On Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 4:02:07 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> On Jan 16, 3:17 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:02:04 -0800 (PST), George Dance
> >
> <snip for relevance>
> >
> >
> >
> > >> And I don't think it's fun - the day you wrote
> > >> "Hmmm ... What do you think of this?" and posted the Cohen poem, I got
> > >> pissed and let you know it.
> >
> > >No, ~karlapoet~, that is not true.
> > >> As I wrote then, I thought you were playing the
> > >> gotcha game
> >
> > >No, that is not true either.
> >
> > >>and I didn't like the imagist thread being derailed.
> >
> > >Nor is that true.
> >
> > >You see why I've told you that nothing you write can be believed.
> >
> > You should really google before you deny. I wrote all of the below soon
> > after you went hmmm.
> That's not what you claimed (and I denied), liar. You claimed you
> wrote all of the above (1) that you were pissed, that you thought I
> was playing a 'gotcha game', and that I was trying to 'derail the
> thread' "the day [I] posted the Cohen poem". Noto one of the 'below'
> is from that day.
> >

Damn, but you were a snippy little cunt back then!

BTW: Is "Noto" supposed to be latin?

> > *28 Feb 2009 12:17:11
> > What's up with trying to pass this off as yours?*
> Exactly. Only after ~garypoet~ flamed Cohen's poem, and Colin gave the
> name of the author, did you reply. Nothing even then about you being
> 'pissed', nothing about a 'gotcha game', and nothing about 'derailing
> the thread.' Only a Compound Question by which you hoped to trick me
> into saying I'd tried to pass the poem off as my own.
> > *28 Feb 2009 16:39:23
> > Stop it! Just admit it wasn't smart omitting that Cohen had written this.
> > Otherwise you're inviting a ton of posts forevermore. Or do you want
> > negative attention like that? Please admit and stop this nonsense.*
> So you then you followed up with a threat: Admit you plagiarized, or
> we'll make a 'ton of posts' (which you made -- and then later had the
> nerve to accuse me of 'derailing the thread').

You whined a lot then, too.

> > *28 Feb 2009 18:45:11
> > And there wasn't because you were hoping to trick those unfamiliar with Mr.
> > Cohen's poem into thinking it was yours. Your exact wording up above: "Hmmm
> > ...
> > What do you think of this?" followed by the poem. The "hmmm" and the
> > question deliberately vague.*
> Yep. Six hours after your plagiarism charge -- which your friends had
> picked up and were plastering not only all over the thread, but all
> over the group -- you decided to change your accusation. Besides
> which, of course your new charge -- "you were hoping to trick those
> unfamiliar with Mr. Cohen's poem into thinking it was yours"-- was as
> bogus as your previous one: you're pretending that no one on the group
> (except Colin) knew how to do a search.

Did you have Mr. Cohen's permission to reprint his poem in full here?

Well, then you are a plagiarist.

Don't worry, Mr. Cohen has since passed away and I doubt his estate would bother to sue you.

> > *01 Mar 2009 14:50:05
> > As I wrote above this line, you have caused a ton of posts because of your
> > refusal to own up to your behavior. A decent discussed devolved. As for
> > "troll behavior", take the log out of your eye first. You "trolled" by
> > posting Cohen's poem without attribution.*
> Yep. A day later, with your friends (the same friends you've brought
> into this discussion, I note) all calling me a plagiarist, you backed
> down further: now posting the poem without attribution wasn't
> plagiarism but trolling. But of course you didn't apologize for
> calling me a plagiarist in the first place; you just whined that I'd
> "caused" you and your friends to start calling me that.

You whine like a petulant 5-year old.

Now go to bed without your supper... and assume the position!

> > *01 Mar 2009 15:08:17
> > "I chose to speak of it as trickery and never used plagiarism. I don't like
> > that you played with fire, i.e. left a window for someone to assume you'd
> > written it. My initial response was anger that you did such a thing, but
> > after called it trickery."*
> Your final change of story in that thread: Even though you'd accused
> me of plagiarism (ie, passing someone else's poem off as my own), just
> the day before, you began claiming that you hadn't because you hadn't
> used the word 'plagiarism'. Which is the story you stuck with until,
> two or three months later, you started using the word 'plagiarizing'
> in connection with it again.
> Thank you for posting this.

Boo-hoo, Princess! Get over it.