Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
George J. Dance wrote:
Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo' Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
Quite interesting... would like to hear the back story...!
On 2022-09-14 10:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:02:56 PM UTC-4,george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
george...@yahoo.ca wrote:On 2022-09-14 3:50 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:43:35 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
On 2022-09-13 7:59 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4,
that. So,I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done
and wasfirst: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a chapbook
was beingspamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he
a copybegged and flamed to stop.
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this poem as
(in thoseof his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his spam
end todays, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, using
google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put an
been a bitthem, and a few people thanked me for it.
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which you may
remember me talking about posting into aapc this year. That's
to thederailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, due
Will Donkey's spam.ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas" making it
suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right up front,
that it's a comic poem.
Pity you couldn't have a adopted a similar tack with regard to
thanI've never seen any evidence of Will advertising his book on other
Like hell it does. Posting, or even "spamming", to one group (that one'sgroups he was already posting on.
That's good, because I was referring to *this* group.
You'll note that you'd said: "spamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he was being
begged and flamed to stop."
That fits Will Donkey and AAPC to a "T".
already on) is not spamming "all over Usenet", and you know it.
I don't know any such thing, George. You haven't defined what "allover usenet" means. How many usenet groups constitute "all over"?>
Oh, you want to start (over) with definitions. Great idea. Let's start
with the definition of "spamming usenet". The Current Usenet spam
thresholds and guidelines (posted here in March define it as posting a "substantively identical" message to an "excessive" number of groups.
The latter is measured by the Breidbart Index, or BI (the sum of the
square roots of the number of groups to which each post was made).
For example, 2 posts of the same message (one crossposted to 9 groups,
and one to 4) have a BI of 5, while posting it separately to the same 13 groups would have a BI of 13. A message with a BI of more than 20 in a
45-day period is cancellable spam.
As for "all over usenet", I'll stick with the standard usage:
"1: over the whole extent
decorated all over with a flower pattern
2: EVERYWHERE
looked all over for the book" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allover
Here's the data: https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=%22Ponder%20Awhile%22
If you have trouble with the definitions, you're of course welcome to
offer your own.
How many usenet groups has Will Donkey spammed it to?
Since you haven't shown yet that Will has done any spamming (exceeded
the BI), you're begging the question.
I fully suspect that he's spammed it to a dozen or more usenet groups.
And whether he's spammed it to groups that he's already a member ofis irrelevant. You did not specify that Mohit spammed it to groups
where he wasn't already a member. You only said that he spammed it to
groups after they'd begged him to stop.
I don't think it's irrelevant to point it out at all. There's a
difference between promoting something on the groups you already post
to, and posting about it on groups you've never posted to before or
since. As I said, though, it is a side issue; once you've shown that
Will did any "spamming," we can talk about that.
The Donkey has spammed his book to AAPC dozens of times, even thoughhe's been asked to stop, told to stop, and reported to Google for spamming.
Oh, I'm sure Will has posted more than 25 OPs on his book to aapc in the
past 3 years. If he's posted the same message to aapc more than 20 times
in 45 days, that could be considered spamming, but I doubt he has. (You cannot count different posts with the same message in the backthread, of course; or different messages with the same sig line.)
the case.I doubt that you actually have any,
but I'll point out the onus is on you to show some if you expect to be
believed.
I have ample proof to support what I'd actually claimed.
Oh... that's right... you published it.I sure did. That's why your libelling of Will in this respect concerns
me, because you're also libelling me.
Actually, I would be "libeling" you (sp) -- if such were, in fact,
"libel verb
li·bel | ˈlī-bəl
libeled or libelled; libeling or libelling ˈlī-b(ə-)liŋ "
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libelling
Next time check it out the spelling of a word before trying a spelling
lame. Just a thought.
Doubling "l"s is tres passé.
his book, and thatHowever since I'd only implied that 1) Will spams AAPC with ads for
No, you "implied" that Will was "spamming all over usenet" just like
the kook who inspired my poem.
As previously noted, I highly doubt that the Donkey has limited hisspam to one group.
Let's see... an archive search for "selected poems 1976-2019" turnsup 6,576 results. That's a shipload of spam by anyone's standards.
Oh, indeed: 6,576 copies of the same post is a lot of posts. But you
haven't shown that all 6,000+ are substantively the same, or even looked
at the content. Some of them are replies by Will in threads where the
book is being discussed; some are replies by him where the book is
mentioned only in the backthread; in some he uses the book title and
url as a sig line; and some weren't even written by him.
The archives also show that he's spammed it to alt.poetry,alt.arts.poetry, rec.arts.poems, rec.music.beatles, -- and that's just
from the 240 most recent posts.
According to my own searches, since October 2019 (when the book came out):
- Will has made 7 posts to rec.arts.poems containing the phrase
"selected poems": https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/search?q=%22selected%20poems%22%20author%3Awill%20author%3Adockery&hl=en
- He made one post to alt.poetry containing the words "selected poems"
in that time: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.poetry/search?q=selected%20poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- He also made one post using those words on rec.music.beatles (not the
same post as the one to a.p): https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.beatles/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- and he has made zero posts to alt.arts.poetry that used that phrase
since 2015: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
Your search probably captured the one post I made to aap that used the phrase:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems )
You may have learned something. (Two, counting my advice on making
spelling lames.)
2) you were the schnook who published it for him, both of my claims are
readily substantiated.
Of course I published Will's book. Stop whinging about it.
Need I remind you that you are the one claiming to have been libeled(i.e., whining).
You made a false accusation with malicious intent -- since we're on definitions today, I'll remind you that's the definition of libel.
You have yet to show any proof to back up your statement.
Michael, we're not in court. We're on aapc (where, according to you, if
you accuse someone of making a false accusation you don't have to prove
it, remember?).
In fact, your *only* argument was that your original statement aboutMohit (which I subsequently applied to Will) implied that he'd spam
posted to an undisclosed number of usenet groups, whereas Will had only spammed a single group.
No, I did not argue that Will had "only spammed a single group".
While that would hardly count for libel even if it were true, thatsimply is not the case. Will spammed it to at least 5 usenet groups (in
a total of 6,576 posts).
You sir, stand corrected.
You have shown that there have been a lot of posts about the book on
aapc. That's all you've shown so far.
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-14 10:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:02:56 PM UTC-4,george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
george...@yahoo.ca wrote:On 2022-09-14 3:50 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:43:35 PM UTC-4,
george...@yahoo.ca wrote:On 2022-09-13 7:59 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4,
that. So,I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done
chapbook and wasfirst: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a
was beingspamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he
as a copybegged and flamed to stop.
;
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this poem
(in thoseof his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his spam
end todays, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, using >> >>>>>> google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put an
you maythem, and a few people thanked me for it.
;
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which
been a bitremember me talking about posting into aapc this year. That's
due to thederailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
;
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project,
making itongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas"
up front,suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right
Will Donkey's spam.that it's a comic poem.;
Pity you couldn't have a adopted a similar tack with regard to
other than;I've never seen any evidence of Will advertising his book on
usenet, including groups where he was beinggroups he was already posting on.;
That's good, because I was referring to *this* group.
;
You'll note that you'd said: "spamming ads for it all over
one'sbegged and flamed to stop."Like hell it does. Posting, or even "spamming", to one group (that
;
That fits Will Donkey and AAPC to a "T".
over usenet" means. How many usenet groups constitute "all over"?>already on) is not spamming "all over Usenet", and you know it.;
I don't know any such thing, George. You haven't defined what "all
Oh, you want to start (over) with definitions. Great idea. Let's start
with the definition of "spamming usenet". The Current Usenet spam
thresholds and guidelines (posted here in March define it as posting a
"substantively identical" message to an "excessive" number of groups.
The latter is measured by the Breidbart Index, or BI (the sum of the
square roots of the number of groups to which each post was made).
For example, 2 posts of the same message (one crossposted to 9 groups,
and one to 4) have a BI of 5, while posting it separately to the same
13 groups would have a BI of 13. A message with a BI of more than 20
in a 45-day period is cancellable spam.
As for "all over usenet", I'll stick with the standard usage:
"1: over the whole extent
decorated all over with a flower pattern
2: EVERYWHERE
looked all over for the book"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allover
Here's the data:
https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=%22Ponder%20Awhile%22
If you have trouble with the definitions, you're of course welcome to
offer your own.
How many usenet groups has Will Donkey spammed it to?
Since you haven't shown yet that Will has done any spamming (exceeded
the BI), you're begging the question.
I fully suspect that he's spammed it to a dozen or more usenet groups.
And whether he's spammed it to groups that he's already a member ofis irrelevant. You did not specify that Mohit spammed it to groups
where he wasn't already a member. You only said that he spammed it to
groups after they'd begged him to stop.
I don't think it's irrelevant to point it out at all. There's a
difference between promoting something on the groups you already post
to, and posting about it on groups you've never posted to before or
since. As I said, though, it is a side issue; once you've shown that
Will did any "spamming," we can talk about that.
The Donkey has spammed his book to AAPC dozens of times, eventhough he's been asked to stop, told to stop, and reported to Google
for spamming.
Oh, I'm sure Will has posted more than 25 OPs on his book to aapc in
the past 3 years. If he's posted the same message to aapc more than 20
times in 45 days, that could be considered spamming, but I doubt he
has. (You cannot count different posts with the same message in the
backthread, of course; or different messages with the same sig line.)
;to be
I doubt that you actually have any,
but I'll point out the onus is on you to show some if you expect
concerns;believed.;
I have ample proof to support what I'd actually claimed.
;
Oh... that's right... you published it.I sure did. That's why your libelling of Will in this respect
fact, the case.me, because you're also libelling me.;
Actually, I would be "libeling" you (sp) -- if such were, in
ˈlī-b(ə-)liŋ ""libel verb
li·bel | ˈlī-bəl >> libeled or libelled; libeling or libelling
spellinghttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libelling
;
Next time check it out the spelling of a word before trying a
lame. Just a thought.;
Doubling "l"s is tres passé.
for his book, and thatHowever since I'd only implied that 1) Will spams AAPC with ads
No, you "implied" that Will was "spamming all over usenet" just like
the kook who inspired my poem.
As previously noted, I highly doubt that the Donkey has limited hisspam to one group.
Let's see... an archive search for "selected poems 1976-2019" turnsup 6,576 results. That's a shipload of spam by anyone's standards.
Oh, indeed: 6,576 copies of the same post is a lot of posts. But you
haven't shown that all 6,000+ are substantively the same, or even
looked at the content. Some of them are replies by Will in threads
where the book is being discussed; some are replies by him where the
book is mentioned only in the backthread; in some he uses the book
title and url as a sig line; and some weren't even written by him.
The archives also show that he's spammed it to alt.poetry,alt.arts.poetry, rec.arts.poems, rec.music.beatles, -- and that's
just from the 240 most recent posts.
According to my own searches, since October 2019 (when the book came
out):
- Will has made 7 posts to rec.arts.poems containing the phrase
"selected poems":
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/search?q=%22selected%20poems%22%20author%3Awill%20author%3Adockery&hl=en
- He made one post to alt.poetry containing the words "selected poems"
in that time:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.poetry/search?q=selected%20poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- He also made one post using those words on rec.music.beatles (not
the same post as the one to a.p):
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.beatles/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- and he has made zero posts to alt.arts.poetry that used that phrase
since 2015:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
Your search probably captured the one post I made to aap that used the
phrase:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems )
claims areYou may have learned something. (Two, counting my advice on making
spelling lames.)
2) you were the schnook who published it for him, both of my
libeled (i.e., whining).readily substantiated.;
;Of course I published Will's book. Stop whinging about it.
Need I remind you that you are the one claiming to have been
You made a false accusation with malicious intent -- since we're on
definitions today, I'll remind you that's the definition of libel.
You have yet to show any proof to back up your statement.
Michael, we're not in court. We're on aapc (where, according to you,
if you accuse someone of making a false accusation you don't have to
prove it, remember?).
In fact, your *only* argument was that your original statementabout Mohit (which I subsequently applied to Will) implied that he'd
spam posted to an undisclosed number of usenet groups, whereas Will
had only spammed a single group.
No, I did not argue that Will had "only spammed a single group".
While that would hardly count for libel even if it were true, thatsimply is not the case. Will spammed it to at least 5 usenet groups
(in a total of 6,576 posts).
You sir, stand corrected.
You have shown that there have been a lot of posts about the book on
aapc. That's all you've shown so far.
Well put, George Dance
Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and setting
the record straight.
HTH and HAND.
On 2022-09-17 2:30 a.m., W.Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-14 10:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:02:56 PM UTC-4,george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
that. So,I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done
chapbook and wasfirst: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a
was beingspamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he
as a copybegged and flamed to stop.
;
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this poem
(in thoseof his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his spam
end todays, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, using >>> >>>>>> google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put an
you maythem, and a few people thanked me for it.
;
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which
been a bitremember me talking about posting into aapc this year. That's
due to thederailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
;
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project,
making itongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas"
up front,suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right
Will Donkey's spam.that it's a comic poem.;
Pity you couldn't have a adopted a similar tack with regard to
other than;I've never seen any evidence of Will advertising his book on
usenet, including groups where he was beinggroups he was already posting on.;
That's good, because I was referring to *this* group.
;
You'll note that you'd said: "spamming ads for it all over
one'sbegged and flamed to stop."Like hell it does. Posting, or even "spamming", to one group (that
;
That fits Will Donkey and AAPC to a "T".
already on) is not spamming "all over Usenet", and you know it.;
I don't know any such thing, George. You haven't defined what "all >>> over usenet" means. How many usenet groups constitute "all over"?>
Oh, you want to start (over) with definitions. Great idea. Let's start
with the definition of "spamming usenet". The Current Usenet spam
thresholds and guidelines (posted here in March define it as posting a
"substantively identical" message to an "excessive" number of groups.
The latter is measured by the Breidbart Index, or BI (the sum of the
square roots of the number of groups to which each post was made).
For example, 2 posts of the same message (one crossposted to 9 groups,
and one to 4) have a BI of 5, while posting it separately to the same
13 groups would have a BI of 13. A message with a BI of more than 20
in a 45-day period is cancellable spam.
As for "all over usenet", I'll stick with the standard usage:
"1: over the whole extent
decorated all over with a flower pattern
2: EVERYWHERE
looked all over for the book"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allover
Here's the data:
https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=%22Ponder%20Awhile%22
If you have trouble with the definitions, you're of course welcome to
offer your own.
How many usenet groups has Will Donkey spammed it to?
Since you haven't shown yet that Will has done any spamming (exceeded
the BI), you're begging the question.
I fully suspect that he's spammed it to a dozen or more usenet groups. >>is irrelevant. You did not specify that Mohit spammed it to groups
And whether he's spammed it to groups that he's already a member of
where he wasn't already a member. You only said that he spammed it to
groups after they'd begged him to stop.
I don't think it's irrelevant to point it out at all. There's a
difference between promoting something on the groups you already post
to, and posting about it on groups you've never posted to before or
since. As I said, though, it is a side issue; once you've shown that
Will did any "spamming," we can talk about that.
The Donkey has spammed his book to AAPC dozens of times, eventhough he's been asked to stop, told to stop, and reported to Google
for spamming.
Oh, I'm sure Will has posted more than 25 OPs on his book to aapc in
the past 3 years. If he's posted the same message to aapc more than 20
times in 45 days, that could be considered spamming, but I doubt he
has. (You cannot count different posts with the same message in the
backthread, of course; or different messages with the same sig line.)
;to be
I doubt that you actually have any,
but I'll point out the onus is on you to show some if you expect
concerns;believed.;
I have ample proof to support what I'd actually claimed.
;
Oh... that's right... you published it.I sure did. That's why your libelling of Will in this respect
fact, the case.me, because you're also libelling me.;
Actually, I would be "libeling" you (sp) -- if such were, in
ˈlī-b(ə-)liŋ ""libel verb
li·bel | ˈlī-bəl >> libeled or libelled; libeling or libelling
spellinghttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libelling
;
Next time check it out the spelling of a word before trying a
lame. Just a thought.;
Doubling "l"s is tres passé.
for his book, and thatHowever since I'd only implied that 1) Will spams AAPC with ads
No, you "implied" that Will was "spamming all over usenet" just like >>> >> the kook who inspired my poem.
As previously noted, I highly doubt that the Donkey has limited hisspam to one group.
Let's see... an archive search for "selected poems 1976-2019" turnsup 6,576 results. That's a shipload of spam by anyone's standards.
Oh, indeed: 6,576 copies of the same post is a lot of posts. But you
haven't shown that all 6,000+ are substantively the same, or even
looked at the content. Some of them are replies by Will in threads
where the book is being discussed; some are replies by him where the
book is mentioned only in the backthread; in some he uses the book
title and url as a sig line; and some weren't even written by him.
The archives also show that he's spammed it to alt.poetry,alt.arts.poetry, rec.arts.poems, rec.music.beatles, -- and that's
just from the 240 most recent posts.
According to my own searches, since October 2019 (when the book came
out):
- Will has made 7 posts to rec.arts.poems containing the phrase
"selected poems":
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/search?q=%22selected%20poems%22%20author%3Awill%20author%3Adockery&hl=en
- He made one post to alt.poetry containing the words "selected poems"
in that time:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.poetry/search?q=selected%20poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- He also made one post using those words on rec.music.beatles (not
the same post as the one to a.p):
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.beatles/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- and he has made zero posts to alt.arts.poetry that used that phrase
since 2015:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
Your search probably captured the one post I made to aap that used the
phrase:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems )
claims areYou may have learned something. (Two, counting my advice on making
spelling lames.)
2) you were the schnook who published it for him, both of my
libeled (i.e., whining).readily substantiated.;
;Of course I published Will's book. Stop whinging about it.
Need I remind you that you are the one claiming to have been
You made a false accusation with malicious intent -- since we're on
definitions today, I'll remind you that's the definition of libel.
You have yet to show any proof to back up your statement.
Michael, we're not in court. We're on aapc (where, according to you,
if you accuse someone of making a false accusation you don't have to
prove it, remember?).
In fact, your *only* argument was that your original statementabout Mohit (which I subsequently applied to Will) implied that he'd
spam posted to an undisclosed number of usenet groups, whereas Will
had only spammed a single group.
No, I did not argue that Will had "only spammed a single group".
While that would hardly count for libel even if it were true, thatsimply is not the case. Will spammed it to at least 5 usenet groups
(in a total of 6,576 posts).
You sir, stand corrected.
You have shown that there have been a lot of posts about the book on
aapc. That's all you've shown so far.
Well put, George Dance
Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and setting
the record straight.
HTH and HAND.
I hope it's enough to put the "spamming" nonsense to rest and get back
to the poem.
PT is a wicked, intentionally exaggerated, copy of the poor guy's style;
but it isn't the only one I wrote. My Martian poem, "Religions", was
based on one of his poems with the same name.
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-17 2:30 a.m., W.Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-14 10:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:02:56 PM UTC-4,george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
that. So,I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done
chapbook and wasfirst: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a
he was beingspamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where
poem as a copybegged and flamed to stop.
;
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this
spam (in thoseof his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his
usingdays, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group,
an end togoogle), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put
you maythem, and a few people thanked me for it.
;
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which
That's been a bitremember me talking about posting into aapc this year.
due to thederailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
;
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project,
making itongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas"
up front,suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right
to Will Donkey's spam.that it's a comic poem.;
Pity you couldn't have a adopted a similar tack with regard
other than;I've never seen any evidence of Will advertising his book on
usenet, including groups where he was beinggroups he was already posting on.;
That's good, because I was referring to *this* group.
;
You'll note that you'd said: "spamming ads for it all over
(that one'sbegged and flamed to stop."Like hell it does. Posting, or even "spamming", to one group
;
That fits Will Donkey and AAPC to a "T".
"all over usenet" means. How many usenet groups constitute "allalready on) is not spamming "all over Usenet", and you know it.;
I don't know any such thing, George. You haven't defined what
over"?>
Oh, you want to start (over) with definitions. Great idea. Let's
start with the definition of "spamming usenet". The Current Usenet
spam thresholds and guidelines (posted here in March define it as
posting a "substantively identical" message to an "excessive" number
of groups. The latter is measured by the Breidbart Index, or BI (the
sum of the square roots of the number of groups to which each post
was made).
For example, 2 posts of the same message (one crossposted to 9
groups, and one to 4) have a BI of 5, while posting it separately to
the same 13 groups would have a BI of 13. A message with a BI of
more than 20 in a 45-day period is cancellable spam.
As for "all over usenet", I'll stick with the standard usage:
"1: over the whole extent
decorated all over with a flower pattern
2: EVERYWHERE
looked all over for the book"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allover
Here's the data:
https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=%22Ponder%20Awhile%22
If you have trouble with the definitions, you're of course welcome
to offer your own.
How many usenet groups has Will Donkey spammed it to?
Since you haven't shown yet that Will has done any spamming
(exceeded the BI), you're begging the question.
I fully suspect that he's spammed it to a dozen or more usenetgroups.
And whether he's spammed it to groups that he's already a memberof is irrelevant. You did not specify that Mohit spammed it to
groups where he wasn't already a member. You only said that he
spammed it to groups after they'd begged him to stop.
I don't think it's irrelevant to point it out at all. There's a
difference between promoting something on the groups you already
post to, and posting about it on groups you've never posted to
before or since. As I said, though, it is a side issue; once you've
shown that Will did any "spamming," we can talk about that.
The Donkey has spammed his book to AAPC dozens of times, eventhough he's been asked to stop, told to stop, and reported to Google
for spamming.
Oh, I'm sure Will has posted more than 25 OPs on his book to aapc in
the past 3 years. If he's posted the same message to aapc more than
20 times in 45 days, that could be considered spamming, but I doubt
he has. (You cannot count different posts with the same message in
the backthread, of course; or different messages with the same sig
line.)
;expect to be
I doubt that you actually have any,
but I'll point out the onus is on you to show some if you
concerns;believed.;
I have ample proof to support what I'd actually claimed.
;
Oh... that's right... you published it.I sure did. That's why your libelling of Will in this respect
fact, the case.me, because you're also libelling me.;
Actually, I would be "libeling" you (sp) -- if such were, in
libelling ˈlī-b(ə-)liŋ ""libel verb
li·bel | ˈlī-bəl >> libeled or libelled; libeling or
spellinghttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libelling
;
Next time check it out the spelling of a word before trying a
lame. Just a thought.;
Doubling "l"s is tres passé.
for his book, and thatHowever since I'd only implied that 1) Will spams AAPC with ads
likeNo, you "implied" that Will was "spamming all over usenet" just
the kook who inspired my poem.
As previously noted, I highly doubt that the Donkey has limitedhis spam to one group.
Let's see... an archive search for "selected poems 1976-2019"turns up 6,576 results. That's a shipload of spam by anyone's
standards.
Oh, indeed: 6,576 copies of the same post is a lot of posts. But you
haven't shown that all 6,000+ are substantively the same, or even
looked at the content. Some of them are replies by Will in threads
where the book is being discussed; some are replies by him where the
book is mentioned only in the backthread; in some he uses the book
title and url as a sig line; and some weren't even written by him.
The archives also show that he's spammed it to alt.poetry,alt.arts.poetry, rec.arts.poems, rec.music.beatles, -- and that's
just from the 240 most recent posts.
According to my own searches, since October 2019 (when the book came
out):
- Will has made 7 posts to rec.arts.poems containing the phrase
"selected poems":
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/search?q=%22selected%20poems%22%20author%3Awill%20author%3Adockery&hl=en
- He made one post to alt.poetry containing the words "selected
poems" in that time:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.poetry/search?q=selected%20poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- He also made one post using those words on rec.music.beatles (not
the same post as the one to a.p):
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.beatles/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- and he has made zero posts to alt.arts.poetry that used that
phrase since 2015:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
Your search probably captured the one post I made to aap that used
the phrase:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems ) >>>
claims areYou may have learned something. (Two, counting my advice on making >>>> >> spelling lames.)
2) you were the schnook who published it for him, both of my
libeled (i.e., whining).readily substantiated.;
;Of course I published Will's book. Stop whinging about it.
Need I remind you that you are the one claiming to have been
You made a false accusation with malicious intent -- since we're on
definitions today, I'll remind you that's the definition of libel.
You have yet to show any proof to back up your statement.
Michael, we're not in court. We're on aapc (where, according to you,
if you accuse someone of making a false accusation you don't have to
prove it, remember?).
In fact, your *only* argument was that your original statementabout Mohit (which I subsequently applied to Will) implied that he'd
spam posted to an undisclosed number of usenet groups, whereas Will
had only spammed a single group.
No, I did not argue that Will had "only spammed a single group".
While that would hardly count for libel even if it were true,that simply is not the case. Will spammed it to at least 5 usenet
groups (in a total of 6,576 posts).
You sir, stand corrected.
You have shown that there have been a lot of posts about the book on
aapc. That's all you've shown so far.
Well put, George Dance
Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and
setting the record straight.
HTH and HAND.
I hope it's enough to put the "spamming" nonsense to rest and get back
to the poem.
PT is a wicked, intentionally exaggerated, copy of the poor guy's
style; but it isn't the only one I wrote. My Martian poem,
"Religions", was based on one of his poems with the same name.
Indeed... let us make it so....!
On 2022-09-22 6:39 p.m., Victor H. wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-17 2:30 a.m., W.Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-14 10:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:02:56 PM UTC-4,george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
chapbook and wasI don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done >>>>> that. So,
first: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a
poem as a copyspamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where >>>>> he was being
begged and flamed to stop.
;
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this
spam (in thoseof his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his
That's been a bitdays, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, >>>>> using
google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put >>>>> an end to
them, and a few people thanked me for it.
;
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which >>>>> you may
remember me talking about posting into aapc this year.
making itderailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
;
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, >>>>> due to the
ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas"
to Will Donkey's spam.suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right >>>>> up front,;
that it's a comic poem.
Pity you couldn't have a adopted a similar tack with regard
other than;I've never seen any evidence of Will advertising his book on
usenet, including groups where he was beinggroups he was already posting on.;
That's good, because I was referring to *this* group.
;
You'll note that you'd said: "spamming ads for it all over
(that one'sbegged and flamed to stop."Like hell it does. Posting, or even "spamming", to one group
;
That fits Will Donkey and AAPC to a "T".
"all over usenet" means. How many usenet groups constitute "allalready on) is not spamming "all over Usenet", and you know it. >>>>> >I don't know any such thing, George. You haven't defined what
over"?>
Oh, you want to start (over) with definitions. Great idea. Let's
start with the definition of "spamming usenet". The Current Usenet
spam thresholds and guidelines (posted here in March define it as
posting a "substantively identical" message to an "excessive" number >>>>> of groups. The latter is measured by the Breidbart Index, or BI (the >>>>> sum of the square roots of the number of groups to which each post
was made).
For example, 2 posts of the same message (one crossposted to 9
groups, and one to 4) have a BI of 5, while posting it separately to >>>>> the same 13 groups would have a BI of 13. A message with a BI of
more than 20 in a 45-day period is cancellable spam.
As for "all over usenet", I'll stick with the standard usage:
"1: over the whole extent
decorated all over with a flower pattern
2: EVERYWHERE
looked all over for the book"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allover
Here's the data:
https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=%22Ponder%20Awhile%22 >>>>
If you have trouble with the definitions, you're of course welcome
to offer your own.
How many usenet groups has Will Donkey spammed it to?
Since you haven't shown yet that Will has done any spamming
(exceeded the BI), you're begging the question.
I fully suspect that he's spammed it to a dozen or more usenetgroups.
And whether he's spammed it to groups that he's already a member >>>>> of is irrelevant. You did not specify that Mohit spammed it togroups where he wasn't already a member. You only said that he
spammed it to groups after they'd begged him to stop.
I don't think it's irrelevant to point it out at all. There's a
difference between promoting something on the groups you already
post to, and posting about it on groups you've never posted to
before or since. As I said, though, it is a side issue; once you've
shown that Will did any "spamming," we can talk about that.
The Donkey has spammed his book to AAPC dozens of times, eventhough he's been asked to stop, told to stop, and reported to Google >>>>> for spamming.
Oh, I'm sure Will has posted more than 25 OPs on his book to aapc in >>>>> the past 3 years. If he's posted the same message to aapc more than
20 times in 45 days, that could be considered spamming, but I doubt
he has. (You cannot count different posts with the same message in
the backthread, of course; or different messages with the same sig
line.)
;expect to be
I doubt that you actually have any,
but I'll point out the onus is on you to show some if you
fact, the case.;believed.;
I have ample proof to support what I'd actually claimed.
;
;Oh... that's right... you published it.I sure did. That's why your libelling of Will in this respect >>>>> concerns
me, because you're also libelling me.
Actually, I would be "libeling" you (sp) -- if such were, in
spelling"libel verb
li·bel | ˈlī-bəl >> libeled or libelled; libeling or >>>>> libelling ˈlī-b(ə-)liŋ "
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libelling
;
Next time check it out the spelling of a word before trying a
lame. Just a thought.;
Doubling "l"s is tres passé.
However since I'd only implied that 1) Will spams AAPC with ads >>>>> for his book, and thatNo, you "implied" that Will was "spamming all over usenet" just >>>>> like
the kook who inspired my poem.
As previously noted, I highly doubt that the Donkey has limitedhis spam to one group.
Let's see... an archive search for "selected poems 1976-2019"turns up 6,576 results. That's a shipload of spam by anyone's
standards.
Oh, indeed: 6,576 copies of the same post is a lot of posts. But you >>>>> haven't shown that all 6,000+ are substantively the same, or even
looked at the content. Some of them are replies by Will in threads
where the book is being discussed; some are replies by him where the >>>>> book is mentioned only in the backthread; in some he uses the book >>>>> title and url as a sig line; and some weren't even written by him.
The archives also show that he's spammed it to alt.poetry,alt.arts.poetry, rec.arts.poems, rec.music.beatles, -- and that's
just from the 240 most recent posts.
According to my own searches, since October 2019 (when the book came >>>>> out):
- Will has made 7 posts to rec.arts.poems containing the phrase
"selected poems":
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/search?q=%22selected%20poems%22%20author%3Awill%20author%3Adockery&hl=en
- He made one post to alt.poetry containing the words "selected
poems" in that time:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.poetry/search?q=selected%20poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- He also made one post using those words on rec.music.beatles (not
the same post as the one to a.p):
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.beatles/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- and he has made zero posts to alt.arts.poetry that used that
phrase since 2015:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
Your search probably captured the one post I made to aap that used
the phrase:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems ) >>>>
claims areYou may have learned something. (Two, counting my advice on making >>>>> >> spelling lames.)
2) you were the schnook who published it for him, both of my
libeled (i.e., whining).readily substantiated.;
;Of course I published Will's book. Stop whinging about it.
Need I remind you that you are the one claiming to have been
You made a false accusation with malicious intent -- since we're on
definitions today, I'll remind you that's the definition of libel.
You have yet to show any proof to back up your statement.
Michael, we're not in court. We're on aapc (where, according to you, >>>>> if you accuse someone of making a false accusation you don't have to >>>>> prove it, remember?).
In fact, your *only* argument was that your original statementabout Mohit (which I subsequently applied to Will) implied that he'd >>>>> spam posted to an undisclosed number of usenet groups, whereas Will
had only spammed a single group.
No, I did not argue that Will had "only spammed a single group".
While that would hardly count for libel even if it were true,that simply is not the case. Will spammed it to at least 5 usenet
groups (in a total of 6,576 posts).
You sir, stand corrected.
You have shown that there have been a lot of posts about the book on >>>>> aapc. That's all you've shown so far.
Well put, George Dance
Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and
setting the record straight.
HTH and HAND.
I hope it's enough to put the "spamming" nonsense to rest and get back
to the poem.
PT is a wicked, intentionally exaggerated, copy of the poor guy's
style; but it isn't the only one I wrote. My Martian poem,
"Religions", was based on one of his poems with the same name.
Indeed... let us make it so....!
You want to read "Religions"? Sure; I can find it and repost it (rather
than bump up an old thread). I don't think I've changed anything, except
add "A Martian poem" as a subtitle, but that's reason enough to post a current copy.
On 2022-09-13 3:02 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo' Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
Quite interesting... would like to hear the back story...!
I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done that. So,
first: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a chapbook and was spamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he was being begged and flamed to stop.
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this poem as a copy
of his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his spam (in those days, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, using
google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put an end to
them, and a few people thanked me for it.
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which you may
remember me talking about posting into aapc this year. That's been a bit derailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, due to the ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas" making it
suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right up front,
that it's a comic poem.
On 2022-09-22 6:39 p.m., Victor H. wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-17 2:30 a.m., W.Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-14 10:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:02:56 PM UTC-4,george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
chapbook and wasI don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done >>>>> that. So,
first: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a
poem as a copyspamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where >>>>> he was being
begged and flamed to stop.
;
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this
spam (in thoseof his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his
That's been a bitdays, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, >>>>> using
google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put >>>>> an end to
them, and a few people thanked me for it.
;
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which >>>>> you may
remember me talking about posting into aapc this year.
making itderailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
;
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, >>>>> due to the
ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas"
to Will Donkey's spam.suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right >>>>> up front,;
that it's a comic poem.
Pity you couldn't have a adopted a similar tack with regard
other than;I've never seen any evidence of Will advertising his book on
usenet, including groups where he was beinggroups he was already posting on.;
That's good, because I was referring to *this* group.
;
You'll note that you'd said: "spamming ads for it all over
(that one'sbegged and flamed to stop."Like hell it does. Posting, or even "spamming", to one group
;
That fits Will Donkey and AAPC to a "T".
"all over usenet" means. How many usenet groups constitute "allalready on) is not spamming "all over Usenet", and you know it. >>>>> >I don't know any such thing, George. You haven't defined what
over"?>
Oh, you want to start (over) with definitions. Great idea. Let's
start with the definition of "spamming usenet". The Current Usenet
spam thresholds and guidelines (posted here in March define it as
posting a "substantively identical" message to an "excessive" number >>>>> of groups. The latter is measured by the Breidbart Index, or BI (the >>>>> sum of the square roots of the number of groups to which each post
was made).
For example, 2 posts of the same message (one crossposted to 9
groups, and one to 4) have a BI of 5, while posting it separately to >>>>> the same 13 groups would have a BI of 13. A message with a BI of
more than 20 in a 45-day period is cancellable spam.
As for "all over usenet", I'll stick with the standard usage:
"1: over the whole extent
decorated all over with a flower pattern
2: EVERYWHERE
looked all over for the book"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allover
Here's the data:
https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=%22Ponder%20Awhile%22 >>>>
If you have trouble with the definitions, you're of course welcome
to offer your own.
How many usenet groups has Will Donkey spammed it to?
Since you haven't shown yet that Will has done any spamming
(exceeded the BI), you're begging the question.
I fully suspect that he's spammed it to a dozen or more usenetgroups.
And whether he's spammed it to groups that he's already a member >>>>> of is irrelevant. You did not specify that Mohit spammed it togroups where he wasn't already a member. You only said that he
spammed it to groups after they'd begged him to stop.
I don't think it's irrelevant to point it out at all. There's a
difference between promoting something on the groups you already
post to, and posting about it on groups you've never posted to
before or since. As I said, though, it is a side issue; once you've
shown that Will did any "spamming," we can talk about that.
The Donkey has spammed his book to AAPC dozens of times, eventhough he's been asked to stop, told to stop, and reported to Google >>>>> for spamming.
Oh, I'm sure Will has posted more than 25 OPs on his book to aapc in >>>>> the past 3 years. If he's posted the same message to aapc more than
20 times in 45 days, that could be considered spamming, but I doubt
he has. (You cannot count different posts with the same message in
the backthread, of course; or different messages with the same sig
line.)
;expect to be
I doubt that you actually have any,
but I'll point out the onus is on you to show some if you
fact, the case.;believed.;
I have ample proof to support what I'd actually claimed.
;
;Oh... that's right... you published it.I sure did. That's why your libelling of Will in this respect >>>>> concerns
me, because you're also libelling me.
Actually, I would be "libeling" you (sp) -- if such were, in
spelling"libel verb
li·bel | ˈlī-bəl >> libeled or libelled; libeling or >>>>> libelling ˈlī-b(ə-)liŋ "
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libelling
;
Next time check it out the spelling of a word before trying a
lame. Just a thought.;
Doubling "l"s is tres passé.
However since I'd only implied that 1) Will spams AAPC with ads >>>>> for his book, and thatNo, you "implied" that Will was "spamming all over usenet" just >>>>> like
the kook who inspired my poem.
As previously noted, I highly doubt that the Donkey has limitedhis spam to one group.
Let's see... an archive search for "selected poems 1976-2019"turns up 6,576 results. That's a shipload of spam by anyone's
standards.
Oh, indeed: 6,576 copies of the same post is a lot of posts. But you >>>>> haven't shown that all 6,000+ are substantively the same, or even
looked at the content. Some of them are replies by Will in threads
where the book is being discussed; some are replies by him where the >>>>> book is mentioned only in the backthread; in some he uses the book >>>>> title and url as a sig line; and some weren't even written by him.
The archives also show that he's spammed it to alt.poetry,alt.arts.poetry, rec.arts.poems, rec.music.beatles, -- and that's
just from the 240 most recent posts.
According to my own searches, since October 2019 (when the book came >>>>> out):
- Will has made 7 posts to rec.arts.poems containing the phrase
"selected poems":
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/search?q=%22selected%20poems%22%20author%3Awill%20author%3Adockery&hl=en
- He made one post to alt.poetry containing the words "selected
poems" in that time:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.poetry/search?q=selected%20poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- He also made one post using those words on rec.music.beatles (not
the same post as the one to a.p):
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.beatles/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- and he has made zero posts to alt.arts.poetry that used that
phrase since 2015:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
Your search probably captured the one post I made to aap that used
the phrase:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems ) >>>>
claims areYou may have learned something. (Two, counting my advice on making >>>>> >> spelling lames.)
2) you were the schnook who published it for him, both of my
libeled (i.e., whining).readily substantiated.;
;Of course I published Will's book. Stop whinging about it.
Need I remind you that you are the one claiming to have been
You made a false accusation with malicious intent -- since we're on
definitions today, I'll remind you that's the definition of libel.
You have yet to show any proof to back up your statement.
Michael, we're not in court. We're on aapc (where, according to you, >>>>> if you accuse someone of making a false accusation you don't have to >>>>> prove it, remember?).
In fact, your *only* argument was that your original statementabout Mohit (which I subsequently applied to Will) implied that he'd >>>>> spam posted to an undisclosed number of usenet groups, whereas Will
had only spammed a single group.
No, I did not argue that Will had "only spammed a single group".
While that would hardly count for libel even if it were true,that simply is not the case. Will spammed it to at least 5 usenet
groups (in a total of 6,576 posts).
You sir, stand corrected.
You have shown that there have been a lot of posts about the book on >>>>> aapc. That's all you've shown so far.
Well put, George Dance
Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and
setting the record straight.
HTH and HAND.
I hope it's enough to put the "spamming" nonsense to rest and get back
to the poem.
PT is a wicked, intentionally exaggerated, copy of the poor guy's
style; but it isn't the only one I wrote. My Martian poem,
"Religions", was based on one of his poems with the same name.
Indeed... let us make it so....!
You want to read "Religions"? Sure; I can find it and repost it (rather
than bump up an old thread). I don't think I've changed anything, except
add "A Martian poem" as a subtitle, but that's reason enough to post a current copy.
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-13 3:02 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo' Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
Quite interesting... would like to hear the back story...!
I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done that. So,
first: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a chapbook and was
spamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he was being
begged and flamed to stop.
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this poem as a copy
of his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his spam (in those
days, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, using
google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put an end to
them, and a few people thanked me for it.
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which you may
remember me talking about posting into aapc this year. That's been a bit
derailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, due to the
ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas" making it
suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right up front,
that it's a comic poem.
A wild tale....
Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
George J. Dance wrote:
Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
G.D. I consider a good deal of politics is usually ALWAYS entwined in religion, agree or nay...?
On 2022-09-22 6:39 p.m., Victor H. wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-17 2:30 a.m., W.Dockery wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
On 2022-09-14 10:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:02:56 PM UTC-4,george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
chapbook and wasI don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done >>>>> that. So,
first: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a
poem as a copyspamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where >>>>> he was being
begged and flamed to stop.
;
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this
spam (in thoseof his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his
That's been a bitdays, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, >>>>> using
google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put >>>>> an end to
them, and a few people thanked me for it.
;
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which >>>>> you may
remember me talking about posting into aapc this year.
making itderailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
;
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, >>>>> due to the
ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas"
to Will Donkey's spam.suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right >>>>> up front,;
that it's a comic poem.
Pity you couldn't have a adopted a similar tack with regard
other than;I've never seen any evidence of Will advertising his book on
usenet, including groups where he was beinggroups he was already posting on.;
That's good, because I was referring to *this* group.
;
You'll note that you'd said: "spamming ads for it all over
(that one'sbegged and flamed to stop."Like hell it does. Posting, or even "spamming", to one group
;
That fits Will Donkey and AAPC to a "T".
"all over usenet" means. How many usenet groups constitute "allalready on) is not spamming "all over Usenet", and you know it. >>>>> >I don't know any such thing, George. You haven't defined what
over"?>
Oh, you want to start (over) with definitions. Great idea. Let's
start with the definition of "spamming usenet". The Current Usenet
spam thresholds and guidelines (posted here in March define it as
posting a "substantively identical" message to an "excessive" number >>>>> of groups. The latter is measured by the Breidbart Index, or BI (the >>>>> sum of the square roots of the number of groups to which each post
was made).
For example, 2 posts of the same message (one crossposted to 9
groups, and one to 4) have a BI of 5, while posting it separately to >>>>> the same 13 groups would have a BI of 13. A message with a BI of
more than 20 in a 45-day period is cancellable spam.
As for "all over usenet", I'll stick with the standard usage:
"1: over the whole extent
decorated all over with a flower pattern
2: EVERYWHERE
looked all over for the book"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allover
Here's the data:
https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=%22Ponder%20Awhile%22 >>>>
If you have trouble with the definitions, you're of course welcome
to offer your own.
How many usenet groups has Will Donkey spammed it to?
Since you haven't shown yet that Will has done any spamming
(exceeded the BI), you're begging the question.
I fully suspect that he's spammed it to a dozen or more usenetgroups.
And whether he's spammed it to groups that he's already a member >>>>> of is irrelevant. You did not specify that Mohit spammed it togroups where he wasn't already a member. You only said that he
spammed it to groups after they'd begged him to stop.
I don't think it's irrelevant to point it out at all. There's a
difference between promoting something on the groups you already
post to, and posting about it on groups you've never posted to
before or since. As I said, though, it is a side issue; once you've
shown that Will did any "spamming," we can talk about that.
The Donkey has spammed his book to AAPC dozens of times, eventhough he's been asked to stop, told to stop, and reported to Google >>>>> for spamming.
Oh, I'm sure Will has posted more than 25 OPs on his book to aapc in >>>>> the past 3 years. If he's posted the same message to aapc more than
20 times in 45 days, that could be considered spamming, but I doubt
he has. (You cannot count different posts with the same message in
the backthread, of course; or different messages with the same sig
line.)
;expect to be
I doubt that you actually have any,
but I'll point out the onus is on you to show some if you
fact, the case.;believed.;
I have ample proof to support what I'd actually claimed.
;
;Oh... that's right... you published it.I sure did. That's why your libelling of Will in this respect >>>>> concerns
me, because you're also libelling me.
Actually, I would be "libeling" you (sp) -- if such were, in
spelling"libel verb
li·bel | ˈlī-bəl >> libeled or libelled; libeling or >>>>> libelling ˈlī-b(ə-)liŋ "
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libelling
;
Next time check it out the spelling of a word before trying a
lame. Just a thought.;
Doubling "l"s is tres passé.
However since I'd only implied that 1) Will spams AAPC with ads >>>>> for his book, and thatNo, you "implied" that Will was "spamming all over usenet" just >>>>> like
the kook who inspired my poem.
As previously noted, I highly doubt that the Donkey has limitedhis spam to one group.
Let's see... an archive search for "selected poems 1976-2019"turns up 6,576 results. That's a shipload of spam by anyone's
standards.
Oh, indeed: 6,576 copies of the same post is a lot of posts. But you >>>>> haven't shown that all 6,000+ are substantively the same, or even
looked at the content. Some of them are replies by Will in threads
where the book is being discussed; some are replies by him where the >>>>> book is mentioned only in the backthread; in some he uses the book >>>>> title and url as a sig line; and some weren't even written by him.
The archives also show that he's spammed it to alt.poetry,alt.arts.poetry, rec.arts.poems, rec.music.beatles, -- and that's
just from the 240 most recent posts.
According to my own searches, since October 2019 (when the book came >>>>> out):
- Will has made 7 posts to rec.arts.poems containing the phrase
"selected poems":
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/search?q=%22selected%20poems%22%20author%3Awill%20author%3Adockery&hl=en
- He made one post to alt.poetry containing the words "selected
poems" in that time:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.poetry/search?q=selected%20poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- He also made one post using those words on rec.music.beatles (not
the same post as the one to a.p):
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.beatles/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
- and he has made zero posts to alt.arts.poetry that used that
phrase since 2015:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
Your search probably captured the one post I made to aap that used
the phrase:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems ) >>>>
claims areYou may have learned something. (Two, counting my advice on making >>>>> >> spelling lames.)
2) you were the schnook who published it for him, both of my
libeled (i.e., whining).readily substantiated.;
;Of course I published Will's book. Stop whinging about it.
Need I remind you that you are the one claiming to have been
You made a false accusation with malicious intent -- since we're on
definitions today, I'll remind you that's the definition of libel.
You have yet to show any proof to back up your statement.
Michael, we're not in court. We're on aapc (where, according to you, >>>>> if you accuse someone of making a false accusation you don't have to >>>>> prove it, remember?).
In fact, your *only* argument was that your original statementabout Mohit (which I subsequently applied to Will) implied that he'd >>>>> spam posted to an undisclosed number of usenet groups, whereas Will
had only spammed a single group.
No, I did not argue that Will had "only spammed a single group".
While that would hardly count for libel even if it were true,that simply is not the case. Will spammed it to at least 5 usenet
groups (in a total of 6,576 posts).
You sir, stand corrected.
You have shown that there have been a lot of posts about the book on >>>>> aapc. That's all you've shown so far.
Well put, George Dance
Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and
setting the record straight.
HTH and HAND.
I hope it's enough to put the "spamming" nonsense to rest and get back
to the poem.
PT is a wicked, intentionally exaggerated, copy of the poor guy's
style; but it isn't the only one I wrote. My Martian poem,
"Religions", was based on one of his poems with the same name.
Indeed... let us make it so....!
You want to read "Religions"? Sure; I can find it and repost it (rather
than bump up an old thread). I don't think I've changed anything, except
add "A Martian poem" as a subtitle, but that's reason enough to post a current copy.
On 2022-09-13 3:02 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo' Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
Quite interesting... would like to hear the back story...!
I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done that. So,
first: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a chapbook and was spamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he was being begged and flamed to stop.
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this poem as a copy
of his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his spam (in those days, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, using
google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put an end to
them, and a few people thanked me for it.
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which you may
remember me talking about posting into aapc this year. That's been a bit derailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, due to the ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas" making it
suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right up front,
that it's a comic poem.
On 2022-09-13 3:02 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo' Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
Quite interesting... would like to hear the back story...!
I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done that. So,
first: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a chapbook and was spamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he was being begged and flamed to stop.
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this poem as a copy
of his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his spam (in those days, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, using
google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put an end to
them, and a few people thanked me for it.
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which you may
remember me talking about posting into aapc this year. That's been a bit derailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, due to the ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas" making it
suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right up front,
that it's a comic poem.
On 2022-09-13 3:02 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo' Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
Quite interesting... would like to hear the back story...!
I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done that. So,
first: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a chapbook and was spamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he was being begged and flamed to stop.
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this poem as a copy
of his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his spam (in those days, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, using
google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put an end to
them, and a few people thanked me for it.
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which you may
remember me talking about posting into aapc this year. That's been a bit derailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, due to the ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas" making it
suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right up front,
that it's a comic poem.
On 2022-09-13 3:02 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo' Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
Quite interesting... would like to hear the back story...!
I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done that. So,
first: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a chapbook and was spamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he was being begged and flamed to stop.
So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this poem as a copy
of his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his spam (in those days, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, using
google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put an end to
them, and a few people thanked me for it.
Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which you may
remember me talking about posting into aapc this year. That's been a bit derailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, due to the ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas" making it
suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right up front,
that it's a comic poem.
George J. Dance wrote:
Ponder This
Alas! Alack! Oh, woe is me!
I am in Mohit Misery.
I spent good money on a book
of poems without a preview look
then found, when I had ope'd it up
row after row of silly coup-
lets, half of which don't scan
(though the poet gets a rhyme in whenever he can)
while the other half make zero sense;
a carpark often has a fence.
In life there's many a tragedy,
but none like Mohit Misery.
I'll even pray to heaven, please
relieve us from Mo Miseries.
- George J. Dance
from Ponder This, 2015
Quite interesting... would like to hear the back story...!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:40:33 |
| Calls: | 9,766 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,748 |
| Messages: | 6,186,340 |