be honest, Will, I have no idea
Fair enough, and as I wrote in the last post, I'm deciding to be more
flexible about the whole things as combinations of words in a poem or
song being the "property" of the creator of the original work.
Now that it has been established as acceptable to take another
person's poems, gut it for all the striking key words and pad another
poem around it, I'll accept that as a "form" and try working with it,
myself. In fact, toying with the words you supply with "Portsmouth
Thongs" has already been an entertaining and easy quick-start on
writing an original song-poem. While I'm thinking of chopping it in
half and jamming a set of words from another poet in with it, I'm
liking it pretty much just using the words you've kindly donated to
me.
It seems it might wind up making a good entry in Karla's Imagist
thread, maybe.
> > A poem (or song) is a compact little set of words, not just every word
> > in the fucken dictionary, but a few "unique" words chosen by the poet
> > for his poem.
> >
> No. A poem (or song) is more than the sum of its words.
Well, of course.
But the choice of which words to put into the poem is an important
choice, and one I always considered should be origianted from the
writer of the poem, not borrowed (better word than stolen?) from
another poem written by another poet.
Now, of course, I see the majority finds it preferable to find a poem
written by someone else, cop the words that poet thought up for his
original creation, and just use those... easier and less work, eh?
Words and
> phrases have contexts - their semantic meanings change in relation to
> the words surrounding them. They are used to build a narrative structure
> (or not, if you're going to be post-avant about it); they describe or
> investigate scenes and scenarios they introduce us to characters - most
> importantly the Narrator, the voice of the poem or song. These all go
> into making the 'work', of which the words are just the surface realisation.
No argument about any of that... I just regret the days where original
thought and creation were applauded and rewarded seem to be ending.
> Your determination to equate the poem to the words is like trying to
> describe a smile as a set of muscle contractions and spatial vectors,
> when any child could tell you that a smile is far more than a shape on
> the face.
Jeeze, some here would say you're getting all "heart and soul" Sharon
McElroy on us...
> > Rather than argue anymore about whether or not Dale was wrong in
> > swiping most of the words from Alacrity to use in his poem, maybe I
> > should just take your word for it that there's nothing wrong with
> > taking most of the words from another person's poem (including the
> > words of the title, which by US copyright law can't be copyrighted
> > anyway) and making a "new" poem from it, and try a few of these
> > myself.
> >
> Leave copyright out of this: they're different things.
You must be joking... or using some of that Brit humor on me, or
both...
> > Perhaps there's already even a name for this method of poetry writing?
> >
> Try parody, for starters.
No, I'd like to consider it done as a serious work... I know using
another person's material for parody and satire is "fair use", but
Dale's poem isn't a parody, it was a serious poem that he signed his
name to.
> > Also, the idea Manwolf gave me last night is interesting, take, say,
> > half of one of your poems and half of another person's, say dale or
> > Karla, and jam the two halves into one poem. This would add a bit of
> > zest to the mundane thievery of Houstman's slop.
> >
> The use of the term 'theft' is libellous,
I note you don't mention that when the word is tossed so casually
around here every day or so, and I /still/ think that taking over half
the words to another man's poem to use in one that you try to pass off
as an original work is a definite form of theft... it just seems to be
steadily being made clear that to you and others here that this is an /
acceptable/ form of theft.
Or maybe Michael Cook and Tom Bishop's explanations that they only
"borrow' is a more acceptable term for you?
> you know, unless you have good evidence to back up your assertions.
Half of a poem inserted in another man's poem, with the intention of
passing it off as an original work sure looks like some straight-up
evidence from this side of the fence... but it's okay to steal now,
right?
> > A good place to begin would be with your recent one that I really
> > liked anyway, so why not take the words from it that I liked and just
> > make my own poem from it? This could be interesting, if slightly
> > "wrong" seeming, fun:
> >
> <snip>
>
> > Nice little set of words to build an original poem out of, I must
> > say... now to chop out half of that and mix in half a poem by another
> > of our beloved Usenet poets, and force-collaborate you with someone.
> >
> Have at it, Willatio!
Why not?
> Morpheal's been doing this sort of exercise on
> these very Usenet groups for decades. Knock yourself out trying to
> improve on his efforts.
Nah, I do things my way... but I'll look more closely at Morpheal's
work next time it appears here.
> > And this is okay with you, not to mention perfectly legal, when I
> > credit it to "Will Dockery", just as Dale Houstman took credit for
> > his, right?
> >
> If you manage use the words in a way that creates a unique poem - in a
> manner similar to that which Dale achieved using Alacrity Stone's words
> (which I discussed in an earlier post, and which you have studiously
> ignored since) - then the results will be your poem, and yours alone.
Well, thanks for the endorsement, I might give this "found word"
poetry form a try or two.
--
"Shadowville Speedway" and other song-poems:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
msifg wrote:
> hey Will,
>
> i had a chance to check out some old archives.
>
> it turns out that m. cook jeered at "karma bombs"
> in this thread from 2003:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.poems/browse_thread/thread/b57ad6b691bbbee1/4689cf0c3f034f5f?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=karma+bombs#4689cf0c3f034f5f
>
> then, he turns around and uses it for music?
He ran the poem through some sort of voice box, then posted that
recording onto his website, then posted the links to that here on
Usenet, which was the first I saw or knew of it, in a post here.
> that's not "inept thievery," that's just plain stupid.
>
> it's also BIG TIME copyright infringement.
>
> also, it's very disrespectful to not mention your name
> in the credits, esp among us musicians. so, you're totally
> within your right to snatch the whole thing up for your own
> profit.
Actually, Cook posted a statement that he hadn't /stolen/ "Karma
Bombs", only "borrowed" it, and suggested that I take it and use it
for whatever I wanted... all this is archived.
This doesn't change the fact that he stole the poem in the first place
by taking it and recording it without my permission or knowledge, and
then posted it on his website without crediting me as the writer.
Interestingly, all this came up a year or so ago in a discussion
between George Dance and PJR where PJR was stridently and
hypocritically proclaiming at if a poem is stolen for one hour or one
day, taking it down or getting permission or whatever doesn't change
the fact that it was stolen in the first place (I'm paraphrasing this
from memory, perhaps GD remembers this discussion better), so i
responded that -aha- then you finally admit that even though Michael
Cook took his stolen version of "Karma Bombs" down within a few days,
and gave it to me to use, the fact that he stole it in the first place
still stands. With that, he changed his tune and went back to his
libels, lies and defense and support of Michael Cook's thievery.
George, does any of this ring any bells?
Anyway, I wrote "Karma Bombs", and under United States law, I own all
rights to the poem and the uses of the poem... this is such a simple
thing that it is amazing that PJR continues to spew his bullshit in
defense of Cook's thievery and (since he left my name off thus
attempting to pass my work off as his own) plagiarism.
> (i guess cook is deceased anyway? is that correct?
> i never knew him.)
I'm not sure what happened to Cook, or if anyone here does. One day he
just stopped posting.
> if the song ended up making major royalties, you
> would have a huge case in your favor. i'm not
> a lawyer and i can see that one from the bloody sidelines.
Almost exactly the situation Karla Rogers had with Tom Bishop, and she
stood to win a $100,000 prize from that.
Interestingly, as in the past, Karla doesn't seem to have an opinion
about any of this.
kar...@comcast.net
>
> > > > You are libeling Dale.
>
> > > here, truth, I've not lied about any of it.
>
> > I missed your line by line comparison. Please link it.
>
> > > No, not at all, and if I, or any number of other poets here had done
> > > what Dale seems to do on a regular basis, no doubt the reactions might
> > > be much different. In a poem of just over 100 words, over 50 of them
> > > he swiped from Alacrity's poem, then signed it, claiming the entire
> > > poem as his original work.
>
>
> and if nothing else, we'll establish that this is acceptable in
> poetry. I had assumed until now that a poem should be original work,
> not a pilfering of another man's poem. Maybe I'm wrong, and the words
> and ideas of others /are/ fair game to take as we please... I don't
> expect to follow that fashion, if so, though.
>
> Forget your apparent need to defend Dale, and look at it fairly, as I
> have.
>
> More later.
>
> "Shadowville Speedway" and other song-poems:http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Later is here, so respond to my questions above. Where is your line by
line analysis? Where is your analysis of each poem? If you can show
that Dale "copied" Alacrity's poem line by line and didn't vary the
subject or theme, you might be able to introduce the percentage
factor. If not, then that argument is a joke, you are a fool and your
continuing allegations toward Dale of plagiarism, thievery or
copyright infringement are without merit.
Consider two well known poems, one by Christopher Marlowe and one by
Sir Walter Raleigh.
The Passionate Shepherd to His Love
Come live with me and be my love,
And we will all the pleasures prove
That valleys, groves, hills, and fields,
Woods or steepy mountain yields.
And we will sit upon the rocks,
Seeing the shepherds feed their flocks,
By shallow rivers to whose falls
Melodious birds sing madrigals.
And I will make thee beds of roses
And a thousand fragrant posies,
A cap of flowers, and a kirtle
Embroidered all with leaves of myrtle;
A gown made of the finest wool
Which from our pretty lambs we pull;
Fair lined slippers for the cold,
With buckles of th purest gold;
A belt of straw and ivy buds,
With coral clasps and amber studs:
And if these pleasures may thee move,
Come live with me and be my love.
The shepherds' swains shall dance and sing
For thy delight each May morning:
If these delights thy mind may move,
Then live with me and be my love.
Christopher Marlowe
(1564-1593)
===================================
The Nymphs Reply to the Shepherd
If all the world and love were young,
And truth in every shepherd's tongue,
These pretty pleasures might me move
To live with thee and be thy love.
Time drives the flocks from field to fold
When rivers rage and rocks grow cold,
And Philomel becometh dumb;
The rest complains of cares to come.
The flowers do fade, and wanton fields
To wayward winter reckoning yields;
A honey tongue, a heart of gall,
Is fancy's spring, but sorrow's fall.
Thy gowns, thy shoes, thy beds of roses,
Thy cap, thy kirtle, and thy posies
Soon break, soon wither, soon forgotten
In folly ripe, in season rotten.
Thy belt of straw and ivy buds,
Thy coral clasps and amber studs,
All these in me no means can move
To come to thee and be thy love.
But could youth last and love still breed,
Had joys no date nor age no need,
Then these delights my mind might move
To live with thee and be thy love.
Sir Walter Raleigh
(1552-1680)
Will, as you can see, both poems use many of the same words, and yet
there is no infringement. Sir Walter Raleigh's expression is different
than Marlowe's. Marlowe creates one picture of lovers; Raleigh
another. I'm sure by a glance that there are many of the same words in
both and a couple of lines are exactly the same. BUT the expression of
each is different.
Karla
Will Dockery
karl...@comcast.net wrote:
> Later is here,
No, later is when I say later is, Karla. Of course, feel free to bitch
and whine about when you've decided "later" is all you want... or not.
I've made the statement of the truth that over half of Dale's poem was
taken directly from Alacrity's original, even a confused hypocrite
such as you can see that, and i know you do.
I'm under the belief that taking someone elses' words and using them
in a poem, then signing your name to it is theft, but if you prefer,
call it what Michael Cook and Tom Bishop maintained it was if you
like... "borrowing".
> If you can show
> that Dale "copied" Alacrity's poem line by line
Yes, "copied" is another good word for what Dale did, and slightly
rearranged them, with a bit of rewording. It still follows the same
pattern as Alacrity's original did, though, as any fool, even you can
see.
Yes, those are nice, and if you'll read my exchange with Rik Roots,
his explanation and kind heads up has changed much of how I'm seeing
the process... I see now that it's acceptable to "steal" a set of
words from another poet and make them your own, and plan on working
with this new (to me) concept.
It still gives me a bit of the heebie-jeebies from an ethical and
moral standpoint, and it smacks of laziness and unoriginality, but I
see how it can be entertaining and useful, and above all else,
completely acceptable with the majority of the poets here... and
between my own original work and this new form of poetry writing, I
expect my output could very well double!
Not bad, not bad at all!
--
"Shadowville Speedway" and other song-poems:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
.
Will Dockery
Manwolf wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > That not burn, Drear Cusstumor: that black discharge from Angry God
> > Worm! He loove you. Be next victim/wife of Shra-Tor-Gooma, Master of All
> > He Crawls Over!
>
> If you could work on your imagery and metaphors a little bit you just
> might have something going here, Dale. I also recommend a dictionary and
> thesaurus (it can't hurt). In any case, I'm sure Will will be gleeful to
> see an original work from you.
Heh... obviously what Dale, Karla and their ilk see as "original" just
isn't the same as what I grew up believing it to be.
Love it or hate it, I always have taken pride that my poetry is all
original, every word thought of and created on my own, never seeing
any compulsion to take another man's poem and try to cobble it into my
own... then put my name on it and try to pass it off as "original".
Another reason why my poetry and songs are, and will remain, the Real
Thing.
kar...@comcast.net
> Manwolf wrote:
> > Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> > > That not burn, Drear Cusstumor: that black discharge from Angry God
> > > Worm! He loove you. Be next victim/wife of Shra-Tor-Gooma, Master of All
> > > He Crawls Over!
>
> > If you could work on your imagery and metaphors a little bit you just
> > might have something going here, Dale. I also recommend a dictionary and
> > thesaurus (it can't hurt). In any case, I'm sure Will will be gleeful to
> > see an original work from you.
>
> Heh... obviously what Dale, Karla and their ilk see as "original" just
> isn't the same as what I grew up believing it to be.
>
> Love it or hate it, I always have taken pride that my poetry is all
> original, every word thought of and created on my own, never seeing
> any compulsion to take another man's poem and try to cobble it into my
> own... then put my name on it and try to pass it off as "original".
You do realize, don't you, that if we adopted your view, (% of words)
that you would be extremely vulnerable? I'm tempted to show you just
how vulnerable. The exercise would look something like this:
1) Take one of your lyrics or poems
2) Do a search for any other lyric or poem that contains 50% or more
of the same words
3) Accuse you of plagiarism, theft or infringement.
Karla
Will Dockery
<kar...@comcast.net> wrote;
On Mar 5, 11:50 am, Will Dockery wrote:
> Manwolf wrote:
> > Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> > > That not burn, Drear Cusstumor: that black discharge from Angry God
> > > Worm! He loove you. Be next victim/wife of Shra-Tor-Gooma, Master of
> > > All
> > > He Crawls Over!
>
> > If you could work on your imagery and metaphors a little bit you just
> > might have something going here, Dale. I also recommend a dictionary and
> > thesaurus (it can't hurt). In any case, I'm sure Will will be gleeful to
> > see an original work from you.
>
> Heh... obviously what Dale, Karla and their ilk see as "original" just
> isn't the same as what I grew up believing it to be.
>
> Love it or hate it, I always have taken pride that my poetry is all
> original, every word thought of and created on my own, never seeing
> any compulsion to take another man's poem and try to cobble it into my
> own... then put my name on it and try to pass it off as "original".
You do realize, don't you, that if we adopted your view, (% of words)
that you would be extremely vulnerable? I'm tempted to show you just
how vulnerable. The exercise would look something like this:
1) Take one of your lyrics or poems
2) Do a search for any other lyric or poem that contains 50% or more
of the same words
3) Accuse you of plagiarism, theft or infringement.
//That might be possible, I suppose... the big difference being that Dale
sat down and intentionally gutted Alacrity's poem for keywords, cobbled his
poem together, then signed his name to it in order to pass it off as a
completely original work.
But, again, I've decided to go with the majority opinion here that it's okay
to gut another person's poem for keywords, then cobble together a poem from
that, and, of course, take full credit for the creation of it. I'm working
on just that with Rik Roots' excellent poem (or rather the key words of the
poem) "Portsmouth Thongs", which I'm finding to be great fun, and a great
way to create poetry and songs.
I'll post the result here... Later.
And, as usual, I'll be glad-ass happy to read any comments and critique you
or any of the others care to provide me with.
kar...@comcast.net
> <karl...@comcast.net> wrote;
Again, you sound bitter about this, and not like you want to champion
truth. I found a fairly easy to read law review article on this. Here
are some applicable sections:
“Thus, in looking at “The Red Wheelbarrow”, the first step in
determining improper appropriation would be to decide what in
Williams’ poem is protectible original expression. . . . The dramatic
significance of The Red Wheelbarrow lies not only in words used, which
are seemingly innocuous, but in the pattern of short lines and stanzas
and in how the words break slowly over the page to create the
surprisingly beautiful image of a wheelbarrow “glazed” with rain. It
is clear that Williams could not claim copyright in any of the words
in this poem individually. It also is clear that the idea of a poem
with short lines that make the reader dwell more carefully on
individual words cannot be copyrighted. Nor could Williams claim
copyright in the idea of a wheelbarrow or a mundane object being
beautiful. . . . A poem might wish to express the same general idea of
“The Red Wheelbarrow” and might even include a red wheelbarrow, but
could use different words, a different form, or both. A poet who
copied or tried to copy every bit of dramatic significance that he
could find in “The Red Wheelbarrow” but who used different words or a
different form would create a new poem in which new choices
represented his originality as an author.”
Jennifer Understahl. “Copyright Infringement and Poetry: When is a Red
Wheel Barrow “The Red Wheelbarrow”? Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume
58:3:915. April 3, 2005
Did you catch this one sentence: "It is clear that Williams could not
claim copyright in any of the words in this poem individually." ???
Karla
Will Dockery
<kar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Again, you sound bitter about this,
In what way do I sound "bitter"? I sure don't /feel/ bitter, not in the
slightest.
In other words, just more of your old bullshit, which is sad to see.
> and not like you want to champion truth.
Well, I've laid the truth out all over this thread in simple direct
language. I've found that you're not much interested in getting to the truth
of it, which is, as I wrote above: Obviously, and clearly visible from a
comparison of the two poems, Dale sat down and intentionally gutted
Alacrity's poem for keywords, cobbled his poem together, then signed his
name to it in order to pass it off as a completely original work.
>I found a fairly easy to read law review article on this. Here
> are some applicable sections:
I sure did... and so you're admitting I was right, after all, since we're
not talking about Dale using /individual/ words, but over half of Alacrity's
poem?
--
"Shadowville Speedway" and other song-poems:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
.
kar...@comcast.net
I don't see you apologizing for your accusations against Dale where
you call him a thief, a plagiarist and worse regarding Alacrity's
poem. He did no such thing as shown by the snippet above.
> In other words, just more of your old bullshit, which is sad to see.
Wrong, Dockery. This is just plain & simple copyright law.
> > and not like you want to champion truth.
>
> Well, I've laid the truth out all over this thread in simple direct
> language. I've found that you're not much interested in getting to the truth
> of it, which is, as I wrote above: Obviously, and clearly visible from a
> comparison of the two poems, Dale sat down and intentionally gutted
> Alacrity's poem for keywords, cobbled his poem together, then signed his
> name to it in order to pass it off as a completely original work.
You've maybe laid out the truth /as you see it/ but you've also gone
further than that by accusing Dale. Those charges are wrong and you
haven't yet understood copyright protection. Please, please read the
article or go ask an attorney. It is wrong for you to continue
alleging theft, plagiarism and infringement. In fact, it's libelous.
> >I found a fairly easy to read law review article on this. Here
> > are some applicable sections:
>
> “Thus, in looking at “The Red Wheelbarrow”, the first step in
> determining improper appropriation would be to decide what in
> Williams’ poem is protectible original expression. . . . The dramatic
> significance of The Red Wheelbarrow lies not only in words used, which
> are seemingly innocuous, but in the pattern of short lines and stanzas
> and in how the words break slowly over the page to create the
> surprisingly beautiful image of a wheelbarrow “glazed” with rain. It
> is clear that Williams could not claim copyright in any of the words
> in this poem individually. It also is clear that the idea of a poem
> with short lines that make the reader dwell more carefully on
> individual words cannot be copyrighted. Nor could Williams claim
> copyright in the idea of a wheelbarrow or a mundane object being
> beautiful. . . . A poem might wish to express the same general idea of
> “The Red Wheelbarrow” and might even include a red wheelbarrow, but
> could use different words, a different form, or both. A poet who
> copied or tried to copy every bit of dramatic significance that he
> could find in “The Red Wheelbarrow” but who used different words or a
> different form would create a new poem in which new choices
> represented his originality as an author.”
>
> Jennifer Understahl. “Copyright Infringement and Poetry: When is a Red
> Wheel Barrow “The Red Wheelbarrow”? Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume
> 58:3:915. April 3, 2005
>
> http://law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/vanderbilt-law-review/archive/...
>
> > Did you catch this one sentence: "It is clear that Williams could not
> > claim copyright in any of the words in this poem individually." ???
>
> I sure did... and so you're admitting I was right, after all, since we're
> not talking about Dale using /individual/ words, but over half of Alacrity's
> poem?
No, you're reading that incorrectly. It's saying that you can't claim
a copyright for the word "wheelbarrow" or "gold" or "bluebeard".
Individual words. You have to consider the combination of words.
Please re-read that very short piece from the law reviw article above,
and of course the whole article as you have time.
Karla