Armchair critics on plagiarism

[George Dance]

Armchair critics on plagiarism

moved from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/k259WiA4gcE?hl=en

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 6:34:20 PM UTC-5, Piggy Ross aka "Peter J Ross" wrote:
> > Newcomers to AAPC who are tempted to comment helpfully on the drivel
> > Dunce has posted may like to know why they shouldn't bother.
> >
> > Dunce has been caught plagiarising in AAPC and RAP three times:
> > 1. from Leonard Cohen, in the hope of winning a poetry competition
> > 2. from me, in the hope of making a profit
> > 3. from an unidentified translator, again in the hope of making a
> > profit.
> >
> > There are many other cases in which Dunce has been suspected of
> > plagiarising, and innumerable occasions on which he's stolen other
> > people's work without going quite so far as to pretend to be its
> > author.
> >
> > Dunce is a thieving scumbag. Don't waste your time critiquing the
> > "poems" of which he pretends to be the author. Ignore him or flame
> > him: either way, treat him as the thieving scumbag he is.
>
> Hmm... funny how old accusations keep turning up.

It's not funny at all, if one looks at the headers; these old accusations have been turning up because 'armchair critics' MIchael Monkey and his big buffoon "colleague" keep digging them up from the archives and bumping them.

> IIRC, the Leonard Cohen poem was posted, unattributed, along with the question (paraphrased from memory) "What do you think of this poem?" This question was addressed to a woman (possibly Karla). Here's the link: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vGRK-CsjHKw/m/YXtIE_9zBgAJ?hl=en

Since Michael Monkey doesn't know or has forgotten the details, here's a TLDR: Karla, an 'armchair critics' from those days, decided to run an "Imagist Free Verse challenge" to which I submitted the poem that later became "September Night". She declared that I should make it a haiku and cut out everything but the crickets going silent. I tried that, and discovered that the result was just a copy of Leonard Cohen's famous "Summer Haiku" poem (which I'd learned back in high school). So I sent her a copy of Cohen's poem, and asked her what she thought of that. I also turned my poem into a glosa of Cohen's.

September Night: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2010/09/september-night-george-dance.html

> I thought it was an attempt to trick her into unknowingly trashing a Cohen poem, thereby negating her criticism of George's poem (at least in the eyes of Cohen's admirers).

As usual, what Michael "thought" years later had nothing to do with the truth. I thought she'd recognize Cohen's poem, and realize she'd been advising me to turn mine into a copy of it.

> George claimed that he simply wanted to get her unbiased opinion of Cohen's work ("unbiased" in that knowledge of its successful author would play no part in her evaluation). (Uh huh.)

It might have been funny if Karla had trashed the poem (that's a joke that another 'armchair critic, Gary Garbage, said people used to play on him). But, no, Cohen's poem was recognized, and she decided to accuse me of plagiarism instead.

> The theft from PJR was definitely real. George took PJR's poem, "Batty's Hat," retitled it "Patty's Hat" (or something equally obvious), and simply added colors to those PJR had listed in the original. As a joke, this would have been allowable, but George went so far as to claim it was now an original poem, and even named his blog after it "Patty" having been replaced by "Penny"

Once again, our simian 'armchair critic' has forgotten or is ignoring the details. Here's the link:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/HnVDnCi3_0c/m/6aMv5PDP-mYJ?hl=en

And here's the TLDR: "Penny" began as a collaboration with poet Ray Henrich. Ray had written four rewrites of Piggy Ross's Batty "poem" including one in which he inreased Ross's "list" of colors from one to three. I sent him an OB on that increasing the colors to roughly a dozen, and he replied with one with over 100 colors (which won plaudits). He and I batted our Batty project around for a few more days and many more colors. At this point it was still being attributed; it's only when we replaced "Batty" with "Betty" (suggexted by Will Dockery) that we decided it no longer had anything to do with Piggy's "poem" and took his name off. Eventually Ray got tired of the project, and gave me permission to use all of it and continue to add colors By the time I'd reached 5,000 colors, I decided to open a blog to host it on.
Penny, or Penny's Hat: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html

> to avoid a possible lawsuit.

And no, I did not change "Betty" to "Penny because I was afraid of a Kooksuit from Will.)

> As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.

'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is refererring to both my Rimbaud translations -
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/Arthur%20Rimbaud
- and my book of Garneau translations -
/Looking and Playing in Space/: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.

> However, based on his above record, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd neglected to attribute it's translator as well.

"Its", Monkey. You, your Chimp colleague, and your big buffoon colleague, are three peas in a pod when it comes to misusing apostrophes. However, since "three peas in a pod" is a cliche, a new metaphor looks called for. One could even go so far as to call you "conjoined triplets" in that respect.

[W.Dockery]

> And here's the TLDR: "Penny" began as a collaboration with poet Ray Henrich.. Ray had written four rewrites of Piggy Ross's Batty "poem" including one in which he inreased Ross's "list" of colors from one to three. I sent him an OB on that increasing the colors to roughly a dozen, and he replied with one with over 100 colors (which won plaudits). He and I batted our Batty project around for a few more days and many more colors. At this point it was still being attributed; it's only when we replaced "Batty" with "Betty" (suggested by Will Dockery) that we decided it no longer had anything to do with Piggy's "poem" and took his name off. Eventually Ray got tired of the project, and gave me permission to use all of it and continue to add colors By the time I'd reached 5,000 colors, I decided to open a blog to host it on.
> Penny, or Penny's Hat: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive..html

>> to avoid a possible lawsuit.

> And no, I did not change "Betty" to "Penny because I was afraid of a Kooksuit from Will.)

I remember Betty now, a friend of mine who actually wore a blue hat.

🙂

>> As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.

> 'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is refererring to both my Rimbaud translations -
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/Arthur%20Rimbaud
> - and my book of Garneau translations -
> /Looking and Playing in Space/: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

> Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.

>> However, based on his above record, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd neglected to attribute it's translator as well.

> "Its", Monkey. You, your Chimp colleague, and your big buffoon colleague, are three peas in a pod when it comes to misusing apostrophes. However, since "three peas in a pod" is a cliche, a new metaphor looks called for. One could even go so far as to call you "conjoined triplets" in that respect.

***

[Michael Pendragon]

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 10:02:34 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> Armchair critics on plagiarism
>
> moved from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/k259WiA4gcE?hl=en
>
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 6:34:20 PM UTC-5, Piggy Ross aka "Peter J Ross" wrote:
> > > Newcomers to AAPC who are tempted to comment helpfully on the drivel
> > > Dunce has posted may like to know why they shouldn't bother.
> > >
> > > Dunce has been caught plagiarising in AAPC and RAP three times:
> > > 1. from Leonard Cohen, in the hope of winning a poetry competition
> > > 2. from me, in the hope of making a profit
> > > 3. from an unidentified translator, again in the hope of making a
> > > profit.
> > >
> > > There are many other cases in which Dunce has been suspected of
> > > plagiarising, and innumerable occasions on which he's stolen other
> > > people's work without going quite so far as to pretend to be its
> > > author.
> > >
> > > Dunce is a thieving scumbag. Don't waste your time critiquing the
> > > "poems" of which he pretends to be the author. Ignore him or flame
> > > him: either way, treat him as the thieving scumbag he is.
> >
> > Hmm... funny how old accusations keep turning up.
>
> It's not funny at all, if one looks at the headers; these old accusations have been turning up because 'armchair critics' MIchael Monkey and his big buffoon "colleague" keep digging them up from the archives and bumping them.
>

That's what I said, George. They keep turning up in the archives.

> > IIRC, the Leonard Cohen poem was posted, unattributed, along with the question (paraphrased from memory) "What do you think of this poem?" This question was addressed to a woman (possibly Karla). Here's the link: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vGRK-CsjHKw/m/YXtIE_9zBgAJ?hl=en
>
> Since Michael Monkey doesn't know or has forgotten the details, here's a TLDR: Karla, an 'armchair critics' from those days, decided to run an "Imagist Free Verse challenge" to which I submitted the poem that later became "September Night". She declared that I should make it a haiku and cut out everything but the crickets going silent. I tried that, and discovered that the result was just a copy of Leonard Cohen's famous "Summer Haiku" poem (which I'd learned back in high school). So I sent her a copy of Cohen's poem, and asked her what she thought of that. I also turned my poem into a glosa of Cohen's.
>
> September Night: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2010/09/september-night-george-dance.html
>
> > I thought it was an attempt to trick her into unknowingly trashing a Cohen poem, thereby negating her criticism of George's poem (at least in the eyes of Cohen's admirers).
>
> As usual, what Michael "thought" years later had nothing to do with the truth. I thought she'd recognize Cohen's poem, and realize she'd been advising me to turn mine into a copy of it.
>

As usual, what you thought, makes no sense.

If you wish to show someone that their suggestions would make your poem too much like Cohen's, common sense dictates that you would attribute the poem to him.

Your story sounds like a lie that you made up to cover your @$$ once you'd been caught.

> > George claimed that he simply wanted to get her unbiased opinion of Cohen's work ("unbiased" in that knowledge of its successful author would play no part in her evaluation). (Uh huh.)
>
> It might have been funny if Karla had trashed the poem (that's a joke that another 'armchair critic, Gary Garbage, said people used to play on him). But, no, Cohen's poem was recognized, and she decided to accuse me of plagiarism instead.
>

And rightly so.

> > The theft from PJR was definitely real. George took PJR's poem, "Batty's Hat," retitled it "Patty's Hat" (or something equally obvious), and simply added colors to those PJR had listed in the original. As a joke, this would have been allowable, but George went so far as to claim it was now an original poem, and even named his blog after it "Patty" having been replaced by "Penny"
>
> Once again, our simian 'armchair critic' has forgotten or is ignoring the details. Here's the link:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/HnVDnCi3_0c/m/6aMv5PDP-mYJ?hl=en
>
> And here's the TLDR: "Penny" began as a collaboration with poet Ray Henrich. Ray had written four rewrites of Piggy Ross's Batty "poem" including one in which he inreased Ross's "list" of colors from one to three. I sent him an OB on that increasing the colors to roughly a dozen, and he replied with one with over 100 colors (which won plaudits). He and I batted our Batty project around for a few more days and many more colors. At this point it was still being attributed; it's only when we replaced "Batty" with "Betty" (suggexted by Will Dockery) that we decided it no longer had anything to do with Piggy's "poem" and took his name off. Eventually Ray got tired of the project, and gave me permission to use all of it and continue to add colors By the time I'd reached 5,000 colors, I decided to open a blog to host it on.
> Penny, or Penny's Hat: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html

Like I said -- you started out parodying PJR's poem, but eventually decided to appropriate it as your own.

That is literary theft.

> > to avoid a possible lawsuit.
>
> And no, I did not change "Betty" to "Penny because I was afraid of a Kooksuit from Will.)

Why would Will sue you for having stolen PJR's poem? You seem confuzzled again today, George.

> > As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.
>
> 'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is refererring to both my Rimbaud translations -
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/Arthur%20Rimbaud
> - and my book of Garneau translations -
> /Looking and Playing in Space/: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html
>
> Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.
>

That explanation sounds highly sus as well.

> > However, based on his above record, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd neglected to attribute it's translator as well.
>
> "Its", Monkey. You, your Chimp colleague, and your big buffoon colleague, are three peas in a pod when it comes to misusing apostrophes. However, since "three peas in a pod" is a cliche, a new metaphor looks called for. One could even go so far as to call you "conjoined triplets" in that respect.
>

Do you really want us to start pointing out your typos, George? Tit for Tat, don't you know?

[Will Dockery]

No reason, really, I had a character named Betty in one of my poems at around the same time.

[George Dance]

Yes, that's the one. You took a picture of her and posted a link to it as a "photopoem." But it was later, when you wrote "Betty's Dead Cat" and I started writing "Betty's Cat is Dead," that you objected to my use of "Betty" and I changed it.

[George Dance]

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:31:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 10:02:34 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > Armchair critics on plagiarism
> >
> > moved from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/k259WiA4gcE?hl=en
> >
> > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 6:34:20 PM UTC-5, Piggy Ross aka "Peter J Ross" wrote:
> > > > Newcomers to AAPC who are tempted to comment helpfully on the drivel
> > > > Dunce has posted may like to know why they shouldn't bother.
> > > >
> > > > Dunce has been caught plagiarising in AAPC and RAP three times:
> > > > 1. from Leonard Cohen, in the hope of winning a poetry competition
> > > > 2. from me, in the hope of making a profit
> > > > 3. from an unidentified translator, again in the hope of making a
> > > > profit.
> > > >
> > > > There are many other cases in which Dunce has been suspected of
> > > > plagiarising, and innumerable occasions on which he's stolen other
> > > > people's work without going quite so far as to pretend to be its
> > > > author.
> > > >
> > > > Dunce is a thieving scumbag. Don't waste your time critiquing the
> > > > "poems" of which he pretends to be the author. Ignore him or flame
> > > > him: either way, treat him as the thieving scumbag he is.
> > >
> > > Hmm... funny how old accusations keep turning up.
> >
> > It's not funny at all, if one looks at the headers; these old accusations have been turning up because 'armchair critics' MIchael Monkey and his big buffoon "colleague" keep digging them up from the archives and bumping them.
> >
> That's what I said, George. They keep turning up in the archives.

Only because you keep searching for them to bump.

.
> > > IIRC, the Leonard Cohen poem was posted, unattributed, along with the question (paraphrased from memory) "What do you think of this poem?" This question was addressed to a woman (possibly Karla). Here's the link: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vGRK-CsjHKw/m/YXtIE_9zBgAJ?hl=en
> >
> > Since Michael Monkey doesn't know or has forgotten the details, here's a TLDR: Karla, an 'armchair critics' from those days, decided to run an "Imagist Free Verse challenge" to which I submitted the poem that later became "September Night". She declared that I should make it a haiku and cut out everything but the crickets going silent. I tried that, and discovered that the result was just a copy of Leonard Cohen's famous "Summer Haiku" poem (which I'd learned back in high school). So I sent her a copy of Cohen's poem, and asked her what she thought of that. I also turned my poem into a glosa of Cohen's.
> >
> > September Night: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2010/09/september-night-george-dance.html
> >
> > > I thought it was an attempt to trick her into unknowingly trashing a Cohen poem, thereby negating her criticism of George's poem (at least in the eyes of Cohen's admirers).
> >
> > As usual, what Michael "thought" years later had nothing to do with the truth. I thought she'd recognize Cohen's poem, and realize she'd been advising me to turn mine into a copy of it.
> >
> As usual, what you thought, makes no sense.
>
> If you wish to show someone that their suggestions would make your poem too much like Cohen's, common sense dictates that you would attribute the poem to him.

Michael: people on aapc have always attributed well-known poems without bothering with attribution. A month previously, Dennis Hammes had posted "The Sun Rising" as proof he could write circles around msifg and myself, and a month afterward Piggy Ross posted "Hymn to the Virgin."

> Your story sounds like a lie that you made up to cover your @$$ once you'd been caught.

Caught doing what? Posting a poem without attribution, but as I just told you that's common enough. Anything else?

> > > George claimed that he simply wanted to get her unbiased opinion of Cohen's work ("unbiased" in that knowledge of its successful author would play no part in her evaluation). (Uh huh.)
> >
> > It might have been funny if Karla had trashed the poem (that's a joke that another 'armchair critic, Gary Garbage, said people used to play on him). But, no, Cohen's poem was recognized, and she decided to accuse me of plagiarism instead.
> >
> And rightly so.

Fuck off. It wasn't plagiarism and you know it.

> > > The theft from PJR was definitely real. George took PJR's poem, "Batty's Hat," retitled it "Patty's Hat" (or something equally obvious), and simply added colors to those PJR had listed in the original. As a joke, this would have been allowable, but George went so far as to claim it was now an original poem, and even named his blog after it "Patty" having been replaced by "Penny"
> >
> > Once again, our simian 'armchair critic' has forgotten or is ignoring the details. Here's the link:
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/HnVDnCi3_0c/m/6aMv5PDP-mYJ?hl=en
> >
> > And here's the TLDR: "Penny" began as a collaboration with poet Ray Henrich. Ray had written four rewrites of Piggy Ross's Batty "poem" including one in which he inreased Ross's "list" of colors from one to three. I sent him an OB on that increasing the colors to roughly a dozen, and he replied with one with over 100 colors (which won plaudits). He and I batted our Batty project around for a few more days and many more colors. At this point it was still being attributed; it's only when we replaced "Batty" with "Betty" (suggexted by Will Dockery) that we decided it no longer had anything to do with Piggy's "poem" and took his name off. Eventually Ray got tired of the project, and gave me permission to use all of it and continue to add colors By the time I'd reached 5,000 colors, I decided to open a blog to host it on.
> > Penny, or Penny's Hat: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html
> Like I said -- you started out parodying PJR's poem, but eventually decided to appropriate it as your own.

No, Michael; I "appropriated" what Ray and I had worked on. There's not one line from PJ in the finished poem.
>
> That is literary theft.

Not from Ray, since he gave me permission. And not from Piggy, since he didn't write any of it.

> > > to avoid a possible lawsuit.
> >
> > And no, I did not change "Betty" to "Penny because I was afraid of a Kooksuit from Will.)

> Why would Will sue you for having stolen PJR's poem?

Michael; you said I changed the poem's *title* of the poem "to avoid a possible lawsuit." It was Will's title, not Piggy's; who else would be able sue me over it?

> You seem confuzzled again today, George.

You seem to have forgotten what you'd claimed just a few hours earlier.

> > > As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.
> >
> > 'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is refererring to both my Rimbaud translations -
> > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/Arthur%20Rimbaud
> > - and my book of Garneau translations -
> > /Looking and Playing in Space/: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html
> >
> > Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.
> >
> That explanation sounds highly sus as well.

Since you're rooting around the archives anyway, you may stumble upon it.

> > > However, based on his above record, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd neglected to attribute it's translator as well.
> >
> > "Its", Monkey. You, your Chimp colleague, and your big buffoon colleague, are three peas in a pod when it comes to misusing apostrophes. However, since "three peas in a pod" is a cliche, a new metaphor looks called for. One could even go so far as to call you "conjoined triplets" in that respect.
> >
> Do you really want us to start pointing out your typos, George? Tit for Tat, don't you know?

But, Michael: your team has been "pointing out" my typos for a long time. You and NG have even opened new threads to troll them. Don't try to threaten me with something you're already doing.

[Michael Pendragon]

That's a gross oversimplification, George.

Your reputation as a plagiarist came up in one of our conversations, and NancyGene having remembered your plagiarism of Pink Floyd, pulled up the offending thread.

> > > > IIRC, the Leonard Cohen poem was posted, unattributed, along with the question (paraphrased from memory) "What do you think of this poem?" This question was addressed to a woman (possibly Karla). Here's the link: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vGRK-CsjHKw/m/YXtIE_9zBgAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > Since Michael Monkey doesn't know or has forgotten the details, here's a TLDR: Karla, an 'armchair critics' from those days, decided to run an "Imagist Free Verse challenge" to which I submitted the poem that later became "September Night". She declared that I should make it a haiku and cut out everything but the crickets going silent. I tried that, and discovered that the result was just a copy of Leonard Cohen's famous "Summer Haiku" poem (which I'd learned back in high school). So I sent her a copy of Cohen's poem, and asked her what she thought of that. I also turned my poem into a glosa of Cohen's.
> > >
> > > September Night: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2010/09/september-night-george-dance.html
> > >
> > > > I thought it was an attempt to trick her into unknowingly trashing a Cohen poem, thereby negating her criticism of George's poem (at least in the eyes of Cohen's admirers).
> > >
> > > As usual, what Michael "thought" years later had nothing to do with the truth. I thought she'd recognize Cohen's poem, and realize she'd been advising me to turn mine into a copy of it.
> > >
> > As usual, what you thought, makes no sense.
> >
> > If you wish to show someone that their suggestions would make your poem too much like Cohen's, common sense dictates that you would attribute the poem to him.
> Michael: people on aapc have always attributed well-known poems without bothering with attribution. A month previously, Dennis Hammes had posted "The Sun Rising" as proof he could write circles around msifg and myself, and a month afterward Piggy Ross posted "Hymn to the Virgin."
>

Oh, and since you're going to typo-lame everyone, I should point out that "people on aapc have always attributed well-known poems without bothering with attribution" is palpable nonsense. They've either attributed them, or they have not.

> > Your story sounds like a lie that you made up to cover your @$$ once you'd been caught.
> Caught doing what? Posting a poem without attribution, but as I just told you that's common enough. Anything else?

So your justification for literary theft is that "other people steal"?

Really, George. You're not going to get the charges dropped with that defense.

> > > > George claimed that he simply wanted to get her unbiased opinion of Cohen's work ("unbiased" in that knowledge of its successful author would play no part in her evaluation). (Uh huh.)
> > >
> > > It might have been funny if Karla had trashed the poem (that's a joke that another 'armchair critic, Gary Garbage, said people used to play on him). But, no, Cohen's poem was recognized, and she decided to accuse me of plagiarism instead.
> > >
> > And rightly so.
> Fuck off. It wasn't plagiarism and you know it.

I know that it very much was an act of plagiarism.

There was simply no logical reason for you to have posted the poem unattributed, unless you wanted Karla to think that it was your work.

> > > > The theft from PJR was definitely real. George took PJR's poem, "Batty's Hat," retitled it "Patty's Hat" (or something equally obvious), and simply added colors to those PJR had listed in the original. As a joke, this would have been allowable, but George went so far as to claim it was now an original poem, and even named his blog after it "Patty" having been replaced by "Penny"
> > >
> > > Once again, our simian 'armchair critic' has forgotten or is ignoring the details. Here's the link:
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/HnVDnCi3_0c/m/6aMv5PDP-mYJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > And here's the TLDR: "Penny" began as a collaboration with poet Ray Henrich. Ray had written four rewrites of Piggy Ross's Batty "poem" including one in which he inreased Ross's "list" of colors from one to three. I sent him an OB on that increasing the colors to roughly a dozen, and he replied with one with over 100 colors (which won plaudits). He and I batted our Batty project around for a few more days and many more colors. At this point it was still being attributed; it's only when we replaced "Batty" with "Betty" (suggexted by Will Dockery) that we decided it no longer had anything to do with Piggy's "poem" and took his name off. Eventually Ray got tired of the project, and gave me permission to use all of it and continue to add colors By the time I'd reached 5,000 colors, I decided to open a blog to host it on.
> > > Penny, or Penny's Hat: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html
> > Like I said -- you started out parodying PJR's poem, but eventually decided to appropriate it as your own.
> No, Michael; I "appropriated" what Ray and I had worked on. There's not one line from PJ in the finished poem.

You may have changed a word or two in each line, but the bulk of the words remain PJR's. The basic narrative (such as it is) is PJR's as well.

1) Ray parodied PJR's poem by adding colors to those PJR had listed.
2) You started adding colors as well.
3) After having spent several days adding colors to it (such talent!), you decided to claim it as an original work.
4) At that point, Ray wisely bowed out of the project.

There's just no getting around the fact that you stole it.

And I find it sadly amusing that the poem you stole from PJR is the one that you have chosen to represent your blog.

> > That is literary theft.
>
> Not from Ray, since he gave me permission. And not from Piggy, since he didn't write any of it.

We've compared the poems in the past, and your theft from PJR is clear.

And, as noted at that time, PJR's version is far superior to yours.

> > > > to avoid a possible lawsuit.
> > >
> > > And no, I did not change "Betty" to "Penny because I was afraid of a Kooksuit from Will.)
>
> > Why would Will sue you for having stolen PJR's poem?
> Michael; you said I changed the poem's *title* of the poem "to avoid a possible lawsuit." It was Will's title, not Piggy's; who else would be able sue me over it?

"Betty" is too close to "Batty" -- thus making the theft all the more obvious.

> > You seem confuzzled again today, George.
> You seem to have forgotten what you'd claimed just a few hours earlier.

I never claimed that you stole the poem from Will.

> > > > As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.
> > >
> > > 'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is refererring to both my Rimbaud translations -
> > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/Arthur%20Rimbaud
> > > - and my book of Garneau translations -
> > > /Looking and Playing in Space/: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html
> > >
> > > Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.
> > >
> > That explanation sounds highly sus as well.
> Since you're rooting around the archives anyway, you may stumble upon it.

As noted above: the subject of your reputation for plagiarism came up in a discussion. NancyGene remembered that you'd once plagiarized Pink Floyd and reopened the thread for the convenience of her readers.

> > > > However, based on his above record, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd neglected to attribute it's translator as well.
> > >
> > > "Its", Monkey. You, your Chimp colleague, and your big buffoon colleague, are three peas in a pod when it comes to misusing apostrophes. However, since "three peas in a pod" is a cliche, a new metaphor looks called for. One could even go so far as to call you "conjoined triplets" in that respect.
> > >
> > Do you really want us to start pointing out your typos, George? Tit for Tat, don't you know?
> But, Michael: your team has been "pointing out" my typos for a long time. You and NG have even opened new threads to troll them. Don't try to threaten me with something you're already doing.
>

I've been intentionally overlooking plenty of them in our discussions, George. From this point on, I suggest you avoid responding when stoned.

[W-Dockery]

> ..

I wanted to post a link to the photograph of my friend Betty wearing her blue hat, also. I probably still have that photograph somewhere.

>> You seem confuzzled again today, George.

> You seem to have forgotten what you'd claimed just a few hours earlier.

>> > > As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.
>> >
>> > 'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is refererring to both my Rimbaud translations -
>> > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/Arthur%20Rimbaud
>> > - and my book of Garneau translations -
>> > /Looking and Playing in Space/: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html
>> >
>> > Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.
>> >
>> That explanation sounds highly sus as well.

> Since you're rooting around the archives anyway, you may stumble upon it.

>> > > However, based on his above record, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd neglected to attribute it's translator as well.
>> >

>> > "Its", Monkey. You, your Chimp colleague, and your big buffoon colleague, are three peas in a pod when it comes to misusing apostrophes. However, since "three peas in a pod" is a cliche, a new metaphor looks called for. One could even go so far as to call you "conjoined triplets" in that respect..

>> >
>> Do you really want us to start pointing out your typos, George? Tit for Tat, don't you know?

> But, Michael: your team has been "pointing out" my typos for a long time. You and NG have even opened new threads to troll them. Don't try to threaten me with something you're already doing.

Obviously, we /all/ make mistakes from time to time.

Did "John Dunne" and "Thomas Stillings" ever find their way to "London, Ireland" yet?

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

No. They were waylaid by Edmund Spencer, Henry David Theroux and Edgar Allan Poland.

[George Dance]

Fair enough. Let me correct that.

> > Michael: people on aapc have often posted well-known poems without bothering with attribution. A month previously, Dennis Hammes had posted "The Sun Rising" as proof he could write circles around msifg and myself, and a month afterward Piggy Ross posted "Hymn to the Virgin."

Better now?

> > > Your story sounds like a lie that you made up to cover your @$$ once you'd been caught.
> > Caught doing what? Posting a poem without attribution, but as I just told you that's common enough. Anything else?
> So your justification for literary theft is that "other people steal"?

Michael; it isn't 'stealing' to post a well-known poem without attribution. This isn't France, where there are laws against that. You can call it stealing if you want, but (once again) don't attribute your opinions to me.

> Really, George. You're not going to get the charges dropped with that defense.

What "charges" are you babbling about, Michael?

> > > > > George claimed that he simply wanted to get her unbiased opinion of Cohen's work ("unbiased" in that knowledge of its successful author would play no part in her evaluation). (Uh huh.)
> > > >
> > > > It might have been funny if Karla had trashed the poem (that's a joke that another 'armchair critic, Gary Garbage, said people used to play on him). But, no, Cohen's poem was recognized, and she decided to accuse me of plagiarism instead.
> > > >
> > > And rightly so.
> > Fuck off. It wasn't plagiarism and you know it.
> I know that it very much was an act of plagiarism.

No, Michael; you may believe it's plagiarism, and you're simply wrong; but there's no reason for me to think that you actually believe it.

> There was simply no logical reason for you to have posted the poem unattributed, unless you wanted Karla to think that it was your work.

I just gave you a logical reason: I thought it was a well-known poem (as I learned it in school) and I'd been told, in no uncertain terms, that doing so on aapc was *not* plagiarism. So I didn't even think about that.

> > > > > The theft from PJR was definitely real. George took PJR's poem, "Batty's Hat," retitled it "Patty's Hat" (or something equally obvious), and simply added colors to those PJR had listed in the original. As a joke, this would have been allowable, but George went so far as to claim it was now an original poem, and even named his blog after it "Patty" having been replaced by "Penny"
> > > >
> > > > Once again, our simian 'armchair critic' has forgotten or is ignoring the details. Here's the link:
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/HnVDnCi3_0c/m/6aMv5PDP-mYJ?hl=en
> > > >
> > > > And here's the TLDR: "Penny" began as a collaboration with poet Ray Henrich. Ray had written four rewrites of Piggy Ross's Batty "poem" including one in which he inreased Ross's "list" of colors from one to three. I sent him an OB on that increasing the colors to roughly a dozen, and he replied with one with over 100 colors (which won plaudits). He and I batted our Batty project around for a few more days and many more colors. At this point it was still being attributed; it's only when we replaced "Batty" with "Betty" (suggexted by Will Dockery) that we decided it no longer had anything to do with Piggy's "poem" and took his name off. Eventually Ray got tired of the project, and gave me permission to use all of it and continue to add colors By the time I'd reached 5,000 colors, I decided to open a blog to host it on.
> > > > Penny, or Penny's Hat: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html
> > > Like I said -- you started out parodying PJR's poem, but eventually decided to appropriate it as your own.
> > No, Michael; I "appropriated" what Ray and I had worked on. There's not one line from PJ in the finished poem.
> You may have changed a word or two in each line, but the bulk of the words remain PJR's. The basic narrative (such as it is) is PJR's as well.

No, Michael. IIRC I usedless than 10 words from his poem, which was not the "bulk" of his poem. And my frame tale was not the same as his narrative.

> 1) Ray parodied PJR's poem by adding colors to those PJR had listed.
> 2) You started adding colors as well.
> 3) After having spent several days adding colors to it (such talent!), you decided to claim it as an original work.

That's what it was.

> 4) At that point, Ray wisely bowed out of the project.
>
> There's just no getting around the fact that you stole it.

Funny, even Piggy didn't buy your Monkeylogic (though it was in his interest to do so).

> And I find it sadly amusing that the poem you stole from PJR is the one that you have chosen to represent your blog.

I find it amusing myself that my poem has been visited thousands of times, while no one has even heard of "Batty" unless you or the buffoon dredges it up. Poetic justice.

> > > That is literary theft.
> >
> > Not from Ray, since he gave me permission. And not from Piggy, since he didn't write any of it.
> We've compared the poems in the past, and your theft from PJR is clear.

Your first conjunct is correct, but your second is not.

> And, as noted at that time, PJR's version is far superior to yours.

Now, that flame was below the belt. I'm forced to say that you don't understand "Penny," and there's no use trying to explain it to you because you'd do the equivalent of stopping your ears and going "NAH NAH NAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

> > > > > to avoid a possible lawsuit.
> > > >
> > > > And no, I did not change "Betty" to "Penny because I was afraid of a Kooksuit from Will.)
> >
> > > Why would Will sue you for having stolen PJR's poem?
> > Michael; you said I changed the poem's *title* of the poem "to avoid a possible lawsuit." It was Will's title, not Piggy's; who else would be able sue me over it?
> "Betty" is too close to "Batty" -- thus making the theft all the more obvious.

Once again, there was no "theft".

> > > You seem confuzzled again today, George.
> > You seem to have forgotten what you'd claimed just a few hours earlier.
> I never claimed that you stole the poem from Will.

No, Michael, but we were talking about my alleged theft of the *title*, which came from Will (and was dropped later in response to Will having a problem with it).

> > > > > As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.
> > > >
> > > > 'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is refererring to both my Rimbaud translations -
> > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/Arthur%20Rimbaud
> > > > - and my book of Garneau translations -
> > > > /Looking and Playing in Space/: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html
> > > >
> > > > Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.
> > > >
> > > That explanation sounds highly sus as well.
> > Since you're rooting around the archives anyway, you may stumble upon it.

> As noted above: the subject of your reputation for plagiarism came up in a discussion. NancyGene remembered that you'd once plagiarized Pink Floyd and reopened the thread for the convenience of her readers.

Oh, it just "came up", did it? Neither you nor your buffoon mentioned it at all?

> > > > > However, based on his above record, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd neglected to attribute it's translator as well.
> > > >
> > > > "Its", Monkey. You, your Chimp colleague, and your big buffoon colleague, are three peas in a pod when it comes to misusing apostrophes. However, since "three peas in a pod" is a cliche, a new metaphor looks called for. One could even go so far as to call you "conjoined triplets" in that respect.
> > > >
> > > Do you really want us to start pointing out your typos, George? Tit for Tat, don't you know?
> > But, Michael: your team has been "pointing out" my typos for a long time. You and NG have even opened new threads to troll them. Don't try to threaten me with something you're already doing.
> >
> I've been intentionally overlooking plenty of them in our discussions, George. From this point on, I suggest you avoid responding when stoned.

Do what you want; it's an alt.* group. At least, it will stop you from pretending there's more of them than there actually are. If I notice you doing that, I'll reciprocate. Tit for Tat, don't you know?

[George Dance]

Did they end up in Toronto, Yukon?

[Will Dockery]

I don't remember objecting to it but I must have for some reason.

> > >> As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.
> >
> > > 'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is refererring to both my Rimbaud translations -
> > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/Arthur%20Rimbaud
> > > - and my book of Garneau translations -
> > > /Looking and Playing in Space/: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html
> >
> > > Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.
> >
> > >> However, based on his above record, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd neglected to attribute it's translator as well.
> >
> > > "Its", Monkey. You, your Chimp colleague, and your big buffoon colleague, are three peas in a pod when it comes to misusing apostrophes. However, since "three peas in a pod" is a cliche, a new metaphor looks called for. One could even go so far as to call you "conjoined triplets" in that respect.

...

[George Dance]

You thought the similar titles would be too confusing to readers.

[W-Dockery]

I might have had other plans for the Betty character, but we split up not long after that.

>> > > >> As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.
>> > >

>> > > > 'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is referring to both my Rimbaud translations -

[Michael Pendragon]

Grammatically, yes.

It's still a childish attempt to justify literary theft because "other people were stealing as well."

> > > > Your story sounds like a lie that you made up to cover your @$$ once you'd been caught.
> > > Caught doing what? Posting a poem without attribution, but as I just told you that's common enough. Anything else?
> > So your justification for literary theft is that "other people steal"?
> Michael; it isn't 'stealing' to post a well-known poem without attribution. This isn't France, where there are laws against that. You can call it stealing if you want, but (once again) don't attribute your opinions to me.
>

It's stealing as far as I am concerned. And I'm any author whose work were to be posted, unattributed, by you would second my definition.

Lack of attribution implies that the work is original to the poster, and therefore constitutes intellectual property theft.

If the work is copyrighted, your reprinting it with or without attribution would be an act of plagiarism.

Since both the work of Mr. Cohen and Pink Floyd are copyrighted, both could be prosecuted as crimes: plagiarism in the first case, and intellectual property theft in the second.

> > Really, George. You're not going to get the charges dropped with that defense.
> What "charges" are you babbling about, Michael?

You have been charged with multiple acts of plagiarism, intellectual property theft, slander, childishness/senility, and smuggling (donkey sausages).

> > > > > > George claimed that he simply wanted to get her unbiased opinion of Cohen's work ("unbiased" in that knowledge of its successful author would play no part in her evaluation). (Uh huh.)
> > > > >
> > > > > It might have been funny if Karla had trashed the poem (that's a joke that another 'armchair critic, Gary Garbage, said people used to play on him). But, no, Cohen's poem was recognized, and she decided to accuse me of plagiarism instead.
> > > > >
> > > > And rightly so.
> > > Fuck off. It wasn't plagiarism and you know it.
> > I know that it very much was an act of plagiarism.
> No, Michael; you may believe it's plagiarism, and you're simply wrong; but there's no reason for me to think that you actually believe it.

Deflection noted. Indeed, whenever the charge of plagiarism has been leveled against you, you attempt to turn it into a discussion of international copyright law.

Since no one is taking you to court, the actual laws are irrelevant to the issue of whether you've committed the acts you've been accused of. To wit:
1) posting an unattributed Leonard Cohen poem as if it were your own,
2) co-authoring a parody of one of PJR's poems, then removing any mention of its original and passing it off as a product of your own imagination.
3) attempting to pass of translations of Rimbaud's poetry as your own.
4) writing an unattributed OB poem based on Pink Floyd lyrics.

Regardless of whether the above are legally acts of theft in France, but not in Canada, is none of my concern. All four are reprehensible acts for which their perpetrator should be condemned.

> > There was simply no logical reason for you to have posted the poem unattributed, unless you wanted Karla to think that it was your work.
> I just gave you a logical reason: I thought it was a well-known poem (as I learned it in school) and I'd been told, in no uncertain terms, that doing so on aapc was *not* plagiarism. So I didn't even think about that.
>

Lack of thought on your part constitutes the antithesis of a logical reason.

No wonder you've gained the nickname of "Dunce."

> > > > > > The theft from PJR was definitely real. George took PJR's poem, "Batty's Hat," retitled it "Patty's Hat" (or something equally obvious), and simply added colors to those PJR had listed in the original. As a joke, this would have been allowable, but George went so far as to claim it was now an original poem, and even named his blog after it "Patty" having been replaced by "Penny"
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, our simian 'armchair critic' has forgotten or is ignoring the details. Here's the link:
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/HnVDnCi3_0c/m/6aMv5PDP-mYJ?hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > And here's the TLDR: "Penny" began as a collaboration with poet Ray Henrich. Ray had written four rewrites of Piggy Ross's Batty "poem" including one in which he inreased Ross's "list" of colors from one to three. I sent him an OB on that increasing the colors to roughly a dozen, and he replied with one with over 100 colors (which won plaudits). He and I batted our Batty project around for a few more days and many more colors. At this point it was still being attributed; it's only when we replaced "Batty" with "Betty" (suggexted by Will Dockery) that we decided it no longer had anything to do with Piggy's "poem" and took his name off. Eventually Ray got tired of the project, and gave me permission to use all of it and continue to add colors By the time I'd reached 5,000 colors, I decided to open a blog to host it on.
> > > > > Penny, or Penny's Hat: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html
> > > > Like I said -- you started out parodying PJR's poem, but eventually decided to appropriate it as your own.
> > > No, Michael; I "appropriated" what Ray and I had worked on. There's not one line from PJ in the finished poem.
> > You may have changed a word or two in each line, but the bulk of the words remain PJR's. The basic narrative (such as it is) is PJR's as well.
> No, Michael. IIRC I usedless than 10 words from his poem, which was not the "bulk" of his poem. And my frame tale was not the same as his narrative.

Since we're typo-laming now, you seem to have a sticky space bar. "Betty's Hat" is clearly stolen from the much superior "Batty's Hat." "Batty's Hat" is a 30-word poem. You kept 10 of those words in your rewrite. That's one third of the poem!

Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.

vs

Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
or Almond or Amaranth
or Amber or Amethyst...
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.

Let's examine the opening lines:

Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.

vs

Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.

Now let's look at the closing lines:

it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.

vs

but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.

Now let's look at the middle:

It's a hat that isn't yellow,

vs

It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
or Almond or Amaranth
or Amber or Amethyst...

I suggest you place your tail between your legs, hang your head in shame, and slink of to die in the northernmost reaches of the Yukon.

> > 1) Ray parodied PJR's poem by adding colors to those PJR had listed.
> > 2) You started adding colors as well.
> > 3) After having spent several days adding colors to it (such talent!), you decided to claim it as an original work.
> That's what it was.
> > 4) At that point, Ray wisely bowed out of the project.
> >
> > There's just no getting around the fact that you stole it.
> Funny, even Piggy didn't buy your Monkeylogic (though it was in his interest to do so).

The above comparison speaks for itself.

> > And I find it sadly amusing that the poem you stole from PJR is the one that you have chosen to represent your blog.
> I find it amusing myself that my poem has been visited thousands of times, while no one has even heard of "Batty" unless you or the buffoon dredges it up. Poetic justice.

Wow! You must know the enviable thrill of being number one on the local charts at Reverbnation!

> > > > That is literary theft.
> > >
> > > Not from Ray, since he gave me permission. And not from Piggy, since he didn't write any of it.
> > We've compared the poems in the past, and your theft from PJR is clear.
> Your first conjunct is correct, but your second is not.

See above. It couldn't possibly be any more clear.

> > And, as noted at that time, PJR's version is far superior to yours.
> Now, that flame was below the belt. I'm forced to say that you don't understand "Penny," and there's no use trying to explain it to you because you'd do the equivalent of stopping your ears and going "NAH NAH NAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
>

Instead of imitating a Donkey-style bray why don't we compare the two?

PJR's poem was written as a "thank you" for a present. When taken in that context, it's a wonderfully whimsical way of expressing gratitude.

Your poem was conceived as a parody wherein the single joke was to keep adding the names of colors that "Betty's" hat was not. You end up listing several thousand colors. Your poem makes for one of the dullest reads imaginable. What might have been a mildly amusing parody with five or six additional colors becomes an exercise in tediousness when you repeat the "joke" several thousand times.

> > > > > > to avoid a possible lawsuit.
> > > > >
> > > > > And no, I did not change "Betty" to "Penny because I was afraid of a Kooksuit from Will.)
> > >
> > > > Why would Will sue you for having stolen PJR's poem?
> > > Michael; you said I changed the poem's *title* of the poem "to avoid a possible lawsuit." It was Will's title, not Piggy's; who else would be able sue me over it?
> > "Betty" is too close to "Batty" -- thus making the theft all the more obvious.
> Once again, there was no "theft".

Do you prefer "second-handing"?

As I said, I've no desire to quibble over the legality of the matter. You stole one third of the words PJR used, and copied the meaning of his lines with lines to a "T."

> > > > You seem confuzzled again today, George.
> > > You seem to have forgotten what you'd claimed just a few hours earlier.
> > I never claimed that you stole the poem from Will.
> No, Michael, but we were talking about my alleged theft of the *title*, which came from Will (and was dropped later in response to Will having a problem with it).

Whatever. This is just another attempt at deflection. Regardless of who you assign the hat to, it remains a good, red woollen hat that warms its owner's ears.

> > > > > > As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is refererring to both my Rimbaud translations -
> > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/Arthur%20Rimbaud
> > > > > - and my book of Garneau translations -
> > > > > /Looking and Playing in Space/: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.
> > > > >
> > > > That explanation sounds highly sus as well.
> > > Since you're rooting around the archives anyway, you may stumble upon it.
>
> > As noted above: the subject of your reputation for plagiarism came up in a discussion. NancyGene remembered that you'd once plagiarized Pink Floyd and reopened the thread for the convenience of her readers.
> Oh, it just "came up", did it? Neither you nor your buffoon mentioned it at all?

When something comes up in the course of a conversation, it is necessarily mentioned.

> > > > > > However, based on his above record, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd neglected to attribute it's translator as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Its", Monkey. You, your Chimp colleague, and your big buffoon colleague, are three peas in a pod when it comes to misusing apostrophes. However, since "three peas in a pod" is a cliche, a new metaphor looks called for. One could even go so far as to call you "conjoined triplets" in that respect.
> > > > >
> > > > Do you really want us to start pointing out your typos, George? Tit for Tat, don't you know?
> > > But, Michael: your team has been "pointing out" my typos for a long time. You and NG have even opened new threads to troll them. Don't try to threaten me with something you're already doing.
> > >
> > I've been intentionally overlooking plenty of them in our discussions, George. From this point on, I suggest you avoid responding when stoned.
> Do what you want; it's an alt.* group. At least, it will stop you from pretending there's more of them than there actually are. If I notice you doing that, I'll reciprocate. Tit for Tat, don't you know?
>

Let's see how that works for you, George.

[W.Dockery]

Hold up, where do these charges
of plagiarism of Arthur Rimbaud poetry come from?

That sounds particularly bogus.

[George Dance]

I'll just paste that in again.

> > > > > > Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.

And that's all I ever saw from him on that subject.

[Michael Pendragon]

That's your version. I notice, however, that you haven't bothered to link the thread.

[Will Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:45:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> Hold up, where do these charges
>> of plagiarism of Arthur Rimbaud poetry come from?
>>
>> That sounds particularly bogus.

> I'll just paste that in again.

>> > > > > > Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.

> And that's all I ever saw from him on that subject.

So, another half baked canard that Pendragon tried to pick up and run with.

[Michael Pendragon]

I haven't picked up or run with anything, Donkey.

If PJR accused George Dance of plagiarism, I'm sure that he had a good reason for doing so.

Shortly after my arrival here, George Dance was kind enough to explain the role that PJR and his "gang of thugs" played at AAPC. According to George Dance, PJR was the former President of the Auk.kooks group (I believe that was its name), and that he had been impeached for having supported a child molester (also in said group). I don't recall the details of PJR's alleged impeachment. In any case, the "kooks" were, according to George Dance, a gang of thugs who would troll people into throwing wacky rants online, which they would then blackmail them with, or destroy their livelihood by bringing it to the attention of the employers.

I'm sure that George Dance will pardon me if I've slightly misremembered some of the details. After all it was nearly ten years ago.

Since that time, PJR has shown himself to be an honest, principled, and trustworthy individual several times. I may not always agree with PJR's opinions, interpretations, etc., but I believe that he is a thousand times more trustworthy than George Dance.

So, before I take George Dance's rendition of the "Rimbaud" incident as factual, I must insist on *seeing* PJR's stated reasons for making such accusations.

[George Dance]

Well, when I say that's all, I don't mean that was his last word. He'd constantly repeat it, of course, so it's easy enough to find examples. Here's a representative one from "Evil":

"As you have admitted, you don't know any French. You are therefore
incapable of translating French."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/LW8I72sZ4BI/m/DWXnR44WBwAJ?hl=en

[Michael Pendragon]

Thank you.

PJR is mistaken in his claim that one needs to know a language in order to translate it. I demonstrated this when I translated "The Serpent" by Osip Mandelshtam.

With the aid of existing translations, google translate, and foreign word pronunciations on youtube, etc., one can successfully translate a poem without knowing a single word in its original tongue.

BTW, George. I stand by my comments on your translation of Rimbaud's poem.

As I've said many times, when you're good you're very very good.

[George Dance]

Here's one from "Sensation" - not as easy to find, as he deleted it, but it still appears in backthread:
> Incidentally, while it can sometimes be difficult to tell which texts
> posted by a known plagiarist are plagiarised and which aren't, this
> and other translations of French authors certainly can't have been
> written by George Dance. He's admitted in the past that he doesn't
> even speak French:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/lzpDA-kMsB4/m/LQZ6EWhxBgAJ?hl=en

And - bonus - here's the original quote that he took his allegation from. Piggy actually made a backup copy of the can.politics thread at alt.censorship. (Note - CHOI is a Quebec French-language talk radio station.)
"Most of the people writing on the issue here (including me) don't even
speak French, let alone have ever listened to CHOI; so they have
absolutely no idea of the context of any of the alleged quotes. It's
all been hearsay."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.censorship/c/rV9SgFjVAtY/m/Az73I7REejMJ

[W.Dockery]

And then PJR would twist that to saying the translation was so good you couldn't have written it,

[George Dance]

On reflection, "Piggy made a backup copy" was a silly idea of mine. The most likely explanation is that the can.politics thread had been simply crossposted onto alt.censorship in real time.

> > "Most of the people writing on the issue here (including me) don't even
> > speak French, let alone have ever listened to CHOI; so they have
> > absolutely no idea of the context of any of the alleged quotes. It's
> > all been hearsay."
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.censorship/c/rV9SgFjVAtY/m/Az73I7REejMJ

> And then PJR would twist that to saying the translation was so good you couldn't have written it,

Yes, I used to say that: you could tell that Piggy liked one of my poems, because he'd say that I plagiarized it.

Looking back on my output, though, I'm beginning to see why others might believe it.

It comes down to personal style. All the "natural poets" have them. By "natural poet" I mean someone like you, who writes poetry all the time, because it's something they do. Just as some knit, and some go to the gym, some write poetry. A natural poet develops a personal style -- which just means that all his work identifiably his.

I remember once how, years ago long before the invasion from the planet of the apes, Corey Conman did a group thing, holding a poetry contest in which each of us were challenged to submit a poem anonymously, and everyone had to guess who had written what. When I read the results, the first thing I noticed was that my poem had been "banned." The second thing I noticed was how ridiculously easy it was; each poem was as personally identifiable as a photograph of the poet.

I am not and never have been a natural poet. Though I wrote some poetry in my teens and twenties, I didn't start writing it seriously until I joined RAP 16 years ago. I joined as a reader, eager to discover and discuss new poetry; but I was quickly challenged to prove my cred by writing poetry of my own, so I learned. I never developed a personal style, and consequently my poems are not identifiably mine.

[George Dance]

Thank you.

[George Dance]

I agree that one can translate from a translation one doesn't know; it's a lot of work, but it can be done. I've translated a couple of poems from Chinese, a language I don't know and can't read.

But both Piggy's premises are false, not just that one. As I've said before, I was an army brat, and lived in three provinces as a young boy; including Quebec at the time I learned to talk. In those days, I was told later, I would speak French to my friends and English at home. Sadly, after my father was transferred, I stopped speaking it until high school when it became a required subject.

I remember how one time, when my wife and i were visiting Montreal, we got lost looking for the Cafe de la Place; so I walked up to a stranger and asked him: "Pardon, M'sieur, ou va-t-on pour trouver Le Cafe de la Place?" He smiled and responded with a stream of directions. My wife complimented me on my French, but I have no idea whether the stranger understood what I was saying beyond "Cafe de la Place?" For my part, I didn't understand a word of his reply. Fortunately, he pointed as he talked, and I was able to find our way from that.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 2:13:35 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> I agree that one can translate from a translation one doesn't know; it's a lot of work, but it can be done. I've translated a couple of poems from Chinese, a language I don't know and can't read.

s/b " I agree that one can translate from a language one doesn't know; ..."

[Michael Pendragon]

Mr. Porgy is getting brave now that Corey has been away from AAPC for a few months.

> I am not and never have been a natural poet. Though I wrote some poetry in my teens and twenties, I didn't start writing it seriously until I joined RAP 16 years ago.

You've only been writing poetry for 16 years, yet you refuse to accept the criticisms of those of us who have been writing and publishing poetry for over 40 years. Your affinity with our resident Donkey has suddenly been made more understandable.

> I joined as a reader, eager to discover and discuss new poetry; but I was quickly challenged to prove my cred by writing poetry of my own, so I learned. I never developed a personal style, and consequently my poems are not identifiably mine.
>

You're wrong, George. You do have several idiosyncrasies as a writer that help to identify your poetry:

1) Flawed meter. Your "loose IP" (and whatever else you choose to call it) creates a meter that is virtually impossible to read in even an approximation of a recognizable metrical form. *Note: not all of your poems suffer from this flaw, but enough do to make it a GD giveaway. The same holds true for the remaining items on this list.
2) Bizarre stress (like "Def-e-CATE") -- apparently a doomed attempt to force the words to fit the intended meter.
3) Commonplace message/thought. Your poems rarely, if ever, embrace contain a new, or even mildly iconoclastic thought. The closest you come is when expressing an Ayn Rand-inspired sentiment (but Rand's philosophy is 75 years old, and has become a cultural stereotype).
4) Adherence to form. Your poetry often comes across as the latest in a series of experiments with different forms, which you will adhere to (allowing for loose meter and near rhyme) religiously -- even to the point that the form harms the poem.
5) Apart from the above-mentioned flaws, your poetry shows a good deal of technical skill. One is rarely going to mistake one of your poems for the work of a first-time poet.

Based on the above list, one could easily identify your poetry within the confines of AAPC, as no one else's poetry falls into a similar mold.

While poets do develop individual styles, there is only so far that one can go using language. One can pick up on several commonly repeated styles, phrases, topics, etc., and create a parody of a given poet's style; yet that same person might be hard pressed to distinguish that poet's work from that of another poet working in a similar style.

[Family Guy]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 2:13:35 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> I agree that one can translate from a translation one doesn't know; it's a lot of work, but it can be done. I've translated a couple of poems from Chinese, a language I don't know and can't read.

"You...you are really stupid." - Roger, 'American Dad'

[W.Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

Corey banned you?

[George Dance]

Mr. Monkey is forgetting that I called Corey Conman before he left. Unlike some, I don't pretend that assholes become nice people by leaving.

> > I am not and never have been a natural poet. Though I wrote some poetry in my teens and twenties, I didn't start writing it seriously until I joined RAP 16 years ago.
> You've only been writing poetry for 16 years, yet you refuse to accept the criticisms of those of us who have been writing and publishing poetry for over 40 years. Your affinity with our resident Donkey has suddenly been made more understandable.
> > I joined as a reader, eager to discover and discuss new poetry; but I was quickly challenged to prove my cred by writing poetry of my own, so I learned. I never developed a personal style, and consequently my poems are not identifiably mine.
> >
> You're wrong, George. You do have several idiosyncrasies as a writer that help to identify your poetry:
>
> 1) Flawed meter. Your "loose IP" (and whatever else you choose to call it) creates a meter that is virtually impossible to read in even an approximation of a recognizable metrical form. *Note: not all of your poems suffer from this flaw, but enough do to make it a GD giveaway. The same holds true for the remaining items on this list.

IIRC, I've written at most a few sonnets using loose IP (always, as I've said, deliberately for effect).

> 2) Bizarre stress (like "Def-e-CATE") -- apparently a doomed attempt to force the words to fit the intended meter.

That was a line from a limerick, which scanned as anapests:
"and beGAN / defeCAT/ing on IT"

Perhaps you'd like to have a go at scanning it. (I wonder how many "dibrachs" you'll turn up?

> 3) Commonplace message/thought. Your poems rarely, if ever, embrace contain a new, or even mildly iconoclastic thought. The closest you come is when expressing an Ayn Rand-inspired sentiment (but Rand's philosophy is 75 years old, and has become a cultural stereotype).

Interesting. I think that's the same as your criticism of "February" (if you don't think an idea when you read a poem, you insist it wasn't expressed in the poem) and the flip-side of your criticism of "My Father's House" (if you do get an idea when reading a poem, you insist that it was expressed in the poem).

> 4) Adherence to form. Your poetry often comes across as the latest in a series of experiments with different forms, which you will adhere to (allowing for loose meter and near rhyme) religiously -- even to the point that the form harms the poem.

As with loose meter, I've used near rhyme in a handful of verse. Usually, though, I use proper rhymes for the most part -- varying that only for the sake of the poem. I've always said that the core of the poem (the epiphany) dictates everything about the poem, including the form.

> 5) Apart from the above-mentioned flaws, your poetry shows a good deal of technical skill. One is rarely going to mistake one of your poems for the work of a first-time poet.

Fair enough. But I don't think it's true even today, among the pitiful remnant left here that I'm the only one here whose poems demonstrate "technical skill" in using verse -- nor do I believe for a minute that you do.

> Based on the above list, one could easily identify your poetry within the confines of AAPC, as no one else's poetry falls into a similar mold.

Actually, testing that is out these days, as such contests are no longer possible.

But I have a different challenge for you, Mr. Armchair Critic. Do you agree to take a poem of mine that I pick and use it to illustrate your five points?

> While poets do develop individual styles, there is only so far that one can go using language. One can pick up on several commonly repeated styles, phrases, topics, etc., and create a parody of a given poet's style; yet that same person might be hard pressed to distinguish that poet's work from that of another poet working in a similar style.

Nowadays, of course, we have Chat-GPT for that.

[George Dance]

Oh, yeah. At the time I'd just written "The Song of the Smug Academic" so I submitted it. Corey banned it as a "personal attack" or whatever he called it.

[Family Guy]

Everything you write could be somehow construed as a 'personal attack,' Georgie.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:36:06 PM UTC-4, Family Guy wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:29:20 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > George Dance wrote:
> > > > Yes, I used to say that: you could tell that Piggy liked one of my poems, because he'd say that I plagiarized it.
> > >
> > > > Looking back on my output, though, I'm beginning to see why others might believe it.
> > >
> > > > It comes down to personal style. All the "natural poets" have them. By "natural poet" I mean someone like you, who writes poetry all the time, because it's something they do. Just as some knit, and some go to the gym, some write poetry. A natural poet develops a personal style -- which just means that all his work identifiably his.
> > >
> > > > I remember once how, years ago long before the invasion from the planet of the apes, Corey Conman did a group thing, holding a poetry contest in which each of us were challenged to submit a poem anonymously, and everyone had to guess who had written what. When I read the results, the first thing I noticed was that my poem had been "banned."
> > > Corey banned you?
> > Oh, yeah. At the time I'd just written "The Song of the Smug Academic" so I submitted it. Corey banned it as a "personal attack" or whatever he called it.
> Everything you write could be somehow construed as a 'personal attack,' Georgie.

Hmmmm .... You're sounding a bit paranoid today, Alex. I'd advise you to get your sanity analyzed by Drs. Monkey and NastyGoon. Unfortunately, though, they've switched armchair careers, and now analyze poetry rather than mental health. So I'll have to advise you to seek professional help instead.

[W.Dockery]

Family Guy wrote:

> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:29:20 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> > George Dance wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 7:31:34 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > >> >> > George Dance wrote:
>> > >> >> > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:45:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > >> Hold up, where do these charges
>> > >> >> > >> of plagiarism of Arthur Rimbaud poetry come from?
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> That sounds particularly bogus.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > > I'll just paste that in again.
>> > >> >> > >> > > > > > Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.
>> > >> >> > > And that's all I ever saw from him on that subject.
>> > >> >> > So, another half baked canard that Pendragon tried to pick up and run with.

>> > >> >> Well, when I say that's all, I don't mean that was his last word. He'd constantly repeat it, of course, so it's easy enough to find examples.. Here's a representative one from "Evil":

>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> "As you have admitted, you don't know any French. You are therefore
>> > >> >> incapable of translating French."
>> > >> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/LW8I72sZ4BI/m/DWXnR44WBwAJ?hl=en
>> > >>
>> > >> > Here's one from "Sensation" - not as easy to find, as he deleted it, but it still appears in backthread:
>> > >> >> Incidentally, while it can sometimes be difficult to tell which texts
>> > >> >> posted by a known plagiarist are plagiarised and which aren't, this
>> > >> >> and other translations of French authors certainly can't have been
>> > >> >> written by George Dance. He's admitted in the past that he doesn't
>> > >> >> even speak French:
>> > >> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/lzpDA-kMsB4/m/LQZ6EWhxBgAJ?hl=en
>> > >>

>> > >> > And - bonus - here's the original quote that he took his allegation from. Piggy actually made a backup copy of the can.politics thread at alt..censorship. (Note - CHOI is a Quebec French-language talk radio station.)

>> >
>> > > On reflection, "Piggy made a backup copy" was a silly idea of mine. The most likely explanation is that the can.politics thread had been simply crossposted onto alt.censorship in real time.
>> >
>> > >> > "Most of the people writing on the issue here (including me) don't even
>> > >> > speak French, let alone have ever listened to CHOI; so they have
>> > >> > absolutely no idea of the context of any of the alleged quotes. It's
>> > >> > all been hearsay."
>> > >> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.censorship/c/rV9SgFjVAtY/m/Az73I7REejMJ
>> >
>> > >> And then PJR would twist that to saying the translation was so good you couldn't have written it,
>> >
>> > > Yes, I used to say that: you could tell that Piggy liked one of my poems, because he'd say that I plagiarized it.
>> >
>> > > Looking back on my output, though, I'm beginning to see why others might believe it.
>> >
>> > > It comes down to personal style. All the "natural poets" have them. By "natural poet" I mean someone like you, who writes poetry all the time, because it's something they do. Just as some knit, and some go to the gym, some write poetry. A natural poet develops a personal style -- which just means that all his work identifiably his.
>> >
>> > > I remember once how, years ago long before the invasion from the planet of the apes, Corey Conman did a group thing, holding a poetry contest in which each of us were challenged to submit a poem anonymously, and everyone had to guess who had written what. When I read the results, the first thing I noticed was that my poem had been "banned."
>> > Corey banned you?
>> Oh, yeah. At the time I'd just written "The Song of the Smug Academic" so I submitted it. Corey banned it as a "personal attack" or whatever he called it.

> Everything you write could be somehow construed as a 'personal attack,' Georgie.

Exaggerate much, Dink?

>> > > The second thing I noticed was how ridiculously easy it was; each poem was as personally identifiable as a photograph of the poet.
>> >
>> > > I am not and never have been a natural poet. Though I wrote some poetry in my teens and twenties, I didn't start writing it seriously until I joined RAP 16 years ago. I joined as a reader, eager to discover and discuss new poetry; but I was quickly challenged to prove my cred by writing poetry of my own, so I learned. I never developed a personal style, and consequently my poems are not identifiably mine.

..

[Michael Pendragon]

I certainly don't remember you and Corey being enemies, and I certainly don't remember your calling him "Corey Conman." Then again, it's no more memorable than any of the other childish names you come up with (Michael Monkey, Hammy Hog, etc.).

Since Corey volunteers a large amount of time to caring for dying veterans, I find it hard to see how anyone can claim that he is not a nice person. He may be a little difficult to get along with at times (he often switches from friendly to antagonistic at the drop of a hat), but occasional outbursts of testiness do not negate years devoted service to others.

> > > I am not and never have been a natural poet. Though I wrote some poetry in my teens and twenties, I didn't start writing it seriously until I joined RAP 16 years ago.
> > You've only been writing poetry for 16 years, yet you refuse to accept the criticisms of those of us who have been writing and publishing poetry for over 40 years. Your affinity with our resident Donkey has suddenly been made more understandable.
> > > I joined as a reader, eager to discover and discuss new poetry; but I was quickly challenged to prove my cred by writing poetry of my own, so I learned. I never developed a personal style, and consequently my poems are not identifiably mine.
> > >
> > You're wrong, George. You do have several idiosyncrasies as a writer that help to identify your poetry:
> >
> > 1) Flawed meter. Your "loose IP" (and whatever else you choose to call it) creates a meter that is virtually impossible to read in even an approximation of a recognizable metrical form. *Note: not all of your poems suffer from this flaw, but enough do to make it a GD giveaway. The same holds true for the remaining items on this list.
> IIRC, I've written at most a few sonnets using loose IP (always, as I've said, deliberately for effect).
> > 2) Bizarre stress (like "Def-e-CATE") -- apparently a doomed attempt to force the words to fit the intended meter.
> That was a line from a limerick, which scanned as anapests:
> "and beGAN / defeCAT/ing on IT"
>
> Perhaps you'd like to have a go at scanning it. (I wonder how many "dibrachs" you'll turn up?

Okay, so you placed a bizarre stress on "def-e-CAT-ing" in order to make it conform to the meter of a limerick. Isn't that what I had just listed as one of your idiosyncrasies?

PS: You've misplaced the tail end of your parentheses.

> > 3) Commonplace message/thought. Your poems rarely, if ever, embrace contain a new, or even mildly iconoclastic thought. The closest you come is when expressing an Ayn Rand-inspired sentiment (but Rand's philosophy is 75 years old, and has become a cultural stereotype).
> Interesting. I think that's the same as your criticism of "February" (if you don't think an idea when you read a poem, you insist it wasn't expressed in the poem) and the flip-side of your criticism of "My Father's House" (if you do get an idea when reading a poem, you insist that it was expressed in the poem).
>

I'm not saying that you poems don't express ideas, George. I'm saying that they express *commonplace* ideas.

No matter how skillfully you may write a poem, if the *idea* it expresses is a commonly accepted one (even an adage), it loses any hope of memorability.

One of the things that *great* poetry does is to provide its readers with a means of expressing (or even consciously realizing) something they may always have felt at some subliminal level, but were unable to articulate.

The reaction to a poem that captures a slightly new way of looking at something fills the reader with a breathless sense of excitement (of self-discovery) wherein his mind says "Yes! I've felt that, too!"

Whereas poems that express commonplace sentiments leave the reader thinking, somewhat disinterestedly, "Well, of course it is... everybody knows that."

> > 4) Adherence to form. Your poetry often comes across as the latest in a series of experiments with different forms, which you will adhere to (allowing for loose meter and near rhyme) religiously -- even to the point that the form harms the poem.
> As with loose meter, I've used near rhyme in a handful of verse. Usually, though, I use proper rhymes for the most part -- varying that only for the sake of the poem. I've always said that the core of the poem (the epiphany) dictates everything about the poem, including the form.
>

I agree that the poem's central idea dictates its form -- although both come into being simultaneously. I also find that you tend to subordinate the integrity of your poems to their form.

> > 5) Apart from the above-mentioned flaws, your poetry shows a good deal of technical skill. One is rarely going to mistake one of your poems for the work of a first-time poet.
> Fair enough. But I don't think it's true even today, among the pitiful remnant left here that I'm the only one here whose poems demonstrate "technical skill" in using verse -- nor do I believe for a minute that you do.
>

I didn't say that you were the only poet who shows some technical skill at using verse. I said that of the handful of poets *currently posting* new poetry here (You, me, Jim, NancyGene, Ash, Mabool, Ilya, and Will Donkey), your particular style (or "voice") would be easy to recognize. This holds true for any of the above-mentioned members. Were each of us to submit a poem anonymously, I'm sure that we could all immediately tell which of us was the author of each.

> > Based on the above list, one could easily identify your poetry within the confines of AAPC, as no one else's poetry falls into a similar mold.
> Actually, testing that is out these days, as such contests are no longer possible.

Anything is possible. For instance, we could all submit a poem to a member who isn't currently writing (like ME, or Rachel, or Family Guy), and have them post all eight poems without attribution. I'm not suggesting that we do so; just pointing out that it could easily be done.

> But I have a different challenge for you, Mr. Armchair Critic. Do you agree to take a poem of mine that I pick and use it to illustrate your five points?

No.

Because I did not say, nor mean to imply, that a George Dance poem is going to display all 5 of those characteristics.

Nor would I wish to suggest that a George Dance poem must include at least one of these.

I was making a generalization (using you as an example) that each of us has several defining characteristics (both positive and negative) as a writer that would make it easy to identify our work -- at least within the confines of a small group of poets.

A better test (insofar as demonstrating my point is concerned) would be for you to post 5 poems that you feel have "never developed a personal style, and consequently... are not identifiably mine." I would then try to identify common characteristics within them that reveal them as your work.

> > While poets do develop individual styles, there is only so far that one can go using language. One can pick up on several commonly repeated styles, phrases, topics, etc., and create a parody of a given poet's style; yet that same person might be hard pressed to distinguish that poet's work from that of another poet working in a similar style.
> Nowadays, of course, we have Chat-GPT for that.

I wasn't aware that any bot could successfully imitate (or parody) an author's style. I should suspect that the human mind would have the upper hand in that regard, as the bot would be limited to working from existing poems by the author being parodied, whereas the human mind can create *new* parodic material that can be readily identified as in a given author's style without directly relating to, or copying, any of their existing works.

[Will Dockery]

I remember that poem, but not that Corey objected to it.

> > > The second thing I noticed was how ridiculously easy it was; each poem was as personally identifiable as a photograph of the poet.
> >
> > > I am not and never have been a natural poet. Though I wrote some poetry in my teens and twenties, I didn't start writing it seriously until I joined RAP 16 years ago. I joined as a reader, eager to discover and discuss new poetry; but I was quickly challenged to prove my cred by writing poetry of my own, so I learned. I never developed a personal style, and consequently my poems are not identifiably mine.

...

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 5:09:08 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:36:06 PM UTC-4, Family Guy wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:29:20 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > > George Dance wrote:
> > > > > Yes, I used to say that: you could tell that Piggy liked one of my poems, because he'd say that I plagiarized it.
> > > >
> > > > > Looking back on my output, though, I'm beginning to see why others might believe it.
> > > >
> > > > > It comes down to personal style. All the "natural poets" have them. By "natural poet" I mean someone like you, who writes poetry all the time, because it's something they do. Just as some knit, and some go to the gym, some write poetry. A natural poet develops a personal style -- which just means that all his work identifiably his.
> > > >
> > > > > I remember once how, years ago long before the invasion from the planet of the apes, Corey Conman did a group thing, holding a poetry contest in which each of us were challenged to submit a poem anonymously, and everyone had to guess who had written what. When I read the results, the first thing I noticed was that my poem had been "banned."
> > > > Corey banned you?
> > > Oh, yeah. At the time I'd just written "The Song of the Smug Academic" so I submitted it. Corey banned it as a "personal attack" or whatever he called it.

I looked up the poem (apparently a later post as it has its own thread). Since almost every stanza ends with a mention of "PJ's Academy," I would say that Corey was correct in labeling it as a personal attack. I would have been disqualified from "The Sunday Sampler" for that reason as well.

Of course the poem's main conceit is applicable to any poetic clique -- including "Team Donkey": poems by team members, and famous authors, are deemed great; poems by those not on your "team" are deemed "crap."

It follows that your poem would only be improved by removing the name (or initials) of any specific individual. Make it a poem about poetry cliques in general, thereby making it applicable on a much greater (even universal) scale.

[W.Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 5:09:08 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:36:06 PM UTC-4, Family Guy wrote:
>> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:29:20 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
>> > > > > Yes, I used to say that: you could tell that Piggy liked one of my poems, because he'd say that I plagiarized it.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Looking back on my output, though, I'm beginning to see why others might believe it.
>> > > >
>> > > > > It comes down to personal style. All the "natural poets" have them. By "natural poet" I mean someone like you, who writes poetry all the time, because it's something they do. Just as some knit, and some go to the gym, some write poetry. A natural poet develops a personal style -- which just means that all his work identifiably his.
>> > > >
>> > > > > I remember once how, years ago long before the invasion from the planet of the apes, Corey Conman did a group thing, holding a poetry contest in which each of us were challenged to submit a poem anonymously, and everyone had to guess who had written what. When I read the results, the first thing I noticed was that my poem had been "banned."
>> > > > Corey banned you?
>> > > Oh, yeah. At the time I'd just written "The Song of the Smug Academic" so I submitted it. Corey banned it as a "personal attack" or whatever he called it.

> I looked up the poem (apparently a later post as it has its own thread). Since almost every stanza ends with a mention of "PJ's Academy," I would say that Corey was correct in labeling it as a personal attack. I would have been disqualified from "The Sunday Sampler" for that reason as well.

> Of course the poem's main conceit is applicable to any poetic clique -- including "Team Donkey"

And of course your own gang of monkey thugs, Pendragon.


HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

Well, no.

There is no "gang of monkey thugs," as you put it.

Both NancyGene and I have consistently given fair critiques to every poem we've discussed.

In fact, we both tend to avoid value judgements in our critiques. We point out flaws, note the things we like, and offer suggestions for the authors to improve their work.

Nor do we allow the reputations of famous poets to influence our opinions (as my recent evaluations of WCW, Eliot, and cummings attest).

You've accused AAPC members (most of the present members included) of unfairly reviewing you poetry before: but when you wrote a poem that was mostly intelligible, "Apple Montage," you received positive and encouraging comments from nearly all.

You've invented an "Us" vs "Them" situation where none existed, and proceeded to make it a reality by accusing, and attempting to annoy the hell out of, everyone you've labeled as one of "Them."

[W.Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> Well, no

I didn't expect you to admit it.

🙂

[W.Dockery]

This was probably around the time Corey thought he'd be accepted by the PJR gang.

[Michael Pendragon]

Our Donkey's getting bold with Corey, now that he's been gone for a few months.

AFAIK Corey has never attempted to join any gang.

[Will Dockery]

Not really, just remembering what happened, Pendragon, you delusional fuckwit monkey.

> AFAIK Corey has never attempted to join any gang.

You weren't here yet, this was around a decade ago.

[Michael Pendragon]

IIRC I've been here for approximately nine years. I also read through some of the relatively recent archives at that time.

You just better hope that Corey doesn't pay you a visit to kick your ass with "Buglies" again.

[W.Dockery]

I was just thinking about when Corey came to visit me, that was exactly twelve years ago, now.

[George Dance]

Corey tried his hardest. Karla and Gwyneth loved him; but Piggy didn't trust him, so he was out. Just as, when he tried to join Team Monkey, Michael loved him but the Chimp didn't trust him, so he couldn't make it onto there either. The problem was that he kept trying to make his own judgements, too, and you can't do that; as the cliche goes, there's no 'I' in team.

[George Dance]

I vaguely remember that, but I don't remember the year, music festival's name or any details. All I remember (which may not be missing some details) is that Corey gave you some spending money for the weekend, and then spent months if not years hounding you for "his" money back.

[George Dance]

I'm sure you don't remember your own team's reaction to him, either, eg:
<q>
> Pastoring Con
> a poem by NancyGene
>
> Pastoring Con, Pastoring Con
> which thread will you now piss upon?
>
> Can’t attract readers to your own silly posts,
> you piggyback onto the popular, most
>
> of your work being foolish and borey allegory
> on feet and farts and being rotten to the Corey.
</q>

>
> Since Corey volunteers a large amount of time to caring for dying veterans, I find it hard to see how anyone can claim that he is not a nice person. He may be a little difficult to get along with at times (he often switches from friendly to antagonistic at the drop of a hat), but occasional outbursts of testiness do not negate years devoted service to others.

What a great testimonial. It made me think of Nurse Ratched. It's the kind of thing he used to solicit for his Linked-In page; maybe you should send it to him.

> > > > I am not and never have been a natural poet. Though I wrote some poetry in my teens and twenties, I didn't start writing it seriously until I joined RAP 16 years ago.

> > > You've only been writing poetry for 16 years, yet you refuse to accept the criticisms of those of us who have been writing and publishing poetry for over 40 years. Your affinity with our resident Donkey has suddenly been made more understandable.

Actually, Will's been writing poetry for the same 40+ years as both you and your Chimp. Unlike either of you, though, he doesn't think that alone makes him a good poet, or qualifies him to be a literary critic.

> > > > I joined as a reader, eager to discover and discuss new poetry; but I was quickly challenged to prove my cred by writing poetry of my own, so I learned. I never developed a personal style, and consequently my poems are not identifiably mine.
> > > >
> > > You're wrong, George. You do have several idiosyncrasies as a writer that help to identify your poetry:
> > >
> > > 1) Flawed meter. Your "loose IP" (and whatever else you choose to call it) creates a meter that is virtually impossible to read in even an approximation of a recognizable metrical form. *Note: not all of your poems suffer from this flaw, but enough do to make it a GD giveaway. The same holds true for the remaining items on this list.
> > IIRC, I've written at most a few sonnets using loose IP (always, as I've said, deliberately for effect).
> > > 2) Bizarre stress (like "Def-e-CATE") -- apparently a doomed attempt to force the words to fit the intended meter.
> > That was a line from a limerick, which scanned as anapests:
> > "and beGAN / defeCAT/ing on IT"
> >
> > Perhaps you'd like to have a go at scanning it. (I wonder how many "dibrachs" you'll turn up?
> Okay, so you placed a bizarre stress on "def-e-CAT-ing" in order to make it conform to the meter of a limerick. Isn't that what I had just listed as one of your idiosyncrasies?

Again, I'd be interested in seeing how you'd stress the line.

> PS: You've misplaced the tail end of your parentheses.
> > > 3) Commonplace message/thought. Your poems rarely, if ever, embrace contain a new, or even mildly iconoclastic thought. The closest you come is when expressing an Ayn Rand-inspired sentiment (but Rand's philosophy is 75 years old, and has become a cultural stereotype).
> > Interesting. I think that's the same as your criticism of "February" (if you don't think an idea when you read a poem, you insist it wasn't expressed in the poem) and the flip-side of your criticism of "My Father's House" (if you do get an idea when reading a poem, you insist that it was expressed in the poem).
> I'm not saying that you poems don't express ideas, George. I'm saying that they express *commonplace* ideas.

> No matter how skillfully you may write a poem, if the *idea* it expresses is a commonly accepted one (even an adage), it loses any hope of memorability.
>
> One of the things that *great* poetry does is to provide its readers with a means of expressing (or even consciously realizing) something they may always have felt at some subliminal level, but were unable to articulate.
>
> The reaction to a poem that captures a slightly new way of looking at something fills the reader with a breathless sense of excitement (of self-discovery) wherein his mind says "Yes! I've felt that, too!"
>
> Whereas poems that express commonplace sentiments leave the reader thinking, somewhat disinterestedly, "Well, of course it is... everybody knows that."

And I'm saying that the only ideas you spot in a poem are those you've already thought -- that those rise up naturally when you're reading, either either the poem or your mind's own associations -- while, if you run into one you haven't thought, you wouldn't notice it.

> > > 4) Adherence to form. Your poetry often comes across as the latest in a series of experiments with different forms, which you will adhere to (allowing for loose meter and near rhyme) religiously -- even to the point that the form harms the poem.

> > As with loose meter, I've used near rhyme in a handful of verse. Usually, though, I use proper rhymes for the most part -- varying that only for the sake of the poem. I've always said that the core of the poem (the epiphany) dictates everything about the poem, including the form.
> >
> I agree that the poem's central idea dictates its form -- although both come into being simultaneously. I also find that you tend to subordinate the integrity of your poems to their form.

I don't remember ever doing so, though. I have had ideas for poems (and even lines and images) that at some point did not work with the form I was using; I've shelved those, and ended up writing them in some other form down the road.

> > > 5) Apart from the above-mentioned flaws, your poetry shows a good deal of technical skill. One is rarely going to mistake one of your poems for the work of a first-time poet.
> > Fair enough. But I don't think it's true even today, among the pitiful remnant left here that I'm the only one here whose poems demonstrate "technical skill" in using verse -- nor do I believe for a minute that you do.
> >
> I didn't say that you were the only poet who shows some technical skill at using verse. I said that of the handful of poets *currently posting* new poetry here (You, me, Jim, NancyGene, Ash, Mabool, Ilya, and Will Donkey), your particular style (or "voice") would be easy to recognize.

By process of elimination, perhaps.

> This holds true for any of the above-mentioned members. Were each of us to submit a poem anonymously, I'm sure that we could all immediately tell which of us was the author of each.
> > > Based on the above list, one could easily identify your poetry within the confines of AAPC, as no one else's poetry falls into a similar mold.
> > Actually, testing that is out these days, as such contests are no longer possible.
> Anything is possible. For instance, we could all submit a poem to a member who isn't currently writing (like ME, or Rachel, or Family Guy), and have them post all eight poems without attribution. I'm not suggesting that we do so; just pointing out that it could easily be done.
> > But I have a different challenge for you, Mr. Armchair Critic. Do you agree to take a poem of mine that I pick and use it to illustrate your five points?
> No.
>
> Because I did not say, nor mean to imply, that a George Dance poem is going to display all 5 of those characteristics.
>
> Nor would I wish to suggest that a George Dance poem must include at least one of these.
>
> I was making a generalization (using you as an example) that each of us has several defining characteristics (both positive and negative) as a writer that would make it easy to identify our work -- at least within the confines of a small group of poets.
>
> A better test (insofar as demonstrating my point is concerned) would be for you to post 5 poems that you feel have "never developed a personal style, and consequently... are not identifiably mine." I would then try to identify common characteristics within them that reveal them as your work.

That sounds interesting. I'd like to try, as I don't think the list you gave me was that list. Your 1-4 sounded like a list of current complaints you've had with this or that individual poem; while I think you added 5 for balance, to show what an impartial critic you are. But I think it would eat up a lot of time, on both our parts, to little practical effect.

> > > While poets do develop individual styles, there is only so far that one can go using language. One can pick up on several commonly repeated styles, phrases, topics, etc., and create a parody of a given poet's style; yet that same person might be hard pressed to distinguish that poet's work from that of another poet working in a similar style.
> > Nowadays, of course, we have Chat-GPT for that.
> I wasn't aware that any bot could successfully imitate (or parody) an author's style. I should suspect that the human mind would have the upper hand in that regard, as the bot would be limited to working from existing poems by the author being parodied, whereas the human mind can create *new* parodic material that can be readily identified as in a given author's style without directly relating to, or copying, any of their existing works.

I'm not saying they do a great job, but as we've seen they already produce poems "in the manner" of individual (dead) poets, and the next version will be an order of magnitude better. The trick for a living poet would be to get enough poems into the database. Of course a competent human parodist can still do a better job for now. But who knows? Maybe before you die, you'll have trained a ChatBot to reproduce exact examples of your work, and your heirs can keep publishing new "Michael Pendragon" poems and stories till the end of time.

[Jordy C]

agree with Michael that Corey often did run hot and cold, one minute he'd be friendly and amiable in regard to myself and and others here, and the next minute he'd be antagonistic, and then back to friendly and so on... it was puzzling, perhaps it was just the mood he was in while posting, but personally did enjoy his wit and sarcasm and humor...

[NancyGene]

Yeah, right, "spending money." Smirk

[W-Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> Armchair critics on plagiarism

> moved from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/k259WiA4gcE?hl=en

> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 6:34:20 PM UTC-5, Piggy Ross aka "Peter J Ross" wrote:
>> > Newcomers to AAPC who are tempted to comment helpfully on the drivel
>> > Dunce has posted may like to know why they shouldn't bother.
>> >
>> > Dunce has been caught plagiarising in AAPC and RAP three times:
>> > 1. from Leonard Cohen, in the hope of winning a poetry competition
>> > 2. from me, in the hope of making a profit
>> > 3. from an unidentified translator, again in the hope of making a
>> > profit.
>> >
>> > There are many other cases in which Dunce has been suspected of
>> > plagiarising, and innumerable occasions on which he's stolen other
>> > people's work without going quite so far as to pretend to be its
>> > author.
>> >
>> > Dunce is a thieving scumbag. Don't waste your time critiquing the
>> > "poems" of which he pretends to be the author. Ignore him or flame
>> > him: either way, treat him as the thieving scumbag he is.
>>
>> Hmm... funny how old accusations keep turning up.

> It's not funny at all, if one looks at the headers; these old accusations have been turning up because 'armchair critics' MIchael Monkey and his big buffoon "colleague" keep digging them up from the archives and bumping them.

>> IIRC, the Leonard Cohen poem was posted, unattributed, along with the question (paraphrased from memory) "What do you think of this poem?" This question was addressed to a woman (possibly Karla). Here's the link: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vGRK-CsjHKw/m/YXtIE_9zBgAJ?hl=en

> Since Michael Monkey doesn't know or has forgotten the details, here's a TLDR: Karla, an 'armchair critics' from those days, decided to run an "Imagist Free Verse challenge" to which I submitted the poem that later became "September Night". She declared that I should make it a haiku and cut out everything but the crickets going silent. I tried that, and discovered that the result was just a copy of Leonard Cohen's famous "Summer Haiku" poem (which I'd learned back in high school). So I sent her a copy of Cohen's poem, and asked her what she thought of that. I also turned my poem into a glosa of Cohen's.

> September Night: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2010/09/september-night-george-dance.html

>> I thought it was an attempt to trick her into unknowingly trashing a Cohen poem, thereby negating her criticism of George's poem (at least in the eyes of Cohen's admirers).

> As usual, what Michael "thought" years later had nothing to do with the truth. I thought she'd recognize Cohen's poem, and realize she'd been advising me to turn mine into a copy of it.

>> George claimed that he simply wanted to get her unbiased opinion of Cohen's work ("unbiased" in that knowledge of its successful author would play no part in her evaluation). (Uh huh.)

> It might have been funny if Karla had trashed the poem (that's a joke that another 'armchair critic, Gary Garbage, said people used to play on him). But, no, Cohen's poem was recognized, and she decided to accuse me of plagiarism instead.

>> The theft from PJR was definitely real. George took PJR's poem, "Batty's Hat," retitled it "Patty's Hat" (or something equally obvious), and simply added colors to those PJR had listed in the original. As a joke, this would have been allowable, but George went so far as to claim it was now an original poem, and even named his blog after it "Patty" having been replaced by "Penny"

> Once again, our simian 'armchair critic' has forgotten or is ignoring the details. Here's the link:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/HnVDnCi3_0c/m/6aMv5PDP-mYJ?hl=en

> And here's the TLDR: "Penny" began as a collaboration with poet Ray Henrich.. Ray had written four rewrites of Piggy Ross's Batty "poem" including one in which he inreased Ross's "list" of colors from one to three. I sent him an OB on that increasing the colors to roughly a dozen, and he replied with one with over 100 colors (which won plaudits). He and I batted our Batty project around for a few more days and many more colors. At this point it was still being attributed; it's only when we replaced "Batty" with "Betty" (suggexted by Will Dockery) that we decided it no longer had anything to do with Piggy's "poem" and took his name off. Eventually Ray got tired of the project, and gave me permission to use all of it and continue to add colors By the time I'd reached 5,000 colors, I decided to open a blog to host it on.
> Penny, or Penny's Hat: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive..html

>> to avoid a possible lawsuit.

> And no, I did not change "Betty" to "Penny because I was afraid of a Kooksuit from Will.)

That definitely wasn't considered, I think I just wanted to keep the Betty character closer to her real life inspiration at the time.

>> As to the third charge, I've no recollection of it.

> 'Armchair critic' Piggy Ross is refererring to both my Rimbaud translations -
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/Arthur%20Rimbaud
> - and my book of Garneau translations -
> /Looking and Playing in Space/: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

> Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.

>> However, based on his above record, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd neglected to attribute it's translator as well.

> "Its", Monkey. You, your Chimp colleague, and your big buffoon colleague, are three peas in a pod when it comes to misusing apostrophes. However, since "three peas in a pod" is a cliche, a new metaphor looks called for. One could even go so far as to call you "conjoined triplets" in that respect.

..

[George Dance]

Exactly. IIRC, Corey came down with a load of cash; and he gave Will a handful of of cash, so that Will didn't have to depend on him to buy drinks, etc. over the weekend. It's what I'd do, if I were spending the weekend partying with a poor friend.

> Smirk

I'm sure NastyGoon will explain their innuendo in time.

[Michael Pendragon]

Corey has done anything to suggest that he was trying join my "team," George. Corey has always remained independent -- alternating between attacking, and supporting members of both so-called "teams" at will.

And, IIRC, Jim and Corey have been on good terms for the past couple of years, so your little "history" is inaccurate there as well.

[Michael Pendragon]

You "vaguely remember" Corey's having driven 900 miles to "stalk" Will at the Doo-Nanny?

The extent of your senility is worse than I'd suspected.

*****
As to the money, that was a separate incident. Corey had given an unspecified sum of money to film a video advertising Hieronymous House. Will used the money to throw a party in what appeared to be an abandoned shack, filmed it, and edited it into an "ad" for Hieronymous House.

IOW: this so-called "ad" for Reverend Corey's ministry (which mostly performs weddings), consisted of a bunch of middle aged lowlifes having a beer party in a shack.

Corey demanded that Will either send him a video that he can use or refund his money. I don't believe that Will ever did either.

[Michael Pendragon]

It isn't meant as a testimonial, George. Corey can be difficult at times, and he's pissed pretty much everyone here off at one time or another. But as I was saying, before your attempted deflection, your writing him off as an "asshole" is unfair and unjustified. It seems to be based on pettiness -- which is one of your most prominent characteristics.

> > > > > I am not and never have been a natural poet. Though I wrote some poetry in my teens and twenties, I didn't start writing it seriously until I joined RAP 16 years ago.
>
> > > > You've only been writing poetry for 16 years, yet you refuse to accept the criticisms of those of us who have been writing and publishing poetry for over 40 years. Your affinity with our resident Donkey has suddenly been made more understandable.
> Actually, Will's been writing poetry for the same 40+ years as both you and your Chimp. Unlike either of you, though, he doesn't think that alone makes him a good poet, or qualifies him to be a literary critic.
>

Actually Will's been writing swill since the mid-1970s (probably close to 50 years), but that isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to the stubborn inability to accept that anyone else could possibly know more about poetry (or English) than you, and your consequent refusal to accept corrections.

> > > > > I joined as a reader, eager to discover and discuss new poetry; but I was quickly challenged to prove my cred by writing poetry of my own, so I learned. I never developed a personal style, and consequently my poems are not identifiably mine.
> > > > >
> > > > You're wrong, George. You do have several idiosyncrasies as a writer that help to identify your poetry:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Flawed meter. Your "loose IP" (and whatever else you choose to call it) creates a meter that is virtually impossible to read in even an approximation of a recognizable metrical form. *Note: not all of your poems suffer from this flaw, but enough do to make it a GD giveaway. The same holds true for the remaining items on this list.
> > > IIRC, I've written at most a few sonnets using loose IP (always, as I've said, deliberately for effect).
> > > > 2) Bizarre stress (like "Def-e-CATE") -- apparently a doomed attempt to force the words to fit the intended meter.
> > > That was a line from a limerick, which scanned as anapests:
> > > "and beGAN / defeCAT/ing on IT"
> > >
> > > Perhaps you'd like to have a go at scanning it. (I wonder how many "dibrachs" you'll turn up?
> > Okay, so you placed a bizarre stress on "def-e-CAT-ing" in order to make it conform to the meter of a limerick. Isn't that what I had just listed as one of your idiosyncrasies?
> Again, I'd be interested in seeing how you'd stress the line.

1) I don't know what the line is. You've only given me the word "defecating."
2) I would not stress such a line in any way, shape, or form. I would search for a different word with natural stresses that fit the intended meter of the limerick.

> > PS: You've misplaced the tail end of your parentheses.
> > > > 3) Commonplace message/thought. Your poems rarely, if ever, embrace contain a new, or even mildly iconoclastic thought. The closest you come is when expressing an Ayn Rand-inspired sentiment (but Rand's philosophy is 75 years old, and has become a cultural stereotype).
> > > Interesting. I think that's the same as your criticism of "February" (if you don't think an idea when you read a poem, you insist it wasn't expressed in the poem) and the flip-side of your criticism of "My Father's House" (if you do get an idea when reading a poem, you insist that it was expressed in the poem).
> > I'm not saying that you poems don't express ideas, George. I'm saying that they express *commonplace* ideas.
>
> > No matter how skillfully you may write a poem, if the *idea* it expresses is a commonly accepted one (even an adage), it loses any hope of memorability.
> >
> > One of the things that *great* poetry does is to provide its readers with a means of expressing (or even consciously realizing) something they may always have felt at some subliminal level, but were unable to articulate.
> >
> > The reaction to a poem that captures a slightly new way of looking at something fills the reader with a breathless sense of excitement (of self-discovery) wherein his mind says "Yes! I've felt that, too!"
> >
> > Whereas poems that express commonplace sentiments leave the reader thinking, somewhat disinterestedly, "Well, of course it is... everybody knows that."
> And I'm saying that the only ideas you spot in a poem are those you've already thought -- that those rise up naturally when you're reading, either either the poem or your mind's own associations -- while, if you run into one you haven't thought, you wouldn't notice it.
>

Nonsense. That precludes the possibility of learning. If one didn't learn something from literature, it would all just be escapist entertainment to pass the time.

> > > > 4) Adherence to form. Your poetry often comes across as the latest in a series of experiments with different forms, which you will adhere to (allowing for loose meter and near rhyme) religiously -- even to the point that the form harms the poem.
>
> > > As with loose meter, I've used near rhyme in a handful of verse. Usually, though, I use proper rhymes for the most part -- varying that only for the sake of the poem. I've always said that the core of the poem (the epiphany) dictates everything about the poem, including the form.
> > >
> > I agree that the poem's central idea dictates its form -- although both come into being simultaneously. I also find that you tend to subordinate the integrity of your poems to their form.
> I don't remember ever doing so, though. I have had ideas for poems (and even lines and images) that at some point did not work with the form I was using; I've shelved those, and ended up writing them in some other form down the road.
>

I recently read an example of this (in the archives) -- although I forget the poem in question. I had made a suggestion about changing one of the lines. You replied that, while you agreed that it would make for an improvement, the poem was a "Rondelet" (or some other form), and that you were therefore unable to change it.

> > > > 5) Apart from the above-mentioned flaws, your poetry shows a good deal of technical skill. One is rarely going to mistake one of your poems for the work of a first-time poet.
> > > Fair enough. But I don't think it's true even today, among the pitiful remnant left here that I'm the only one here whose poems demonstrate "technical skill" in using verse -- nor do I believe for a minute that you do.
> > >
> > I didn't say that you were the only poet who shows some technical skill at using verse. I said that of the handful of poets *currently posting* new poetry here (You, me, Jim, NancyGene, Ash, Mabool, Ilya, and Will Donkey), your particular style (or "voice") would be easy to recognize.
> By process of elimination, perhaps.

Partially, I suppose. Since your poems would be immediately recognizable, said recognition would take place on a pre-conscious level, where one can only guess at the machinations that brought it about.

The point is that of the eight individuals who are currently posting poetry here, all of them can be immediately recognized as the author of their works. Your claim that your poetry lacks any defining characteristics is false. That is to say that your "voice" is as distinguishable as any of our "voices."

Again, I strongly suspect that our "voices" become less unique in direct proportion to the number of poets being considered. But within a small group, we all have very distinct styles.

> > This holds true for any of the above-mentioned members. Were each of us to submit a poem anonymously, I'm sure that we could all immediately tell which of us was the author of each.
> > > > Based on the above list, one could easily identify your poetry within the confines of AAPC, as no one else's poetry falls into a similar mold.
> > > Actually, testing that is out these days, as such contests are no longer possible.
> > Anything is possible. For instance, we could all submit a poem to a member who isn't currently writing (like ME, or Rachel, or Family Guy), and have them post all eight poems without attribution. I'm not suggesting that we do so; just pointing out that it could easily be done.
> > > But I have a different challenge for you, Mr. Armchair Critic. Do you agree to take a poem of mine that I pick and use it to illustrate your five points?
> > No.
> >
> > Because I did not say, nor mean to imply, that a George Dance poem is going to display all 5 of those characteristics.
> >
> > Nor would I wish to suggest that a George Dance poem must include at least one of these.
> >
> > I was making a generalization (using you as an example) that each of us has several defining characteristics (both positive and negative) as a writer that would make it easy to identify our work -- at least within the confines of a small group of poets.
> >
> > A better test (insofar as demonstrating my point is concerned) would be for you to post 5 poems that you feel have "never developed a personal style, and consequently... are not identifiably mine." I would then try to identify common characteristics within them that reveal them as your work.
> That sounds interesting. I'd like to try, as I don't think the list you gave me was that list. Your 1-4 sounded like a list of current complaints you've had with this or that individual poem; while I think you added 5 for balance, to show what an impartial critic you are. But I think it would eat up a lot of time, on both our parts, to little practical effect.
>

Unfortunately, flaws are easier to recognize as determining characteristics of one's work. If we all wrote flawless sonnets, we'd be left with little to identify the author: favorite themes, a consistently underlying philosophy, commonly reused words and phrases, etc. -- all of which are questionable insofar as they presuppose that a poet doesn't vary his themes, philosophies, imagery, and lazily repeats the same words and phrases from poem to poem.

> > > > While poets do develop individual styles, there is only so far that one can go using language. One can pick up on several commonly repeated styles, phrases, topics, etc., and create a parody of a given poet's style; yet that same person might be hard pressed to distinguish that poet's work from that of another poet working in a similar style.
> > > Nowadays, of course, we have Chat-GPT for that.
> > I wasn't aware that any bot could successfully imitate (or parody) an author's style. I should suspect that the human mind would have the upper hand in that regard, as the bot would be limited to working from existing poems by the author being parodied, whereas the human mind can create *new* parodic material that can be readily identified as in a given author's style without directly relating to, or copying, any of their existing works.
> I'm not saying they do a great job, but as we've seen they already produce poems "in the manner" of individual (dead) poets, and the next version will be an order of magnitude better. The trick for a living poet would be to get enough poems into the database. Of course a competent human parodist can still do a better job for now. But who knows? Maybe before you die, you'll have trained a ChatBot to reproduce exact examples of your work, and your heirs can keep publishing new "Michael Pendragon" poems and stories till the end of time.
>

My vanity, of course, makes such an ideal appalling. That said, even if a bot were able to imitate my style, it could not replicate the content -- which comes from my subconscious. It could conceivably be created to draw on subconscious archetypes, but it could not have access to the content of my personal subconscious -- which reinterprets those archetypes to fit my personal experiences.

[W-Dockery]

It turned out similarly to the Jim Senetto incident, I eventually sent Corey a money order returning the money.

And so it goes.

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Does your stupidity ever end?

Corey hired you to do a job, you failed....I asked you to send money to Zod, after you said he was going to be or was in fact evited, you helped yourself, as if I sent it to the three of you to have a good meal.

You thought it was a good idea......I thought and still think you're a bum with a hand out..

If you were around the corner, I just might put a pipe to your head.

Consider yourself lucky.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:23:01 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:00:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:01:11 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 9:54:10 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:

> > >> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:20:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote

<Whining from Jim Senetto snipped>

Which I did, and did well.

Corey was impossible to please, I should have guessed that.

And so it goes.

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

I saw the mess you gave him..you should have been sued.

At the moment I'd rather see you dead.

[Will Dockery]

In your obviously biased opinion.

HTH and HAND.

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Die.

[W.Dockery]

>> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry..comments/c/lzpDA-kMsB4/m/LQZ6EWhxBgAJ?hl=en
>> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > And - bonus - here's the original quote that he took his allegation from. Piggy actually made a backup copy of the can..politics thread at alt.censorship. (Note - CHOI is a Quebec French-language talk radio station.)

You first.

🙂

[George Dance]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:23:01 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:00:15 PM UTC-4, W-Dockery wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:01:11 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 9:54:10 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > >> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:20:15 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 3:08:34 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > >> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 2:16:04 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > > >> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 6:35:15 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > George Dance wrote:
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >> George Dance wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >> > On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 7:31:34 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > George Dance wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:45:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

> > >> > > >> > > >> > I remember once how, years ago long before the invasion from the planet of the apes, Corey Conman did a group thing, holding a poetry contest in which each of us were challenged to submit a poem anonymously, and everyone had to guess who had written what. When I read the results, the first thing I noticed was that my poem had been "banned."
> > >> > > >> > > >> Corey banned you?
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > > Oh, yeah. At the time I'd just written "The Song of the Smug Academic" so I submitted it. Corey banned it as a "personal attack" or whatever he called it.

[...]

> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > This was probably around the time Corey thought he'd be accepted by the PJR gang.
> > >> > > >> > Our Donkey's getting bold with Corey, now that he's been gone for a few months.
> > >> > > >> Not really, just remembering what happened, Pendragon, you delusional fuckwit monkey.
> > >> > > >> > AFAIK Corey has never attempted to join any gang.
> > >> > > >> You weren't here yet, this was around a decade ago.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > IIRC I've been here for approximately nine years. I also read through some of the relatively recent archives at that time.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > You just better hope that Corey doesn't pay you a visit to kick your ass with "Buglies" again.
> > >> > > I was just thinking about when Corey came to visit me, that was exactly twelve years ago, now.
> > >> > I vaguely remember that, but I don't remember the year, music festival's name or any details. All I remember (which may not be missing some details) is that Corey gave you some spending money for the weekend, and then spent months if not years hounding you for "his" money back.
> > >> Yeah, right, "spending money."
> >
> > > Exactly. IIRC, Corey came down with a load of cash; and he gave Will a handful of of cash, so that Will didn't have to depend on him to buy drinks, etc. over the weekend. It's what I'd do, if I were spending the weekend partying with a poor friend.
> >
> > >> Smirk
> >
> > > I'm sure NastyGoon will explain their innuendo in time.
> > It turned out similarly to the Jim Senetto incident, I eventually sent Corey a money order returning the money.
> >
> > And so it goes.
> Does your stupidity ever end?
>
> Corey hired you to do a job, you failed....I asked you to send money to Zod, after you said he was going to be or was in fact evited, you helped yourself, as if I sent it to the three of you to have a good meal.

IIRC, Corey sabotaged it, refusing to let Will use any pix of him or the House.

> You thought it was a good idea......I thought and still think you're a bum with a hand out..
>
> If you were around the corner, I just might put a pipe to your head.
>
> Consider yourself lucky.

Is that something you do a lot, Chimp?

[Michael Pendragon]

I can't say that I'd like to see you dead, Donkey. But then, again, I don't live anywhere near Columbus. I would like to see you stop trolling the group, and to cut back on your posts considerably.

I really hope that you can, as I'd hate to put a curse on your head as well.

[Michael Pendragon]

Even if such were the case (and I'm not saying that it wasn't -- only that I'm unfamiliar with that point), Will should never have attempted to advertise a ministry with iphone footage of a bunch of drunks partying in a shack.

He could have used royalty free photos or video clips of weddings, flowers, blue skies, romantic sunsets, etc.

I mean we all know that Will is stupid... but even he can't be *that* stupid.

> > You thought it was a good idea......I thought and still think you're a bum with a hand out..
> >
> > If you were around the corner, I just might put a pipe to your head.
> >
> > Consider yourself lucky.
> Is that something you do a lot, Chimp?

Contextually, your question would make more sense if it followed Jim's veiled threat.

I have to confess that while I've never put a metal pipe to anyone's head, the temptation to whack the Donkey with one would be difficult to resist.

[W.Dockery]

His obsession is apparently constant.

I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Senetto mumbles my name in his sleep.

🙂

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Never, ever come to New York.

[George Dance]

Corey has been doing back-up trolling for you and your flunkies for years; and precious little else, in his last few months here.

> And, IIRC, Jim and Corey have been on good terms for the past couple of years, so your little "history" is inaccurate there as well.

No, Michael; YDRC. But I'm sure your Chimp will say he was, if you tell him to.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 8:20:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 5:09:08 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:36:06 PM UTC-4, Family Guy wrote:

> > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:29:20 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > > > George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, I used to say that: you could tell that Piggy liked one of my poems, because he'd say that I plagiarized it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Looking back on my output, though, I'm beginning to see why others might believe it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It comes down to personal style. All the "natural poets" have them. By "natural poet" I mean someone like you, who writes poetry all the time, because it's something they do. Just as some knit, and some go to the gym, some write poetry. A natural poet develops a personal style -- which just means that all his work identifiably his.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I remember once how, years ago long before the invasion from the planet of the apes, Corey Conman did a group thing, holding a poetry contest in which each of us were challenged to submit a poem anonymously, and everyone had to guess who had written what. When I read the results, the first thing I noticed was that my poem had been "banned."
> > > > > Corey banned you?
> > > > Oh, yeah. At the time I'd just written "The Song of the Smug Academic" so I submitted it. Corey banned it as a "personal attack" or whatever he called it.

> I looked up the poem (apparently a later post as it has its own thread). Since almost every stanza ends with a mention of "PJ's Academy," I would say that Corey was correct in labeling it as a personal attack. I would have been disqualified from "The Sunday Sampler" for that reason as well.

Possibly. You were the one who came up with the idea of "disqualifying" poems from the Sampler if you thought they were making fun of you. So you might or might not have done the same for a poem making fun of Piggy, depending on how you felt about him that week.

> Of course the poem's main conceit is applicable to any poetic clique -- including "Team Donkey": poems by team members, and famous authors, are deemed great; poems by those not on your "team" are deemed "crap."

As I've said before, that's either projection or pre-emption on your part; and I really don't care which.

> It follows that your poem would only be improved by removing the name (or initials) of any specific individual. Make it a poem about poetry cliques in general, thereby making it applicable on a much greater (even universal) scale.

Possibly; but I doubt it. A good part of the appeal of satirical poetry is knowing who it's aimed at. You know that; that's the only appeal of your pedopoems.

[W.Dockery]

Why not?

[W-Dockery]

Exactly, which is why Mad Magazine, National Lampoon, SNL, even Monty Python were and are so popular.

[Will Dockery]

Senetto probably can't even remember yesterday.

🙂

[W-Dockery]

Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

Do I need your permission, Senetto?

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

You are one paranoid conspiracy theorist, George.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 2:37:56 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 8:20:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 5:09:08 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:36:06 PM UTC-4, Family Guy wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:29:20 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > Yes, I used to say that: you could tell that Piggy liked one of my poems, because he'd say that I plagiarized it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looking back on my output, though, I'm beginning to see why others might believe it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It comes down to personal style. All the "natural poets" have them. By "natural poet" I mean someone like you, who writes poetry all the time, because it's something they do. Just as some knit, and some go to the gym, some write poetry. A natural poet develops a personal style -- which just means that all his work identifiably his.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I remember once how, years ago long before the invasion from the planet of the apes, Corey Conman did a group thing, holding a poetry contest in which each of us were challenged to submit a poem anonymously, and everyone had to guess who had written what. When I read the results, the first thing I noticed was that my poem had been "banned."
> > > > > > Corey banned you?
> > > > > Oh, yeah. At the time I'd just written "The Song of the Smug Academic" so I submitted it. Corey banned it as a "personal attack" or whatever he called it.
> > I looked up the poem (apparently a later post as it has its own thread). Since almost every stanza ends with a mention of "PJ's Academy," I would say that Corey was correct in labeling it as a personal attack. I would have been disqualified from "The Sunday Sampler" for that reason as well.
>
> Possibly. You were the one who came up with the idea of "disqualifying" poems from the Sampler if you thought they were making fun of you. So you might or might not have done the same for a poem making fun of Piggy, depending on how you felt about him that week.
>

Wrong.

The Sampler had been created as a place where we could all put aside our differences and post together in peace. The "no personal attacks" rule had been set for by Jim from the start.

> > Of course the poem's main conceit is applicable to any poetic clique -- including "Team Donkey": poems by team members, and famous authors, are deemed great; poems by those not on your "team" are deemed "crap."
>
> As I've said before, that's either projection or pre-emption on your part; and I really don't care which.

It's an observation -- and one that should be obvious.

> > It follows that your poem would only be improved by removing the name (or initials) of any specific individual. Make it a poem about poetry cliques in general, thereby making it applicable on a much greater (even universal) scale.
>
> Possibly; but I doubt it. A good part of the appeal of satirical poetry is knowing who it's aimed at. You know that; that's the only appeal of your pedopoems.

Pedopoetry is not universally applicable, as pedophiles constitute a small minority. Cliques, otoh, occur in all walks of life, so a poem satirizing cliques in general would have a broader appeal than one satirizing PJR's clique.

[Will Dockery]

Not really.

George Dance is simply aware of the double standards and hypocrisy on the group.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

Will, you're a two-faced hypocrite. You whine incessantly about the "wrongs" done to you, then turn around and commit those exact same wrongs against others.

To the best of my knowledge, Corey has never been on any team, or done any "back-up trolling."

That you and Mensa George would accuse him of such only demonstrates how tetched the two of your really are.

[W-Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 2:26:43 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 2:15:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:56:36 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 2:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:49:52 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 6:35:15 AM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > > George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > > >> George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > >> > On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 7:31:34 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> >> > George Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:45:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> Hold up, where do these charges
>> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> of plagiarism of Arthur Rimbaud poetry come from?
>> > > > > > >> >> >> > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> That sounds particularly bogus.
>> > > > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > I'll just paste that in again.
>> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > Stalking me on can.politics one day (after he'd accused me of plagiarizing his Batty), Piggy found a quote from me telling someone that I didn't speak French. So he invented a story that I couldn't read French, which was his "proof" that all my French translations were plagiarized as well.

>> > > > > > >> >> >> > > And that's all I ever saw from him on that subject..

<Lies and misrepresentations snipped>


Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Pendragon?

🙂

[George Dance]

No, Michael; you're misusing the word "conspiracy" again.

"Conspiracy: 1: the act of conspiring together
"Conspire 1a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement." (Merriam-Webster)

There's nothing "secret" or "unlawful" about you telling your Chimp what to do and say, and him doing what you tell him. It happens here in full sight of the whole group.

[ME]

Oh shit.


Georgirsyback. !!


Hi Georgie!!!




You’ve got your work cut out for you now!!!

[Will Dockery]

Well put.

🙂

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Hello, George.

I'm not told to do or say anything by anybody. I have my own thoughts, which I express.

I have written to Michael about your instability, many times, by email over the years, if anything, Michael would support your presence here for his own reasons and I would accept his reasoning, reluctantly.

For you to believe I don't have a mind of my own, asserting Michael tells me what to do or say, couldn't be more off the mark.

I considered you an asshole back when and consider you an asshole today, with or with Michael's consent.

Corey and I had our back and forth disagreements, which lessoned when I apologized for calling him a fraud.

The idea of him being a store-bought preacher struck me the wrong way.

But in the end, we are what we are.

What exactly are you?




Thanks for reading.

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:38:39 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:11:01 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 2:15:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:56:36 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > And, IIRC, Jim and Corey have been on good terms for the past couple of years, so your little "history" is inaccurate there as well.
> > > > No, Michael; YDRC. But I'm sure your Chimp will say he was, if you tell him to.
> > > You are one paranoid conspiracy theorist, George.
> > No, Michael; you're misusing the word "conspiracy" again.
> >
> > "Conspiracy: 1: the act of conspiring together
> > "Conspire 1a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement." (Merriam-Webster)
> >
> > There's nothing "secret" or "unlawful" about you telling your Chimp what to do and say, and him doing what you tell him. It happens here in full sight of the whole group.
> Hello, George.
>
> I'm not told to do or say anything by anybody

Nobody would expect you to admit it, my feeble minded friend.

🙂

[ME]

And no one here expects you to admit that you’re a drugged out, alcoholic, lazy, deadbeat son of a bitch. But that’s what you are will dockery.


But you’ll never admit it.


But that’s okay. Because the rest of us know the truth!!!!

[Will Dockery]

Obsessed much, ME?

🙂

[ME]

Brillo head, no one has ever been obsessed with you here. NO ONE.

you are the only one obsessed with you.

[Will Dockery]

Says ME, the obsessive troll who stalked me here from Topix Forums.

And so it goes.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

The "agreement" must have been Top Secret, since neither Jim nor I are aware of it.

As per your previous diagnosis, you remain a paranoiac suffering from a persecution complex who is given to fantastic conspiracy theories.

That will be five cents, please.

[W.Dockery]

NancyGene wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 11:56:11 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> Your delusional belief that you're qualified to make a psychiatric diagnosis is noted, Pendragon.

> Ha, not even close on the spelling and not an auto-correct! (Says S. Freud..)


It was the spelling "suggested" by autocorrect.

I'll recheck it and post the correct spelling, Nancy Gene.

Thanks for the spelling lame, and moved from the troll thread.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

True, Corey has been well known for switching sides here for over twenty years.

And so it goes.

[W-Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:11:01 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 2:15:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:56:36 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
> > >> And, IIRC, Jim and Corey have been on good terms for the past couple of years, so your little "history" is inaccurate there as well.
>> > No, Michael; YDRC. But I'm sure your Chimp will say he was, if you tell him to.
>> > > You are one paranoid conspiracy theorist, George.
>
>> > No, Michael; you're misusing the word "conspiracy" again.
>> >
>> > "Conspiracy: 1: the act of conspiring together

>> > "Conspire 1a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement.." (Merriam-Webster)

>
>> There's nothing "secret" or "unlawful" about you telling your Chimp what to do and say, and him doing what you tell him. It happens here in full sight of the whole group.
>

> As per your previous diagnosis, you remain

Monkey shit snipped>

😀

[ME]

That’s just your nasty upper lip you’re smelling, will.

[Will Dockery]

Troll much, ME?

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Corey has never taken any "side."

Corey has his own opinions and voices them freely.

[W-Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 12:44:14 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:56:36 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 2:56:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:49:52 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

>> > > > Corey tried his hardest. Karla and Gwyneth loved him; but Piggy didn't trust him, so he was out. Just as, when he tried to join Team Monkey, Michael loved him but the Chimp didn't trust him, so he couldn't make it onto there either. The problem was that he kept trying to make his own judgements, too, and you can't do that; as the cliche goes, there's no 'I' in team..

>> > > >
>> > > Corey has done anything to suggest that he was trying join my "team," George. Corey has always remained independent -- alternating between attacking, and supporting members of both so-called "teams" at will.
>> > Corey has been doing back-up trolling for you and your flunkies for years; and precious little else, in his last few months here.
>> True, Corey has been well known for switching sides here for over twenty years.

> Corey has never

I've known Corey at least twice as long as you and he's been switching sides for at least twenty years.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

What you see as switching sides is just Corey agreeing or disagreeing with you at any given time.

[W.Dockery]

Okay, no argument with that.