You are correct, Will
~~Jinn~~
on the blog. Not that I think the copyright holders
or models would care, in any case.
Even on a website, it is still pretty much fair-use
but keeping it to Usenet is best.
Binary Usenet (unlike Google's deep archive
of text) has a retention of 25 days, rarely more,
and even this requires ~70 terabytes.
Perhaps 1/3 of that (in pictures, I don't know
about movies, but suspect similar) is underage.
And SBC Global has Gigs of it on their servers.
(not to mention every other NSP)
The /Big/ picture in Usenet porn is hairy (or shaved,
take your pic)
Anyway, I removed all those blogs.
Do you guys have a good crust. I think a good
crust is most important.
--
Tom Bishop
http://jinnspyx.blogspot.com
Will Dockery
~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> About my being wrong in placing my Usenet art
> on the blog. Not that I think the copyright holders
> or models would care, in any case.
>
> Even on a website, it is still pretty much fair-use
> but keeping it to Usenet is best.
>
> Binary Usenet (unlike Google's deep archive
> of text) has a retention of 25 days, rarely more,
> and even this requires ~70 terabytes.
>
> Perhaps 1/3 of that (in pictures, I don't know
> about movies, but suspect similar) is underage.
>
> And SBC Global has Gigs of it on their servers.
> (not to mention every other NSP)
>
> The /Big/ picture in Usenet porn is hairy (or shaved,
> take your pic)
>
> Anyway, I removed all those blogs.
Heh.
A few hours ago, I was "corrct"... now I'm /not correct/... in the
words of Harlan Ellison, you really /are/ "bugfuck crazy", aren't you,
Bishop?
----
~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> Of cause this is also true in the case of "rikky"
Thanks to Rik for reminding me of your plan of a couple of years ago,
to publish and sell the poetry of Usenet poets, without even bothering
to ask /permission/... you were all, "it's okay".
> People that self-describe as poets are probably
> the most moronic surrounding issues of copyright.
And some, such as you, just come off as a bonafide nutjob. To quote
Harlan Ellison: "bugfuck crazy".
> They fantasize that anyone would want to even
> bother reading them.
>
> Dockery has nothing to read.
Heh.
Readable enough for you to /steal/ and call your own, though, eh?
But you only /whine/ when you're being stolen /from/, right?
One example of Tom Bishop's "borrowing" of another person's creations,
an example of Tom Bishop's /love & theft/:
----
From: Will Dockery (opb...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: National Poetry Month - Dialogue: "Pastel Hollerings"
View: Complete Thread (297 articles)
Date: 2005-05-08 09:19:29 PST
When Bishop first arrived, in 2002, he was doing some interesting
things with "dialogue" poetry. He did several of mine, the ones below I
remember well. My poem, and Bishop's two "answers":
----
From: Will Dockery (irony...@knology.net)
Subject: Pastel Hollerings. by Tom Bishop
Pastel Hollerings.
I ate your pigs of poetry;
we tasted secret chemicals.
You come to me
like wood on bone.
As roses petalled, beauty fell,
and you, in pastel hollerings,
assumed a tuneful pose
in printed skirts of sunflowers.
--
Tom Bishop
Note - inspired from:
"Skirt of Printed Sunflowers"
by Will Dockery (see r.a.p. recent)
Skirt of Printed Sunflowers.
Girl of these woods and chemicals,
we labor for the black pigs of my poetry,
for the bone gods of the sea,
for the secret rose you keep for me,
under the skirts of printed sunflowers.
There is a hollering and someone has a
dog that barks,
your eyes have that recently crying look,
and your hair seems as soft
and your smell as sweet, as before,
as that last time you came to my door,
in a skirt of printed pastel sunflowers.
But it has been seen that you look
straight through,
I fear that you are already gone,
that night you tried to die in my arms,
is something that I will not forget
or make sense of,
you and your skirt of bright printed sunflowers.
Methinks that you no longer see nothing,
and god knows what kind
of love is this,
you told me that you never stopped loving me,
but you could never return to me,
in your skirt of printed sunflowers.
-Will Dockery 2001
----
*and*:
----
From: Tom Bishop (t...@truly.nu)
Subject: Re: Pastel Hollerings (v.2)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments, rec.arts.poems, us.arts.poetry
Date: 2002-08-06 06:49:29 PST
"George Tolis" wrote
> "Tom Bishop" <t...@truly.nu> wrote
>
> > I ate your pigs of poetry;
> > we tasted secret chemicals.
> >
> > You come to me
> > like wood on bone.
> >
> > As roses petalled, beauty fell,
> > and you, in pastel hollerings,
> > assumed a tuneful pose
> > in printed skirts of sunflowers.
>
> Almost what Dennis said, in less cryptic terms.
>
> You're running up the same shelves with this poem as Dockery's poem,
> but you're giving chase, so this is almost like an extra stanza,
> rather than recognising it's autonomy from his poem.
It was a rearrangement..
"What I could do"
..basically with his poem as /source/ material.
Not that I can't think.. although questionable at times..
..as I rearrange, I am a reader.
When I read something I like, I add it to my
accumulation of other things I liked.
I started out having a "message"
..something to say.
Much of what I am writing now is more
driven from something else..
..this /source/ material concept.
Dale and I did an iteration of what I called
"FreeSource Method".. that's fun.. and really
generates a bunch of images to play with.
Dale seems to frequently take other poems
as /source/ for his (clearly many do).
I am about to program web and usenet searches
to pull random lines out of /various/ targeted
areas.. (like AAPC) to accumulate /source/ material..
> The opening line is great.
Mostly thanks to Will.
> Line 2 is bad: "secret" is a bad modifier
> and there's a passivity in the meter, more than anything - perhaps
> making it more direct and dropping the abstract, useless 'secret'?
Starting to see /what you are seeing/ more..
..I can see that a poem made more out of the things you like
would be a better/more interesting/etc. poem.
> Lines 3 and 4 are wonderful. A nice clubbing sensation in the meter
> that carries the image beautifully.
Donno why (especially) 4 is really striking to me..
>
> "Rose petals" - ugh. "beauty fell" - ugh. "tuneful" - ugh. "assuming a
> pose" hmm:
>
> "You posed
> in pastel hollerings
> in printed skirts of sunflowers."
>
> Basically, you throw it away in the final section. "it" being the
> sharpness of the images in the first 4 lines.
>
> However you tighten up the last bit, I'd definitely say that this poem
> needs some fleshing out with a very minimalist sense of the narrator,
> so that you set yourself apart from the original poem more. You
> already have the "chemical" taste of his "pigs of poetry" but who is
> the "we" and who is the "I" and who is the "you"?
..aside: as I get it, it is a male, and a lover that there is a
love/hate
relationship with.. (wood on bone.. like getting hit with a bat)
..and hollerings is angry.. but pastel tames it in a strange way..
..plus the "pigs" of poetry is not the lovliest one can say.
>That's what I'd use
> to define how you work this. Although not as a narrative piece, as an
> imagist piece where you place each person at a different perspective
> to your central idea - Will's poem.
OK.. here is v.2
========
I ate your pigs of poetry;
we weathered vile chemicals.
You come to me
like wood on bone,
the flute you played
was razor sharp.
The barrel bottom's seen
our tongue.
The cats you've taken in
have died.
The chemicals, now washed away,
have left a stain on mustered pride.
And you, my sometime pull-tab
diamond love...
You pose in pastel hollerings,
in printed skirts of sunflowers.
========
Thanks again!
Tom Bishop ,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
----
Interesting guy... little wonder the jeering hecklers put their full
force of sleazy games behind driving him away... he made 'em look bad.
"Billy, the electorate of Lincoln County want you *gone*." -James
Coburn
"Well, Pat, are they asking, or telling?" -Kris Kristofferson
Meanwhile, I have a few red ballons to pop. *wink*
----
Not complex: just another simple matter of /love & theft/.
> > "Plagiarism refers to the use of another's ideas, information,
> > language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the
> > original source. *Essential to an act of plagiarism is an element of
> > dishonesty in attempting to pass off the plagiarised work as original.*
> > Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which
> > occurs when one violates copyright law. Like most terms from the area
> > of intellectual property, plagiarism is a concept of the modern age and
> > not really applicable to medieval or ancient works."
Now, about this bullshit between you and Cook, and his /fair use/ of
your image:
Not complex at all, Tom.
Cook stole your photograph and used it in a satirical scene depicting
you and Chuck, which was also stolen from a gay web site [an apparently
obscure one, although I don't think anyone's bothered to find out just
/where/ Cook swiped the image from, or cares] in a sexual situation.
The /complex/ part comes in, though still not /too/ complex, is when
the fact emerges that ever since you first appeared on Usenet, you've
been involved in one situation after another of "borrowing" the
material created by others to use as you please, time after time... and
even now you're "bottowing" images of porn models to use in photo
manipulations of your own.
All the while whining about Cook's thefts. Yeah, you're right, it /is/
complex, but not /too/. It might be called a case of "projection".
--
The Netherlands/Shadowville cross cultural exchange
project <http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm>
Autograph Of Zorro" {from *Shadowville Live*}:
<http://www.kannibaal.nl/zorro.mp3>