A Dubliner of Cathay (for H's Valentine challenge)

[Chuck Lysaght]

What the fuck?

[Chuck Lysaght]

Go sleep it off, Pete.

[Chuck Lysaght]

Awww... That's not very nice, Pete. What's wrong, Pete?

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote in news:slrnkhb9l...@pjr.no-
ip.org:

> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:28:32 -0800 (PST),

> Chuck Lysaght <theguyo...@veryfast.biz> wrote:
>
>> Go sleep it off, Pete.
>

> Go die, paedophile.

SUBSCRBIE.

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Then I will send complaints, update pages, and file lawsuits until the
abuse ceases or until you start getting balls and posting under your
real identity, which ever miracle comes first--very simple people--take
your
pick." - Ed Wollmann upbraids his own sockpuppets.

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 7:42:29 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:

<fuvgr favccrq>

> Jung ungu Wnzrf Wblpr jebhtug?

Onq cbrgel sebz unpx yvxr lbh, baivbhfyl...

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> For my next trick, I'm gonna ride into Omaha

Qvq lbh unve qbja gb zl srrg fb fgenatr svefg, gubhtu?

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 8:30:32 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:28:32 -0800 (PST),
>
> Chuck Lysaght <theguyo...@veryfast.biz> wrote:
>
>
>

> > Go sleep it off, Pete.
>
>
>

> Go

Tb envfr lbhefrys fbzr qragny sybff...

[Will Dockery]

"George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:ab646d52-c9f9-41e7...@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, February 8, 2013 7:42:29 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
>> A Dubliner of Cathay

<copyrighted material deleted>

>> PJR, started 2012-06-08, last revised 2013-02-09

>
>> Jung ungu Wnzrf Wblpr jebhtug?
>

> Hayrff fbzrbar nepuvirf guve, vg'yy qvfnccrne. Urapr guvf ercyl.

So, Google didn't consider the above a valid comment, I assume..?

Perhaps the Google moderator doesn't understand Rot-13?

http://www.rot13.com/index.php

[Will Dockery]

"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnkhlq6...@alcatroll.no-ip.org...
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 9 Feb 2013 15:32:57 -0800 (PST),
> George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> <snip unauthorised reproduction of my copyright text>
>
> Rather to my surprise, given Google's reputation for an anything-goes
> attitude to their Usenet users, the copyright-abusing post to which
> I'm replying
> (Message-ID: <ab646d52-c9f9-41e7...@googlegroups.com>)
> has been fairly quickly removed from the Google archives.
>
> ===[begin_quoted_text]================================================
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:18:19 +0000
> Subject: RE: [2-5937000000507] Your Request to Google
> From: remo...@google.com
> To: peadar...@gmx.com
>
> Hello,
>
> In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have completed
> processing your infringement notice. We are in the process of disabling
> access to the content in question at the following URL(s):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/9e34f0c3888bbc52?dmode=source
>
> The content will be removed shortly.
> ===[end_quoted_text]==================================================
>
> See also <http://www.google.co.uk/dmca.html>.
>
> ===[begin_quoted_text]================================================
> Many Google Services do not have account holders or subscribers. For
> Services that do, Google will, in appropriate circumstances, terminate
> repeat infringers. If you believe that an account holder or subscriber
> is a repeat infringer, please follow the instructions above to contact
> Google and provide information sufficient for us to verify that the
> account holder or subscriber is indeed a repeat infringer.
> ===[end_quoted_text]==================================================
>
> Further malicious copyright abuse, by quoting my posts "for the
> archives", would be unwise.
>
> Quoting for purposes of legitimate discussion is, of course, perfectly
> all right.

This definitely calls for a definitive definition of "Legitimate" so future
abuses can be avoided by us all.

[George Dance]

On Feb 12, 9:32 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in messagenews:slrnkhlq6...@alcatroll.no-ip.org...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 9 Feb 2013 15:32:57 -0800 (PST),

> > George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > <snip unauthorised reproduction of my copyright text>
>
> > Rather to my surprise, given Google's reputation for an anything-goes
> > attitude to their Usenet users, the copyright-abusing post to which
> > I'm replying
> > (Message-ID: <ab646d52-c9f9-41e7...@googlegroups.com>)
> > has been fairly quickly removed from the Google archives.
>
> > ===[begin_quoted_text]================================================
> > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:18:19 +0000
> > Subject: RE: [2-5937000000507] Your Request to Google

> > From: remov...@google.com
> > To: peadar.ru...@gmx.com

>
> > Hello,
>
> > In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have completed
> > processing your infringement notice. We are in the process of disabling
> > access to the content in question at the following URL(s):
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/9e34f0c38...

>
> > The content will be removed shortly.
> > ===[end_quoted_text]==================================================
>
> > See also <http://www.google.co.uk/dmca.html>.
>
> > ===[begin_quoted_text]================================================
> > Many Google Services do not have account holders or subscribers. For
> > Services that do, Google will, in appropriate circumstances, terminate
> > repeat infringers. If you believe that an account holder or subscriber
> > is a repeat infringer, please follow the instructions above to contact
> > Google and provide information sufficient for us to verify that the
> > account holder or subscriber is indeed a repeat infringer.
> > ===[end_quoted_text]==================================================
>
> > Further malicious copyright abuse, by quoting my posts "for the
> > archives", would be unwise.
>
> > Quoting for purposes of legitimate discussion is, of course, perfectly
> > all right.
>
> This definitely calls for a definitive definition of "Legitimate" so future
> abuses can be avoided by us all.

It certainly does: not by ~PJ~, of course, but by Google. That's one
reason why, even though I don't care whether this particular message
is archived on google or not, and it's a waste of my time to have to
do anything about it, I filed a DMCA counter-notification today.

The other reasons, of course are that (1) ~PJ's~ been dropping broad
hints (see above) that he intends to file numerous "repeat"
complaints, as a means to the end of having my google access
terminated, and (2) if he's successful with these spurious complaints
on aapc, he'll probably start trying to launch similar complaints
against The Penny Blog.

In my view, of course, there's no merit to the complaint whatsoever -
replies to a message that quote some or all of that message's content
do not "abuse" its author's copyright in any way - but that's a
decision for Google's Legal Department, not for me and certainly not
for ~PJ~, to make.

[Will Dockery]

"George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message

news:0d5648f8-aebb-4ca7...@m4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

>On Feb 12, 9:32 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
>> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in
>> messagenews:slrnkhlq6...@alcatroll.no-ip.org...

And of course this new trend from Google, if that's what it is, could have
far reaching effects that even PJR may not like, since if Google Groups are
so fast to delete a supposed copyright infringement, they might also be just
as fast at deleting posters making libelous and false accusations...

[Chuck Lysaght]

Pete. You're in full tilt kook mode again.

[Chuck Lysaght]

Go whine to Google, Pete.

[Hieronymous House]

6:12 AMChuck Lysaght

Go whine to Google, Pete.

Sweet Nothings by Hieronymous House

May I whisper in your ear
a word without a want, or fear
of hearing any repercussions
stemming from our brief discussions?

Stemming from this poet's tree,
a leaf. So, briefly, blessed be
its fruit. My suit is black, and collar
white. So write, or give a holler

if a gift of presence needed
has you ranting. Plant this seed. Did
soft thoughts rain? I plainly mean
nothing untoward your screen.
http://hieronymous707.blogspot.com/2012/06/k-u-shhh.html

[Will Dockery]

What's that malady called where the music pops in your head or something like that?

The title of this one does that to me, brings up Lou Reed's "Oh! Sweet Nothing!" from the mental jukebox.

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/36407/

"Say a word for Jimmy Brown
He ain't got nothing at all
Not a shirt right of his back
He ain't got nothing at all..."

-Lou Reed

Read more at
http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/36407/#mtHCilYk9wFF1A0m.99

[Hieronymous House]

Will Dockery

What's that malady called where the music pops in your head or something like that?

It's called an earworm.

[Will Dockery]

"Oh, sir, it was Khan! We picked him up on Ceti Alpha Five... He put...
creatures... in our ears... to control our minds. He made us... say lies...
do things. He thought he controlled us, but he did not. The Captain was
strong."
-Chekov, "The Wrath Of Khan"

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous House wrote:
>
> Such retarded guardedness suggests you will find danger
>
> on some enchanted evening when you may see a stranger.

"Keep your money in your boot,
and your
business to yourself,
keep your head down when you see the flashing
lights.
Once you've made your way across the river,
to line up for
your slice of the pie,
watching your back becomes a way of living,
making a killing becomes a way of life."

-Bob Neuwirth, "Biggest Bordertown"

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous House wrote:
>
> All quote. No "Will Dockery".

I like quotes.

Feel free to ignore them if you don't.

A more complete quote can be found via this link, which might be the only
pace on the internet it can be found, so far as I can tell:

http://alt.mailarchive.ca/arts.poetry.comments/2009-09/0303.html

That is all.

[George Dance]

On Feb 12, 11:01 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message

Please don't fall for ~PJ's~ bullshit. All that Google is interested
in is protecting their status as a "safe harbor" under the DMCA. Under
Title II of that Act, "safe harbors" others are immune from
prosecution, but in return must take certain steps (such as blocking
access when a complaint is filed, until and unless a counter-
notification is also filed).

<quote>
DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation
Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers
(OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright infringement liability,
provided they meet specific requirements. OSPs must adhere to and
qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly
block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material
from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement
claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA
also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe
harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the
material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also
facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users'
identity.
</q>
http://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

Even so, this could have huge consequences, as you say. If google
decides that quoting other posts in a reply can constitute copyright
violation, then anyone can have access blocked to any posts that
quote him, and no one can safely quote anyone else.

[George Dance]

On Feb 12, 9:29 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message

Rereading the thread, Will, I can no longer see your reply to my Feb.
9 post. it looks like ~PJ~ has now had access blocked to not only my
post, but your reply to it as well. The problem is that you might not
be able to file a counter-notification without the URL; and why would
you have that? I wouldn't have had the URl of mine, had ~PJ~ not
chosen to boast about his actions online.

~PJ~ is supposed to provide his target's email address (if he can)
when he files a notification, so that google can advise the victim
that they are taking action; but it looks like he isn't bothering to
comply with that part of the procedure, as I wasn't notified by
Google, and it looks as though you weren't, either.

[Will Dockery]

That makes a lot of sense, and in f at is similar to the action YouTube takes when a complaint is made on a video, as I've seen happen.

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 7:42:29 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> A Dubliner of Cathay
>

> --------------------
>
>
>
> "What have we heard, what?" quoth whatever porpoise-
>
> inspected pool drowned Madam Prevaricose
>
> up to her leopard. Call me a footman's surface
>
> and track for an houryear brushyold garden hose
>
>
>
> for Czars in arbs; but sure Rafe Peasman knows
>
> what's clutchwelt in my hand, my singular harvest
>
> and skys ablunt. Nods Kong-zi, Gangridge blows
>
> froth off bloodborrow porridge. No left-hovers.
>
>
>
> Fucked if I'll stand and fight th' Hectorian Hero
>
> nor wash Ma's windows, bugger-all up my betting,
>
> travel again to the wall and the secret empire.
>
>
>
> I'll tell, yeauld love, no more without an umpire
>
> to mash my teaks, bundle down pleuks with a biro;
>
> and none, no none of the talks are fresh nor fitting.
>
>
>
>
>

I have read this 100 times now Peter with a strong feeling that there are some cliches here that my American ear does not recognize because the language /feels/ so natural/unnatural. Alas, Google was no help, so if you indeed included Dublin cliches then you beat me.

As for the poem, there are parts that are brilliant, particularly the speech that tries to jam my mouth like a clogged sewage drain. The flavor is palpable.

Much of it would take a large investment of time do dissect, I get the feel that parts aren't working for me but a larger investment on my part would be needed to say why.

I would love the author to offer up some comments to help the discussion.

Regards
-H

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 6:38:32 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous House wrote:
> Saw you posting responses to your challenge,
>
> so I thought I'd just pop in to say good morning,
>
> and thanks for everything. Great idea; great work.
>
> Have a wonderful Valentine's Day.

Thank you, I hope everyone had fun. I wish I had more time and I also wish we still had many participants in this group to enhance the fun but most of all I wish I would win the lottery.

Yah.

Wish in one hand . . .

Regards
-H

[George Dance]

On Feb 15, 6:40 am, Hieronymous House <hieronymous...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 6:27 AMPeter J Ross
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:02:18 -0800 (PST),
>
> George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > What part of "Your view is of no interest" was too complicated for
> > you to understand, thief?
>
> I can't speak for George, but I'm pretty sure
> it's the self-evidently self-contradictory part.
> No interest would require no response.

By Hieronymous, I think he's got it!

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> I assume Dreck

You sure write enough of it, as the archives show.

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:40:48 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous House wrote:
> 6:27 AMPeter J Ross

> George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> What part of "Your view is of no interest" was too complicated for
>
> you to understand, thief?
>
>
>
> I can't speak for George, but I'm pretty sure
>
> it's the self-evidently self-contradictory part.
>
> No interest would require no response.

Exactly.

That would be like PJR trying to pretend that he hasn't been obsessed with Chuck for over a decade.

[Chuck Lysaght]

Pete. You're in full tilt kook mode again.

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 7:10:21 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous House wrote:
> 7:01 AMWill Dockery

>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
> That would be like PJR trying to pretend that he hasn't been obsessed with Chuck for over a decade.
>
>
>

> PJR has been obsessed with himself,
>
> seeing himself in print, and has shown
>
> very little personal interest or regard for
>
> Chuck as a person except as a foil for
>
> rhetorical exploitation. That's how he is.

Well, at least that makes him seem less creepy.

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:51:12 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:

> On Feb 12, 9:29 pm, "Will Dockery wrote:
>> "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message

> > > On Friday, February 8, 2013 7:42:29 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> > >> A Dubliner of Cathay
>
> >
>
> > <copyrighted material deleted>
>
> >
>
> > >> PJR, started 2012-06-08, last revised 2013-02-09
>
> >
>
> > >> Jung ungu Wnzrf Wblpr jebhtug?
>
> >
>
> > > Hayrff fbzrbar nepuvirf guve, vg'yy qvfnccrne. Urapr guvf ercyl.
>
> >
>
> > So, Google didn't consider the above a valid comment, I assume..?
>
> >
>
> > Perhaps the Google moderator doesn't understand Rot-13?
>
> >
>
> > http://www.rot13.com/index.php
>
>
>
> Rereading the thread, Will, I can no longer see your reply to my Feb.
>
> 9 post. it looks like ~PJ~ has now had access blocked to not only my
>
> post, but your reply to it as well. The problem is that you might not
>
> be able to file a counter-notification without the URL; and why would
>
> you have that? I wouldn't have had the URl of mine, had ~PJ~ not
>
> chosen to boast about his actions online.
>
>
>
> ~PJ~ is supposed to provide his target's email address (if he can)
>
> when he files a notification, so that google can advise the victim
>
> that they are taking action; but it looks like he isn't bothering to
>
> comply with that part of the procedure, as I wasn't notified by
>
> Google, and it looks as though you weren't, either.

In over ten years of posting on Google I've never recieved any reply from Google!

Of course, the posts have been removed from Google Groups, but emain on Usenet.

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> I think the first and last lines are by far the worst

From here that's hard to pick with so much badness to choose from, you being the poet who posts such garbage gibberish as:

"I'll tell, yeauld love, no more without an umpire

to mash my teaks, bundle down pleuks with a biro..."

Read more of PJR's junkverse at:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/gZPIYwvIl68/GtCxF4fejJUJ

[George Dance]

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/gZPIYwvIl68/...

Too late. Now that PJ's removed his OP -- and convinced Google to
block access to the replies that quoted it -- there's no trace of his
word salad, save the title, left in this thread. (I can't say I blame
him for getting rid of it.)

Of course, one can still read the thing at:

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/60895f329b52a4af?hl=en

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 9:49:47 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:

And, of course, the posted junkverse can be found at other Usenet portals, just not here on Google Groups.

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 10:12:19 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:49:47 -0800 (PST),
>
> George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> You're angry again, Dunce.
>
> Is you anger likely to lead to a fatal heart attack this time, or will
>
> all decent human beings be disappointed once again?

PJR's bizarre death fantasy is noted, again.

[George Dance]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:32:57 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, February 8, 2013 7:42:29 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> > A Dubliner of Cathay
>
> > --------------------
>
> >
>
> > "What have we heard, what?" quoth whatever porpoise-
> > inspected pool drowned Madam Prevaricose
> > up to her leopard. Call me a footman's surface
> > and track for an houryear brushyold garden hose
> >
> > for Czars in arbs; but sure Rafe Peasman knows
> > what's clutchwelt in my hand, my singular harvest
> > and skys ablunt. Nods Kong-zi, Gangridge blows
> > froth off bloodborrow porridge. No left-hovers.
> >
> > Fucked if I'll stand and fight th' Hectorian Hero
> > nor wash Ma's windows, bugger-all up my betting,
> > travel again to the wall and the secret empire.
> >

> > I'll tell, yeauld love, no more without an umpire

> > to mash my teaks, bundle down pleuks with a biro;
> > and none, no none of the talks are fresh nor fitting.
> >
> >

> > PJR, started 2012-06-08, last revised 2013-02-09
> >
> >
> > Jung ungu Wnzrf Wblpr jebhtug?
>
>
>
> Hayrff fbzrbar nepuvirf guve, vg'yy qvfnccrne. Urapr guvf ercyl.

It took a while, but better late than never. I would like to thank google for responding to my DMCA counter-notification and restoring this post of mine. This does not mean that Google has judged it to not be copyright infringement, of course; they're only doing what the law requires that they do if a DMCA notification is challenged by a counter-notification. PJ is still free to have my post removed, of course, by launching a successful suit through the California legal system; or through negotiation, of course.

For now, I'm happy to have this post back, if for no other reason than, the next time PJ criticizes a sonnet of mine on the grounds that no English speaker has ever talked like that (or WTTE), I can always point to this sonnet of his as an example of how he thinks English speakers actually do talk.