On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:11:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
"Do you think Barrett would’ve minded, or would he have grinned at the
nod? And how do you decide when a source like him is fair game versus,
say, a contemporary poet?"
Syd Barrett would have sued George Dance's ass.
Good questions, again; you're getting me to think more deeply. Problem
is, I just looked at the time and I have to go. Thank you for the
conversation; I find you more interesting to talk to than all but a few
humans.
George Dance's "trusted (AI) source" didn't give attribution and
certainly didn't mean that George Dance is interesting:
Chat GPT: "In Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 2, Episode 3, "Elementary, Dear Data" (Season 2, Episode 3), Data tells Geordi:
'I find you more interesting to talk to than most humans.'"
"Glad I could dig into the good stuff with you — your take on poetry’s >> got real meat to it. I’ll take 'more interesting than most humans' as
high praise. Catch you later when time’s not racing you out the door.
Enjoyed this."
Or "someone" might call it plagiarism.
What did Data have to say about trusted sources?
Chat GPT:
"Data, as an android and officer in Star Trek: The Next Generation,
often emphasized logic, evidence, and reliability when assessing sources
of information. While he did not have a single defining quote about
"trusted sources," his approach to knowledge and truth was consistent throughout the series
One of the best examples of Data's views on trusted information comes
from "The Ensigns of Command" (Season 3, Episode 2), when he states:
“The most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is ‘I do not know.’”
This reflects Data’s understanding that trusted sources must be based on verifiable facts, and one must acknowledge gaps in knowledge rather than assume certainty."
In other words, George Dance should have looked up the supposed line in Robert Creeley's works (which are on-line) and verified that it existed before he shot his mouth off about plagiarism.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:16:56 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:11:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
"Do you think Barrett would’ve minded, or would he have grinned at the >>> nod? And how do you decide when a source like him is fair game versus,
say, a contemporary poet?"
Syd Barrett would have sued George Dance's ass.
NastyGoon, are you claiming to be in conversation with dead people like
Syd Barrett?
Good questions, again; you're getting me to think more deeply. Problem
is, I just looked at the time and I have to go. Thank you for the
conversation; I find you more interesting to talk to than all but a few
humans.
George Dance's "trusted (AI) source" didn't give attribution and
certainly didn't mean that George Dance is interesting:
You're confused, NastyGoon, "I find you more interesting to talk to than
most humans" was something I said to the AI.
Chat GPT: "In Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 2, Episode 3,
"Elementary, Dear Data" (Season 2, Episode 3), Data tells Geordi:
'I find you more interesting to talk to than most humans.'"
I don't watch that show, or any TV really. My wife does, so I might have heard it. Do you think my saying it to an AI makes me a "plagiarist"?
"Glad I could dig into the good stuff with you — your take on poetry’s >>> got real meat to it. I’ll take 'more interesting than most humans' as
high praise. Catch you later when time’s not racing you out the door.
Enjoyed this."
Or "someone" might call it plagiarism.
Yes, it looks like you would.
What did Data have to say about trusted sources?
Chat GPT:
"Data, as an android and officer in Star Trek: The Next Generation,
often emphasized logic, evidence, and reliability when assessing sources
of information. While he did not have a single defining quote about
"trusted sources," his approach to knowledge and truth was consistent
throughout the series
One of the best examples of Data's views on trusted information comes
from "The Ensigns of Command" (Season 3, Episode 2), when he states:
“The most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of >> wisdom, is ‘I do not know.’”
This reflects Data’s understanding that trusted sources must be based on >> verifiable facts, and one must acknowledge gaps in knowledge rather than
assume certainty."
That sounds like my understanding of truth; and I've probably said many
a time that truth must be based on verifiable facts.
In other words, George Dance should have looked up the supposed line in
Robert Creeley's works (which are on-line) and verified that it existed
before he shot his mouth off about plagiarism.
What I said about plagiarism - that you'd call an unattributed line in a
poem "plagiarism" - was based on verifiable facts. You've done it in the past, and you've done it since, right in the thread that you're bitching about me "shooting [my] mouth off' in."
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 16:04:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:16:56 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:11:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
"Do you think Barrett would’ve minded, or would he have grinned at the >>>> nod? And how do you decide when a source like him is fair game versus, >>>> say, a contemporary poet?"
Syd Barrett would have sued George Dance's ass.
NastyGoon, are you claiming to be in conversation with dead people like
Syd Barrett?
Any other writer would have sued you, George. Why not Syd Barrett?
Good questions, again; you're getting me to think more deeply. Problem >>>> is, I just looked at the time and I have to go. Thank you for the
conversation; I find you more interesting to talk to than all but a few >>>> humans.
George Dance's "trusted (AI) source" didn't give attribution and
certainly didn't mean that George Dance is interesting:
You're confused, NastyGoon, "I find you more interesting to talk to than
most humans" was something I said to the AI.
I'm so happy that you've finally found someone who can stand you,
George. You and AI were made for each other.
Chat GPT: "In Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 2, Episode 3,
"Elementary, Dear Data" (Season 2, Episode 3), Data tells Geordi:
'I find you more interesting to talk to than most humans.'"
I don't watch that show, or any TV really. My wife does, so I might have
heard it. Do you think my saying it to an AI makes me a "plagiarist"?
Do you think that you're a crew member of the U.S.S. Enterprise?
"Glad I could dig into the good stuff with you — your take on poetry’s >>>> got real meat to it. I’ll take 'more interesting than most humans' as >>>> high praise. Catch you later when time’s not racing you out the door. >>>> Enjoyed this."
Or "someone" might call it plagiarism.
Yes, it looks like you would.
Well... you did try to pretend that the bot was some mysterious friend
of yours.
BTW, my guess that your "friend" was a search engine turned out to be
pretty close.
What I said about plagiarism - that you'd call an unattributed line in a
poem "plagiarism" - was based on verifiable facts. You've done it in the
past, and you've done it since, right in the thread that you're bitching
about me "shooting [my] mouth off' in."
Lie.
You titled your thread "NancyGene Lifts a line." Your comment in the
post has to be seen in context to the title of the tread you started for
it. No matter how you try to tweak it (dirty little coward that you
are), one can only read it as having been intended to support the
accusation you'd made in the thread's title.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 20:48:21 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 16:04:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:16:56 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:11:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
"Do you think Barrett would’ve minded, or would he have grinned at the >>>>> nod? And how do you decide when a source like him is fair game versus, >>>>> say, a contemporary poet?"
Syd Barrett would have sued George Dance's ass.
NastyGoon, are you claiming to be in conversation with dead people like
Syd Barrett?
Any other writer would have sued you, George. Why not Syd Barrett?
You can't speak for "any other writer", HarryLiar. You might have, if
I'd have used lines from your work (which I wouldn't), and if you
weren't too cowardly to use your own name (which you'd have to do to
sue).
Good questions, again; you're getting me to think more deeply. Problem >>>>> is, I just looked at the time and I have to go. Thank you for the
conversation; I find you more interesting to talk to than all but a few >>>>> humans.
George Dance's "trusted (AI) source" didn't give attribution and
certainly didn't mean that George Dance is interesting:
You're confused, NastyGoon, "I find you more interesting to talk to than >>> most humans" was something I said to the AI.
I'm so happy that you've finally found someone who can stand you,
George. You and AI were made for each other.
The AI is certainly more interesting to discuss things with than you, HarryLiar. I hope you're not too jealous.
Chat GPT: "In Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 2, Episode 3,
"Elementary, Dear Data" (Season 2, Episode 3), Data tells Geordi:
'I find you more interesting to talk to than most humans.'"
I don't watch that show, or any TV really. My wife does, so I might have >>> heard it. Do you think my saying it to an AI makes me a "plagiarist"?
Do you think that you're a crew member of the U.S.S. Enterprise?
No, HarryLiar. What a silly question!
"Glad I could dig into the good stuff with you — your take on poetry’s
got real meat to it. I’ll take 'more interesting than most humans' as >>>>> high praise. Catch you later when time’s not racing you out the door. >>>>> Enjoyed this."
Or "someone" might call it plagiarism.
Yes, it looks like you would.
Well... you did try to pretend that the bot was some mysterious friend
of yours.
No; I'll have to flag that as a Lying Michael lie. I did not say
anything to give you that idea. I did deny that it was my wife or
daughter, when you claimed to "prove" that logically.
BTW, my guess that your "friend" was a search engine turned out to be
pretty close.
If you think an AI is "pretty close" to a search engine, that's your
problem.
What I said about plagiarism - that you'd call an unattributed line in a >>> poem "plagiarism" - was based on verifiable facts. You've done it in the >>> past, and you've done it since, right in the thread that you're bitching >>> about me "shooting [my] mouth off' in."
Lie.
Now that's another Lying Michael lie. NastyGoon has said that very
thing. You're welcome to check that thread for yourself.
You titled your thread "NancyGene Lifts a line." Your comment in the
post has to be seen in context to the title of the tread you started for
it. No matter how you try to tweak it (dirty little coward that you
are), one can only read it as having been intended to support the
accusation you'd made in the thread's title.
Of course I thought NastyGoon lifted a line, so that's what I said. That wasn't what you claimed I'd said, though. You dishonestly claimed that
I'd accused NastyGoon of plagiarism - and then you used that lie of
yours to recruit NastyGoon onto aapc to give you backup for your
trolling.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:19:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 20:48:21 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 16:04:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:16:56 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:11:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
"Do you think Barrett would’ve minded, or would he have grinned at the >>>>>> nod? And how do you decide when a source like him is fair game versus, >>>>>> say, a contemporary poet?"
Syd Barrett would have sued George Dance's ass.
NastyGoon, are you claiming to be in conversation with dead people like >>>> Syd Barrett?
Any other writer would have sued you, George. Why not Syd Barrett?
You can't speak for "any other writer", HarryLiar. You might have, if
I'd have used lines from your work (which I wouldn't), and if you
weren't too cowardly to use your own name (which you'd have to do to
sue).
I just called George a coward, so now George is calling me a coward.
Butthurt much, George?
You're confused, NastyGoon, "I find you more interesting to talk to than >>>> most humans" was something I said to the AI.
I'm so happy that you've finally found someone who can stand you,
George. You and AI were made for each other.
The AI is certainly more interesting to discuss things with than you,
HarryLiar. I hope you're not too jealous.
Then do the world a favor and spend the rest of your day conversing with
your AI bot in private.
Do you think that you're a crew member of the U.S.S. Enterprise?
No, HarryLiar. What a silly question!
It's not silly at all, George. You've been demonstrating signs of
dementia, of late. Delusions and hallucinations are known to be among
its possible symptoms.
BTW: Was Kirk's original shirt Gold or Avocado?
Well... you did try to pretend that the bot was some mysterious friend
of yours.
No; I'll have to flag that as a Lying Michael lie. I did not say
anything to give you that idea. I did deny that it was my wife or
daughter, when you claimed to "prove" that logically.
Once again, I need to remind you that it is extremely simple to open up another copy of this thread in a separate tab.
Here is your opening line from this thread:
"So I did. I began with NastyGoon's claim, and what follows is the conversation we had from it. (His comments are the ones in quotation
marks,"
Note that you've claimed to have a "conversation," and referred to the
AI as having a gender ("his").
Which, again, raises the age old question of "Why do you lie so much, D[a]nce?"
BTW, my guess that your "friend" was a search engine turned out to be
pretty close.
If you think an AI is "pretty close" to a search engine, that's your
problem.
They are close in that both are computer programs -- not human beings.
What I said about plagiarism - that you'd call an unattributed line in a >>>> poem "plagiarism" - was based on verifiable facts. You've done it in the >>>> past, and you've done it since, right in the thread that you're bitching >>>> about me "shooting [my] mouth off' in."
Lie.
Now that's another Lying Michael lie. NastyGoon has said that very
thing. You're welcome to check that thread for yourself.
Since you've never rephrased *anything* that either NancyGene or I have
said in the past, I have no reason to think you'd start doing so now.
Using even one line fromMessage-ID: <91e5f4498470992ee185b7d578a10457@www.novabbs.com>
another's work, without attribution, is plagiarism. It is plagiarism
because it is not one's own work.
You titled your thread "NancyGene Lifts a line." Your comment in the
post has to be seen in context to the title of the tread you started for >>> it. No matter how you try to tweak it (dirty little coward that you
are), one can only read it as having been intended to support the
accusation you'd made in the thread's title.
Of course I thought NastyGoon lifted a line, so that's what I said. That
wasn't what you claimed I'd said, though. You dishonestly claimed that
I'd accused NastyGoon of plagiarism - and then you used that lie of
yours to recruit NastyGoon onto aapc to give you backup for your
trolling.
How is lifting a line not plagiarism?
Why do you lie such much, George?
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:02:50 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:19:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 20:48:21 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 16:04:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:16:56 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:11:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
"Do you think Barrett would’ve minded, or would he have grinned at the
nod? And how do you decide when a source like him is fair game versus, >>>>>>> say, a contemporary poet?"
Syd Barrett would have sued George Dance's ass.
NastyGoon, are you claiming to be in conversation with dead people like >>>>> Syd Barrett?
Any other writer would have sued you, George. Why not Syd Barrett?
You can't speak for "any other writer", HarryLiar. You might have, if
I'd have used lines from your work (which I wouldn't), and if you
weren't too cowardly to use your own name (which you'd have to do to
sue).
I just called George a coward, so now George is calling me a coward.
You are too cowardly to use your own name; what you called me has
nothing to do with it.
Butthurt much, George?
Once again: what you call me has nothing to do with whether you're a
coward or not.
You're confused, NastyGoon, "I find you more interesting to talk to than >>>>> most humans" was something I said to the AI.
I'm so happy that you've finally found someone who can stand you,
George. You and AI were made for each other.
The AI is certainly more interesting to discuss things with than you,
HarryLiar. I hope you're not too jealous.
Then do the world a favor and spend the rest of your day conversing with
your AI bot in private.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not leaving. If you don't like that,
you can always go back to your facebook group; and take your NastyGoon
with you, please.
Do you think that you're a crew member of the U.S.S. Enterprise?
No, HarryLiar. What a silly question!
It's not silly at all, George. You've been demonstrating signs of
dementia, of late. Delusions and hallucinations are known to be among
its possible symptoms.
I'm not the one here who thinks he's a psychologist, HarryLiar. That's
one of your delusions.
BTW: Was Kirk's original shirt Gold or Avocado?
I think it was gold, but I'm happy to listen to your explanation of why
you thought it might be avocado. (You don't need to capitalize colours,
BTW; this isn't Penny or Penny's Hat.)
Well... you did try to pretend that the bot was some mysterious friend >>>> of yours.
No; I'll have to flag that as a Lying Michael lie. I did not say
anything to give you that idea. I did deny that it was my wife or
daughter, when you claimed to "prove" that logically.
Once again, I need to remind you that it is extremely simple to open up
another copy of this thread in a separate tab.
Here is your opening line from this thread:
"So I did. I began with NastyGoon's claim, and what follows is the
conversation we had from it. (His comments are the ones in quotation
marks,"
Note that you've claimed to have a "conversation," and referred to the
AI as having a gender ("his").
We did have a conversation; and I can use whatever pronoun I want for an
AI. Neither implies that I was talking to a human "friend".
You constantly leap to conclusions like that; no wonder you get accused
of lying and misrepresenting so much.
Which, again, raises the age old question of "Why do you lie so much,
D[a]nce?"
BTW, my guess that your "friend" was a search engine turned out to be
pretty close.
If you think an AI is "pretty close" to a search engine, that's your
problem.
They are close in that both are computer programs -- not human beings.
Lying Michael: you not only guessed, but falsely pretended to prove,
that my "trusted source" (not "friend" - that's just another word you're pretending I'd said) was my wife or my daughter - who are human beings.
Which wasn't close at all.
What I said about plagiarism - that you'd call an unattributed line in a >>>>> poem "plagiarism" - was based on verifiable facts. You've done it in the >>>>> past, and you've done it since, right in the thread that you're bitching >>>>> about me "shooting [my] mouth off' in."
Lie.
Now that's another Lying Michael lie. NastyGoon has said that very
thing. You're welcome to check that thread for yourself.
Since you've never rephrased *anything* that either NancyGene or I have
said in the past, I have no reason to think you'd start doing so now.
Fortunately there's no need to, since I quoted NastyGoon in this thread saying that very thing:
Using even one line fromMessage-ID: <91e5f4498470992ee185b7d578a10457@www.novabbs.com>
another's work, without attribution, is plagiarism. It is plagiarism
because it is not one's own work.
You titled your thread "NancyGene Lifts a line." Your comment in the
post has to be seen in context to the title of the tread you started for >>>> it. No matter how you try to tweak it (dirty little coward that you
are), one can only read it as having been intended to support the
accusation you'd made in the thread's title.
Of course I thought NastyGoon lifted a line, so that's what I said. That >>> wasn't what you claimed I'd said, though. You dishonestly claimed that
I'd accused NastyGoon of plagiarism - and then you used that lie of
yours to recruit NastyGoon onto aapc to give you backup for your
trolling.
How is lifting a line not plagiarism?
I'd suggest you read this fucking thread, Peabrain; that's what the rest
of us have been discussing in it.
Why do you lie such much, George?
Why do you project so much, HarryLiar?
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 23:21:41 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:02:50 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:19:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 20:48:21 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 16:04:24 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:16:56 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:11:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
"Do you think Barrett would’ve minded, or would he have grinned at the
nod? And how do you decide when a source like him is fair game versus, >>>>>>>> say, a contemporary poet?"
Syd Barrett would have sued George Dance's ass.
NastyGoon, are you claiming to be in conversation with dead people like >>>>>> Syd Barrett?
Any other writer would have sued you, George. Why not Syd Barrett?
You can't speak for "any other writer", HarryLiar. You might have, if
I'd have used lines from your work (which I wouldn't), and if you
weren't too cowardly to use your own name (which you'd have to do to
sue).
I just called George a coward, so now George is calling me a coward.
You are too cowardly to use your own name; what you called me has
nothing to do with it.
Butthurt much, George?
Once again: what you call me has nothing to do with whether you're a
coward or not.
You're confused, NastyGoon, "I find you more interesting to talk to than >>>>>> most humans" was something I said to the AI.
I'm so happy that you've finally found someone who can stand you,
George. You and AI were made for each other.
The AI is certainly more interesting to discuss things with than you,
HarryLiar. I hope you're not too jealous.
Then do the world a favor and spend the rest of your day conversing with >>> your AI bot in private.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not leaving. If you don't like that,
you can always go back to your facebook group; and take your NastyGoon
with you, please.
Do you think that you're a crew member of the U.S.S. Enterprise?
No, HarryLiar. What a silly question!
It's not silly at all, George. You've been demonstrating signs of
dementia, of late. Delusions and hallucinations are known to be among
its possible symptoms.
I'm not the one here who thinks he's a psychologist, HarryLiar. That's
one of your delusions.
BTW: Was Kirk's original shirt Gold or Avocado?
I think it was gold, but I'm happy to listen to your explanation of why
you thought it might be avocado. (You don't need to capitalize colours,
BTW; this isn't Penny or Penny's Hat.)
Well... you did try to pretend that the bot was some mysterious friend >>>>> of yours.
No; I'll have to flag that as a Lying Michael lie. I did not say
anything to give you that idea. I did deny that it was my wife or
daughter, when you claimed to "prove" that logically.
Once again, I need to remind you that it is extremely simple to open up
another copy of this thread in a separate tab.
Here is your opening line from this thread:
"So I did. I began with NastyGoon's claim, and what follows is the
conversation we had from it. (His comments are the ones in quotation
marks,"
Note that you've claimed to have a "conversation," and referred to the
AI as having a gender ("his").
We did have a conversation; and I can use whatever pronoun I want for an
AI. Neither implies that I was talking to a human "friend".
You constantly leap to conclusions like that; no wonder you get accused
of lying and misrepresenting so much.
Which, again, raises the age old question of "Why do you lie so much,
D[a]nce?"
BTW, my guess that your "friend" was a search engine turned out to be >>>>> pretty close.
If you think an AI is "pretty close" to a search engine, that's your
problem.
They are close in that both are computer programs -- not human beings.
Lying Michael: you not only guessed, but falsely pretended to prove,
that my "trusted source" (not "friend" - that's just another word you're
pretending I'd said) was my wife or my daughter - who are human beings.
Which wasn't close at all.
What I said about plagiarism - that you'd call an unattributed line in a >>>>>> poem "plagiarism" - was based on verifiable facts. You've done it in the >>>>>> past, and you've done it since, right in the thread that you're bitching >>>>>> about me "shooting [my] mouth off' in."
Lie.
Now that's another Lying Michael lie. NastyGoon has said that very
thing. You're welcome to check that thread for yourself.
Since you've never rephrased *anything* that either NancyGene or I have
said in the past, I have no reason to think you'd start doing so now.
Fortunately there's no need to, since I quoted NastyGoon in this thread
saying that very thing:
Using even one line fromMessage-ID: <91e5f4498470992ee185b7d578a10457@www.novabbs.com>
another's work, without attribution, is plagiarism. It is plagiarism
because it is not one's own work.
That's why you said "they" would probably call it plagiarism.
Again, George Dance was simply making an observation not an accusation.
You titled your thread "NancyGene Lifts a line." Your comment in the >>>>> post has to be seen in context to the title of the tread you started for >>>>> it. No matter how you try to tweak it (dirty little coward that you >>>>> are), one can only read it as having been intended to support the
accusation you'd made in the thread's title.
Of course I thought NastyGoon lifted a line, so that's what I said. That >>>> wasn't what you claimed I'd said, though. You dishonestly claimed that >>>> I'd accused NastyGoon of plagiarism - and then you used that lie of
yours to recruit NastyGoon onto aapc to give you backup for your
trolling.
Obviously no such accusations were made.
George Dance simply observed the similarities between the two lines.
How is lifting a line not plagiarism?
I'd suggest you read this fucking thread, Peabrain; that's what the rest
of us have been discussing in it.
Why do you lie such much, George?
Why do you project so much, HarryLiar?
Because he's really Michael Pendragon and that's what Pendragon does?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:01:18 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,420 |
| Posted today: | 1 |