That’s exactly the case, gdad. The stupid poster didn’t even bother changing any of it, only left off some of the final stanzas that didn’t suit the intended effect. What a stupid poster.

In case it was overlooked, there was a true example of an original adaptation on the blog last month, based on Poe’s “The Raven”, which in any case is a P.D. work.

That’s a big ol’ bundle of pathetic swaddled in a wet blanket of sad.

Most of my friends don’t bother reading this blog. . .

Frank – reading is fundamental – comprehension is essential. I suggest you go back and read that link which lays out quite succinctly how the republicans have pressed for the privatization of SS and how Wall Street is obviously supportive and gleeful of these republican efforts.

As I said, suzie, anybody with a shred of decency and courtesy would have noted that they had adapted somebody else’s work. Your “adaptation” was obviously either so close to the original that somebody recognized it and was able to google it, or it was so much more creative than the dreck you normally post that folks knew it wasn’t really yours.

Every couplet was different from the original. but Dan can’t show that because it would prove he’s full of beans on the copyright issue. I got a couple of emails about it this morning. My friends thought is was hilarious. Sorry most of you missed it.

Sure, just not yours.

Which any person with even a shred of decency and civility would have noted from the start.

And how about suzie’s idiotic claim that it was copyrighted because it hasn’t been published anywhere?

Dan, if you have time (if not, no big deal), how much of what suzie posted was “original”?

Sorry to disappoint you, suzie, but I didn’t bother reading the whole thing once I saw it was just another variation on one of your standard lies. No need to waste my time.