Discussion:
Piggy's Big Lies about Penny
Add Reply
George J. Dance
2019-07-11 00:55:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -

https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009/12/

- and offered for sale on the blog here:

https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/p/buying-betty.html

Here is the first lie, in Piggy's latest iteration:

'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you changed
"Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some randomly-generated spew, but
otherwise left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark
Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Message-ID: <d6df4c66-1d40-4bb5-87f5-***@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>

While these are the corresponding lines from my poem, both on the blog and in the book:

Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.

There are 8 identical words - "it," "it's," "isn't," "just," "a," "good," "red," "hat" - at best three identical punctuation marks - a full stop after "hat," one after "red," and one at the end - and no identical lines at all.

In 2013, Piggy actually read enough of "Penny" to discover that, hence the need for him to come up with a second lie to explain the discrepancy. Here what he came up with (again from the latest iteration):

"Under the threat of prosecution, and aware of how your hero Tommy
Tosser had killed himself when faced with the prospect of having to
pay $100,000 damages for a similar offence against another AAPC
poster, you made a few changes, which turned the plagiarised text into
a marginally acceptable imitation rather than a completely
unacceptable copy." Message-ID: <***@id-313441.user.individual.net>

Piggy of course offers no evidence to support either accusation, defending his failure to do so by claiming:

"There's no longer any evidence available. It's just a question of whom
you believe."
Message-ID: <***@id-313441.user.individual.net>

That claim turns out to be a third lie, since there is available evidence: the quotations from "Penny" that were posted onto google's aapc archive at the time the poem was posted.
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
Closer to "Batty" by two more words - "wool" and "warms" but no identical lines or line breaks even at that point.

And here are the same 5 lines, quoted from the blog by "cythera" on March 23, 2010:

"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
Message-ID: <700cd6e0-d9e6-4d02-9116-***@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>

There was never a version of "Betty" that "left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark as [Piggy] had typed them. It's a lie that there was, it's a lie that it was changed years later, and it's a lie that there's no evidence either way.
Michael Pendragon
2019-07-11 01:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009/12/
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/p/buying-betty.html
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you changed
"Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some randomly-generated spew, but
otherwise left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark
Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
There are 8 identical words - "it," "it's," "isn't," "just," "a," "good," "red," "hat" - at best three identical punctuation marks - a full stop after "hat," one after "red," and one at the end - and no identical lines at all.
Hmm... let's consider the evidence:

Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.

vs

Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.


and


It warms his ears, Batty's ears,

vs

It shades her head, just Penny's head.


It sure looks like plagiarism from where I'm sitting.

You've changed the hat owner's name, and turned the red woolen hat into red felt; and instead of warming just Batty's ears, it now warms Penny's entire head... but the essence of the lines remains the same.

The short of it is that "Penny's Hat" is not your original work. It's a modified version of Peter's.


AFAICS your latest argument is that Peter accused you of having stolen his poem word-for-word, whereas you changed the hat from wool to felt, and made it cover more than just Penny's ears. Bully for you. It's still plagiarism.
Peter J Ross
2019-07-11 14:20:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 10 Jul 2019 18:58:34 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009/12/
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/p/buying-betty.html
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you changed
"Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some randomly-generated spew, but
otherwise left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark
Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
There are 8 identical words - "it," "it's," "isn't," "just," "a," "good," "red," "hat" - at best three identical punctuation marks - a full stop after "hat," one after "red," and one at the end - and no identical lines at all.
Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
vs
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
and
It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
vs
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
It sure looks like plagiarism from where I'm sitting.
You've changed the hat owner's name, and turned the red woolen hat into red felt; and instead of warming just Batty's ears, it now warms Penny's entire head... but the essence of the lines remains the same.
The short of it is that "Penny's Hat" is not your original work. It's a modified version of Peter's.
I'd call that version an imitation or tribute.
AFAICS your latest argument is that Peter accused you of having stolen his poem word-for-word, whereas you changed the hat from wool to felt, and made it cover more than just Penny's ears. Bully for you. It's still plagiarism.
The version that began, "Betty's red woollen hat," was blatantly
plagiarised, containing no changes to my text except "e" for "a"
(twice) and some interpolated garbage. (Dunce has been clever enough
to refrain from posting this version.)

The version that began, "Betty's hat is a good hat," was less
blatantly plagiarised, since it contained a few more changes, but is
still essentially the same text. (Dunce has been moronic enough not to
refrain from posting this version.)

The version that began, "Betty has a good hat," while obviously
derived from my text, isn't close enough to support an accusation of
plagiarism, and neither does the version that changes "Betty" to
"Penny".

To summarise:

1. Dunce has posted evidence that he offered for sale as his own work
a *second* plagiarised version of my "Batty", but my statement about
the *first* plagiarised version - that Dunce destroyed the evidence
against him when he complied with my demand that he remove the text
from his kooksite - remains true.

2. In my opinion, Dunce's third and fourth versions of the text aren't
plagiarised. As the original author, I think my opinion should
suffice. Please don't make me defend him!

3. The evidence of Dunce's *first* plagiarism of my work would, if it
still existed, be strong enough to convince even a reader who didn't
know the English alphabet, but the evidence he's posted himself of his
*second* plagiarism of my work is still sufficient for people who can
read the two texts.

4. Dunce has shot himself in the foot yet again. Even if he were as
advanced a life-form as a millipede he'd be pretty well legless by
now.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
George J. Dance
2019-07-15 20:32:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
I'd call that version an imitation or tribute.
Great: it's stipulated that this version (the one currently offered blogged, and offered for sale) is not plagiarism, and not what we're discussing.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty's red woollen hat," was blatantly
plagiarised, containing no changes to my text except "e" for "a"
(twice) and some interpolated garbage. (Dunce has been clever enough
to refrain from posting this version.)
Apparently Piggy considers me too "clever" to have ever posted that version, since there's none to be found on aapc. But I can't take credit, since there's a simple reason I've never posted that version: because no such version of "Betty" ever existed. That's one of Piggy's Big Lies noted in the header.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty's hat is a good hat," was less
blatantly plagiarised, since it contained a few more changes, but is
still essentially the same text. (Dunce has been moronic enough not to
refrain from posting this version.)
That draft (which used all 4.4 of Ray Heinrich's lines) was posted on aapc only, and never blogged or offered for sale. There were no complaints of plagiarism at the time, but if Piggy wants to substitute it for his imaginary version in his imaginary kooksoot, that's fine.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty has a good hat," while obviously
derived from my text, isn't close enough to support an accusation of
plagiarism, and neither does the version that changes "Betty" to
"Penny".
Great. Once again, that's the final version of the poem, the only one that's been blogged or offered for sale.
Post by Peter J Ross
1. Dunce has posted evidence that he offered for sale as his own work
a *second* plagiarised version of my "Batty", but my statement about
the *first* plagiarised version - that Dunce destroyed the evidence
against him when he complied with my demand that he remove the text
from his kooksite - remains true.
No, it remains as big a Big Lie as ever. There was no such "*first*" draft.
Post by Peter J Ross
2. In my opinion, Dunce's third and fourth versions of the text aren't
plagiarised. As the original author, I think my opinion should
suffice. Please don't make me defend him!
3. The evidence of Dunce's *first* plagiarism of my work would, if it
still existed, be strong enough to convince even a reader who didn't
know the English alphabet
Not true, since (as we've seen), that "evidence" existed only in Piggy's imagination.
Will Dockery
2019-07-15 21:02:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
I'd call that version an imitation or tribute.
Great: it's stipulated that this version (the one currently offered blogged, and offered for sale) is not plagiarism, and not what we're discussing.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty's red woollen hat," was blatantly
plagiarised, containing no changes to my text except "e" for "a"
(twice) and some interpolated garbage. (Dunce has been clever enough
to refrain from posting this version.)
Apparently Piggy considers me too "clever" to have ever posted that version, since there's none to be found on aapc. But I can't take credit, since there's a simple reason I've never posted that version: because no such version of "Betty" ever existed. That's one of Piggy's Big Lies noted in the header.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty's hat is a good hat," was less
blatantly plagiarised, since it contained a few more changes, but is
still essentially the same text. (Dunce has been moronic enough not to
refrain from posting this version.)
That draft (which used all 4.4 of Ray Heinrich's lines) was posted on aapc only, and never blogged or offered for sale. There were no complaints of plagiarism at the time, but if Piggy wants to substitute it for his imaginary version in his imaginary kooksoot, that's fine.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty has a good hat," while obviously
derived from my text, isn't close enough to support an accusation of
plagiarism, and neither does the version that changes "Betty" to
"Penny".
Great. Once again, that's the final version of the poem, the only one that's been blogged or offered for sale.
Post by Peter J Ross
1. Dunce has posted evidence that he offered for sale as his own work
a *second* plagiarised version of my "Batty", but my statement about
the *first* plagiarised version - that Dunce destroyed the evidence
against him when he complied with my demand that he remove the text
from his kooksite - remains true.
No, it remains as big a Big Lie as ever. There was no such "*first*" draft.
Post by Peter J Ross
2. In my opinion, Dunce's third and fourth versions of the text aren't
plagiarised. As the original author, I think my opinion should
suffice. Please don't make me defend him!
3. The evidence of Dunce's *first* plagiarism of my work would, if it
still existed, be strong enough to convince even a reader who didn't
know the English alphabet
Not true, since (as we've seen), that "evidence" existed only in Piggy's imagination.
Yes, I just checked, and the only time "Betty's red woollen hat" appears anywhere on the internet is:

"Betty's red woollen hat" = 1 result (0.41 seconds)

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Betty%27s+red+woollen+hat%22&rlz=1CAPPDO_enUS742US742&oq=%22Betty%27s+red+woollen+hat%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j33l5.9128j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The worst poet to ever call themselves a "poet"?
(too old to reply)

Will Dockery 10 years ago wrote:
Permalink
Betty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms her ears, Betty's ears,
not mine, not yours.

Intelligent and good.

Well... "intelligent and good", huh? How so?

On-topic and of interest, I just came across an interesting thread
over at http://www.poets.org

Which in my opinion PJR's "Betty" is a serious contender for placement
in. Don't agree? Then amuse me by telling me why?

http://www.poets.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54176&sid=c7c1894e51386193c16032ff3426d59d

Some fair-use excerpts:

"...If we take the question of "worst poet ever" at face value it's a
no-brainer. Bud's choice, William Topaz McGonagall, is the hands-down
winner. For a century before Rod McKuen McGonagall's name served as a
synonym for bad poetry..."

"...I'll eliminate the usual suspects (e.g. Maya Angelou, Charles
Bukowski, Kahlil Gibran, Rod McKuen) as non-poets. That still leaves a
wealth of choices, though: Billy Collins, Dana Gioia, Allen Ginsberg,
Edgar Guest, et cetera. My pick is an individual who has devoted his
life to reminding us all what poetry isn't, a "poet" permanently stuck
in "I'm-so-deep-I'm-damned-near-Japanese" adolescence, a man who has
raised vacuity, self-promotion and pretension to art forms: Lawrence
Ferlinghetti..."

"...My choice: Peter Orlovsky. http://boppin.com/orlovsky.html "

And the thread goes on for page after page: Intelligent and
interesting... indeed.

George Dance 10 years ago wrote:
...

"PS - I also think Colin's wrong about the worst 19th-century poet, who
he claims is McGonagall. I think that honour belongs to Canadian James
McIntyre. As evidence, check out McIntyre's "Shelley" that I posted
today."

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/e76f7cf4bbc65517?hl=en
George J. Dance
2019-07-15 21:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
I'd call that version an imitation or tribute.
Great: it's stipulated that this version (the one currently offered blogged, and offered for sale) is not plagiarism, and not what we're discussing.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty's red woollen hat," was blatantly
plagiarised, containing no changes to my text except "e" for "a"
(twice) and some interpolated garbage. (Dunce has been clever enough
to refrain from posting this version.)
Apparently Piggy considers me too "clever" to have ever posted that version, since there's none to be found on aapc. But I can't take credit, since there's a simple reason I've never posted that version: because no such version of "Betty" ever existed. That's one of Piggy's Big Lies noted in the header.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty's hat is a good hat," was less
blatantly plagiarised, since it contained a few more changes, but is
still essentially the same text. (Dunce has been moronic enough not to
refrain from posting this version.)
That draft (which used all 4.4 of Ray Heinrich's lines) was posted on aapc only, and never blogged or offered for sale. There were no complaints of plagiarism at the time, but if Piggy wants to substitute it for his imaginary version in his imaginary kooksoot, that's fine.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty has a good hat," while obviously
derived from my text, isn't close enough to support an accusation of
plagiarism, and neither does the version that changes "Betty" to
"Penny".
Great. Once again, that's the final version of the poem, the only one that's been blogged or offered for sale.
Post by Peter J Ross
1. Dunce has posted evidence that he offered for sale as his own work
a *second* plagiarised version of my "Batty", but my statement about
the *first* plagiarised version - that Dunce destroyed the evidence
against him when he complied with my demand that he remove the text
from his kooksite - remains true.
No, it remains as big a Big Lie as ever. There was no such "*first*" draft.
Post by Peter J Ross
2. In my opinion, Dunce's third and fourth versions of the text aren't
plagiarised. As the original author, I think my opinion should
suffice. Please don't make me defend him!
3. The evidence of Dunce's *first* plagiarism of my work would, if it
still existed, be strong enough to convince even a reader who didn't
know the English alphabet
Not true, since (as we've seen), that "evidence" existed only in Piggy's imagination.
"Betty's red woollen hat" = 1 result (0.41 seconds)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Betty%27s+red+woollen+hat%22&rlz=1CAPPDO_enUS742US742&oq=%22Betty%27s+red+woollen+hat%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j33l5.9128j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The worst poet to ever call themselves a "poet"?
(too old to reply)
Permalink
Betty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms her ears, Betty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Intelligent and good.
Well... "intelligent and good", huh? How so?
snip
Post by Will Dockery
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/e76f7cf4bbc65517?hl=en
That's interesting: After all this time reading the many drafts, I missed Ray's change of "woollen" to "wool." (I think that's an Americanism, BTW: the Queen would never use a noun as an adjective.) I'd thought he'd left that phrase of Piggy's alone.
Will Dockery
2019-07-15 22:32:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Will Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
I'd call that version an imitation or tribute.
Great: it's stipulated that this version (the one currently offered blogged, and offered for sale) is not plagiarism, and not what we're discussing.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty's red woollen hat," was blatantly
plagiarised, containing no changes to my text except "e" for "a"
(twice) and some interpolated garbage. (Dunce has been clever enough
to refrain from posting this version.)
Apparently Piggy considers me too "clever" to have ever posted that version, since there's none to be found on aapc. But I can't take credit, since there's a simple reason I've never posted that version: because no such version of "Betty" ever existed. That's one of Piggy's Big Lies noted in the header.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty's hat is a good hat," was less
blatantly plagiarised, since it contained a few more changes, but is
still essentially the same text. (Dunce has been moronic enough not to
refrain from posting this version.)
That draft (which used all 4.4 of Ray Heinrich's lines) was posted on aapc only, and never blogged or offered for sale. There were no complaints of plagiarism at the time, but if Piggy wants to substitute it for his imaginary version in his imaginary kooksoot, that's fine.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty has a good hat," while obviously
derived from my text, isn't close enough to support an accusation of
plagiarism, and neither does the version that changes "Betty" to
"Penny".
Great. Once again, that's the final version of the poem, the only one that's been blogged or offered for sale.
Post by Peter J Ross
1. Dunce has posted evidence that he offered for sale as his own work
a *second* plagiarised version of my "Batty", but my statement about
the *first* plagiarised version - that Dunce destroyed the evidence
against him when he complied with my demand that he remove the text
from his kooksite - remains true.
No, it remains as big a Big Lie as ever. There was no such "*first*" draft.
Post by Peter J Ross
2. In my opinion, Dunce's third and fourth versions of the text aren't
plagiarised. As the original author, I think my opinion should
suffice. Please don't make me defend him!
3. The evidence of Dunce's *first* plagiarism of my work would, if it
still existed, be strong enough to convince even a reader who didn't
know the English alphabet
Not true, since (as we've seen), that "evidence" existed only in Piggy's imagination.
"Betty's red woollen hat" = 1 result (0.41 seconds)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Betty%27s+red+woollen+hat%22&rlz=1CAPPDO_enUS742US742&oq=%22Betty%27s+red+woollen+hat%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j33l5.9128j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The worst poet to ever call themselves a "poet"?
(too old to reply)
Permalink
Betty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms her ears, Betty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Intelligent and good.
Well... "intelligent and good", huh? How so?
snip
Post by Will Dockery
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/e76f7cf4bbc65517?hl=en
That's interesting: After all this time reading the many drafts, I missed Ray's change of "woollen" to "wool." (I think that's an Americanism, BTW: the Queen would never use a noun as an adjective.) I'd thought he'd left that phrase of Piggy's alone.
I see there is a tread of that here as well, it might be worthy of a bump.
Rex Hunter III
2019-07-15 23:34:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
I'd call that version an imitation or tribute.
Great: it's stipulated that this version (the one currently offered blogged, and offered for sale) is not plagiarism, and not what we're discussing.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty's red woollen hat," was blatantly
plagiarised, containing no changes to my text except "e" for "a"
(twice) and some interpolated garbage. (Dunce has been clever enough
to refrain from posting this version.)
Apparently Piggy considers me too "clever" to have ever posted that version, since there's none to be found on aapc. But I can't take credit, since there's a simple reason I've never posted that version: because no such version of "Betty" ever existed. That's one of Piggy's Big Lies noted in the header.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty's hat is a good hat," was less
blatantly plagiarised, since it contained a few more changes, but is
still essentially the same text. (Dunce has been moronic enough not to
refrain from posting this version.)
That draft (which used all 4.4 of Ray Heinrich's lines) was posted on aapc only, and never blogged or offered for sale. There were no complaints of plagiarism at the time, but if Piggy wants to substitute it for his imaginary version in his imaginary kooksoot, that's fine.
Post by Peter J Ross
The version that began, "Betty has a good hat," while obviously
derived from my text, isn't close enough to support an accusation of
plagiarism, and neither does the version that changes "Betty" to
"Penny".
Great. Once again, that's the final version of the poem, the only one that's been blogged or offered for sale.
Post by Peter J Ross
1. Dunce has posted evidence that he offered for sale as his own work
a *second* plagiarised version of my "Batty", but my statement about
the *first* plagiarised version - that Dunce destroyed the evidence
against him when he complied with my demand that he remove the text
from his kooksite - remains true.
No, it remains as big a Big Lie as ever. There was no such "*first*" draft.
Post by Peter J Ross
2. In my opinion, Dunce's third and fourth versions of the text aren't
plagiarised. As the original author, I think my opinion should
suffice. Please don't make me defend him!
3. The evidence of Dunce's *first* plagiarism of my work would, if it
still existed, be strong enough to convince even a reader who didn't
know the English alphabet
Not true, since (as we've seen), that "evidence" existed only in Piggy's imagination.
Indeed...........
Peter J Ross
2019-07-21 16:31:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:32:19 -0700 (PDT),
George J. Dance wrote:

<whinesnip>
Post by George J. Dance
There were no complaints of plagiarism at the time,
Dunce's defence: "I didn't get caught at the time, so I'm not guilty."

Dunce the Logician presumably thinks that Jack the Ripper never
murdered anybody.

"He didn't get caught at the time, so he wasn't guilty."

<whinesnip>

Why do you whine so much, Dunce?
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
George J. Dance
2019-07-21 19:14:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:32:19 -0700 (PDT),
<whinesnip>
Post by George J. Dance
There were no complaints of plagiarism at the time,
One, anyway.

<gruntsnip>
Post by Peter J Ross
Dunce the Logician presumably thinks that Jack the Ripper never
murdered anybody.
Because "there were no complaints of [murder] at the time"? That's simply not true.

<squealsnip>
Peter J Ross
2019-07-21 20:29:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:32:19 -0700
<whinesnip>
Post by George J. Dance
There were no complaints of plagiarism at the time,
One, anyway.
<gruntsnip>
Why do you always run away from the inconvenient truth, Dunce?

Hint: snipping doesn't make the inconvenient truth go away.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
Dunce the Logician presumably thinks that Jack the Ripper never
murdered anybody.
Because "there were no complaints of [murder] at the time"? That's simply not true.
One can always trust Dunce to take an illustration and treat it as if
it were part of a syllogism. That's what Dunce-logic is all about!

In fact, I didn't claim that the Dunce case resembles the Ripper case
in every detail: for example, Jack almost certainly wore a top hat,
and Dunce almost certainly doesn't.
Post by George J. Dance
<squealsnip>
Keep digging that hole, Dunce!
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Rod Riprock Jr.
2019-07-21 21:11:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
snipping doesn't make the inconvenient truth go away
Yet you so often try to make that happen Peter.....
Peter J Ross
2019-07-21 22:00:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Rod Riprock Jr.
Post by Peter J Ross
snipping doesn't make the inconvenient truth go away
Yet you so often try to make that happen Peter.....
Message-IDs?

No, of course not.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
George J. Dance
2019-07-21 22:13:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Rod Riprock Jr.
Post by Peter J Ross
snipping doesn't make the inconvenient truth go away
Yet you so often try to make that happen Peter.....
Message-IDs?
Here's two from just this thread alone:

Message-ID: <***@id-313441.user.individual.net>
Message-ID: <***@id-313441.user.individual.net>
Peter J Ross
2019-07-21 22:15:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:13:02 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Rod Riprock Jr.
Post by Peter J Ross
snipping doesn't make the inconvenient truth go away
Yet you so often try to make that happen Peter.....
Message-IDs?
What "inconvenient truths" do you imagine you've discovered,
plagiarist?
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
George J. Dance
2019-07-21 22:46:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:13:02 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Rod Riprock Jr.
Post by Peter J Ross
snipping doesn't make the inconvenient truth go away
Yet you so often try to make that happen Peter.....
Message-IDs?
What "inconvenient truths" do you imagine you've discovered,
plagiarist?
All the ones you thought were too inconvenient to leave in the backthread, dummy.
Peter J Ross
2019-07-21 22:55:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:46:56 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:13:02 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Rod Riprock Jr.
Post by Peter J Ross
snipping doesn't make the inconvenient truth go away
Yet you so often try to make that happen Peter.....
Message-IDs?
What "inconvenient truths" do you imagine you've discovered,
plagiarist?
All the ones you thought were too inconvenient to leave in the
backthread, dummy.
Ah, here we have another famous example of Dunce-logic:

"Anything that Dunce's intellectual and moral superiors don't bother
to reply to is acknowledged to be true."
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Rod Riprock Jr.
2019-07-22 02:18:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Rod Riprock Jr.
Post by Peter J Ross
snipping doesn't make the inconvenient truth go away
Yet you so often try to make that happen Peter.....
Message-IDs?
Here is a discussion I was just reading about PJR and his snipping and post editing...
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Rod Riprock Jr.
Oh...
Peter J Ross is rather "snippy" today.
😉
I did notice that.......
A good way to tell when he's upset is when he snips the entire backthread. I think that's the third time he's done it this "visit."
Interestingly Peter J. Ross is the one who complains the loudest about "snipping" and post editing...

==========================================================

From the Bliss Carman poem thread....

Will Dockery
2019-07-22 00:06:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Rod Riprock Jr.
Post by Peter J Ross
snipping doesn't make the inconvenient truth go away
Yet you so often try to make that happen Peter.....
Message-IDs?
No, of course not.
--
PJR :-)
τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Here's one of your most recent examples of dishonest post snipping, post editing, and falsifying content, PJR:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.arts.poetry.comments/-PJ6j4Tewfs/fiRd75d6BQAJ

===============================================
<PJR's dishonest post edit snipped>

--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus

======================
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-14 07:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).
That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.
The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.
If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.
If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.
On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).
Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.
The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)
"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;
And repeats, resounds in my ear
That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.
The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
Of course, poetry is not bound by conventional grammar or punctuation.
Ask E. E. Cummings, for one..
Rex Hunter III
2019-07-15 08:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).
That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.
The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.
If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.
If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.
On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).
Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.
The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)
"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;
And repeats, resounds in my ear
That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.
The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
Of course, poetry is not bound by conventional grammar or punctuation.
Ask E. E. Cummings, for one.. ...
Will Dockery
2019-07-17 07:54:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rex Hunter III
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).
That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.
The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.
If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.
If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.
On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).
Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.
The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)
"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;
And repeats, resounds in my ear
That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.
The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
Of course, poetry is not bound by conventional grammar or punctuation.
Ask E. E. Cummings, for one.. .
Exactly.

;)
Rex Hunter III
2019-07-17 09:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Rex Hunter III
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).
That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.
The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.
If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.
If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.
On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).
Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.
The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)
"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;
And repeats, resounds in my ear
That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.
The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
Of course, poetry is not bound by conventional grammar or punctuation.
Ask E. E. Cummings, for one.. .
Exactly.
;)
Pendragon is an ignorant fool when it comes to modern poetry...
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-11 03:43:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009/12/
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/p/buying-betty.html
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you changed
"Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some randomly-generated spew, but
otherwise left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark
Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
There are 8 identical words - "it," "it's," "isn't," "just," "a," "good," "red," "hat" - at best three identical punctuation marks - a full stop after "hat," one after "red," and one at the end - and no identical lines at all.
"Under the threat of prosecution, and aware of how your hero Tommy
Tosser had killed himself when faced with the prospect of having to
pay $100,000 damages for a similar offence against another AAPC
poster, you made a few changes, which turned the plagiarised text into
a marginally acceptable imitation rather than a completely
"There's no longer any evidence available. It's just a question of whom
you believe."
That claim turns out to be a third lie, since there is available evidence: the quotations from "Penny" that were posted onto google's aapc archive at the time the poem was posted.
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
Closer to "Batty" by two more words - "wool" and "warms" but no identical lines or line breaks even at that point.
"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
There was never a version of "Betty" that "left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark as [Piggy] had typed them. It's a lie that there was, it's a lie that it was changed years later, and it's a lie that there's no evidence either way.
Interesting history basically before my time here....
Peter J Ross
2019-07-11 14:21:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 10 Jul 2019 20:43:11 -0700 (PDT),
Rex Hester Jr. wrote:

<Duncesnip>
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Interesting history basically before my time here....
Don't worry, Even if it had happened yesterday you'd have forgotten
about it by now, drunkard.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
George J. Dance
2019-07-11 18:48:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009/12/
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/p/buying-betty.html
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you changed
"Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some randomly-generated spew, but
otherwise left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark
Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
There are 8 identical words - "it," "it's," "isn't," "just," "a," "good," "red," "hat" - at best three identical punctuation marks - a full stop after "hat," one after "red," and one at the end - and no identical lines at all.
"Under the threat of prosecution, and aware of how your hero Tommy
Tosser had killed himself when faced with the prospect of having to
pay $100,000 damages for a similar offence against another AAPC
poster, you made a few changes, which turned the plagiarised text into
a marginally acceptable imitation rather than a completely
"There's no longer any evidence available. It's just a question of whom
you believe."
That claim turns out to be a third lie, since there is available evidence: the quotations from "Penny" that were posted onto google's aapc archive at the time the poem was posted.
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
Closer to "Batty" by two more words - "wool" and "warms" but no identical lines or line breaks even at that point.
"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
There was never a version of "Betty" that "left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark as [Piggy] had typed them. It's a lie that there was, it's a lie that it was changed years later, and it's a lie that there's no evidence either way.
Interesting history basically before my time here....
I'm glad someone is reading this. I think it's time to get the actual evidence in order, even if it weren't being read now, but having it read today is a bonus.

There's more, if you'd like to hear about it. In particular, I'd like to mention the contribution by poet Ray Heinrich (who came in from rap on a crosspost), who didn't want credit and therefore isn't mentioned in the blog acknowledgements, but whose work should be acknowledged somewhere, since there'd be no "Penny" if not for his work.
Peter J Ross
2019-07-11 19:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:48:24 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
There's more, if you'd like to hear about it. In particular, I'd
like to mention the contribution by poet Ray Heinrich (who came in
from rap on a crosspost), who didn't want credit and therefore isn't
mentioned in the blog acknowledgements, but whose work should be
acknowledged somewhere, since there'd be no "Penny" if not for his
work.
If somebody collaborated with me and then said he didn't want to be
credited for his collaborative work, I'd nevertheless give him credit
unless he insisted. If he insisted on not being credited, I'd refrain
from publishing the collaborative work.

How sad it must be to offer a book for sale and think, "I stole most
of it from PJR, and even the bits that weren't stolen from PJR were
mostly written by Ray Heinrich, but he can't sue me because I tricked
him into surrendering his IP rights!"

How sad it must be to be Dunce!
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
George J. Dance
2019-07-11 20:44:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:48:24 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
There's more, if you'd like to hear about it. In particular, I'd
like to mention the contribution by poet Ray Heinrich (who came in
from rap on a crosspost), who didn't want credit and therefore isn't
mentioned in the blog acknowledgements, but whose work should be
acknowledged somewhere, since there'd be no "Penny" if not for his
work.
If somebody collaborated with me and then said he didn't want to be
credited for his collaborative work, I'd nevertheless give him credit
unless he insisted. If he insisted on not being credited, I'd refrain
from publishing the collaborative work.
Well, he didn't *insist*; so it's better late than never, I suppose.

The Acknowledgements section of Penny used to begin with this paragraph:

"LL 1-2 and LL 3084-3085 of "Penny, or Penny's Hat" use five words ("it" "is" "isn't" "just" "a" "good" "red" "hat") from a usenet post by a Peter J. Ross entitled "Batty", published on rec.arts.poems in 2009."

That's forthwith been changed to:

"LL 1-2 and LL 3084-3085 of "Penny, or Penny's Hat" are based on one of a series of poems by Ray Heinrich that were inspired by a usenet post by a Peter J. Ross entitled "Batty", published on rec.arts.poems in 2009."

I think that eliminates concerns about what matches your diary entry, since it's now clearer that nothing actually came from your diary entry.
Post by Peter J Ross
How sad it must be to offer a book for sale and think
No, both are actually quite pleasurable experiences. I'd urge you to try them.

<squealsnip>
Will Dockery
2019-07-11 20:41:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2009/12/
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/p/buying-betty.html
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you changed
"Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some randomly-generated spew, but
otherwise left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark
Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Penny has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't Abacab or Abacus
[...]
but simply a hat of Red.
It shades her head, just Penny's head.
There are 8 identical words - "it," "it's," "isn't," "just," "a," "good," "red," "hat" - at best three identical punctuation marks - a full stop after "hat," one after "red," and one at the end - and no identical lines at all.
"Under the threat of prosecution, and aware of how your hero Tommy
Tosser had killed himself when faced with the prospect of having to
pay $100,000 damages for a similar offence against another AAPC
poster, you made a few changes, which turned the plagiarised text into
a marginally acceptable imitation rather than a completely
"There's no longer any evidence available. It's just a question of whom
you believe."
That claim turns out to be a third lie, since there is available evidence: the quotations from "Penny" that were posted onto google's aapc archive at the time the poem was posted.
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
Closer to "Batty" by two more words - "wool" and "warms" but no identical lines or line breaks even at that point.
"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
There was never a version of "Betty" that "left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark as [Piggy] had typed them. It's a lie that there was, it's a lie that it was changed years later, and it's a lie that there's no evidence either way.
Interesting history basically before my time here....
I'm glad someone is reading this. I think it's time to get the actual evidence in order, even if it weren't being read now, but having it read today is a bonus.
There's more, if you'd like to hear about it. In particular, I'd like to mention the contribution by poet Ray Heinrich (who came in from rap on a crosspost), who didn't want credit and therefore isn't mentioned in the blog acknowledgements, but whose work should be acknowledged somewhere, since there'd be no "Penny" if not for his work.
I haven't seen or heard from Ray Heinrich in a long while,has he been in touch, posting poetry elsewhere?
George J. Dance
2019-07-11 22:32:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
snip
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
There was never a version of "Betty" that "left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark as [Piggy] had typed them. It's a lie that there was, it's a lie that it was changed years later, and it's a lie that there's no evidence either way.
Interesting history basically before my time here....
I'm glad someone is reading this. I think it's time to get the actual evidence in order, even if it weren't being read now, but having it read today is a bonus.
There's more, if you'd like to hear about it. In particular, I'd like to mention the contribution by poet Ray Heinrich (who came in from rap on a crosspost), who didn't want credit and therefore isn't mentioned in the blog acknowledgements, but whose work should be acknowledged somewhere, since there'd be no "Penny" if not for his work.
I haven't seen or heard from Ray Heinrich in a long while, has he been in touch, posting poetry elsewhere?
I haven't been in touch with him. His poetry site, "word biscuit," is alive and well: http://wordbiscuit.com/. It's on Penny's Blogroll, which makes it easy for me to check in.

Anyway, the whole point of mentioning him is to tie him into the story, because he's a missing piece; so here goes:

Ray was the second person who responded to Piggy's original posting of "Batty," telling him: "I like it" (

Rather than offer a standard crit, though, Ray suggested ways to take the poem by writing and posting 5 variations of his own. The first of Ray's 5 poems caught my attention:

Batty's hat is a good hat.
It's a red wool hat.
It isn't green or blue or yellow.
It's just a hat that's red.
It warms his ears, just Batty's ears.
Message-ID: <573e0535-7193-4b21-b533-***@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.arts.poems/2o1AFkTZnMw/gqFPvi8OVn0J

That in turn got me to write my first effort, a dance mix using his lines (though, because we were still using the "Batty" character, still crediting the "poem" to Piggy - and of course crediting the colours to Tim Rice).

Batty (Dance Mix)

Batty's hat is a good hat.
It's a red wool hat.
It isn't blue or yellow or green
or brown or scarlet or black or ochre
or peach or ruby or olive or violet
or fawn or lilac or gold or chocolate
or mauve or cream or crimson or silver
or rose or azure or lemon or russet
or grey or purple or white or pink or orange
but just a hat that's red.
It warms his ears, just Batty's ears.
Message-ID: <dcb312bd-81d5-4ea7-8631-***@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.arts.poems/2o1AFkTZnMw/mQLfZGbH7T8J

As you can see with the two versions that I've left in above, "Penny" in all its revisions was based on those lines of Ray's.
Will Dockery
2019-07-11 22:34:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
snip
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
There was never a version of "Betty" that "left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark as [Piggy] had typed them. It's a lie that there was, it's a lie that it was changed years later, and it's a lie that there's no evidence either way.
Interesting history basically before my time here....
I'm glad someone is reading this. I think it's time to get the actual evidence in order, even if it weren't being read now, but having it read today is a bonus.
There's more, if you'd like to hear about it. In particular, I'd like to mention the contribution by poet Ray Heinrich (who came in from rap on a crosspost), who didn't want credit and therefore isn't mentioned in the blog acknowledgements, but whose work should be acknowledged somewhere, since there'd be no "Penny" if not for his work.
I haven't seen or heard from Ray Heinrich in a long while, has he been in touch, posting poetry elsewhere?
I haven't been in touch with him. His poetry site, "word biscuit," is alive and well: http://wordbiscuit.com/. It's on Penny's Blogroll, which makes it easy for me to check in.
Ray was the second person who responded to Piggy's original posting of "Batty," telling him: "I like it" (
Batty's hat is a good hat.
It's a red wool hat.
It isn't green or blue or yellow.
It's just a hat that's red.
It warms his ears, just Batty's ears.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.arts.poems/2o1AFkTZnMw/gqFPvi8OVn0J
That in turn got me to write my first effort, a dance mix using his lines (though, because we were still using the "Batty" character, still crediting the "poem" to Piggy - and of course crediting the colours to Tim Rice).
Batty (Dance Mix)
Batty's hat is a good hat.
It's a red wool hat.
It isn't blue or yellow or green
or brown or scarlet or black or ochre
or peach or ruby or olive or violet
or fawn or lilac or gold or chocolate
or mauve or cream or crimson or silver
or rose or azure or lemon or russet
or grey or purple or white or pink or orange
but just a hat that's red.
It warms his ears, just Batty's ears.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.arts.poems/2o1AFkTZnMw/mQLfZGbH7T8J
As you can see with the two versions that I've left in above, "Penny" in all its revisions was based on those lines of Ray's.
Yes, anyone who wants to can see that.
George J. Dance
2019-07-11 22:37:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
snip
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
snip
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
There was never a version of "Betty" that "left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark as [Piggy] had typed them. It's a lie that there was, it's a lie that it was changed years later, and it's a lie that there's no evidence either way.
Interesting history basically before my time here....
I'm glad someone is reading this. I think it's time to get the actual evidence in order, even if it weren't being read now, but having it read today is a bonus.
There's more, if you'd like to hear about it. In particular, I'd like to mention the contribution by poet Ray Heinrich (who came in from rap on a crosspost), who didn't want credit and therefore isn't mentioned in the blog acknowledgements, but whose work should be acknowledged somewhere, since there'd be no "Penny" if not for his work.
I haven't seen or heard from Ray Heinrich in a long while, has he been in touch, posting poetry elsewhere?
I haven't been in touch with him. His poetry site, "word biscuit," is alive and well: http://wordbiscuit.com/. It's on Penny's Blogroll, which makes it easy for me to check in.
Ray was the second person who responded to Piggy's original posting of "Batty," telling him: "I like it" (
Batty's hat is a good hat.
It's a red wool hat.
It isn't green or blue or yellow.
It's just a hat that's red.
It warms his ears, just Batty's ears.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.arts.poems/2o1AFkTZnMw/gqFPvi8OVn0J
That in turn got me to write my first effort, a dance mix using his lines (though, because we were still using the "Batty" character, still crediting the "poem" to Piggy - and of course crediting the colours to Tim Rice).
Batty (Dance Mix)
Batty's hat is a good hat.
It's a red wool hat.
It isn't blue or yellow or green
or brown or scarlet or black or ochre
or peach or ruby or olive or violet
or fawn or lilac or gold or chocolate
or mauve or cream or crimson or silver
or rose or azure or lemon or russet
or grey or purple or white or pink or orange
but just a hat that's red.
It warms his ears, just Batty's ears.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.arts.poems/2o1AFkTZnMw/mQLfZGbH7T8J
As you can see with the two versions that I've left in above, "Penny" in all its revisions was based on those [5] lines of Ray's.
(Of course, I rewrote every one of those 5 lines for my poem).
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-12 03:33:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by George J. Dance
snip
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
snip
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Rex Hester Jr.
Post by George J. Dance
"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
There was never a version of "Betty" that "left every word, every line break and every punctuation mark as [Piggy] had typed them. It's a lie that there was, it's a lie that it was changed years later, and it's a lie that there's no evidence either way.
Interesting history basically before my time here....
I'm glad someone is reading this. I think it's time to get the actual evidence in order, even if it weren't being read now, but having it read today is a bonus.
There's more, if you'd like to hear about it. In particular, I'd like to mention the contribution by poet Ray Heinrich (who came in from rap on a crosspost), who didn't want credit and therefore isn't mentioned in the blog acknowledgements, but whose work should be acknowledged somewhere, since there'd be no "Penny" if not for his work.
I haven't seen or heard from Ray Heinrich in a long while, has he been in touch, posting poetry elsewhere?
I haven't been in touch with him. His poetry site, "word biscuit," is alive and well: http://wordbiscuit.com/. It's on Penny's Blogroll, which makes it easy for me to check in.
Ray was the second person who responded to Piggy's original posting of "Batty," telling him: "I like it" (
Batty's hat is a good hat.
It's a red wool hat.
It isn't green or blue or yellow.
It's just a hat that's red.
It warms his ears, just Batty's ears.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.arts.poems/2o1AFkTZnMw/gqFPvi8OVn0J
That in turn got me to write my first effort, a dance mix using his lines (though, because we were still using the "Batty" character, still crediting the "poem" to Piggy - and of course crediting the colours to Tim Rice).
Batty (Dance Mix)
Batty's hat is a good hat.
It's a red wool hat.
It isn't blue or yellow or green
or brown or scarlet or black or ochre
or peach or ruby or olive or violet
or fawn or lilac or gold or chocolate
or mauve or cream or crimson or silver
or rose or azure or lemon or russet
or grey or purple or white or pink or orange
but just a hat that's red.
It warms his ears, just Batty's ears.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.arts.poems/2o1AFkTZnMw/mQLfZGbH7T8J
As you can see with the two versions that I've left in above, "Penny" in all its revisions was based on those [5] lines of Ray's.
(Of course, I rewrote every one of those 5 lines for my poem).
You nailed it.... G.D.
Peter J Ross
2019-07-11 13:51:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:55:22 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been
repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's
Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
https://<SPAM>
https://<SPAM>
Why does your "defence" consist largely of spamming links to text on
your kooksite that has nothing to do with the issue, Dunce?
Post by George J. Dance
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you changed
"Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some randomly-generated spew,
but otherwise left every word, every line break and every
The major problem with that story, of course, is that anyone who
reads both "Batty" and my poem can see that the poems are not
word-for-word and line-for-line identical. Here's the full text of
I didn't say anything about your "poem", Dunce, other than that it
contained enough changes from the plagiarised text to satisfy my
requirements.
Post by George J. Dance
Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Why are you pretending that I posted through Google Gropes, Dunce?

Is it because, even in quite trivial matters, you just can't stop
yourself lying all the time?
<spewsnip>

Nobody has the slightest interest in your "poem", Dunce. You can stop
spamming it now.
Post by George J. Dance
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
Closer to "Batty" by two more words - "wool" and "warms" but no
identical lines or line breaks even at that point.
Thank you for posting evidence that, even after you made a few
changes, the text was still substantially plagiarised.

Thank you also for admitting (by omitting it) that the vast amount of
interpolated spew doesn't affect the issue.
Post by George J. Dance
"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
I'd be inclined to let that version go. It's less plagiarism than a
tribute from a clueless student to a master whose work he admires but
fails to understand. IIRC, it's the version I accepted as being
suficiently changed to count as non-plagiarised.
Post by George J. Dance
There was never a version of "Betty" that "left every word, every
line break and every punctuation mark as [Piggy] had typed them.
The fact that you altered it doesn't mean that it never existed.
Post by George J. Dance
It's a lie that there was, it's a lie that it was changed years
later, and it's a lie that there's no evidence either way.
There was no evidence that I could find, but you've now provided
evidence for everybody to see of your frantic efforts to make changes
to the plagiarised text in order to avoid legal proceedings.

You're not only a thief and a liar but also very, very stupid, aren't
you, Dunce?
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
George J. Dance
2019-07-15 21:09:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:55:22 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
The major problem with that story, of course, is that anyone who
reads both "Batty" and my poem can see that the poems are not
word-for-word and line-for-line identical. Here's the full text of
I didn't say anything about your "poem", Dunce, other than that it
contained enough changes from the plagiarised text to satisfy my
requirements.
Post by George J. Dance
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you changed
"Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some randomly-generated spew,
but otherwise left every word, every line break and every
It was a total lie, of course.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Why are you pretending that I posted through Google Gropes, Dunce?
Notice the carat marks, Piggy; obviously one you did not post your diary entry in that message.
Post by Peter J Ross
Is it because, even in quite trivial matters, you just can't stop
yourself lying all the time?
If you must know, I used the message ID for my own comment because I didn't want the message to disappear later.
Post by Peter J Ross
<spewsnip>
Nobody has the slightest interest in your "poem", Dunce. You can stop
spamming it now.
It's certainly relevant to the subject to point out what my "poem" says, and what it always said.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
Closer to "Batty" by two more words - "wool" and "warms" but no
identical lines or line breaks even at that point.
Thank you for posting evidence that, even after you made a few
changes, the text was still substantially plagiarised.
Perhaps from Ray, since it used his lines for the frame tale; one reason I rewrote them after we stopped collaborating on the piece.
Post by Peter J Ross
Thank you also for admitting (by omitting it) that the vast amount of
interpolated spew doesn't affect the issue.
Of course it doesn't affect this issue. No one, even you, has claimed to write the other 3,000+ lines.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
I'd be inclined to let that version go. It's less plagiarism than a
tribute from a clueless student to a master whose work he admires but
fails to understand. IIRC, it's the version I accepted as being
suficiently changed to count as non-plagiarised.
Yet it's the version that was blogged in December 2009; that was offered for sale on Kindle in 2010; and that you threatened me over in 2013.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
There was never a version of "Betty" that "left every word, every
line break and every punctuation mark as [Piggy] had typed them.
The fact that you altered it doesn't mean that it never existed.
And that of course is Piggy's second Big Lie: that this version (that, as we've seen dates from 2010) is a rewrite I made after he began threatening me four years later.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
It's a lie that there was, it's a lie that it was changed years
later, and it's a lie that there's no evidence either way.
There was no evidence that I could find, but you've now provided
evidence for everybody to see of your frantic efforts to make changes
to the plagiarised text in order to avoid legal proceedings.
Actually, all the evidence I've posted is that I revise and write numerous drafts.
Post by Peter J Ross
You're not only a thief and a liar but also very, very stupid, aren't
you, Dunce?
Not at all. That's a third Piggy's Big Lie for the thread.
Peter J Ross
2019-07-21 16:53:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:09:57 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:55:22 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
The major problem with that story, of course, is that anyone who
reads both "Batty" and my poem can see that the poems are not
word-for-word and line-for-line identical. Here's the full text of
I didn't say anything about your "poem", Dunce, other than that it
contained enough changes from the plagiarised text to satisfy my
requirements.
Post by George J. Dance
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you changed
"Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some randomly-generated spew,
but otherwise left every word, every line break and every
It was a total lie, of course.
Why do you lie so transparently all the time, Dunce?

I was discussing the first of the two plagiarised versions, not the
first or second of the two non-plagiarised versions.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
Batty's red woollen hat is a good hat.
It's a hat that isn't yellow, it's just a hat
that's red. It warms his ears, Batty's ears,
not mine, not yours.
Why are you pretending that I posted through Google Gropes, Dunce?
Notice the carat marks, Piggy;
1. It's spelled "caret".

2. The marks aren't "caret marks".

Why should Creepy Mike's "Piggy" sockpuppet notice things that (1) are
spelled wrong and (2) aren't there?
Post by George J. Dance
obviously one you did not post your diary entry in that message.
"Obviously one you"? Try to have your whines make sense.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
Is it because, even in quite trivial matters, you just can't stop
yourself lying all the time?
If you must know, I used the message ID for my own comment because I
didn't want the message to disappear later.
Instead of fantasising in a paranoid way about disappearing messages,
why not just admit that you don't know how to find the Message-ID of
the original article?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
<spewsnip>
Nobody has the slightest interest in your "poem", Dunce. You can
stop spamming it now.
It's certainly relevant to the subject to point out what my "poem"
says, and what it always said.
If your "poem" has always said the same thing, why did you post
multiple versions of it in this thread?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
Betty's hat is a good hat.
It's a Red wool hat.
It isn't Alabaster or Alice Blue
[...]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head.
Closer to "Batty" by two more words - "wool" and "warms" but no
identical lines or line breaks even at that point.
Thank you for posting evidence that, even after you made a few
changes, the text was still substantially plagiarised.
Perhaps from Ray, since it used his lines for the frame tale; one
reason I rewrote them after we stopped collaborating on the piece.
Your admission of plagiarism is noted, even if you pretend that you
plagiarised from somebody other than the author.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
Thank you also for admitting (by omitting it) that the vast amount
of interpolated spew doesn't affect the issue.
Of course it doesn't affect this issue. No one, even you, has
claimed to write the other 3,000+ lines.
So now you admit that the interpolated spew was randomly generated.

Why did you try to sell randomly generated spew on your kooksite? Why
did you pretend to be its author?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by George J. Dance
"Betty has a good hat.
It's a Red felt hat.
It isn't [list of colors]
but just a hat that's Red.
It warms her head, just Betty's head."
I'd be inclined to let that version go. It's less plagiarism than a
tribute from a clueless student to a master whose work he admires
but fails to understand. IIRC, it's the version I accepted as being
suficiently changed to count as non-plagiarised.
Yet it's the version that was blogged in December 2009; that was
offered for sale on Kindle in 2010; and that you threatened me over
in 2013.
Why do you lie all the time, Dunce? The version you offered for sale
was the version that changed the word "Batty" to "Betty" and was
otherwise identical to the original, apart from the interpolated spew
that you now admit you didn't write.

<whinesnip>

Now whine some more, Dunce!
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
NancyGene
2019-07-21 17:11:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you changed
"Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some randomly-generated spew,
but otherwise left every word, every line break and every
We don't understand why Dunce thought anyone would want to "buy" the poem. Did he get any buyers? What advantage would there be to buying it rather than just reading it? What was the price for the purloined poem?
Peter J Ross
2019-07-21 18:19:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:11:17 -0700 (PDT),
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you
changed "Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some
randomly-generated spew, but otherwise left every word, every
line break and every punctuation mark as I'd typed them.'
We don't understand why Dunce thought anyone would want to "buy" the
poem. Did he get any buyers? What advantage would there be to
buying it rather than just reading it? What was the price for the
purloined poem?
I find Dunce's money-making scheme as bizarre as you do, but you and I
don't think that "Batty" is as good as Ezra Pound's /Cantos/.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
NancyGene
2019-07-21 18:37:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:11:17 -0700 (PDT),
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you
changed "Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some
randomly-generated spew, but otherwise left every word, every
line break and every punctuation mark as I'd typed them.'
We don't understand why Dunce thought anyone would want to "buy" the
poem. Did he get any buyers? What advantage would there be to
buying it rather than just reading it? What was the price for the
purloined poem?
I find Dunce's money-making scheme as bizarre as you do, but you and I
don't think that "Batty" is as good as Ezra Pound's /Cantos/.
--
We see that it's a 204 page print-on-demand paperback. For those who act quickly, it's on sale!

List Price: $15.00
Price: $13.50
You Save: $1.50 ( 10% )
Prints in 3-5 business days
The story of Penny's good red hat; a 3,000-line conceptual poem.

We have forgotten the story of the illustration on the cover. From whom was that stolen?
Peter J Ross
2019-07-21 18:44:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:37:47 -0700 (PDT),
Post by NancyGene
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:11:17 -0700
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
'In the version you offered for sale as your own work, you
changed "Batty" to "Betty" and interpolated some
randomly-generated spew, but otherwise left every word,
every line break and every punctuation mark as I'd typed
We don't understand why Dunce thought anyone would want to "buy"
the poem. Did he get any buyers? What advantage would there be
to buying it rather than just reading it? What was the price for
the purloined poem?
I find Dunce's money-making scheme as bizarre as you do, but you
and I don't think that "Batty" is as good as Ezra Pound's /Cantos/.
We see that it's a 204 page print-on-demand paperback.
And Dunce has said that nobody claims authorship of 200 of those
pages, which presumably means that they're in the public domain.
Post by NancyGene
For those who act quickly, it's on sale!
List Price: $15.00
Price: $13.50
You Save: $1.50 ( 10% )
Prints in 3-5 business days
The story of Penny's good red hat; a 3,000-line conceptual poem.
Wow! What shall I spend the free gift of $1.50 on?
Post by NancyGene
We have forgotten the story of the illustration on the cover. From whom was that stolen?
I haven't seen it, but if it looks as if it was finger-painted by a
three-year-old, it was probably stolen from Plod.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
George J. Dance
2019-07-21 19:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NancyGene
We see that it's a 204 page print-on-demand paperback. For those who act quickly, it's on sale!
You forgot the link, idiot.
http://www.lulu.com/shop/http://www.lulu.com/shop/george-j-dance/penny-or-pennys-hat/paperback/product-21454470.html

How do you think anyone is going to "act quickly" to buy the book if you don't give the link?
Post by NancyGene
List Price: $15.00
Price: $13.50
You Save: $1.50 ( 10% )
Prints in 3-5 business days
The story of Penny's good red hat; a 3,000-line conceptual poem.
We have forgotten the story of the illustration on the cover.
Now, now: you're assuming that you ever knew it.

From whom was that stolen?

If you'd remembered to give the link, everyone (including you) could read for themselves where the picture on the cover came from. Now do you understand why it's important to give them?
NancyGene
2019-07-11 15:43:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem. There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited that he can't think of alternate words to use in the same sentence:

"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"

Some editor.
Conley Brothers
2019-07-11 16:37:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
That's how I see it also.
George J. Dance
2019-07-15 20:34:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Conley Brothers
Post by NancyGene
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem. There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited that he can't think of alternate words to use in the same sentence
That's how I see it also.
Quelle surprise.
George J. Dance
2019-07-13 14:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
An easy to follow argument:
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).

That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.

The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.

If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.

If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.

On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).

Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.

The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";

I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear

The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)

"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;

And repeats, resounds in my ear

That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.

The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
NancyGene
2019-07-13 19:43:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
Right “here” you are making remarks about us that have nothing to do with our comments on your writing and creative imagination. One of your writing faults, which we have not addressed “here,” is that you put too much extraneous information into your posts.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).
All true. To come back to the initial argument, you took PJR’s poem as the basis for “your” poem and are not giving him credit as the creator of the original. Do people capable of “leaps f creatve thought” write that way?
Post by George J. Dance
That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.
The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.
We have read enough of your posts and two poems to come to the conclusion that 1) you write badly, 2) you include too much verbiage, and 3) you need a good editor.
Post by George J. Dance
If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.
We and the past and present readers of AAPC have seen your posts and your poetry. We have an excellent idea of how and what you write.
Post by George J. Dance
If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
True, you must have done something original in your life, but did you write it down? Was it poetry? Was it inspired by or a close variation on another poet’s work, such as PJR’s?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.
Absolutely, and we stand by that claim. That was lazy writing on your part, and you did not re-read the sentence before sending it.
Post by George J. Dance
On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).
However, you were not writing literature. “Repeatedly […] Ross has been repeating […]” sounds like it came from a high school book report.
Post by George J. Dance
Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.
Are you arguing that you intentionally used “repeat” and “repeatedly” for emphasis in the sentence? If you did, it is still bad writing and calls attention to itself as such.
Post by George J. Dance
The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
You are not writing song lyrics.
Post by George J. Dance
The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)
We know Cole Porter songs. You, sir, are no Cole Porter.
Post by George J. Dance
"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;
And repeats, resounds in my ear
Note that Porter did not say “repeats, repeatedly in my ear” as you would have done. He intentionally uses “repeats” for that emphasis and does it wonderfully. You used it clumsily and unintentionally.
Post by George J. Dance
That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.
Which again has nothing to do with your original sentence or your poetry.

A better example to use would be Dylan Thomas’ “Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night” – “rage, rage.” He uses the repetition for both emphasis and insistence.
Post by George J. Dance
The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
We stand by our judgment and “repeat” that you have not made a solid argument against our criticisms.
Will Dockery
2019-07-13 20:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).
That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.
The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.
If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.
If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.
On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).
Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.
The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)
"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;
And repeats, resounds in my ear
That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.
The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
Of course, poetry is not bound by conventional grammar or punctuation.
Hieronymous Corey
2019-07-13 20:26:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Huh?
Michael Pendragon
2019-07-14 02:51:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).
That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.
The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.
If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.
If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.
On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).
Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.
The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)
"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;
And repeats, resounds in my ear
That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.
The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
Of course, poetry is not bound by conventional grammar or punctuation.
And here's my new sign-off quote!

Thanks, Willie.
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-14 03:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).
That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.
The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.
If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.
If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.
On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).
Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.
The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)
"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;
And repeats, resounds in my ear
That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.
The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
Of course, poetry is not bound by conventional grammar or punctuation.
Ask E. E. Cummings for one....
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-13 21:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).
That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.
The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.
If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.
If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.
On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).
Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.
The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)
"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;
And repeats, resounds in my ear
That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.
The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
This is all quite correct.....
Michael Pendragon
2019-07-14 02:48:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
Post by George J. Dance
Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating, a series of lies about my long poem, "Penny, or Penny's Hat," which is readable on my poetry blog here -
Without a doubt, Dunce plagiarized PJR's poem.
There is no chance that Dunce came up with anything original since he writes so badly and his imagination is so limited
1) Dunce writes badly and his imagination is so limited
2) Someone who writes badly and has limited imagination cannot come up with anything original.
3) Therefore, nothing Dunce writes is original
4) Therefore, Dunce didn't come up with anything original in this case (ie, he plagiarized).
That's a valid argument; whether the conclusion is true, of course depends on the truth of the premises.
The problem with premise 1 is that, in order for "NancyGene" to know how I write, they have to have read quite a few things that I've written. Either those were original, or I didn't write them.
If the latter, then "NancyGene" can have no idea how I write (since they haven't seen anything I've written; so premise 1 is mere assertion based on nothing: there is no reason for anyone, including "NancyGene," to believe it.
If the latter, NancyGene would know that you "write" by plagiarizing the work of others. That's the proper conclusion to be drawn from the above line of reasoning.
Post by George J. Dance
If the former, then there has to be a chance that I've come up with something original, since I have and "NancyGene" has read it. So (3) is false, meaning that (since the argument is valid) if premise (1) is true, then premise (2) must be false.
Your assertion "since I have" is merely your opinion (which is currently being contested). Your refutation is therefore based on a faulty premise and must be discounted.

And since neither of your "logical" arguments pans out, the only thing you've proven is that you can't formulate a logical argument to save your life. (But we already knew that.)
Post by George J. Dance
Post by NancyGene
"Repeatedly for the past 6 years, Peter J "Piggy" Ross has been repeating [...]"
Some editor.
NG's claiming, as an example of my alleged bad writing, that I used the word "repeat" twice in a sentence. Their claim is that repetition - using the same word more than once - is bad writing; that a good writer uses the same word once, and finds a synonym the next time.
As though that were the only mistake you've made over the past week!
Post by George J. Dance
On the contrary, repetition is an effective literary device (possibly the first consciously used literary device) that's been used in poetry from the ballad to the villanelle to the sestina, and in many memorable poems from "The Lady of Shallott" to "The Dwarf' to "Howl" (and, I'm sure, in many other examples that any reader can think of).
Besides the general literary utility of repetition, there's a second reason for using it with a word like "repeat" - it uses the literary device to reinforce the meaning of the sentence.
In your sentence, it merely sounds redundant.
Post by George J. Dance
The paradigm example is from Cole Porter's "I've Got You under My Skin";
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
The effect is to have the reader feel, rather than just hear about, the repetition, which helps them understand what Porter is saying: The voice didn't just "repeat" it a few times, but keeps on repeating it, over and over. (Just as I was saying about Piggy's "plagiarism" smear.)
Cole Porter's line is laudable. Yours is redundant.

You're pulling a Willie, here by posing a ridiculous argument in a vain attempt to justify a grammatical faux pas.
Post by George J. Dance
"NancyGene" would claim that the above is an example of "bad writing", and that Porter should have used a synonym instead of "repeats" the second line, eg;
And repeats, resounds in my ear
That's a much weaker line, and so would be one that used any other synonym. Porter's use of repetition gives the best line possible.
The fact "NancyGene" claims it's bad writing is enough to challenge their claim to make any authoritative literary judgements, and enough for anyone to not accept them.
The *fact* is that NancyGene made no such claim about Cole Porter.

Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-12 22:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Peter is a troll, lying is what trolls do....
Rex Hester Jr.
2019-07-14 02:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Correct those lies GD
Rex Rodroth Jr.
2019-07-19 00:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Fascinating read....
Will Dockery
2019-07-21 23:15:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
PJR is the kind of the dishonest post edit and snip, after all.

:)
Loading...