Re: NastyGoon lifts a line

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 6:54:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 4:17:13 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:42:42 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:18:10 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
>

George Dance:  "I did hear back from "Dr." NastyGoon; they left a
comment in this
thread. Their story, which they admit they've only assumed, is that
Creeley's poem doesn't even exist. (They didn't say whether they assumed
Creeley exists or not.)"

>

The above is a typical George Dance reply.  What we said, which Mr.
Dance did not quote

>
NastyGoon, your post appears on this thread, which Will has probably
read. I quoted your post in my reply to you; don't expect me to quote it
every time I mention it.

>
Of course you're not going to quote NancyGene's statement, George.

>

It
would show your misquote for the bald-faced lie that it is.

>
If either of you thought it showed a "lie" or a "misquote" then you'd
quote the whole thing yourself. Since

We have both reposted NancyGene's statement, and we have both pointed
out exactly where you had falsified it.

You're certainly being true to you M.O., though, duplicitous George.
That's probably the nicest thing anyone can honestly say about you.  One
could almost say you have a sense of loyalty in light of how
unswervingly you stick to your patterns of deceit.

>

You never quote anyone.  I can testify to this from my own experiences
with you.

>
I constantly quote your statements to show when you're contradicting
yourself,  HarryLiar. Your response is to whine that it was "out of
context", repost the entire paragraph showing that you'd said exactly
what I'd claimed you did, and then drop the subject for a few months,
when you do it all again.

No, George.  You pluck quotes out of context when the sentence
immediately following it modifies its meaning considerably; then repost
it without the modification under the pretense that the unmodified
statement had been my point.
It's a common debate tactic -- as are all the other little tricks you're
constantly trying to pull.
Unfortunately for you, everyone here is all too familiar with your
tricks to be taken in by them.

You misquote.
>
You rephrase your so-called quotes in the form of seemingly innocent
paraphrases , often in the form of questions beginning with phrases like
"So you're saying...".

>
No, when I use that, I'm pointing out what your statements imply,
logically. (You do know what "imply" means, since you constantly try to
do the same thing, the only difference being that you don't check if
they're really saying that; you you just claim that's what they did say.

The only times I misquote anyone, is when I'm doing so from memory --
and I always make sure to label the paraphrased quote as such.
You, otoh, intentionally change the meaning of the quote -- as in saying
NancyGene *assumed* something when they actually said that they
*doubted* it.
FYI: Assumed means that they drew a conclusion without sufficient proof;
whereas doubt only means that they suspect your statement may not be
true, but, lacking sufficient to the contrary, are unable to draw a
conclusion.

I have already pointed out your lies regarding NancyGene's statement,
yet you insist upon repeating them.

>
That's probably not true, but
>
>
>

was:  "Thank you, Michael.  We have strong doubts
that a poem titled "The Days Pile Up" by Robert Creeley exists."  We did
not "assume," we doubted.

>
See? You can quote your own post. Though I notice you only quoted part
of it. You went on to "assume" that the line I quoted was not written by
Creeley. Are you now claiming it's possible that the poem I referenced
exists, but the line I quoted was not in it?

>

Stop playing the dunce, George.  Nobody could be as stupid as make
yourself out to be (your Donkey excepted, of course).

>

NancyGene is explaining the difference between the words "assume" and
"doubt," since your post makes it clear that you believe the two are
synonymous.

>
No, HarryLiar. You didn't understand either what your Goon wrote or what
I wrote. NastyGoon began by "doubting" that Creeley wrote the poem I
referenced, but by the end of their post was "assuming" that Creeley
didn't write the opening line that I quoted. opening line of his poem,
then she's "assuming" that Creeley didn't write it. I know you can't
handle usenet unless you're drunk, but that doesn't excuse comp

While we're on the topic of being unable to handle Usenet, you just
broke off in mid-sentence again.
NancyGene said that they doubted the Creeley poem existed.  they did not
assume that such was the case.  They merely doubted it.
And, as previously noted, your refusal to provide any evidence that the
poem exists, is raising a great deal of doubt on my part as well.

>

The poem and that line does not come up in
any search for poems by Creeley or anyone else.  (Our line also does not
come up in any search.)

>
Actually your line does come up in searches, as in this one:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cluttering+my+mind+and+obstructing+my+day%22+used+in+poetry&rlz=1C1CHBD_enCA859CA859&oq=%22Cluttering&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MgYIARBFGDsyBggCEEUYOzIHCAMQABiABDIGCAQQRRg5MgcIBRAAGIAEMgwIBhAAGEMYgAQYigUyBwgHEAAYgAQyBwgIEAAYgAQyBwgJEAAYgATSAQoxMTA2NGowajE1qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

>

Your problem finding it may be that you had the yesterdays "stack up in
plies". Obviously if you try a search with "piles" spelled
[in]correctly,
google won't find an exact match.

>
No one is claiming that NancyGene's poem doesn't exist, George.  Nor are
we claiming that NancyGene's poem doesn't turn up in google searches

>
Wrong, Lying Michael. NastyGoon just told us that their poem doesn't
turn up in any web searches:

(Our line also does not
come up in any search.)

>
You'll tell any lie if you think it helps you win a flamewar, won't you?

Since their poem was recently posted, it might not have shown up in any
searches yet.  However, based on the context, and the fact that they
said "line" and not "poem," they appear to be saying the following: "Our
line also does not turn up in any search [as part of someone else's
poem.]"
The latter makes more sense contextually, since there is no reason why
NancyGene would tell you that their poem didn't turn up in a search.

We are saying that Mr. Creeley's poem (at this point, one should say
"alleged poem") does not.

>

NG: "Mr. Dance posted one line, which was not the same as what we wrote
in our original poem. We have to assume..."
>
Mr. Dance took the word "assume" and disingenuously put it into another
context.
>
NG: "...that Mr. Dance was so jealous of our talents that he took the
first line
of our poem, changed it a bit, and claimed that we plagiarized it,
thinking that no one would challenge him."

>
If you're "assuming" that I wrote the line in question, then you're
"assuming" that Robert Creeley did not write it.

>
How many times do you need to be told that NancyGene hasn't assumed
anything?

>
How many times do you think you have to say that before it becomes true?
As NG just said, they had to "assume" that Creeley didn't write the
opening line of his poem. (They're "assuming that I wrote it instead.)
As I just told them, it makes no sense to "assume" that Creeley didn't
write the opening line, and deny you're not "assuming" that he didn't
write the poem.

Why do you lie so much, George?
Here is what NancyGene originally stated in its entirety:
Thank you, Michael.  We have strong doubts that a poem titled "The Days
Pile Up" by Robert Creeley exists.  Mr. Dance posted one line, which was
not the same as what we wrote in our original poem. We have to assume
that Mr. Dance was so jealous of our talents that he took the first line
of our poem, changed it a bit, and claimed that we plagiarized it,
thinking that no one would challenge him.
As everyone can see, the only assumption they made is that you were
jealous of their talents.
And, if you did, in fact, modify their line and falsely attribute it to
Creeley, then their assumption would be the obvious one to have drawn.

She has expressly stated that she *doubted* the poem's existence.  While
a doubt may lead to an assumption, the two are very different things.

>
Yes, a doubt may lead to an assumption; and in this case it took NG only
one paragraph to go from doubt to assumption. (With you it usually takes
at least one more post.)

That is not true, George.
As everyone can see, in the passage in question,
"We have to assume that Mr. Dance was so jealous of our talents...",
the word "assume" directly applies to "jealous."
They assumed you were jealous of their talents.  They did not assume
that the Creeley poem did not exist.

For the past 10 years or so, I have been urging your Donkey to enroll in
free online course in basic English.  I now urge you to do the same.

>
If it's the course you took, Mr. Peabrain, I'll pass.

No, George.  I worked as an English tutor at my University.

If you're incapable of understanding the differences between words like
"doubt" and "assume," you have no business discussing anything in a
public forum -- much less one that's supposedly intended for writers.

>
Since you like to toss the word "strawman" around so freely, let me
point out that that is exactly what you're doing here. I did not say
that the words had the same meaning. I said that NastyGoon started by
"doubting" that Creeley wrote the poem, and ended by "assuming" that he
didn't write its opening line - which is logically no different from
claiming that he didn't write it.

Read it again, George.  They didn't assume that the poem didn't exist. They assumed that you were jealous of their talents (an assumption with
which I unreservedly concur).

George Dance, if you are going to accuse us of plagiarizing a poem,
posting one "line" from a poem that does not seem to have been published
anywhere is not sufficient proof.

>
Your failure to find the poem via a google search does not indicate that
it was not published. After all, Creeley is a published poet who wrote
the bulk of his poetry before the web existed.

>
Which is precisely why we have both asked you to provide us with either
a link to the poem, or with information regarding the book/journal in
which it appeared.

>
So you want me to do your research again; but we both know how that will
turn out. If I gave you the name of the book, you'd "doubt" that the
poem was really in it, and demand that I prove that. if I then gave you
the table of contents, showing the poem title, you'd "doubt" that it
contained the line and demand that I produce the entire poem. If I then
gave you the entire poem, you'd go back to "doubting" that Creeley wrote
it and "assuming" that I did (which, once again, come to the same
thing.) You're simply trolling again, this time with your most faithful
ally.

You had stated that the poem's first line *was* it's title.  If so, the
TOC would be sufficient proof of its existence.

OTOH, if you're actually interested in reading Creeley's poem, not just
simply trolling for once, there's no reason you can't look for it
yourself. Get off your asses and do what we used to do before the
internet existed. NG claims to use a local library; let them start
there.

I'm not going to walk 3/4 of a mile through the snow to the local
library on the off chance that they have the Creeley book in question
(assuming that such a book exists).
You claimed that NancyGene plagiarized the line.
You know the Usenet rules: "Post Proof or Shut the Fuck Up."

Again, if you are, in fact, quoting from a real poem, you must have had
a copy of that poem in front of you.
>

Perhaps you could supply the name of
the book in which the poem was published?

>
Yes, in fact I could.
>

Or perhaps you could give us
the first four lines of the poem (which would not violate copyright
laws) so that we could compare our poem with that of Mr. Creeley.  Or
just give us the url where you found the poem.

>
Perhaps I could do that, too; but why would I give you four lines of his
poem when y'all have shared only two lines of your own?

>
Since you have located NancyGene's poem in a google search, you should
be able to click on the links.

>
I see you're back to playing the peabrain, HarryLiar. Of course I can
click on the link to your facebook page, but I can't read NastyGoon's
poem there because you blocked me from reading the poems there.

Oh well.  You'll just have to wait for the February issue of AYoS then.

If you have been blocked from them,
which well may be the case, you should be able to read her poem in full
when it appears in our online magazine next month.

>

Since her poem is scheduled for publication, you cannot expect her to
post it in this group.

>
Frankly, I have no interest at all in reading their poetry. They have
posted enough of it in this group to last for a month.

They haven't posted any poetry here in quite some time, George.  If
you're referring to their cumulative poetry posted over the past 8 (or
so) years, then I feel compelled to point out that your Donkey has
posted (and reposted) enough poetry to last for several lifetimes.

George Dance, you are not the only person who knows the names of poets.
We understand that you are jealous and perhaps even afraid of us, and
what you write reflects that insecurity.

>
NastyGoon, a belief that other people are jealous and afraid of you
sounds like a sign you may be suffering from narcissistic personality
disorder. You should really seek professional help for that.

>
Unless, of course, she's right.  I have already stated that you're
jealous of her.

>
Yes, of course you have; that's probably where they got the idea in the
first place. Notice I asked her to talk to a "professional" which
excludes you.

You've exhibited signs of jealousy regarding NancyGene, Jim, Robert,
PJR, and many others over the years.

Am I suffering from NPD by proxy?

>
No, I'd say you're suffering from straight NPD; you have the same
irrational belief that those who dislike you are jealous of you.

I have no such belief as that, George.
I think those who dislike me do so because I speak the unadulterated
truth.
I think that those who dislike my poetry do so for several reasons, not
the least of which is that it rhymes.

Given your M.O. of slurping your allies and attacking your supposed
enemies, it's expected that you'd convince them to believe the same
thing. I bet even your Chimp now believes that I'm jealous of him, too.

Again, that was the M.O. I had originally identified as yours, George.
You're the one who sees Usenet groups in terms of "allies" and
"enemies."  I have repeatedly explained to you that I do not.

As to your being
afraid of her superior intellect... if you aren't, you certainly should
be.

>
There's nothing wrong with NG's intellect; unlike your Chimp, e.g., they
were capable of learning how rhyme worked. Who knows, they may even
understand meter by now. Their major problem has always been their
stupidity (willful ignorance); which is something you're enabling with
your constant slurpage of them.

Willful ignorance is what I and others have accused your Donkey of
countless times.  Do you see yourself as enabling him in that regard?
As to NancyGene, I don't see where they have exhibited any such thing. Quite the contrary: I will readily admit that they impress me as being
more knowledgeable and culturally aware than anyone else in the group --
myself included.
--