On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>>> George Dance wrote...
>
>> > > > >February
>> >
>> > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
>> > > > >ocean waves in winter,
>> > > > >the curve of your cheek.
>> >
>> > > > ocean waves in winter
>> > > > the curve of your cheek
>> > > > Unnoticed dreams
>> >
>> > > > the curve of your cheek
>> > > > Unnoticed dreams
>> > > > ocean waves in winter
>> >
>> > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>> > > perspective.
>> >
>> > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
>> > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

Like I said, my take is clearly stated here:

>> Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
>> could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
>> yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
>> for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
>> In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
>> following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
>> collage":

Here, Pendragon ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
>> "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
>> plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
>> happen
>> because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
>> because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
>> ubiquity
>> of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
>> has
>> become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
>> quiet
>> and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."

Here, Pendragon ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> explicitly.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Again, this statement should be easily comprehended, even by a delusional fuckwit like Michael Pendragon. ^^^^^^^°

>> > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
>> > each repeated three times.
>> Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
>> > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
>> > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
>> > villanelle.
>> >
>> > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
>> > they'd work together:
>> >
>> > Ever after
>> > They come,
>> > she says:
>> >
>> > “They come,”
>> > she says.
>> > Ever after,
>> >
>> > she says:
>> > “Ever after,
>> > They come.”

And so it goes.

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 3:40:09 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
> >> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> >>> George Dance wrote...
> >
> >> > > > >February
> >> >
> >> > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
> >> > > > >ocean waves in winter,
> >> > > > >the curve of your cheek.
> >> >
> >> > > > ocean waves in winter
> >> > > > the curve of your cheek
> >> > > > Unnoticed dreams
> >> >
> >> > > > the curve of your cheek
> >> > > > Unnoticed dreams
> >> > > > ocean waves in winter
> >> >
> >> > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
> >> > > perspective.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
> >> > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.
> Like I said, my take is clearly stated here:
> >> Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
> >> could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
> >> yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
> >> for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
> >> In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
> >> following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
> >> collage":
> Here, Pendragon ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
> >> "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
> >> plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
> >> happen
> >> because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
> >> because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
> >> ubiquity
> >> of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
> >> has
> >> become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
> >> quiet
> >> and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."
> Here, Pendragon ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
> > write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
> > could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
> > explicitly.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Again, this statement should be easily comprehended, even by a delusional fuckwit like Michael Pendragon. ^^^^^^^°
> >> > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
> >> > each repeated three times.
> >> Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
> >> > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
> >> > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
> >> > villanelle.
> >> >
> >> > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
> >> > they'd work together:
> >> >
> >> > Ever after
> >> > They come,
> >> > she says:
> >> >
> >> > “They come,”
> >> > she says.
> >> > Ever after,
> >> >
> >> > she says:
> >> > “Ever after,
> >> > They come.”
> And so it goes.

Why are you repeating yourself, Donkey?

Stupidity is bad enough the first time around.

Will Dockery wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 9:58 pm, George Dance wrote:
>>> On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>> George Dance wrote...
>>
>>> > > > >February
>>> >
>>> > > > >Unnoticed dreams:
>>> > > > >ocean waves in winter,
>>> > > > >the curve of your cheek.
>>> >
>>> > > > ocean waves in winter
>>> > > > the curve of your cheek
>>> > > > Unnoticed dreams
>>> >
>>> > > > the curve of your cheek
>>> > > > Unnoticed dreams
>>> > > > ocean waves in winter
>>> >
>>> > > Nice work, I like the way the repetition of phrases shifts the
>>> > > perspective.
>>> >
>>> > Well, I only wrote the first three lines; the rest of that's either
>>> > Sherman or Rogers fucking with my lines.

> Like I said, my take is clearly stated here:

>>> Well, you wrote all three lines, so I don't see any way anyone else
>>> could get away with claiming they wrote them... all three would be
>>> yours in any combination, and either Karla or GB would get a credit
>>> for /arranging/ the lines, at best.
>>> In fact, I thought of commenting to GB's post that he was really
>>> following through on Dale Houstman's "post-art world of plagiarism &
>>> collage":

> Here, Pendragon ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>> "...There are some reasons to believe that we are already living in a
>>> "post-art" world, in which all work produced is merely collage and
>>> plagiarism, comments on art rather than art itself. And it didn't
>>> happen
>>> because "scientists 'explained' art" (whatever that could mean), but
>>> because the surrounding culture, driven by mere Sensation, the
>>> ubiquity
>>> of entertainment, and the "hive-mind" radiated by TV and the like,
>>> has
>>> become less a viable habitat for individual expression and for the
>>> quiet
>>> and timeless interstices in which imagination finds its outlet..."

> Here, Pendragon ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> Anyway, the point of this post was to make it clear that GB didn't
>> write those lines, and the ones that followed used quite a bit of what
>> could be called "collage", though I didn't bother to get into all that
>> explicitly.

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Again, this statement should be easily comprehended, even by a delusional fuckwit like Michael Pendragon. ^^^^^^^°

>>> > But it is an interesting form, isn't it? A 9-line poem with 3 lines
>>> > each repeated three times.
>>> Yes, and would work well for lyrics, also.
>>> > It would be hard to find lines strong enough to hold up all the way
>>> > through; or flexible enough to change in meaning as in a triolet or
>>> > villanelle.
>>> >
>>> > I just tried writing one, using the first three lines that looked like
>>> > they'd work together:
>>> >
>>> > Ever after
>>> > They come,
>>> > she says:
>>> >
>>> > “They come,”
>>> > she says.
>>> > Ever after,
>>> >
>>> > she says:
>>> > “Ever after,
>>> > They come.”

> And so it goes.

Indeed.....