Kos, Krugman, and ~karlapoet~ (and Sarah Palin)
George Dance
~karlapoet~, of the ~poets~*, to complain once more about my quoting
from a poem without attribution two years ago, and to excuse herself
and her fellow ~poet~, ~cytherapoet~, for doing the same thing. In the
course of her screed, ~karlapoet~ mentioned Sarah Palin as an analogy.
("George, like Sarah Palin,
failed to apologize and adopted the role of the victim."). Indeed the
Palin story is an instructive analogy (though not in the way
~karlapoet~ thinks) -- so, while I skipped commenting on that for the
sake of brevity in my reply, I thought it deserved a longer
treatment.
Here's the story ~karlapoet~ is referring to:
A week ago, a lone gunman shot 20 people, including Rep. Gabrielle
Giffords (D-AZ) in Tucson, AZ, killing six. Immediately Democratic
Party supporters in the media began blaming Sarah Palin and the Tea
Party for having a hand in the assassination. Literally just minutes
after the first news story on the shooting, for example, Markos
Moulitsas ('kos' of the blog Daily Kos) sent out a tweet on the event
proclaiming: "Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin."
kos linked to a map Palin had put on her facebook page the previous
March, 'targeting' 20 Democratic congressmen for election defeat in
the midterms, with crosshair symbols on their districts. Since
Giffords was one of the targets, the theory ran, the map was what
inspired the killer to shoot her. Within the hour Paul Krugman of the
NY Times had picked up the story, and the news that Palin had been
implicated in the assassination had gone viral.
It later came out that kos had also published a list of 'targeted'
Congressman in the 2010 election on his blog, and had written about
putting bullseyes on each of them. Giffords turned out to be one of
his targets as well.
It also came out that Palin's map had been previously attacked in
March: by Krugman, for instance; and by Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee (DCCC) chair Rep. Chris van Hollen, who warned that
someone might 'take it seriously'. It later came out that the DCCC
also had a map of 'targeted' Republican congressmen, with bullseyes on
their districts.
The story died when no evidence linking the killer to Palin, her map,
or indeed anyone in the Tea Party movement was found. (If he had ever
gone to a Tea Party meeting, then God help the movement!). Today the
same people who were libelling and slandering Palin as a murderer have
stopped, and are instead criticizing her for 'portraying herself as a
victim').
Meanwhile, kos and the DCCC received, and still receive, no criticism
from the same people for their target lists -- even though there's as
much chance that Giffords's shooter was inspired by kos's site as by
Palin's. Why? Because the Democrats are the good guys, of course,
while the Republicans, Palin, and the Tea Partiers are the new Nazis.
(Krugman, who is Jewish, has accused Palin and other Republicans of
being neo-Nazis, in code of course, in his column.)
Which brings us to the point of the analogy. ~karlapoet~ believes that
she, and her online friends like ~cytherapoet~, can quote others'
poetry without attribution because -- well, really, because they're
the ~poets~. Yet anyone else who does the same thing is a plagiarist
and a thief. Over the years they have chased away many writers of
poetry by labelling them plagiarists and thiefs, using just this type
of hypocritical reasoning. (And of course if anyone complains, then
they're 'adopting the role of the victim'.) Not this time, though. .
* (The ~poets~ are the clique I used to refer to as the SP, originally
the Shit People. Some of them have complained about the name, so I've
given them a new one. All else about them is the same.)
ggamble
Wow, you're an apologist for Sarah Palin and a lying troll.
You're also stealing my ~poets~ riff, but that's to be expected from someone
with no imagination.
Now, lying troll, go find one instance of my referring to myself as a
*poet*.
Ready
set
start lying.
George Dance
<unsnip>
given them a new one. All else about them is the same.) </us>
> Wow,
> a lying troll
> lying troll
> lying.
Your stealing Al Franken's schtick, ~ggarypoet~.
Karla
Karla
<george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
You assume wrongly. Arizona was a tragedy and I disagree with those who
are linking political symbology (crosshairs).
You also can't seem to read. You resemble Sarah Palin because you get
nutty rather than do the obvious, cordial thing: apologize. Your huge ego
blows it all out of proportion and the next thing you know, you're drawing
lines in the sand with every single post made, advancing names for this
group and that group. never forgetting the past. In other words, playing
the victim. Palin doesn't have a political strategy. She has a news
strategy. Turn everything into how she's a victim. Similarly, you go
here:
>* (The ~poets~ are the clique I used to refer to as the SP, originally
>the Shit People. Some of them have complained about the name, so I've
>given them a new one. All else about them is the same.)
>Which brings us to the point of the analogy. ~karlapoet~ believes that
>she, and her online friends like ~cytherapoet~, can quote others'
>poetry without attribution because -- well, really, because they're
>the ~poets~.
As I asked above, can you read? Nowhere did I say this person could do it,
that person cannot. You incorrectly summarize what I said. Why? You
can't let go of the past. Why? You know in your heart that you handled the
Cohen incident poorly but rather than man up, you invent a landscape to try
to hide it.
Will Dockery
That would be almost as easy as find a poem you've posted here in the
last... how many years, gg?
--
Music, poetry & video by Will Dockery & Friends:
http://www.youtube.com/user/WDockery?feature=mhum
George Dance
Did you not read what I wrote, did you not understand it, or are you
lying about it?
I pointed out that you're doing the same as Moulitsas: just as he
libelled Palin as an accomplice to murder for doing the same thing he
and his chosen party were doing, you (and your fellow ~poets~) have
been libelling me (and possibly others) for doing the same thing you
and your fellow ~poets~ were doing both before and since.
> You also can't seem to read. You resemble Sarah Palin because you get
> nutty
IOW: Palin is 'nutty' because she objects to being called a murderer.
I'm 'nutty' because I object to being called a plagiarist. Right!
> rather than do the obvious, cordial thing: apologize.
"
Mar. 1,2009: "I'll commit to attributing any poetry I post
by anyone else, whether I think someone will recognize it or
not. I thought it was OK, as it's been done before and has
been treated as OK then. But I realize it's not as OK as I
thought it was, and I will do my best to not do it again."
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/ms
g/7bb003bc76a94033
March 1, 2009: "I posted a famous poem without crediting the author.
I'd seen it done before, and had been convinced that it wasn't
plagiarism. I still don't think it is, but I won't do it again."
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/4ded20a8670f7193
That wasn't the apology that was written for me to post (which was a
confession of intent to plagiarize), so I can understand why you
wouldn't want to count it.
> Your huge ego
> blows it all out of proportion
Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
> and the next thing you know, you're drawing
> lines in the sand with every single post made, advancing names for this
> group and that group.
I came up with one name: I've withdrawn it and advanced another one.
> never forgetting the past. In other words, playing
> the victim.
Just how many times in the last month has my alleged theft been
mentioned on aapc? Twice a week looks about right. When was the last
time you mentioned it. Last night, right? When before that? October,
the last time you were posting here, right? Who isn't forgetting the
past here?
> Palin doesn't have a political strategy. She has a news
> strategy. Turn everything into how she's a victim.
I'm not even a Republican. But when Palin's being libelled, she's a
victim. Similarly, ...
> Similarly, you go
> here:
>
> >* (The ~poets~ are the clique I used to refer to as the SP, originally
> >the Shit People. Some of them have complained about the name, so I've
> >given them a new one. All else about them is the same.)
> >
> >Which brings us to the point of the analogy. ~karlapoet~ believes that
> >she, and her online friends like ~cytherapoet~, can quote others'
> >poetry without attribution because -- well, really, because they're
> >the ~poets~.
>
> As I asked above, can you read? Nowhere did I say this person could do it,
> that person cannot.
Well, maybe that part was unclear. I meant, you don't give any reasons
why you and the other ~poets~ can get away with it. Take your defense
of ~cytherapoet~ last night, which was just the same counterattack
she'd already used: To paraphrase, "It's not plagiarism, because --
you're stupid! You don't know what Yeats wrote! But we do, because
we're the ~poets~, so it's OK for us!"
> You incorrectly summarize what I said. Why?
As I said, maybe it was unclear. You defend yourself and the other
~poets~ and condemn anyone else for doing the same thing; but you
don't give any sensible reasons. All one has to go on is the fact that
you consider it acceptable, and defend it, iff a ~poet~ does it.
> You
> can't let go of the past.
Ha! Who can't let go of the past?
> Why? You know in your heart that you handled the
> Cohen incident poorly but rather than man up
> you invent a landscape to try
> to hide it.
Just as Moulitsas doesn't have any trouble calling Palin a murderer,
or Krugman calling her a Nazi, because they're convinced that, in her
heart, she really is a murderer and a Nazi.
ggamble
On 15-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Your huge ego
> > blows it all out of proportion
>
> Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
1) Is Karla solely to blame for your inability to get published, or do all
SP share the blame equally?
2) Maybe you could get published as *Best of Hammy Hog.*
3) If the SP didn't exist, would you have to invent them?
oh wait
Karla
Most magazines...how many? I have the 2010 Writer's Market. I bet there
are a thousand magazines in there. Did *most* magazines communicate that to
you in writing? Are you sure it isn't because your poetry isn't up to
their standards or maybe didn't fit their magazine? How did *most*
magazines blacklist you? And I don't think it's fun - the day you wrote
"Hmmm ... What do you think of this?" and posted the Cohen poem, I got
pissed and let you know it. As I wrote then, I thought you were playing the
gotcha game and I didn't like the imagist thread being derailed.
>> and the next thing you know, you're drawing
>> lines in the sand with every single post made, advancing names for this
>> group and that group.
>
>I came up with one name: I've withdrawn it and advanced another one.
>
>> never forgetting the past. In other words, playing
>> the victim.
>
>Just how many times in the last month has my alleged theft been
>mentioned on aapc? Twice a week looks about right. When was the last
>time you mentioned it. Last night, right? When before that? October,
>the last time you were posting here, right? Who isn't forgetting the
>past here?
Anytime lately I read this group again, you're drawing lines in the sand,
lumping people together.
>> Palin doesn't have a political strategy. She has a news
>> strategy. Turn everything into how she's a victim.
>
>I'm not even a Republican. But when Palin's being libelled, she's a
>victim. Similarly, ...
>
>> Similarly, you go
>> here:
>>
>> >* (The ~poets~ are the clique I used to refer to as the SP, originally
>> >the Shit People. Some of them have complained about the name, so I've
>> >given them a new one. All else about them is the same.)
>> >
>> >Which brings us to the point of the analogy. ~karlapoet~ believes that
>> >she, and her online friends like ~cytherapoet~, can quote others'
>> >poetry without attribution because -- well, really, because they're
>> >the ~poets~.
>>
>> As I asked above, can you read? Nowhere did I say this person could do it,
>> that person cannot.
>
>Well, maybe that part was unclear. I meant, you don't give any reasons
>why you and the other ~poets~ can get away with it. Take your defense
>of ~cytherapoet~ last night, which was just the same counterattack
>she'd already used: To paraphrase, "It's not plagiarism, because --
>you're stupid! You don't know what Yeats wrote! But we do, because
>we're the ~poets~, so it's OK for us!"
Is that how you deal with what you don't understand? You make up a mystical
kingdom of people? And I did and still do think you'd recognize the Yeats.
I don't think Dockery or maybe z would but their trip is music.
BTW, did Denby plagiarize Arnold?
>> You incorrectly summarize what I said. Why?
>
>As I said, maybe it was unclear. You defend yourself and the other
>~poets~ and condemn anyone else for doing the same thing; but you
>don't give any sensible reasons. All one has to go on is the fact that
>you consider it acceptable, and defend it, iff a ~poet~ does it.
You made that up. The record supports none of your fantasy.
>> You
>> can't let go of the past.
>
>Ha! Who can't let go of the past?
>
>
>> Why? You know in your heart that you handled the
>> Cohen incident poorly but rather than man up
>> you invent a landscape to try
>> to hide it.
>
>Just as Moulitsas doesn't have any trouble calling Palin a murderer,
>or Krugman calling her a Nazi, because they're convinced that, in her
>heart, she really is a murderer and a Nazi.
BTW, I just checked - Moulitsas didn't do what you claim.
Corey Connor
> Anytime lately I read this group again, you're drawing lines in the sand,
> lumping people together.
Everybody does that in some fashion or other, don't you think? I
think it's all part of the learning process, like how we learn to
compare things one to another, and how we learn to compare ourselves
to other peoples. Stupid, right?
By the way, I can't help but notice how you sometimes pop in and talk
around me, but rarely ever talk to me anymore. Are you still upset
with me about something, Ms. ~karlapoet~?
Cythera
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:19:58 -0800 (PST), George Dance
>
> >> >~karlapoet~
> >> >the ~poets~*
> >> >her fellow ~poet~
> >> >~cytherapoet~
> >> >~karlapoet~
> >> >~karlapoet~ thinks
>
> >> >~karlapoet~
>
> >your fellow ~poets~
> >and your fellow ~poets~
>
> >> >* (The ~poets~
> >> >the clique
> >> >the SP
> >> >the Shit People.
>
> >> >~karlapoet~ believes
> >> >online friends
> >> >~cytherapoet~
> >> >the ~poets~.
>
> >~poets~
> >~cytherapoet~
> >counterattack
> >~poets~
>
<snip>
>
> And I did and still do think you'd recognize the Yeats.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/900b730001fa19ad
>
but he will post about it ad infinitum.
You can't reason with a baby.
George Dance
Well, Karla, which is it: Did you not read, did you not understand
what you wrote, or were you deliberately lying again?
> >I pointed out that you're doing the same as Moulitsas: just as he
> >libelled Palin as an accomplice to murder for doing the same thing he
> >and his chosen party were doing, you (and your fellow ~poets~) have
> >been libelling me (and possibly others) for doing the same thing you
> >and your fellow ~poets~ were doing both before and since.
>
> >> You also can't seem to read. You resemble Sarah Palin because you get
> >> nutty
>
> >IOW: Palin is 'nutty' because she objects to being called a murderer.
> >I'm 'nutty' because I object to being called a plagiarist. Right!
>
> >> rather than do the obvious, cordial thing: apologize.
>
> >"
> >Mar. 1,2009: "I'll commit to attributing any poetry I post
> >by anyone else, whether I think someone will recognize it or
> >not. I thought it was OK, as it's been done before and has
> >been treated as OK then. But I realize it's not as OK as
> >thought it was, and I will do my best to not do it again."
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/ms
> >g/7bb003bc76a94033
>
> >March 1, 2009: "I posted a famous poem without crediting the author.
> >I'd seen it done before, and had been convinced that it wasn't
> >plagiarism. I still don't think it is, but I won't do it again."
> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/4ded20a8...
>
> >That wasn't the apology that was written for me to post (which was a
> >confession of intent to plagiarize), so I can understand why you
> >wouldn't want to count it.
>
> >> Your huge ego
> >> blows it all out of proportion
>
> >Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> >They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> >lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
>
> Most magazines...how many? I have the 2010 Writer's Market. I bet there
> are a thousand magazines in there. Did *most* magazines communicate that to
> you in writing? Are you sure it isn't because your poetry isn't up to
> their standards or maybe didn't fit their magazine? How did *most*
> magazines blacklist you? And I don't think it's fun - the day you wrote
> "Hmmm ... What do you think of this?" and posted the Cohen poem, I got
> pissed and let you know it.
No, ~karlapoet~, that is not true.
> As I wrote then, I thought you were playing the
> gotcha game
No, that is not true either.
>and I didn't like the imagist thread being derailed.
>
Nor is that true.
You see why I've told you that nothing you write can be believed.
> >> and the next thing you know, you're drawing
> >> lines in the sand with every single post made, advancing names for this
> >> group and that group.
>
> >I came up with one name: I've withdrawn it and advanced another one.
>
> >> never forgetting the past. In other words, playing
> >> the victim.
>
> >Just how many times in the last month has my alleged theft been
> >mentioned on aapc? Twice a week looks about right. When was the last
> >time you mentioned it. Last night, right? When before that? October,
> >the last time you were posting here, right? Who isn't forgetting the
> >past here?
>
> Anytime lately I read this group again, you're drawing lines in the sand,
> lumping people together.
>
Oh, right: you and your trollfriends have to shit and piss on the
group because I 'lumped you together'. You were doing the same thing
here (and on RAP) before I showed up, remember? Just how was I
'lumping you together' in those days?
> >> Palin doesn't have a political strategy. She has a news
> >> strategy. Turn everything into how she's a victim.
>
> >I'm not even a Republican. But when Palin's being libelled, she's a
> >victim. Similarly, ...
>
> >> Similarly, you go
> >> here:
>
> >> >* (The ~poets~ are the clique I used to refer to as the SP, originally
> >> >the Shit People. Some of them have complained about the name, so I've
> >> >given them a new one. All else about them is the same.)
>
> >> >Which brings us to the point of the analogy. ~karlapoet~ believes that
> >> >she, and her online friends like ~cytherapoet~, can quote others'
> >> >poetry without attribution because -- well, really, because they're
> >> >the ~poets~.
>
> >> As I asked above, can you read? Nowhere did I say this person could do it,
> >> that person cannot.
>
> >Well, maybe that part was unclear. I meant, you don't give any reasons
> >why you and the other ~poets~ can get away with it. Take your defense
> >of ~cytherapoet~ last night, which was just the same counterattack
> >she'd already used: To paraphrase, "It's not plagiarism, because --
> >you're stupid! You don't know what Yeats wrote! But we do, because
> >we're the ~poets~, so it's OK for us!"
>
> Is that how you deal with what you don't understand?
There's nothing hard to understand about you or what you do here.
> You make up a mystical
> kingdom of people?
There's nothing mystical about your little circlesuck.
> And I did and still do think you'd recognize the Yeats.
> I don't think Dockery or maybe z would but their trip is music.
Even if that's true, so what? Plagiarism is plagiarism, regardless of
source.
>
> BTW, did Denby plagiarize Arnold?
>
In order for me to give an answer you'd like, you'd first have to tell
me: Is Denby a ~poet~ like you and your trollfriends? Which group have
I unconsciously 'lumped him in' with?
> >> You incorrectly summarize what I said. Why?
>
> >As I said, maybe it was unclear. You defend yourself and the other
> >~poets~ and condemn anyone else for doing the same thing; but you
> >don't give any sensible reasons. All one has to go on is the fact that
> >you consider it acceptable, and defend it, iff a ~poet~ does it.
>
> You made that up. The record supports none of your fantasy.
I don't know about "the record", but the archives show that you'll lie
your ass off, about anything.
> >> You
> >> can't let go of the past.
>
> >Ha! Who can't let go of the past?
>
> >> Why? You know in your heart that you handled the
> >> Cohen incident poorly but rather than man up
> >> you invent a landscape to try
> >> to hide it.
>
> >Just as Moulitsas doesn't have any trouble calling Palin a murderer,
> >or Krugman calling her a Nazi, because they're convinced that, in her
> >heart, she really is a murderer and a Nazi.
>
> BTW, I just checked - Moulitsas didn't do what you claim.
Well, that does provide a way for anyone interested in discovering
who's telling the truth here, and who's lying, to see for himself.
Here's what I claimed Moulitsas did:
"Literally just minutes
after the first news story on the shooting, for example, Markos
Moulitsas ('kos' of the blog Daily Kos) sent out a tweet on the event
proclaiming: "Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.
"kos linked to a map Palin had put on her facebook page the previous
March, 'targeting' 20 Democratic congressmen for election defeat in
the midterms, with crosshair symbols on their districts....
"It later came out that kos had also published a list of 'targeted'
Congressman in the 2010 election on his blog, and had written about
putting bullseyes on each of them. Giffords turned out to be one of
his targets as well."
Which part of that did "the record" tell you Moulitsas didn't do?
George Dance
> On 15-Jan-2011, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
they just want to avoid
> > lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
>
> 1) Is Karla solely to blame
Of course not, ~ggarypoet~. It could be any one (or any two, or three,
or ten) of the following:
George Dance
> but he will post about it ad infinitum.
The only person who's been posting 'ad infinitum' about the Cohen
"theft" is you, ~cytherapoet~.
> You can't reason with a baby.
Agreed.
ggamble
On 15-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Your huge ego
> > blows it all out of proportion
>
> Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
So, now we know the reason for mensageorge's fixated vendetta.
In his fantasy world, he pretends that the cabal (tinc) is responsible for
the fact he can't get published.
continue to
lie
mensageorge,
lie.
ggamble
Will Dockery
> On Jan 16, 5:23 am, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Anytime lately I read this group again, you're drawing lines in the sand,
> > lumping people together.
>
> Everybody does that in some fashion or other, don't you think? I
> think it's all part of the learning process, like how we learn to
> compare things one to another, and how we learn to compare ourselves
> to other peoples. Stupid, right?
Of course, drawing lines and asking /which side are you on?/ is just
the natural human state, which art imitates life on here at Usenet:
There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
Why don't you come on back to the war, that's right, get in it,
why don't you come on back to the war, it's just beginning.
-Leonard Cohen
Cythera
> On Jan 16, 9:57 am, Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > but he will post about it ad infinitum.
>
> The only person who's been posting 'ad infinitum' about the Cohen
> "theft" is you, ~cytherapoet~.
>
Barbara's Cat
> ggamble wrote:
>
> > Goober Dance sobbingly quacked:
> >
> > > You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> > > They don't know the details and don't want to;
> > > they just want to avoid lawsuits. I've been
> > > blacklisted, for your fun.
> >
> >
> > 1) Is Karla solely to blame
>
>
> Of course not, ~ggarypoet~. It could be any one
> (or any two, or three, or ten) of the following:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/the-sp-2
Poor baby. Your mommy needs to give you a lollipop.
--
Cm~
"Well, maybe you'd like to explain to the group
exactly what you're laughing at?"
- Goober George not getting it ... again.
Karla
Again, most magazines? You're standing by that?
>> And I don't think it's fun - the day you wrote
>> "Hmmm ... What do you think of this?" and posted the Cohen poem, I got
>> pissed and let you know it.
>
>No, ~karlapoet~, that is not true.
>> As I wrote then, I thought you were playing the
>> gotcha game
>
>No, that is not true either.
>
>>and I didn't like the imagist thread being derailed.
>>
>
>Nor is that true.
>
>You see why I've told you that nothing you write can be believed.
You should really google before you deny. I wrote all of the below soon
after you went hmmm.
*28 Feb 2009 12:17:11
What's up with trying to pass this off as yours?*
*28 Feb 2009 16:39:23
Stop it! Just admit it wasn't smart omitting that Cohen had written this.
Otherwise you're inviting a ton of posts forevermore. Or do you want
negative attention like that? Please admit and stop this nonsense.*
*28 Feb 2009 18:45:11
And there wasn't because you were hoping to trick those unfamiliar with Mr.
Cohen's poem into thinking it was yours. Your exact wording up above: "Hmmm
...
What do you think of this?" followed by the poem. The "hmmm" and the
question deliberately vague.*
*01 Mar 2009 14:50:05
As I wrote above this line, you have caused a ton of posts because of your
refusal to own up to your behavior. A decent discussed devolved. As for
"troll behavior", take the log out of your eye first. You "trolled" by
posting Cohen's poem without attribution.*
*01 Mar 2009 15:08:17
"I chose to speak of it as trickery and never used plagiarism. I don't like
that you played with fire, i.e. left a window for someone to assume you'd
written it. My initial response was anger that you did such a thing, but
after called it trickery."*
George Dance
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:02:04 -0800 (PST), George Dance
>
<snip for relevance>
>
>
>
> >> And I don't think it's fun - the day you wrote
> >> "Hmmm ... What do you think of this?" and posted the Cohen poem, I got
> >> pissed and let you know it.
>
> >No, ~karlapoet~, that is not true.
> >> As I wrote then, I thought you were playing the
> >> gotcha game
>
> >No, that is not true either.
>
> >>and I didn't like the imagist thread being derailed.
>
> >Nor is that true.
>
> >You see why I've told you that nothing you write can be believed.
>
> You should really google before you deny. I wrote all of the below soon
> after you went hmmm.
That's not what you claimed (and I denied), liar. You claimed you
wrote all of the above (1) that you were pissed, that you thought I
was playing a 'gotcha game', and that I was trying to 'derail the
thread' "the day [I] posted the Cohen poem". Noto one of the 'below'
is from that day.
>
> *28 Feb 2009 12:17:11
> What's up with trying to pass this off as yours?*
Exactly. Only after ~garypoet~ flamed Cohen's poem, and Colin gave the
name of the author, did you reply. Nothing even then about you being
'pissed', nothing about a 'gotcha game', and nothing about 'derailing
the thread.' Only a Compound Question by which you hoped to trick me
into saying I'd tried to pass the poem off as my own.
> *28 Feb 2009 16:39:23
> Stop it! Just admit it wasn't smart omitting that Cohen had written this.
> Otherwise you're inviting a ton of posts forevermore. Or do you want
> negative attention like that? Please admit and stop this nonsense.*
So you then you followed up with a threat: Admit you plagiarized, or
we'll make a 'ton of posts' (which you made -- and then later had the
nerve to accuse me of 'derailing the thread').
> *28 Feb 2009 18:45:11
> And there wasn't because you were hoping to trick those unfamiliar with Mr.
> Cohen's poem into thinking it was yours. Your exact wording up above: "Hmmm
> ...
> What do you think of this?" followed by the poem. The "hmmm" and the
> question deliberately vague.*
Yep. Six hours after your plagiarism charge -- which your friends had
picked up and were plastering not only all over the thread, but all
over the group -- you decided to change your accusation. Besides
which, of course your new charge -- "you were hoping to trick those
unfamiliar with Mr. Cohen's poem into thinking it was yours"-- was as
bogus as your previous one: you're pretending that no one on the group
(except Colin) knew how to do a search.
> *01 Mar 2009 14:50:05
> As I wrote above this line, you have caused a ton of posts because of your
> refusal to own up to your behavior. A decent discussed devolved. As for
> "troll behavior", take the log out of your eye first. You "trolled" by
> posting Cohen's poem without attribution.*
Yep. A day later, with your friends (the same friends you've brought
into this discussion, I note) all calling me a plagiarist, you backed
down further: now posting the poem without attribution wasn't
plagiarism but trolling. But of course you didn't apologize for
calling me a plagiarist in the first place; you just whined that I'd
"caused" you and your friends to start calling me that.
> *01 Mar 2009 15:08:17
> "I chose to speak of it as trickery and never used plagiarism. I don't like
> that you played with fire, i.e. left a window for someone to assume you'd
> written it. My initial response was anger that you did such a thing, but
> after called it trickery."*
Your final change of story in that thread: Even though you'd accused
me of plagiarism (ie, passing someone else's poem off as my own), just
the day before, you began claiming that you hadn't because you hadn't
used the word 'plagiarism'. Which is the story you stuck with until,
two or three months later, you started using the word 'plagiarizing'
in connection with it again.
Thank you for posting this.
George Dance
I've been told that no poetry magazines will even read my work. That's
probably an exaggeration, but otherwise I see no reason to disbelieve
it.
ggamble
On 16-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I've been told that no poetry magazines will even read my work. That's
> probably an exaggeration, but otherwise I see no reason to disbelieve
> it.
And, no one has any reason to believe you.
Because you habitually lie.
mensageorge,
lie.
ggamble
On 16-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I've been told that no poetry magazines will even read my work.
whine
mensageorge,
whine.
Barbara's Cat
> I've been told that no poetry magazines
> will even read my work
Discerning people can be cruel sometimes.
George Dance
>
> no one has any reason to believe you
> you habitually lie
> mensageorge
> lie
IKYABWAI is the best you can do, ~garypoet~?
Karla
<george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 3:17 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:02:04 -0800 (PST), George Dance
>>
>
>
><snip for relevance>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> And I don't think it's fun - the day you wrote
>> >> "Hmmm ... What do you think of this?" and posted the Cohen poem, I got
>> >> pissed and let you know it.
>>
>> >No, ~karlapoet~, that is not true.
>> >> As I wrote then, I thought you were playing the
>> >> gotcha game
>>
>> >No, that is not true either.
>>
>> >>and I didn't like the imagist thread being derailed.
>>
>> >Nor is that true.
>>
>> >You see why I've told you that nothing you write can be believed.
>>
>> You should really google before you deny. I wrote all of the below soon
>> after you went hmmm.
>
>That's not what you claimed (and I denied), liar. You claimed you
>wrote all of the above (1) that you were pissed, that you thought I
>was playing a 'gotcha game', and that I was trying to 'derail the
>thread' "the day [I] posted the Cohen poem". Noto one of the 'below'
>is from that day.
hahaha I posted about context in another thread, and here, once again,
you're calling me a liar because my posts to you didn't occur on the 27th
but noon the next day? OMG, George. You're pathetic. It's obvious from
anyone reading that I got upset about it, that your failing to right the
situation then bothered me. The context is all there for anyone who cares.
Will Dockery
> On Jan 16, 3:17 pm, Karla said:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:02:04 -0800 (PST), George Dance wrote:
<snip for focus>
> > >> >Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> > >> >They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> > >> >lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
>
> > >> Most magazines...how many? I have the 2010 Writer's Market. I bet there
> > >> are a thousand magazines in there. Did *most* magazines communicate that to
> > >> you in writing? Are you sure it isn't because your poetry isn't up to
> > >> their standards or maybe didn't fit their magazine? How did *most*
> > >> magazines blacklist you?
>
> > Again, most magazines? You're standing by that?
>
> I've been told that no poetry magazines will even read my work. That's
> probably an exaggeration, but otherwise I see no reason to disbelieve it.
Hold up, George, did I miss a more complete explanation today, but
what's up with this?
Can you say who told you you were "blacklisted", and were you informed
why? Was it really because of the plagiarism smaears posted here, or
were these smears taken off Usenet..?
--
Will Dockery & Friends at Hogbottom 2009: Will Dockery (vocals) *
Henry Conley (guitar) * Doug Conley (bass) * Gene Woolfolk (flute) *
John Phillips (drums).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYETTK16jQI
George Dance
What is obvious to anyone reading the thread is what you got upset
about -- your friend ~garypoet~ flamed the Cohen poem thinking it was
mine, and then when it came out that it was a Leonard Cohen poem he
looked like a fool. So you got upset about that and made up the
plagiaYesrism story merely to cover his embarrassment.
> that your failing to right the
> situation then bothered me.
> The context is all there for anyone who cares.
>
Yes, it is; and what it tells us is:
You decided to libel me to save your imbecile friend from looking like
an imbecile.
After you didn't trick me into "confessing" to plagiarism, you made up
these other stories.
Although those interested in the actual 'context' should read the
entire thread:
or
Will Dockery
Aha, that's probably exactly what nails it.
Check the archives for when PJR posted a poem that Bishop racted to
similarly as ggary did your Cohen post, the badgering of how Bishop
wasn't familiar with "Alexander Pope" went on for months, if not
years.
What Karla calls a "gotcha", I think.
> https://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/browse_frm/t...
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/plagiarismthread
Thanks, George, hopefully later tonight I'll have more time to look
into all this, the Sunday night performance out in Smith's Station,
Alabama, awaits, at the old world-famous honky tonk Del Ranch...
--
Here's a blast from Woods Of Wonder past, Will Dockery & The
Shadowville All-Stars Boo-Nanny 2009 memories...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hogbottom/306961334065#!/album.php?aid=7391&id=1709062661&page=3
Directions to Doo-Nanny from Phenix City, Alabama/Columbus Georgia:
In Seale, Alabama... from Phenix City, go south on 431 to 169, take a
left on 169 then almost immediate right onto Poorhouse Road... follow
that a bit, look for signs at a dirt road on the left side of the
road, follow the multicolored sound & vision into the Woods Of Wonder.
George Dance
> On Jan 16, 4:06 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 3:17 pm, Karla said:
> >> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:02:04 -0800 (PST), George Dance wrote:
>
> <snip for focus>
>
> > > >> >Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> > > >> >They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> > > >> >lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
>
> > > >> Most magazines...how many? I have the 2010 Writer's Market. I bet there
> > > >> are a thousand magazines in there. Did *most* magazines communicate that to
> > > >> you in writing? Are you sure it isn't because your poetry isn't up to
> > > >> their standards or maybe didn't fit their magazine? How did *most*
> > > >> magazines blacklist you?
>
> > > Again, most magazines? You're standing by that?
>
> > I've been told that no poetry magazines will even read my work. That's
> > probably an exaggeration, but otherwise I see no reason to disbelieve it.
>
> Hold up, George, did I miss a more complete explanation today, but
> what's up with this?
>
> Can you say who told you you were "blacklisted", and were you informed
> why?
I'll give you some details privately. I wanted to make sure
~karlapoet~ knew that much, because there's a chance she didn't know
what her smear led to, but she's not getting any more than that.
George Dance
Exactly. And even ~karlapoet~ admits it: though she just adds the
little twist that she can see into my mind and know I planned the
whole thing. With the ~poets~ as you know, it's always blame the
victim: to them, their victims 'cause' the attacks on them the same
way a rape victim 'causes' her rapist to attack her.
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hogbottom/306961334065#!/album.php?aid=...
Will Dockery
> On Jan 16, 8:44 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 4:06 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> > On Jan 16, 3:17 pm, Karla said:
> > >> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:02:04 -0800 (PST), George Dance wrote:
>
> > <snip for focus>
>
> > > > >> >Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> > > > >> >They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> > > > >> >lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
>
> > > > >> Most magazines...how many? I have the 2010 Writer's Market. I bet there
> > > > >> are a thousand magazines in there. Did *most* magazines communicate that to
> > > > >> you in writing? Are you sure it isn't because your poetry isn't up to
> > > > >> their standards or maybe didn't fit their magazine? How did *most*
> > > > >> magazines blacklist you?
>
> > > > Again, most magazines? You're standing by that?
>
> > > I've been told that no poetry magazines will even read my work. That's
> > > probably an exaggeration, but otherwise I see no reason to disbelieve it.
>
> > Hold up, George, did I miss a more complete explanation today, but
> > what's up with this?
>
> > Can you say who told you you were "blacklisted", and were you informed why?
>
> I'll give you some details privately. I wanted to make sure
> ~karlapoet~ knew that much, because there's a chance she didn't know
> what her smear led to, but she's not getting any more than that.
Okay... sorry that these scumbags seem to have followed you into "Real
Life", though.
--
Music, poetry & video of Will Dockery & Friends:
http://www.youtube.com/user/WDockery
> Was it really because of the plagiarism smaears posted here, or
ggamble
On 16-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> What is obvious to anyone reading the thread is what you got upset
> about -- your friend ~garypoet~ flamed the Cohen poem thinking it was
> mine, and then when it came out that it was a Leonard Cohen poem he
> looked like a fool. So you got upset about that and made up the
> plagiaYesrism story merely to cover his embarrassment.
project
mensageorge,
project.
ggamble
On 16-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I'll give you some details privately. I wanted to make sure
> ~karlapoet~ knew that much, because there's a chance she didn't know
> what her smear led to, but she's not getting any more than that.
mensageorge thinks that because he engages in behind the scenes
communication that everyone else does as well.
ggamble
On 16-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Exactly. And even ~karlapoet~ admits it: though she just adds the
> little twist that she can see into my mind and know I planned the
> whole thing. With the ~poets~ as you know, it's always blame the
> victim: to them, their victims 'cause' the attacks on them the same
> way a rape victim 'causes' her rapist to attack her.
How long before mensageorge accuses all the SP of being rapists?
Cythera
many words that I caused their attacks on me.
Barbara's Cat
> What is obvious to anyone reading the thread is
You're a fuckin' lunatic.
Corey Connor
Do you know where your children are? Are they in bed where they
should be? Where I should be?
George Dance
>
>
Why, ~barbiepoet~, you are a ~Real Poet~(TM) after all. Here it turns
out you have Psychiatric-Poet-Powers~, too. And I never knew.
George Dance
Oh, I'm sorry, ~karlapoet~. Even though you said something completely
different from what you're claiming now, not to mention all the other
facts being different too, one can't say that you lied. Not a ~True
Poet~ TM) like you. You were just being "poetical with the truth."
One of your friends suggested I be nicer to you in the future (and
apparently also wants me to start calling you "enema goddess"), so
I'm doing my part, enema goddess.
> It's obvious from
> anyone reading that I got upset about it, that your failing to right the
> situation then bothered me. The context is all there for anyone who cares.
>
You're right: I should have admitted to plagiarism the instant you
made it up. The problem is that I'm so damn prosaic with the truth. I
guess that just shows that I'll never be a ~True Poet~(TM).
Will Dockery
Endorsed by the likes of PJR, no less:
http://www.youpoetry.info/the-poetry-of-barbaras-cat-perfect-day
> "Barbara’s Cat" <c…@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a2f640f2...@news.verizon.net…
> > Perfect Day
> > There’s something to say
> > about the beauty of a day
> > when the sun flows a warmth over you.
> > When the air is so clear
> > that even far seems near
> > and the colors appear their brightest hue.
> > And the birds gaily dance
> > in the trees swayed in trance
> > by a breeze of Celsius twenty-two.
> > And the dragonflies chase
> > the gnats that flee in haste
> > while a spider drinks the morning dew.
> > And the clouds in the sky
> > paint a picture for your eye
> > reminding days such as this are too few.
> > — Cat
> > [ Cm~ ]
"Nuff said." -Rik Roots
--
Will Dockery & Friends at Hogbottom 2009: Will Dockery (vocals) *
Henry Conley (guitar) * Doug Conley (bass) * Gene Woolfolk (flute) *
John Phillips (drums):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYETTK16jQI
Corey Connor
>
> - Show quoted text -
He's just livin' the dream too, Will.
Peter J Ross
George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> March 1, 2009: "I posted a famous poem without crediting the author.
> I'd seen it done before, and had been convinced that it wasn't
> plagiarism. I still don't think it is, but I won't do it again."
> https://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/4ded20a8670f7193
>
> That wasn't the apology that was written for me to post (which was a
> confession of intent to plagiarize), so I can understand why you
> wouldn't want to count it.
>
>> Your huge ego
>> blows it all out of proportion
>
> Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
Your ally chuckles lysaght (who was once widely published on the kind
of Web sites that have background MIDI music and animated GIFs) had
much the same experience - every single work he claimed to have
written was removed from the Internet, because every single one of
them might well have been stolen.
You pretended that a poem written by Leonard Cohen was a poem written
by you. No reputable publisher who's seen what you did will ever even
consider your "work" for publication again.
But perhaps you're exaggerating (which is a kind of lying, and
therefore likely to come easily to you). Isn't it more likely that
your "work" is being rejected by publishers not because it might be
stolen but because it's unspeakably bad? You're a semiliterate moron
who can't string five words together without perpetrating a cliché,
after all.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
<g...@youbet.net> wrote:
Didn't we vote at last week's secret meeting to hypenate
"behind-the-scenes"?
--
PJR :-)
George Dance
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:19:58 -0800 (PST),
> > March 1, 2009: "I posted a famous poem without crediting the author.
> > I'd seen it done before, and had been convinced that it wasn't
> > plagiarism. I still don't think it is, but I won't do it again."
>
> > That wasn't the apology that was written for me to post (which was a
> > confession of intent to plagiarize), so I can understand why you
> > wouldn't want to count it.
>
> >> Your huge ego
> >> blows it all out of proportion
>
> > Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> > They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> > lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
>
> Your ally chuckles lysaght (who was once widely published on the kind
> of Web sites that have background MIDI music and animated GIFs) had
> much the same experience - every single work he claimed to have
> written was removed from the Internet
Funny then that his "work" is still all over usenet, the one part of
the net where you claim to have some influence.
>, because every single one of
> them might well have been stolen.
That part hasn't worked out so well for you, did it? Aside from the
web site that was hacked into and destroyed, you haven't been able to
'remove' any of my "work" from the net so far.
> You pretended that a poem written by Leonard Cohen was a poem written
> by you.
So ~cytherapoet~ and ~karlpoet~ have been saying (over and over). None
of you have still bothered to produce any evidence for your smears,
though.
> No reputable publisher who's seen what you did will ever even
> consider your "work" for publication again.
>
That's not what I was told (see above). Of course your weasel word is
noted: if anyone does publish anything of mine, you'll decide they're
not "reputable.
> But perhaps you're exaggerating (which is a kind of lying, and
> therefore likely to come easily to you).
> Isn't it more likely that
> your "work" is being rejected by publishers not because it might be
> stolen but because it's unspeakably bad?
Nope. Learn to read.
> You're a semiliterate moron
> who can't string five words together without perpetrating a cliché,
> after all.
>
Translation: "You don't like me, so I'm going to spread the rumour
you're a plagiarist."
ggamble
On 17-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Aside from the
> web site that was hacked into and destroyed, you haven't been able to
> 'remove' any of my "work" from the net so far.
When did you get a website hacked into and destroyed, and why haven't you
blamed the SP for it yet?
You`re slipping.
George Dance
> On 17-Jan-2011, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > Aside from the
> > web site that was hacked into and destroyed, you haven't been able to
> > 'remove' any of my "work" from the net so far.
>
> When did you get a website hacked into and destroyed, and why haven't you
> blamed the SP for it yet?
Sounds like ~ggarypoet~ is forgetting again (or pretending to). Yet
notice how even here he's adding details.
(Clue: I didn't say it was my website. Now you have one, at least
momentarily.)
>
> You`re slipping.
PKB
Cythera
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:19:58 -0800 (PST),
>
>
>
>
>
> George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > March 1, 2009: "I posted a famous poem without crediting the author.
> > I'd seen it done before, and had been convinced that it wasn't
> > plagiarism. I still don't think it is, but I won't do it again."
>
> > That wasn't the apology that was written for me to post (which was a
> > confession of intent to plagiarize), so I can understand why you
> > wouldn't want to count it.
>
> >> Your huge ego
> >> blows it all out of proportion
>
> > Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> > They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> > lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
>
> Your ally chuckles lysaght (who was once widely published on the kind
> of Web sites that have background MIDI music and animated GIFs) had
> much the same experience - every single work he claimed to have
> written was removed from the Internet, because every single one of
> them might well have been stolen.
>
> You pretended that a poem written by Leonard Cohen was a poem written
> by you. No reputable publisher who's seen what you did will ever even
> consider your "work" for publication again.
>
> But perhaps you're exaggerating (which is a kind of lying, and
> therefore likely to come easily to you). Isn't it more likely that
> your "work" is being rejected by publishers not because it might be
> stolen but because it's unspeakably bad? You're a semiliterate moron
> who can't string five words together without perpetrating a cliché,
> after all.
>
> --
> PJR :-)
>
as the Cohen haiku he posted is. Based on the first one he posted, it
would be easy to think George Dance had written two bad poems about
crickets.
>
Oh what a tangled web we weave
when first we practice to deceive.
ggamble
On 17-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > �Aside from the
> > > web site that was hacked into and destroyed, you haven't been able to
> > > 'remove' any of my "work" from the net so far.
> >
> > When did you get a website hacked into and destroyed, and why haven't
> > you
> > blamed the SP for it yet?
>
> Sounds like ~ggarypoet~ is forgetting again (or pretending to). Yet
> notice how even here he's adding details.
>
> (Clue: I didn't say it was my website. Now you have one, at least
> momentarily.)
You`re becoming increasingly incoherent.
Will Dockery
<snip for focus>
> Any reputable publisher would trash his "work" because it's lame, just
> as the Cohen haiku he posted is. Based on the first one he posted, it
> would be easy to think George Dance had written two bad poems about
> crickets.
The Leonard Cohen poem is "lame"?
That calls for some discussion, I'd say:
http://www.leonardcohenforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=88
Summer-Haiku from "The Spice-Box of Earth"
For Frank and Marian Scott
Silence
and a deeper silence
when the crickets
hesitate
-Leonard Cohen
So, I'm curious... what do you consider "lame" about Cohen's poem,
Cythera?
--
Greybeard Cavalier 2011 / Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BEB75l_G8M
ggamble
On 17-Jan-2011, Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Leonard Cohen poem is "lame"?
>
> That calls for some discussion, I'd say:
It`s too bad you`re incapable of participating in any discussion regarding
poetry.
Will Dockery
> On 17-Jan-2011, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > The Leonard Cohen poem is "lame"?
>
So all you can manage is your usual jeers and sneers, ggary?
"We know."
<unsnip>
Barbara's Cat
> ggamble wrote:
>
> > Goober Dance quacked:
> >
> > > I'll give you some details privately. I wanted to make sure
> > > ~karlapoet~ knew that much, because there's a chance she didn't know
> > > what her smear led to, but she's not getting any more than that.
> >
> >
> > mensageorge thinks that because he engages in behind the scenes
> > communication that everyone else does as well.
>
>
> Didn't we vote at last week's secret meeting to hypenate
> "behind-the-scenes"?
Right after voting "clandestine" would cause the Internet
to experience a damaging spike in bandwidth usage when
the goobers went Googling for the word's meaning.
George Dance
George Dance
>
> Any reputable publisher would trash his "work" because it's lame, just
> as the Cohen haiku he posted is. Based on the first one he posted, it
> would be easy to think George Dance had written two bad poems about
> crickets.
Oh, look. ~cytherapoet~ found a ~ggarypoet~ turd to chew up and spit
out. Yum, yum!
Will Dockery
Obviously, the way ggary habitually snips all the content from the
posts.
--
Improv blues-poetry by Will Dockery and the Shadowville All-Stars,
recorded live in Columbus, Georgia:
http://www.archive.org/details/KeyChangeTimeChangeBlues
George Dance
> On Jan 17, 3:26 pm, Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> said:
>
> <snip for focus>
>
> > Any reputable publisher would trash his "work" because it's lame, just
> > as the Cohen haiku he posted is. Based on the first one he posted, it
> > would be easy to think George Dance had written two bad poems about
> > crickets.
>
> The Leonard Cohen poem is "lame"?
>
> That calls for some discussion, I'd say:
>
> http://www.leonardcohenforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=88
>
> Summer-Haiku from "The Spice-Box of Earth"
> For Frank and Marian Scott
>
> Silence
>
> and a deeper silence
>
> when the crickets
>
> hesitate
>
> -Leonard Cohen
>
> So, I'm curious... what do you consider "lame" about Cohen's poem,
> Cythera?
>
According to ~~ggarypoet~, it was a bad poem because Cohen is a
songwriter and therefore not really a poet.
George Dance
> On 17-Jan-2011, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Leonard Cohen poem is "lame"?
>
> > That calls for some discussion, I'd say:
>
> It`s too bad you`re incapable of participating in any discussion regarding
> poetry.
Oh, right: because he's a songwriter, too.
Will Dockery
> On Jan 17, 3:49 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 3:26 pm, Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> said:
>
> > <snip for focus>
>
> > > Any reputable publisher would trash his "work" because it's lame, just
> > > as the Cohen haiku he posted is. Based on the first one he posted, it
> > > would be easy to think George Dance had written two bad poems about
> > > crickets.
>
> > The Leonard Cohen poem is "lame"?
>
> > That calls for some discussion, I'd say:
>
> >http://www.leonardcohenforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=88
>
> > Summer-Haiku from "The Spice-Box of Earth"
> > For Frank and Marian Scott
>
> > Silence
>
> > and a deeper silence
>
> > when the crickets
>
> > hesitate
>
> > -Leonard Cohen
>
> > So, I'm curious... what do you consider "lame" about Cohen's poem,
> > Cythera?
>
> According to ~~ggarypoet~, it was a bad poem because Cohen is a
> songwriter and therefore not really a poet.
Actually, Leonard Cohen was a poet long before he became a singer-
songwriter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cohen
"...In 1951, Cohen enrolled at McGill University, where he became
president of the McGill Debating Union. His literary influences during
this time included Yeats, Irving Layton, Whitman, Federico Garcia
Lorca and Henry Miller.[12] His first published book of poetry, Let Us
Compare Mythologies (1956), was published under Louis Dudek as the
first book in the McGill Poetry Series while Cohen was still an
undergraduate student. Cohen's book, The Spice-Box of Earth (1961)
made him well known in poetry circles, especially in his native
Canada.
After completing an undergraduate degree, Cohen spent a term in
McGill's law school and then a year (1956-7) at Columbia University.
Cohen wrote poetry and fiction throughout much of the 1960s. He
preferred to live in quasi-reclusive circumstances, at the time. After
moving to Hydra, a Greek island, Cohen published the poetry collection
Flowers for Hitler (1964), and the novels The Favourite Game (1963)
and Beautiful Losers (1966). His novel The Favourite Game is an
autobiographical bildungsroman about a young man who discovers his
identity through writing.
Cohen's writing process, as he told an interviewer in 1998, is
'...like a bear stumbling into a beehive or a honey cache: I'm
stumbling right into it and getting stuck, and it's delicious and it's
horrible and I'm in it and it's not very graceful and it's very
awkward and it's very painful and yet there's something inevitable
about it.' [...] In 1967, Cohen moved to the United States to pursue a
career as a folk music singer-songwriter..."
--
Music, poetry & video of Will Dockery & Friends:
http://www.youtube.com/user/WDockery
George Dance
Yes, I know that (but ~ggarypoet~ doesn't). Cohen took up songwriting
after his second novel failed, as a way to support himself financially
as a poet. He won the GG Award(not named after ~ggarypoet~, but don't
tell him that 8) for poetry in 1968, the same year his first record
came out.
Will Dockery
I've been on sort of a Leonard Cohen kick since around X-Mas, when
someone gave me a new copy of the classic "Best Of" (one collection
that truly lives up to the title, as this is some of the primo LC on
this disc, just the basics, but so fine) & I played it to three of my
Shadowville friends who were not with me back in the 1970s during my
hieght of LC admiration...
...and noticed again how many or most of the young folks of today know
the Cohen of the late 1980s "comeback" period of "The Future" and so
on, the heavy music and very deep voice. Not everyone these days is so
aware that Cohen was at first a Dylanesque folkie type with some
delicate semi-acoustic music (& before that, a straight-up poet), and
I was pleased to turn three young folks on to the 1960s era LC.
So the mindless shrugging-off of the importance of Leonard Cohen comes
at just the right time here, to assert the facts.
ggamble
On 17-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > So, I'm curious... what do you consider "lame" about Cohen's poem,
> > Cythera?
> >
>
> According to ~~ggarypoet~, it was a bad poem because Cohen is a
> songwriter and therefore not really a poet.
lie
mensageorge
lie.
ggamble
Will Dockery
> On 17-Jan-2011, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Cythera?
>
> > According to ~~ggarypoet~, it was a bad poem because Cohen is a
> > songwriter and therefore not really a poet.
>
If that's a lie, as you claim, then why not give your side of the
story, ggary?
<unsnip>
Karla
<will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 3:26�pm, Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> said:
>
><snip for focus>
>
>> Any reputable publisher would trash his "work" because it's lame, just
>> as the Cohen haiku he posted is. Based on the first one he posted, it
>> would be easy to think George Dance had written two bad poems about
>> crickets.
>
>The Leonard Cohen poem is "lame"?
>
>That calls for some discussion,
Cool!
I'd say:
>
>http://www.leonardcohenforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=88
>
>Summer-Haiku from "The Spice-Box of Earth"
>For Frank and Marian Scott
>
>
>Silence
>
>and a deeper silence
>
>when the crickets
>
>hesitate
>
>-Leonard Cohen
>
>So, I'm curious... what do you consider "lame" about Cohen's poem,
>Cythera?
But wait! Where are your comments about the poem?
Karla
I know I've made comments about lyrics being poetry, or not. My thoughts
on that have gone through transformations and crystallized into something I
can live with better than what I articulated here before. Poems are poems
are poems whether or not they're lyrics or words on bubble gum cards. The
real question is where do they fall on the scale. Some lyrics are great
poems! Man, the other day I heard a Joni Mitchell song (Tea Leaf Prophecy)
playing on a friend's MacBook, and I didn't recognize the album, though I
did recognize the music/lyrics. Turns out it's Herbie Hancock's brilliant
"River: The Joni Letters." I know, I know, you wonder where I've been all
these years. Anyway, hearing these familiar songs in a new way has just
stunned me. I'm constantly listening to it in the car. She's sublime.
Amazing lyrics! Also, chalk up another 'thumbs up' for a Leonard Cohen
performance (The Jungle Line).
Will Dockery
I liked it, as I usually do most of Leonard Cohen's thoughts... my
question was what is it that Cythera finds "lame" about the haiku?
Do you also find it "lame" or, like me, do you think it was a pretty
good haiku, Karla?
Charlie
> Summer-Haiku from "The Spice-Box of Earth"
> For Frank and Marian Scott
>
> Silence
> and a deeper silence
> when the crickets
> hesitate
>
> -Leonard Cohen
>
> So, I'm curious... what do you consider "lame" about Cohen's poem,
> Cythera?
For a start, there is the small but irritatingly unarguable fact that
it's not a haiku. Perhaps that should read:
Silence
and a deeper silence
when perfectionists
count lines and syllables
If a verse form doesn't adhere to the rigidly established principles, it
isn't ever going to be what it pretends to be. You might as well call a
limerick a villanelle, or an iambic pentameter an alexandrin.
Q: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?
A: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Will Dockery
I understand where you're coming from, Charlie, and I probably should
have went ahead and gone into the usual, the explanation of Jack
Kerouac's concept of American Haiku, which Cohen, being a latterday
Beat, certainly was aware of and made use of the freedoms that
allowed:
http://users.rcn.com/jhudak.interport/Jack.html
American Haiku
"The American Haiku is not exactly the Japanese
Haiku. The Japanese Haiku is strictly disciplined
to seventeen syllables but since the language
structure is different I don't think American
Haikus (short three-line poems intended to be
completely packed with Void of Whole) should worry
about syllables because American speech is
something again...bursting to pop.
Above all, a Haiku must be very simple and free
of all poetic trickery and make a little picture
and yet be as airy and graceful as a Vivaldi
Pastorella." -Jack Kerouac
Content-wise, Leonard Cohen's haiku (as with everything he's written,
never a dud among them) is as far from "lame" as it could possibly be.
--
"Shadowville Speedway" CD on Artemis Records:
http://www.artemisrecords.net/dockeryconley.html
Charlie
But how do both compare to the Canadian Haiku?
;-)
Will Dockery
Kerouac was actually French Canadian, after all...
Karla
I'm also accustomed to seeing haiku that includes two thoughts, or observations,
not necessarily linked to each other. This is one thought with the word "WHEN"
glaring out in a very telling way. There's also the season requirement. I hear
crickets year round in northern California but in Michigan, I'd mainly hear them
in late spring, summer and most of fall. Probably most would give this a break
and think the crickets signal summer. I'm less concerned about syllable count
because we can't duplicate it with the same intent in English by keeping to
5-7-5.
Karla
Will Dockery says...
>
>On Jan 18, 5:44=A0am, Charlie <nos...@all.ta> wrote:
>> On 17/01/2011 20:49, Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> > Summer-Haiku from "The Spice-Box of Earth"
>> > For Frank and Marian Scott
>>
>> > Silence
>> > and a deeper silence
>> > when the crickets
>> > hesitate
>>
>> > -Leonard Cohen
>>
>era?
>>
>> For a start, there is the small but irritatingly unarguable fact that
>> it's not a haiku. Perhaps that should read:
>> Silence
>> and a deeper silence
>> when perfectionists
>> count lines and syllables
>>
>> If a verse form doesn't adhere to the rigidly established principles, it
What little picture does Cohen's paint?
George Dance
>
> > Summer-Haiku from "The Spice-Box of Earth"
> > For Frank and Marian Scott
>
> > Silence
> > and a deeper silence
> > when the crickets
> > hesitate
>
> > -Leonard Cohen
>
> > So, I'm curious... what do you consider "lame" about Cohen's poem,
> > Cythera?
>
> For a start, there is the small but irritatingly unarguable fact that
> it's not a haiku.
Depends how one defines 'haiku.' It has the right syllable count
(13-17), the season word, but no cut-word, and four lines rather than
three.
Perhaps that should read:
> Silence
> and a deeper silence
> when perfectionists
> count lines and syllables
>
> If a verse form doesn't adhere to the rigidly established principles, it
> isn't ever going to be what it pretends to be. You might as well call a
> limerick a villanelle, or an iambic pentameter an alexandrin.
>
Or call an 18-line poem a sonnet, like Charles Best's "Sonnet of the
Sun" or John Donne's "Holy Sonnet". Writers (and readers) don't have
any need for your 'rigidly established principles'. Pedants do, but
who cares? Pedants need writers, but not vice versa.
ggamble
George Dance
> In article <ff6dndJHheOP8qjQnZ2dnUVZ7q2dn...@bt.com>, Charlie says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 17/01/2011 20:49, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> Summer-Haiku from "The Spice-Box of Earth"
> >> For Frank and Marian Scott
>
> >> Silence
> >> and a deeper silence
> >> when the crickets
> >> hesitate
>
> >> -Leonard Cohen
>
> >> So, I'm curious... what do you consider "lame" about Cohen's poem,
> >> Cythera?
>
> >For a start, there is the small but irritatingly unarguable fact that
> >it's not a haiku. Perhaps that should read:
> >Silence
> >and a deeper silence
> >when perfectionists
> >count lines and syllables
>
> >If a verse form doesn't adhere to the rigidly established principles, it
> >isn't ever going to be what it pretends to be. You might as well call a
> >limerick a villanelle, or an iambic pentameter an alexandrin.
>
> >Q: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?
> >A: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
>
> I'm also accustomed to seeing haiku that includes two thoughts, or observations,
> not necessarily linked to each other.
That's your own theory, not a requirement of haiku.
Haiku bisociates two 'images'.
> This is one thought with the word "WHEN"
> glaring out in a very telling way. There's also the season requirement. I hear
> crickets year round in northern California but in Michigan, I'd mainly hear them
> in late spring, summer and most of fall. Probably most would give this a break
> and think the crickets signal summer.
'Crickets' are a traditional season-word for autumn.
> I'm less concerned about syllable count
> because we can't duplicate it with the same intent in English by keeping to
> 5-7-5.
Traditional Japanese haiku has seventeen mora, not syllables. A mora
is not a syllable.
George Dance
Neither are written in Japanese characters, so neither are 'real'
haiku. That's where your pedantry leads you.
Charlie
>
> Or call an 18-line poem a sonnet, like Charles Best's "Sonnet of the
> Sun" or John Donne's "Holy Sonnet". Writers (and readers) don't have
> any need for your 'rigidly established principles'. Pedants do, but
> who cares? Pedants need writers, but not vice versa.
So, why call it a haiku at all? It's a cigarette, or a tractor, a bowl
of soup, a continent, a glove. To abuse something as precise and
beautiful in concept and execution as a haiku is a multiple insult. A
sonnet is traditionally a more flexible form, allowing more structural
variety.
A haiku isn't.
>> Q: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?
>> A: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Which I see was coined by Abraham Lincoln, who I have summarily decided
was not a nineteenth-century President but ... a haiku.
George Dance
> On 18/01/2011 18:25, George Dance wrote:
>
> > Or call an 18-line poem a sonnet, like Charles Best's "Sonnet of the
> > Sun" or John Donne's "Holy Sonnet". Writers (and readers) don't have
> > any need for your 'rigidly established principles'. Pedants do, but
> > who cares? Pedants need writers, but not vice versa.
>
> So, why call it a haiku at all?
For my own writing I don't, because I don't need the bullshit. But
when someone complains about Donne (or Acorn, FTM) calling his work a
'sonnet,' Bishop calling one a 'sestina', or Cohen calling one a
'haiku',
> It's a cigarette, or a tractor, a bowl
> of soup, a continent, a glove. To abuse something as precise and
> beautiful in concept and execution as a haiku is a multiple insult.
A haiku consists of seventeen Japanese characters. So, by your
reasoning, there are no haiku in English; you'd call them all 'abuses'
and 'insults.' More power to you.
Gwyneth
Hi Karla,
Are you suggesting that the title "Summer-Haiku" doesn't contain a
season word?!
Of course, this raises the question of what a title - and dedication -
are doing as part of a piece that associates itself with the 'haiku' form.
g.
Will Dockery
I "see" vast darkness with crickets somewhere below, like looking from
a balcony on a hightower.
Peter J Ross
Charlie <nos...@all.ta> wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 18:25, George Dance wrote:
>>
>> Or call an 18-line poem a sonnet, like Charles Best's "Sonnet of the
>> Sun" or John Donne's "Holy Sonnet". Writers (and readers) don't have
>> any need for your 'rigidly established principles'. Pedants do, but
>> who cares? Pedants need writers, but not vice versa.
>
> So, why call it a haiku at all?
Precisely because formally it's not a haiku.
Once upon a time, we wrote "sonnet" or "sestina" or whatever above our
scribbles because otherwise our readers might not recognise the form,
but nowadays we reserve such titles for verses that have something
sonnet- or sestina-like about them that might not otherwise be
recognised by somebody who can type "list of poetic forms" into
Google.
If I entitle something I've written "Sonnet" you can be damn sure it's
not going to be fourteen lines of iambic pentameter, and I doubt if
Leonard Cohen - an intelligent, educated and thoughtful man - is less
sophisticated in his choice of titles than I am.
Tolstoy's "The Kreutzer Sonata" presumably disappoints people who
expect it to be a sonata instead of a story.
<...>
> Which I see was coined by Abraham Lincoln, who I have summarily decided
> was not a nineteenth-century President but ... a haiku.
"Where's Abraham Lincoln's ki-go?"
"In the hole in his head."
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
Charlie <nos...@all.ta> wrote:
Summer Villanelle
-----------------
I'm writing a nice villanelle
which I'm hoping next summer to sell
to a publisher maybe
who's having a baby
and all of its rhymes will be swell.
To put it less tangentially, I'd be surprised if Leonard Cohen thought
that the piece he entitled "Summer Haiku" was a haiku. Unlike George
Dance (who is best known here in AAPC and RAP for attempting to pass
"Summer Haiku" off as his own work), Leonard Cohen isn't an ignorant
fool.
--
PJR :-)
Karla
>
>In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:12:57 +0000,
>Charlie <nos...@all.ta> wrote:
>
>> On 18/01/2011 18:25, George Dance wrote:
>>>
>>> Or call an 18-line poem a sonnet, like Charles Best's "Sonnet of the
>>> Sun" or John Donne's "Holy Sonnet". Writers (and readers) don't have
>>> any need for your 'rigidly established principles'. Pedants do, but
>>> who cares? Pedants need writers, but not vice versa.
>>
>> So, why call it a haiku at all?
>
>Precisely because formally it's not a haiku.
Not a haiku by traditional Japanese standards? Not a haiku by some other
standards?
>Once upon a time, we wrote "sonnet" or "sestina" or whatever above our
>scribbles because otherwise our readers might not recognise the form,
>but nowadays we reserve such titles for verses that have something
>sonnet- or sestina-like about them that might not otherwise be
>recognised by somebody who can type "list of poetic forms" into
>Google.
You Brits! I don't believe this for an instant.
>If I entitle something I've written "Sonnet" you can be damn sure it's
>not going to be fourteen lines of iambic pentameter, and I doubt if
>Leonard Cohen - an intelligent, educated and thoughtful man - is less
>sophisticated in his choice of titles than I am.
Where? Where are these rules?
>Tolstoy's "The Kreutzer Sonata" presumably disappoints people who
>expect it to be a sonata instead of a story.
Does the story's movement follow a sonata or sonnet form?
George Dance
> On 15-Jan-2011, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Your huge ego
> > > blows it all out of proportion
>
> > Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> > They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> > lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
>
> 1) Is Karla solely to blame for your inability to get published, or do all
> SP share the blame equally?
>
Well, let's put it this way: If I sued you guys for the plagiarism
smear, you, PJ, Barbara's Cat, and Gwyneth would all get off because
you only repeated Karla's smear. Which was how it worked in Novins v.
Cannon -- the suits against all the k00ks except Cannon were dismissed
because they were just repeating the libel, and not legally
responsible for it.
> 2) Maybe you could get published as *Best of Hammy Hog.*
>
Then, no doubt, you'd be emailing magazine publishers to warn them
about *that.*
> 3) If the SP didn't exist, would you have to invent them?
>
Hmmm .. You're saying that, if there wasn't a clique of self-described
~poets~ on RAP (and now AAPC as well) calling the others who post
poetry or comment here "mud people," "stupid people," "morons," and
"illiterates", etc. -- and libelling some of them as plagiarists,
pedophiles, racists, etc. -- would I "have to" invent it? I can't
imagine why anyone would.
> oh wait
Will Dockery
>"ggamble" <bbi...@bburnout.net> wrote:
>> On 15-Jan-2011, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Out of proportion? You know most magazines won't touch my work now.
> > > They don't know the details and don't want to; they just want to avoid
> > > lawsuits. I've been blacklisted, for your fun.
>
> > 1) Is Karla solely to blame for your inability to get published, or do all
> > SP share the blame equally?
>
> Well, let's put it this way: If I sued you guys for the plagiarism
> smear, you, PJ, Barbara's Cat, and Gwyneth would all get off because
> you only repeated Karla's smear. Which was how it worked in Novins v.
> Cannon -- the suits against all the k00ks except Cannon were dismissed
> because they were just repeating the libel, and not legally
> responsible for it.
That's interesting... I haven't fully studied the Cannon case, but
hope to eventually.
> > 2) Maybe you could get published as *Best of Hammy Hog.*
>
> Then, no doubt, you'd be emailing magazine publishers to warn them
> about *that.*
>
> > 3) If the SP didn't exist, would you have to invent them?
>
> Hmmm .. You're saying that, if there wasn't a clique of self-described
> ~poets~ on RAP (and now AAPC as well) calling the others who post
> poetry or comment here "mud people," "stupid people," "morons," and
> "illiterates", etc. -- and libelling some of them as plagiarists,
> pedophiles, racists, etc. -- would I "have to" invent it? I can't
> imagine why anyone would.> oh wait
Truth is weirder thatn fiction in the Usenet reality.
Hieronymous Corey
Here's the clique I've clicked to be
clicked to me as you will see,
one mouse clicking, only me,
clicked to you like one two ... click.
Click like ticking clocks tick-tock.
Clocks tick-tick; white paper, stock.
Tick-tock typing types tend to
click like ticking clocks. <send> (you)
ggamble
On 22-Jan-2011, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > 1) Is Karla solely to blame for your inability to get published, or do
> > all
> > SP share the blame equally?
> >
>
>
> Well, let's put it this way: If I sued you guys for the plagiarism
> smear, you, PJ, Barbara's Cat, and Gwyneth would all get off because
> you only repeated Karla's smear. Which was how it worked in Novins v.
> Cannon -- the suits against all the k00ks except Cannon were dismissed
> because they were just repeating the libel, and not legally
> responsible for it.
1) You don't have the money to sue anybody.
2) You'd get laughed out of court if you tried.
3) You'd have a difficult time proving damages.
4) All you're going to do is bleat about it here for god knows how long.
> > 2) Maybe you could get published as *Best of Hammy Hog.*
> >
>
> Then, no doubt, you'd be emailing magazine publishers to warn them
> about *that.*
Are you inferring that I've emailed magazine publishers to warn them about
something in the past?
If you are, I'm certain that you'll be posting proof of that right after you
post proof for your other hilariously false claim you made regarding
telephone harassment.
> > 3) If the SP didn't exist, would you have to invent them?
> Hmmm .. You're saying that, if there wasn't a clique of self-described
> ~poets~ on RAP (and now AAPC as well) calling the others who post
> poetry or comment here "mud people," "stupid people," "morons," and
> "illiterates", etc. -- and libelling some of them as plagiarists,
> pedophiles, racists, etc. -- would I "have to" invent it? I can't
> imagine why anyone would.
Translation from duncespeak:
**
Yes.
**
End translation from duncespeak.
Let's see if you can go one post without inventing numerous mistruths.
It's nice to see you're not posting from the library anymore, lying, racist
scum.
Karla
<hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 21, 4:23 pm, Karla <karl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <slrnijjrvn.6b0....@pjr.gotdns.org>, Peter J Ross says...
>Sonata is to sonnet as tomato il pomodoro è in italiano, si? I mean,
>see? Iza da same a ting. So, how you like a da pizza pi, Signora
>Rogers? English to Italian translation, see? Favorito mi è
>Margaritta (con basilico e ... come si dice ... formaggio). Sorriso!
sonata form:
1) Exposition
***First
***Transition
***Second group
***Codetta
2) Development
3) Recapitulation
***First group
***Transition
***Second group and codetta
(also the above may be spoken of principle, main theme, subordinate theme
or subjects rather than groups)
sonnet form: from A Handbook to Literature by C. Hugh Holman: "A lyric poem
of fourteen lines, highly arbitrary in form, and following one or another
of several set rhyme-schemes. . . .The two characteristic sonnet types are
the Italian (Petrarchan) and the English (Shakesperean
Italian sonnet
1) octave - 8 lines rhyming abbaabba; octave bears the burden
2) sestet - 6 lines rhyming cdecde; sestet eases the load
- usually iambic pentameter
English sonnet
1) first quatrain - abab
2) second quatrain - cdcd
3) third quatrain - efef
4) couplet - gg (epigrammatic close)
- usually iambic pentameter
I would expect clever Tolstoy to utilize the sonata form, in keeping with
his title, if he's doing anything at all beyond the occurence in the story.
I shall give it a look in the next couple of days. Found it on
gutenberg.org:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/689/689-h/689-h.htm#2H_4_0032
>> >> Which I see was coined by Abraham Lincoln, who I have summarily decided
>> >> was not a nineteenth-century President but ... a haiku.
>>
>> >"Where's Abraham Lincoln's ki-go?"
>> >"In the hole in his head."- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
Will Dockery
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 03:17:13 -0800 (PST), Hieronymous Corey
>
Interesting info, thanks, y'all.
--
Music & poetry of Will Dockery:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery
George Dance
> On 22-Jan-2011, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > 1) Is Karla solely to blame for your inability to get published, or do
> > > all
> > > SP share the blame equally?
>
> > Well, let's put it this way: If I sued you guys for the plagiarism
> > smear, you, PJ, Barbara's Cat, and Gwyneth would all get off because
> > you only repeated Karla's smear. Which was how it worked in Novins v.
> > Cannon -- the suits against all the k00ks except Cannon were dismissed
> > because they were just repeating the libel, and not legally
> > responsible for it.
>
> 1) You don't have the money to sue anybody.
> 2) You'd get laughed out of court if you tried.
> 3) You'd have a difficult time proving damages.
Oh, Probably; I think it's a ridiculous idea to sue anybody for what
gets said on usenet (and there's no evidence of what you've done off
it).
> 4) All you're going to do is bleat about it here for god knows how long.
>
If you or anyone else brings up the "plariarism," I'll point out that
it's a smear.
> > > 2) Maybe you could get published as *Best of Hammy Hog.*
>
> > Then, no doubt, you'd be emailing magazine publishers to warn them
> > about *that.*
>
> Are you inferring that I've emailed magazine publishers to warn them about
> something in the past?
> If you are, I'm certain that you'll be posting proof of that right after you
> post proof for your other hilariously false claim you made regarding
> telephone harassment.
>
Oh, so now you're going to threaten to sue me, are you? Well, you're
free to try. You can start by trying to convince me that
1) You have the money to sue anybody.
2) You wouldn't get laughed out of court if you tried.
3) You'd have an easy time proving damages.
> > > 3) If the SP didn't exist, would you have to invent them?
>
> > Hmmm .. You're saying that, if there wasn't a clique of self-described
> > ~poets~ on RAP (and now AAPC as well) calling the others who post
> > poetry or comment here "mud people," "stupid people," "morons," and
> > "illiterates", etc. -- and libelling some of them as plagiarists,
> > pedophiles, racists, etc. -- would I "have to" invent it? I can't
> > imagine why anyone would.
>
>
> Let's see if you can go one post without inventing numerous mistruths.
>
> It's nice to see you're not posting from the library
What is this about "posting from the library," anyway?
> anymore, lying, racist
> scum.