NastyGoon is wrong again, and again

[George J.]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> “The Human Tragedy
> a poem."
> by Alfred Austin
> London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
>
ssnip for focus
>
> Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,

NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.

> then recalled the copies for revision.

NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.

> There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.

NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.

> George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.

The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

[NancyGene]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:40:15 PM UTC-4, George J. wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > “The Human Tragedy
> > a poem."
> > by Alfred Austin
> > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> >
> ssnip for focus

Are you a snake, George Dance? ssss

> >
> > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
>
> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.

wwa wwa?
It is a play.

> > then recalled the copies for revision.
>
> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.

Well, George Dance, you are wrong (again). "The Human Tragedy," Austin, Alfred, Published by Robert Hardwicke, 1862. "First Issue of author's second book. Inscribed to noted author and publicist Laurence Oliphant. Released in 1862, Austin immediately recalled the books and had it printed years later in a larger format. In his hand on the title page is this note to Oliphant: 'Withdrawn from circulation, to be altered + enlarged.'"
https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Human-Tragedy-Austin-Alfred-Robert-Hardwicke/21082778129/bd

>
> > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
>
> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.

That was the original poem. It is the accurate 1862 version of the poem.

>
> > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
>
> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

After you changed the date on the article in your bllaaarrrggg from 1862.

We don't really care what you call us, but you look like a petulant child when you call us self-serving, clever-to-only-you names just because we are smarter than you are and catch your mistakes (and try to help you correct them). George Dance, your Father beat the wrong end of the child.

[Faraway Star]

Well put and nailed it G.D.

!!

[Ash Wurthing]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:

ALL RIGHT, CHILDISH NAME CALLING!!!

Ash can be all for that if that's the only way Dunce's know how to play...

# George "Jism Poem" Dance wants to be the new queen of nasty, showing his true troll face to lame people again because that's all he knows to do, has no good rep to fall back to, no decency to talk of, so the only way he can elevated himself is by trying to drag others down to his pathetic level...

[Faraway Star]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:12:38 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > “The Human Tragedy
> > > a poem."
> > > by Alfred Austin
> > > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > >
> > ssnip for focus
> > >
> > > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> >
> > NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> >
> > > then recalled the copies for revision.
> >
> > NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> >
> > > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> >
> > NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> >
> > > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> >
> > The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> ALL RIGHT, CHILDISH NAME CALLING!!!
>
> Ash can be all for that if that's the only way Dunce's know how to play...

That is the only way your leader Michael Pendragon wants it, Ash...

Just sayin'.

That is all.

[Ash Wurthing]

Yep you just love that name callin' don't ya?

Will Dockery
Nov 2, 2023, 5:45:13 PM (3 days ago)
Zod has always been a man of peace, even when he was in the Navy.

Faraway Star
Sep 5, 2023, 5:01:50 PM
Poor butthurt little motherfuckers... ha ha.

There's nothing worthy to quote from Sod unfortunately,
because it's the same shit he mutters
just so he can say motherfucker.
It seems it's the only word
known to the turd.
I've heard better from 12 year olds
in the ghetto-
so his skill with words
seems pretty disturbed.

[Faraway Star]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:21:41 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > > “The Human Tragedy
> > > > a poem."
> > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > > >
> > > ssnip for focus
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> > >
> > > NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> > >
> > > > then recalled the copies for revision.
> > >
> > > NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> > >
> > > > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> > >
> > > NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> > >
> > > > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> > >
> > > The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > Well put and nailed it G.D.
> Yep you just love that name callin'

YOU sure as Hell do, Ash...hahah.

You are one slimy little hypocrite.

That is all.

[Ash Wurthing]

Yes it all, 'cause you're so stupid thinking everyone else operates like you and must all be in a gang like you fools operate...

Trust me Sod, every time you dismiss someone that criticizes you as being in some kind of gang against you and not having a mind of their own-- you will make yourself yet another enemy! And I just love you fools for your stupidity!!!

[Faraway Star]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:25:11 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > > > “The Human Tragedy
> > > > > a poem."
> > > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > > > >
> > > > ssnip for focus
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> > > >
> > > > NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> > > >
> > > > > then recalled the copies for revision.
> > > >
> > > > NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> > > >
> > > > > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> > > >
> > > > NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> > > >
> > > > > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > ALL RIGHT, CHILDISH NAME CALLING!!!
> > >
> > > Ash can be all for that if that's the only way Dunce's know how to play...
> > That is the only way your leader Michael Pendragon wants it, Ash...
> >
> > Just sayin'.
> >
> > That is all.
> Yes it all, 'cause you

Look who is talking, one of the biggest troll wannabes on this group, the untalented pretend comix and poet artist Ash... ha ha.

Ha ha.

[Ash Wurthing]

Yes that's all because the fool doesn't know what hypocrite even means-- unlike your lying ass, I don't claim to be better which you do, all the while, doing exactly what you claim is wrong. I never claimed that I don't engage in childish name calling, in fact here's even more for your sorry ass:

Don't be a Zod,
just good for nods
on Will's dick posts
Don't be a Will
the most ridiculed
swill of Usenet posts.

[Faraway Star]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:

Back on topic from the attempted deflections of Ash...! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is all.

[Ash Wurthing]

I've just been waitin' for this invite-- time to eat your own words about my talent...

[Faraway Star]

Oh Hell, after all these years you are going to post examples of your COMICS ART...?

Do tell...!

Ha ha.

[Will Dockery]

Exactly.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > “The Human Tragedy
> > a poem."
> > by Alfred Austin
> > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> >
> ssnip for focus

DDDDunce has ssssticky keyssss.

> > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
>
> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.

DDDDunce is wwwrong. The above book wwa and iiiis a verse ddddrama, and therefore qqqqualifies as a play.

> > then recalled the copies for revision.
>
> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.

DDDunce is gggrasping at ssstraws.

Mr. Aussstin may not have technically rererecalled the book, however he ddddid reformat it as a pppplay.

> > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
>
> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.

DDDunce is wrrrong again. Fitzgerald revised "The Rubaiyat" 5 times, however, not all of the verses from the 5th edition are considered the "definitive" ones. The definitive version is the one that best stands the "test of time."

> > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
>
> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

The version on the bbbbblaaaargh wwwas correctly dddated after NancyGene advised you of your error.

Why are you such a DDDDunce, DDDDunce?


Michael Pendragon
"Less we forget....!"
-- George "Stink" Sulzbach, on the benefits of having obliterated the majority of one's brain cells on alcohol and drugs
https://imgur.com/gallery/bMGm5SM
https://imgur.com/a/Foxnrzx
https://imgur.com/a/7c0WITn

[George J.]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 4:46:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > “The Human Tragedy
> > > a poem."
> > > by Alfred Austin
> > > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > >
> > ssnip for focus
> DDDDunce has ssssticky keyssss.
> > > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> >

> > NastyGoon is wrong. The above book [was] and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.

> DDDDunce is wwwrong. The above book wwa and iiiis a verse ddddrama, and therefore qqqqualifies as a play.

No, Lying Michael. The above book is not a verse drama. You really should try reading some of it.

> > > then recalled the copies for revision.
> >
> > NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> DDDunce is gggrasping at ssstraws.
>
> Mr. Aussstin may not have technically rererecalled the book, however he ddddid reformat it as a pppplay.

You're contradicting yourself, Lying Michael; you just said it was already a play when he first published it:
"The above book wwa and iiiis a verse ddddrama, and therefore qqqqualifies as a play." (sic)

> > > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> >
> > NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> DDDunce is wrrrong again. Fitzgerald revised "The Rubaiyat" 5 times, however, not all of the verses from the 5th edition are considered the "definitive" ones. The definitive version is the one that best stands the "test of time."

Irrelevant. No version of /The Human Tragedy/ has stood that test.

> > > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> >
> > The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> The version on the bbbbblaaaargh wwwas correctly dddated after NancyGene advised you of your error.

Wrong again, Lying Michael. NastyGoon has been insisting all along that the "1862" date was correct, and that it was the "lines" that were wrong. Now, please get your Goebbelsing out of this thread.

[NancyGene]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 5:46:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > “The Human Tragedy
> > > a poem."
> > > by Alfred Austin
> > > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > >
> > ssnip for focus
> DDDDunce has ssssticky keyssss.
> > > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> >
> > NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> DDDDunce is wwwrong. The above book wwa and iiiis a verse ddddrama, and therefore qqqqualifies as a play.
> > > then recalled the copies for revision.
> >
> > NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> DDDunce is gggrasping at ssstraws.
>
> Mr. Aussstin may not have technically rererecalled the book, however he ddddid reformat it as a pppplay.

He and Hardwicke seemed to think that they rerererecalled it:
(Us) - "Well, George Dance, you are wrong (again). "The Human Tragedy," Austin, Alfred, Published by Robert Hardwicke, 1862. "First Issue of author's second book. Inscribed to noted author and publicist Laurence Oliphant. Released in 1862, Austin immediately recalled the books and had it printed years later in a larger format. In his hand on the title page is this note to Oliphant: 'Withdrawn from circulation, to be altered + enlarged.'"
https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Human-Tragedy-Austin-Alfred-Robert-Hardwicke/21082778129/bd"

[General-Zod]

Again... good to see the record set straight once again G.D.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 5:50:16 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 4:46:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > “The Human Tragedy
> > > > a poem."
> > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > > >
> > > ssnip for focus
> > DDDDunce has ssssticky keyssss.
> > > > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> > >
> > > NastyGoon is wrong. The above book [was] and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> > DDDDunce is wwwrong. The above book wwa and iiiis a verse ddddrama, and therefore qqqqualifies as a play.
> No, Lying Michael. The above book is not a verse drama. You really should try reading some of it.

Wrong, Dullard Dunce. The above book is broken into Acts. You really should try learning the difference between a poem, a play, and dramatic verse.

> > > > then recalled the copies for revision.
> > >
> > > NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> > DDDunce is gggrasping at ssstraws.
> >
> > Mr. Aussstin may not have technically rererecalled the book, however he ddddid reformat it as a pppplay.
> You're contradicting yourself, Lying Michael; you just said it was already a play when he first published it:
> "The above book wwa and iiiis a verse ddddrama, and therefore qqqqualifies as a play." (sic)

I was referring to the book in question, Dunce. Not to any specific version of it.

As I have stated in the past, Austin first published "The Human Tragedy" as a poem, but subsequently recast it as a "closet drama."

> > > > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> > >
> > > NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> > DDDunce is wrrrong again. Fitzgerald revised "The Rubaiyat" 5 times, however, not all of the verses from the 5th edition are considered the "definitive" ones. The definitive version is the one that best stands the "test of time."
> Irrelevant. No version of /The Human Tragedy/ has stood that test.

Rather than nitpicking, Petty Dunce, let's posit that *every* literary work has its "definitive" version; and define that as the version currently considered to be its best. Since there is little to no modern critical analysis pertaining to Austin's poem, I believe that the author's intent (as reflected in his reworking the poem as "dramatic verse") should be one of, if not the, determining factor.

> > > > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> > >
> > > The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > The version on the bbbbblaaaargh wwwas correctly dddated after NancyGene advised you of your error.
> Wrong again, Lying Michael. NastyGoon has been insisting all along that the "1862" date was correct, and that it was the "lines" that were wrong. Now, please get your Goebbelsing out of this thread.
>

You can nitpick over petty details till you're blue in the face, Lying Dunce. But the bottom line is that you'd posted the poem with an incorrect date, and were corrected by NancyGene.


Michael Pendragon
“If I wrote it, quote it, with proper attraction.”
-- Will Dockery
https://imgur.com/gallery/dpR2ESh
https://imgur.com/gallery/rtvGMMt

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 5:54:07 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 5:46:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > “The Human Tragedy
> > > > a poem."
> > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > > >
> > > ssnip for focus
> > DDDDunce has ssssticky keyssss.
> > > > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> > >
> > > NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> > DDDDunce is wwwrong. The above book wwa and iiiis a verse ddddrama, and therefore qqqqualifies as a play.
> > > > then recalled the copies for revision.
> > >
> > > NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> > DDDunce is gggrasping at ssstraws.
> >
> > Mr. Aussstin may not have technically rererecalled the book, however he ddddid reformat it as a pppplay.
> He and Hardwicke seemed to think that they rerererecalled it:
> (Us) - "Well, George Dance, you are wrong (again). "The Human Tragedy," Austin, Alfred, Published by Robert Hardwicke, 1862. "First Issue of author's second book. Inscribed to noted author and publicist Laurence Oliphant. Released in 1862, Austin immediately recalled the books and had it printed years later in a larger format. In his hand on the title page is this note to Oliphant: 'Withdrawn from circulation, to be altered + enlarged.'"
> https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Human-Tragedy-Austin-Alfred-Robert-Hardwicke/21082778129/bd"

Well Dunce and I both stand corrected on that one. Does "two" constitute a "confederacy"?


Michael Pendragon
"Not true, when I made a mistake, I correct it."
-- Will Donkey, demonstrating his inability to successfully make corrections.
https://imgur.com/gallery/dpR2ESh
https://imgur.com/gallery/rtvGMMt

[General-Zod]

Like you do every day, Penhead..?

Ha ha.

[George J.]

NancyGene wrote:

> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:40:15 PM UTC-4, George J. wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> > “The Human Tragedy
>> > a poem."
>> > by Alfred Austin
>> > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
>> >
>> ssnip for focus
> Are you a snake, George Dance? ssss
>> >
>> > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
>>
>> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> wwa wwa?
> It is a play.

NO, NG, it is not. There is no reason to think that the 1862 book was a "play." There aren't even any "Acts" to confuse you. What is your problem? Is your id unable to admit that you were wrong?

>> > then recalled the copies for revision.
>>
>> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.

> Well, George Dance, you are wrong (again). "The Human Tragedy," Austin, Alfred, Published by Robert Hardwicke, 1862. "First Issue of author's second book. Inscribed to noted author and publicist Laurence Oliphant. Released in 1862, Austin immediately recalled the books and had it printed years later in a larger format. In his hand on the title page is this note to Oliphant: 'Withdrawn from circulation, to be altered + enlarged.'"
> https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Human-Tragedy-Austin-Alfred-Robert-Hardwicke/21082778129/bd

Well, now: this is why, despite the lying and bullshitting you've learned from Michael and Jim, I don't give up on you completely. You actually found something new, something that both the DNB and Britannica missed, As well, it can be confirmed by a reliable source. On the latter's authority, I'm happy to admit here you were right about the 1862 non-play being recalled -- and to add that bit of trivia to PPP, with appropriate credit to the reliable source.

>> > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
>>
>> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> That was the original poem. It is the accurate 1862 version of the poem.

So what? The poet revised it later. The revised version is the definitive version, if one wants to be accurate. In this case it also reads better; if he hadn't printed a revision, he probably wouldn't have used it on the blog.

>> > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
>>
>> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

> After you changed the date on the article in your bllaaarrrggg from 1862.

Of course I changed the date. You don't get credit for that, of course, since you didn't want me to change the date, but to use the wrong lines instead.

> We don't really care what you call us, but you look like a petulant child when you call us self-serving, clever-to-only-you names

If the three of you didn't care, you wouldn't cry about them so much, silly Goon.

> just because we are smarter than you are and catch your mistakes (and try to help you correct them).

Is that why you can't admit your mistakes? Why you get in such a tizzy when you're corrected? Because you're afraid you won't look "smart"?

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:30:16 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> NancyGene wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:40:15 PM UTC-4, George J. wrote:
> >> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >> > “The Human Tragedy
> >> > a poem."
> >> > by Alfred Austin
> >> > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> >> >
> >> ssnip for focus
> > Are you a snake, George Dance? ssss
> >> >
> >> > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> >>
> >> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> > wwa wwa?
> > It is a play.
> NO, NG, it is not. There is no reason to think that the 1862 book was a "play." There aren't even any "Acts" to confuse you. What is your problem? Is your id unable to admit that you were wrong?
>

The above is a classic example of the "Dunce in denial" syndrome. Dunce realizes he was wrong and that "The Human Tragedy" was intended to be an example of "dramatic verse," and that this is why the author broke it into Acts as if it were a play. He also realizes that NancyGene's use of "play" in describing it, had been correct all along. But will Dunce admit that he was wrong? Perish the thought! Rather Dunce will zero in on NancyGene's use of "book/play" above, and use it as a pretext for one of his obsessively petty (and nevertheless incorrect) arguments. To wit: Since the 1862 edition had not yet been divided into "Acts," that edition (and that edition alone) does not qualify as a "play" (or, one assumes, as a "book/play").

Can Mr. Dunce possibly appear any more desperate? Unfortunately, yes.

> >> > then recalled the copies for revision.
> >>
> >> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
>
> > Well, George Dance, you are wrong (again). "The Human Tragedy," Austin, Alfred, Published by Robert Hardwicke, 1862. "First Issue of author's second book. Inscribed to noted author and publicist Laurence Oliphant. Released in 1862, Austin immediately recalled the books and had it printed years later in a larger format. In his hand on the title page is this note to Oliphant: 'Withdrawn from circulation, to be altered + enlarged.'"
> > https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Human-Tragedy-Austin-Alfred-Robert-Hardwicke/21082778129/bd
> Well, now: this is why, despite the lying and bullshitting you've learned from Michael and Jim, I don't give up on you completely. You actually found something new, something that both the DNB and Britannica missed, As well, it can be confirmed by a reliable source. On the latter's authority, I'm happy to admit here you were right about the 1862 non-play being recalled -- and to add that bit of trivia to PPP, with appropriate credit to the reliable source.
>

On this point, Dunce admits that he was mistaken (well, let's face it, given the evidence NancyGene provided, he has no means of getting around it), but bookends the admission in a set of smug put-downs. (I find it amusing when Dunce attempts to talk down to NancyGene who is obviously more intelligent, better educated, a superior writer, and an all-round better person than he is... especially when she has just finished correcting him.)

> >> > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> >>
> >> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> > That was the original poem. It is the accurate 1862 version of the poem.
> So what? The poet revised it later. The revised version is the definitive version, if one wants to be accurate. In this case it also reads better; if he hadn't printed a revision, he probably wouldn't have used it on the blog.
>

Now Dunce is going to nitpick over which version of this play/poem/book is the definitive one. Apparently, he has forgotten his earlier claim that "No version of /The Human Tragedy/ has stood that test[of time]." Arguing over the "definitive" version of a critically dismissed and forgotten work is splitting hairs seven different ways.

> >> > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> >>
> >> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
>
> > After you changed the date on the article in your bllaaarrrggg from 1862.
> Of course I changed the date. You don't get credit for that, of course, since you didn't want me to change the date, but to use the wrong lines instead.

From Dancing around split hairs, we're back to the Dunce in denial syndrome. Dunce changed the date (tacitly admitting his mistake) but counters this attempting to blame a second "mistake" on NancyGene. As far as this reader can make out from Mr. Dunce's ravings, NancyGene suggested that he match the appropriate version of the poem to the date, whereas he has matched the appropriate date to the poem.

What can one do but paraphrase Margo Channing with the pronouncement of "What a Dunce!"

> > We don't really care what you call us, but you look like a petulant child when you call us self-serving, clever-to-only-you names
> If the three of you didn't care, you wouldn't cry about them so much, silly Goon.

Not one of us cares, nor cries, about your childish name-calling, Dunce. And I believe that I speak for all of us when saying that we find it both pitiful and amusing that a 70-something-year old man, who fashions himself a poet, thinks it the ne plus ultra of wit to refer to others with name like "monkey," "piggy," and "chimp."

> > just because we are smarter than you are and catch your mistakes (and try to help you correct them).
> Is that why you can't admit your mistakes? Why you get in such a tizzy when you're corrected? Because you're afraid you won't look "smart"?

NancyGene is obviously more intelligent than you, Dunce... but, to borrow an analogy from PJR, she's shooting fish in a barrel.



Michael Pendragon
"I remember the day I wrote this poem, Summer 1998, June, I think."
-- Will Donkey, not quite remembering the day after all.
https://imgur.com/gallery/dpR2ESh
https://imgur.com/gallery/rtvGMMt

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:30:16 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:

Typical hypocrisy and double standards of the NancyGene and Pendragon tag team.

And so it goes.

[NancyGene]

On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 9:06:48 AM UTC+6:30, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:30:16 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > NancyGene wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:40:15 PM UTC-4, George J. wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> > “The Human Tragedy
> > >> > a poem."
> > >> > by Alfred Austin
> > >> > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > >> >
> > >> ssnip for focus
> > > Are you a snake, George Dance? ssss
> > >> >
> > >> > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> > >>
> > >> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> > > wwa wwa?
> > > It is a play.

George Dance has reading comprehension problems which result from self-serving snipping. If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later, but the basics were there anyway. George Dances needs to retain everything that we write, and reproduce it completely and accurately.

> > NO, NG, it is not. There is no reason to think that the 1862 book was a "play." There aren't even any "Acts" to confuse you. What is your problem? Is your id unable to admit that you were wrong?

George Dance, please see above, which refutes your argument. Do you know what "this 1862 version of the book/play" means? If not please consult us or Dr. Schwimmer.

> >
> The above is a classic example of the "Dunce in denial" syndrome. Dunce realizes he was wrong and that "The Human Tragedy" was intended to be an example of "dramatic verse," and that this is why the author broke it into Acts as if it were a play. He also realizes that NancyGene's use of "play" in describing it, had been correct all along.

Yes, George Dance has been in denial all of his life. He is wrong, he is always wrong, he will ever be wrong. He resents women who are smarter than he is and strikes out.

> But will Dunce admit that he was wrong? Perish the thought! Rather Dunce will zero in on NancyGene's use of "book/play" above, and use it as a pretext for one of his obsessively petty (and nevertheless incorrect) arguments. To wit: Since the 1862 edition had not yet been divided into "Acts," that edition (and that edition alone) does not qualify as a "play" (or, one assumes, as a "book/play").

He also didn't read or reproduce our statement correctly.

>
> Can Mr. Dunce possibly appear any more desperate? Unfortunately, yes.

Desperation lives in Canada.

> > >> > then recalled the copies for revision.
> > >>
> > >> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> >
> > > Well, George Dance, you are wrong (again). "The Human Tragedy," Austin, Alfred, Published by Robert Hardwicke, 1862. "First Issue of author's second book. Inscribed to noted author and publicist Laurence Oliphant. Released in 1862, Austin immediately recalled the books and had it printed years later in a larger format. In his hand on the title page is this note to Oliphant: 'Withdrawn from circulation, to be altered + enlarged.'"
> > > https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Human-Tragedy-Austin-Alfred-Robert-Hardwicke/21082778129/bd
> > Well, now: this is why, despite the lying and bullshitting you've learned from Michael and Jim, I don't give up on you completely. You actually found something new, something that both the DNB and Britannica missed, As well, it can be confirmed by a reliable source. On the latter's authority, I'm happy to admit here you were right about the 1862 non-play being recalled -- and to add that bit of trivia to PPP, with appropriate credit to the reliable source.

We are not your researcher, George Dance. We are much better at researching, discussing, writing, reading and judging poems than you are and are a reliable source. You should not be so adamant in your arguments against our statements, because we have good reasons for saying them, which will put egg on your face when you are proven wrong. You don't like that.

> >
> On this point, Dunce admits that he was mistaken (well, let's face it, given the evidence NancyGene provided, he has no means of getting around it), but bookends the admission in a set of smug put-downs. (I find it amusing when Dunce attempts to talk down to NancyGene who is obviously more intelligent, better educated, a superior writer, and an all-round better person than he is... especially when she has just finished correcting him.)

George Dance seems to have a deep-seated fear and resentment of women. He digs himself into holes by denying everything that he has not found himself. He does not have a monopoly on research.

> > >> > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> > >>
> > >> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> > > That was the original poem. It is the accurate 1862 version of the poem.
> > So what? The poet revised it later. The revised version is the definitive version, if one wants to be accurate. In this case it also reads better; if he hadn't printed a revision, he probably wouldn't have used it on the blog.

As we said, it is the accurate 1862 version of the poem. George Dance had originally labeled it as 1862 on his blaaarrrrggg, which was not correct.

> >
> Now Dunce is going to nitpick over which version of this play/poem/book is the definitive one. Apparently, he has forgotten his earlier claim that "No version of /The Human Tragedy/ has stood that test[of time]." Arguing over the "definitive" version of a critically dismissed and forgotten work is splitting hairs seven different ways.

George Dance is attempting to show that he was right all along. Must...Save...Face...

> > >> > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> > >>
> > >> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> > >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> >
> > > After you changed the date on the article in your bllaaarrrggg from 1862.
> > Of course I changed the date. You don't get credit for that, of course, since you didn't want me to change the date, but to use the wrong lines instead.

Huh? What we said above was: "George Dance states in another thread that he used the 1891 version, but he has 1862 on his blaarrrgg. What he copied isn't the 1862 version."

> From Dancing around split hairs, we're back to the Dunce in denial syndrome. Dunce changed the date (tacitly admitting his mistake) but counters this attempting to blame a second "mistake" on NancyGene. As far as this reader can make out from Mr. Dunce's ravings, NancyGene suggested that he match the appropriate version of the poem to the date, whereas he has matched the appropriate date to the poem.

Yes, that's correct.

>
> What can one do but paraphrase Margo Channing with the pronouncement of "What a Dunce!"

We would say, "'Sorry you [George Dance] were caught,' I said. 'Sorry that you thought I was weak, but you were wrong.'” --"Circe"

> > > We don't really care what you call us, but you look like a petulant child when you call us self-serving, clever-to-only-you names
> > If the three of you didn't care, you wouldn't cry about them so much, silly Goon.
> Not one of us cares, nor cries, about your childish name-calling, Dunce. And I believe that I speak for all of us when saying that we find it both pitiful and amusing that a 70-something-year old man, who fashions himself a poet, thinks it the ne plus ultra of wit to refer to others with name like "monkey," "piggy," and "chimp."

And "Nasty Goon." He puts childish names to others because he thinks that elevates him, which it does not. We are not in a tizzy, nor crying, nor even objecting--we observe and see that George Dance diminishes himself.

> > > just because we are smarter than you are and catch your mistakes (and try to help you correct them).
> > Is that why you can't admit your mistakes? Why you get in such a tizzy when you're corrected? Because you're afraid you won't look "smart"?
> NancyGene is obviously more intelligent than you, Dunce... but, to borrow an analogy from PJR, she's shooting fish in a barrel.

We do admit mistakes and apologize when we make them. We think that George Dance's statement more describes his reaction to being corrected than it does ours.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 11:51:26 AM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 9:06:48 AM UTC+6:30, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 8:30:16 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > NancyGene wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:40:15 PM UTC-4, George J. wrote:
> > > >> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > >> > “The Human Tragedy
> > > >> > a poem."
> > > >> > by Alfred Austin
> > > >> > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > > >> >
> > > >> ssnip for focus
> > > > Are you a snake, George Dance? ssss
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> > > >>
> > > >> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> > > > wwa wwa?
> > > > It is a play.
> George Dance has reading comprehension problems which result from self-serving snipping. If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later, but the basics were there anyway. George Dances needs to retain everything that we write, and reproduce it completely and accurately.
>

That, unfortunately, is not our resident Dunce's m.o.

George Dunce appears to have been on the debating team in college, as he invariably uses every Debating 101 trick in the book.

Unless Mr. Dunce is even denser than he appears, he knows perfectly well that you did not say that the 1862 version was a play. In Debating 101, you take your opponent's statement and restate it in your own words, twisting its meaning ever sot slightly that it sounds similar but now contains an error or contradiction that you can point out and "correct."

George Dunce is using this ploy to divert the conversation from his original error, and to create a new, supposed error on your part, that you are now placed in the position of defending.

(The primary rule in Debating 101 is to place your opponent on the defensive.)

> > > NO, NG, it is not. There is no reason to think that the 1862 book was a "play." There aren't even any "Acts" to confuse you. What is your problem? Is your id unable to admit that you were wrong?
> George Dance, please see above, which refutes your argument. Do you know what "this 1862 version of the book/play" means? If not please consult us or Dr. Schwimmer.

George will play dense and continue to insist that "this 1862 version of the book/play" means that the 1862 edition was a play. As long as he can pretend not to understand your sentence, he can maintain the offensive position.

Eventually, you will get tired of explaining a perfectly clear statement, and will give up in frustration. This makes Dunce, what he calls "The Last Man Standing," which means, according to Dunce Logic, he wins by default.

> > The above is a classic example of the "Dunce in denial" syndrome. Dunce realizes he was wrong and that "The Human Tragedy" was intended to be an example of "dramatic verse," and that this is why the author broke it into Acts as if it were a play. He also realizes that NancyGene's use of "play" in describing it, had been correct all along.
> Yes, George Dance has been in denial all of his life. He is wrong, he is always wrong, he will ever be wrong. He resents women who are smarter than he is and strikes out.

George Dunce was brought up in a household where he was looked upon as a "filthy thing" that should be swept out of sight as much as possible. He was also denied the ability to play/interact with the other children in his neighborhood. As such, he developed an egocentric personality wherein he was a superior being (a junior Übermensch) by virtue of what he narcissistically believed to be his superior intellect.

For "Mensa George" to lose an argument (especially to a woman), he would have to abandon his belief in his superior intellectual prowess -- thereby surrendering his "power" to his opponent. This would shatter "Mensa George's" illusion of superiority, leaving him the helpless little boy lying in bed with his pajama pants down as he waited for his father to arrive with the belt. IOW: To best "Mensa George" in an argument is to neuter him.

> > But will Dunce admit that he was wrong? Perish the thought! Rather Dunce will zero in on NancyGene's use of "book/play" above, and use it as a pretext for one of his obsessively petty (and nevertheless incorrect) arguments. To wit: Since the 1862 edition had not yet been divided into "Acts," that edition (and that edition alone) does not qualify as a "play" (or, one assumes, as a "book/play").
> He also didn't read or reproduce our statement correctly.

As noted above, this is a debating trick that George Dunce uses over and over again: a) restate your opponent's position in your own words, b) twist its meaning just enough to allow for a contradiction or fallacy, c) "correct" your opponent, d) thereby placing them on the defensive.

> > Can Mr. Dunce possibly appear any more desperate? Unfortunately, yes.
> Desperation lives in Canada.

Our resident Dunce is also very dense for not realizing that his Debating 101 ploy is painfully obvious and that I will call him on it every time.

> > > >> > then recalled the copies for revision.
> > > >>
> > > >> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> > >
> > > > Well, George Dance, you are wrong (again). "The Human Tragedy," Austin, Alfred, Published by Robert Hardwicke, 1862. "First Issue of author's second book. Inscribed to noted author and publicist Laurence Oliphant. Released in 1862, Austin immediately recalled the books and had it printed years later in a larger format. In his hand on the title page is this note to Oliphant: 'Withdrawn from circulation, to be altered + enlarged.'"
> > > > https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Human-Tragedy-Austin-Alfred-Robert-Hardwicke/21082778129/bd
> > > Well, now: this is why, despite the lying and bullshitting you've learned from Michael and Jim, I don't give up on you completely. You actually found something new, something that both the DNB and Britannica missed, As well, it can be confirmed by a reliable source. On the latter's authority, I'm happy to admit here you were right about the 1862 non-play being recalled -- and to add that bit of trivia to PPP, with appropriate credit to the reliable source.
> We are not your researcher, George Dance. We are much better at researching, discussing, writing, reading and judging poems than you are and are a reliable source. You should not be so adamant in your arguments against our statements, because we have good reasons for saying them, which will put egg on your face when you are proven wrong. You don't like that.
> > >

As noted above, you repeatedly emasculate him.

As a consequence, Dunce has become obsessed with the vain task of proving you wrong. If Dunce can prove you wrong, he becomes (in his deluded mind) your intellectual superior, thereby symbolically getting his dangly bits reattached.

> > On this point, Dunce admits that he was mistaken (well, let's face it, given the evidence NancyGene provided, he has no means of getting around it), but bookends the admission in a set of smug put-downs. (I find it amusing when Dunce attempts to talk down to NancyGene who is obviously more intelligent, better educated, a superior writer, and an all-round better person than he is... especially when she has just finished correcting him.)
> George Dance seems to have a deep-seated fear and resentment of women. He digs himself into holes by denying everything that he has not found himself. He does not have a monopoly on research.
>

Being bested in an argument by a woman is more emasculating than getting bested by a man. And, remember, this is all about Dunce's symbolic emasculation.

> > > >> > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> > > >>
> > > >> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> > > > That was the original poem. It is the accurate 1862 version of the poem.
> > > So what? The poet revised it later. The revised version is the definitive version, if one wants to be accurate. In this case it also reads better; if he hadn't printed a revision, he probably wouldn't have used it on the blog.
> As we said, it is the accurate 1862 version of the poem. George Dance had originally labeled it as 1862 on his blaaarrrrggg, which was not correct.

George Dunce has already stated that the book/play has been forgotten (whereby no "definitive" edition has been established in modern literary circles). For George Dunce to determine the "definitive" version based on his own estimation, he would need to read and compare *all* of the existing versions. As I sincerely doubt that Mr. Dunce has read even *one* version, he has no means of determining which is "definitive."

> > Now Dunce is going to nitpick over which version of this play/poem/book is the definitive one. Apparently, he has forgotten his earlier claim that "No version of /The Human Tragedy/ has stood that test[of time]." Arguing over the "definitive" version of a critically dismissed and forgotten work is splitting hairs seven different ways.
> George Dance is attempting to show that he was right all along. Must...Save...Face...

Must... Get... Dangly Bits... Reattached...

> > > >> > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> > > >>
> > > >> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> > > >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > >
> > > > After you changed the date on the article in your bllaaarrrggg from 1862.
> > > Of course I changed the date. You don't get credit for that, of course, since you didn't want me to change the date, but to use the wrong lines instead.
> Huh? What we said above was: "George Dance states in another thread that he used the 1891 version, but he has 1862 on his blaarrrgg. What he copied isn't the 1862 version."
>

Claiming that you told him to "use the wrong lines" makes it sound like your correction was both ridiculous and faulty.

Like I said, George Dunce will *always* a) restate your position in his own words, b) twisting it just enough to create a contradiction or error, c) point out and/or "correct" said "error," and d) thereby place you on the defensive.

> > From Dancing around split hairs, we're back to the Dunce in denial syndrome. Dunce changed the date (tacitly admitting his mistake) but counters this attempting to blame a second "mistake" on NancyGene. As far as this reader can make out from Mr. Dunce's ravings, NancyGene suggested that he match the appropriate version of the poem to the date, whereas he has matched the appropriate date to the poem.
> Yes, that's correct.
> >
> > What can one do but paraphrase Margo Channing with the pronouncement of "What a Dunce!"
> We would say, "'Sorry you [George Dance] were caught,' I said. 'Sorry that you thought I was weak, but you were wrong.'” --"Circe"

To which George Dunce would say "O dangly bits, where art thou?"

> > > > We don't really care what you call us, but you look like a petulant child when you call us self-serving, clever-to-only-you names
> > > If the three of you didn't care, you wouldn't cry about them so much, silly Goon.
> > Not one of us cares, nor cries, about your childish name-calling, Dunce. And I believe that I speak for all of us when saying that we find it both pitiful and amusing that a 70-something-year old man, who fashions himself a poet, thinks it the ne plus ultra of wit to refer to others with name like "monkey," "piggy," and "chimp."
> And "Nasty Goon." He puts childish names to others because he thinks that elevates him, which it does not. We are not in a tizzy, nor crying, nor even objecting--we observe and see that George Dance diminishes himself.
>

I suspect that he's living out the childhood he'd been denied as a boy. "Boy George" is attempting to be the playground bully -- not based on physical strength, but on his intellectual prowess (a prowess that betrays itself with these adolescent displays of "wit").

> > > > just because we are smarter than you are and catch your mistakes (and try to help you correct them).
> > > Is that why you can't admit your mistakes? Why you get in such a tizzy when you're corrected? Because you're afraid you won't look "smart"?
> > NancyGene is obviously more intelligent than you, Dunce... but, to borrow an analogy from PJR, she's shooting fish in a barrel.
> We do admit mistakes and apologize when we make them. We think that George Dance's statement more describes his reaction to being corrected than it does ours.

Of course. George Dunce could write a book on IKYABWAI variations.

This variation is "I suspect I am, but will allay my suspicions by attributing my faults to you."

[Will Dockery]

Exactly.

😃

[W.Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> “The Human Tragedy
>> a poem."
>> by Alfred Austin
>> London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
>>
> ssnip for focus
>>

>> Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,

> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.

>> then recalled the copies for revision.

> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.

>> There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.

> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.

>> George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.

> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

At least she's trying.

🙂

[Faraway Star]

Yep... I daresay....

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>
> > “The Human Tragedy
> > a poem."
> > by Alfred Austin
> > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> >
> ssnip for focus
> >

> > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
>
> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
>

> > then recalled the copies for revision.
>
> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
>

> > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
>
> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
>

> > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
>
> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

NancyGene is just another malicious troll, what else would you expect?

🙂

[Faraway Star]

Often, Nancy G. will simply keep quiet and hope it will all go away, as with John Dunne and London Ireland.... ha ha.

That is all.

[General-Zod]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> “The Human Tragedy
>> a poem."
>> by Alfred Austin
>> London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
>>
> ssnip for focus
>>

>> Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,

> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.

>> then recalled the copies for revision.

> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.

>> There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.

> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.

>> George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.

> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

Nancy G. is a stalker troll with a malicious agenda..!!

[Faraway Star]

Nailed it again!

[W.Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> “The Human Tragedy
>> a poem."
>> by Alfred Austin
>> London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
>>
> ssnip for focus
>>

>> Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,

> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.

>> then recalled the copies for revision.

> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.

>> There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.

> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.

>> George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.

> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

As usual.

[Faraway Star]

Nancy G is a sleazy troll, so such stunts are to be expected...

[Will Dockery]

Definitely no nasty stunt NancyGene pulls is ever a real surprise.

🙂

[W.Dockery]

Faraway Star wrote:

Pathetic but true.

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:23:52 PM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:21:41 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:

> > > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >
> > > > > “The Human Tragedy
> > > > > a poem."
> > > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > > > >
> > > > ssnip for focus
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> > > >
> > > > NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> > > >
> > > > > then recalled the copies for revision.
> > > >
> > > > NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> > > >
> > > > > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> > > >
> > > > NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> > > >
> > > > > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

> > > Well put and nailed it G.D.
> > Yep you just love that name callin'
> YOU sure as Hell do, Ash...hahah.
>
> You are one slimy little hypocrite.
>
> That is all.

Ash seems proud to slurp the malicious trolls.

And so it goes.

[Faraway Star]

They have proven themselves to be scumbag thug trolls ... after all...

"Tear in their eye."

[General-Zod]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>
>> “The Human Tragedy
>> a poem."
>> by Alfred Austin
>> London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
>>
> ssnip for focus
>>
>> Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,

> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.

>> then recalled the copies for revision.

> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.

>> There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.

> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.

>> George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.

> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

Again, well put...!

[Will Dockery]

True, they seem proud of the fact.

[Faraway Star]

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 2:28:12 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 3:08:53 PM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:

Strange but apparently true...!

[Faraway Star]

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:50:16 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:

> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 4:46:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > George J. wrote:
> > > NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > > “The Human Tragedy
> > > > a poem."
> > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > > >
> > > ssnip for focus

> > DDDDunce has ssssticky keyssss.

> > > > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> > >

> > > NastyGoon is wrong. The above book [was] and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.
> > DDDDunce is wwwrong. The above book wwa and iiiis a verse ddddrama, and therefore qqqqualifies as a play.
> No, Lying Michael. The above book is not a verse drama. You really should try reading some of it.

> > > > then recalled the copies for revision.
> > >
> > > NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.

> > DDDunce is gggrasping at ssstraws.
> >
> > Mr. Aussstin may not have technically rererecalled the book, however he ddddid reformat it as a pppplay.
> You're contradicting yourself, Lying Michael; you just said it was already a play when he first published it:
> "The above book wwa and iiiis a verse ddddrama, and therefore qqqqualifies as a play." (sic)

> > > > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> > >
> > > NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.

> > DDDunce is wrrrong again. Fitzgerald revised "The Rubaiyat" 5 times, however, not all of the verses from the 5th edition are considered the "definitive" ones. The definitive version is the one that best stands the "test of time."
> Irrelevant. No version of /The Human Tragedy/ has stood that test.

> > > > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> > >
> > > The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

> > The version on the bbbbblaaaargh wwwas correctly dddated after NancyGene advised you of your error.
> Wrong again, Lying Michael. NastyGoon has been insisting all along that the "1862" date was correct, and that it was the "lines" that were wrong. Now, please get your Goebbelsing out of this thread.

NAILED IT.

[Will Dockery]

Malicious, obsessive and delusional, both of them.

:)

[Will Dockery]

Indeed.

[Faraway Star]

Nancy G. is in a real tizzy today... ha ha.

[Will Dockery]

Constantly.

🙂

[Faraway Star]

"With a tear in her eye."

[Will Dockery]

Faraway Star wrote:
> George J. wrote:
> > NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > “The Human Tragedy
> > > a poem."
> > > by Alfred Austin
> > > London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
> > >
> > ssnip for focus
> > >

> > > Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,
> >

> > NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.

> >
> > > then recalled the copies for revision.
> >
> > NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.
> >

> > > There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.
> >
> > NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.
> >

> > > George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.
> >
> > The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

> Well put and nailed it G.D.

Good to see the record kept straight.

;)

[General-Zod]

Nancy Gene is just an ignorant dipshit troll


That is all.

[General-Zod]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:25:13 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>
>> “The Human Tragedy
>> a poem."
>> by Alfred Austin
>> London: Robert Hardwicke, 192 Piccadilly. 1862.
>>
> ssnip for focus
>>
>> Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play,

> NastyGoon is wrong. The above book wwa and is a narrative poem, not a "play" of any kind.

>> then recalled the copies for revision.

> NastyGoon is wrong again; neither Austin nor Hardwicke "recalled" the book. Austin did revise his poem, and publish a new edition, many years later.

>> There are 1876 and later versions, but the above text is the first and definitive if one wants to be accurate.

> NastyGoon is wrong yet again. If a writer revises a work, the latest version (not the earliest) is the most definitive.

>> George Dance had the 1876 version on his site, but said it was 1862, which is incorrect.

> The version on the blog is dated 1891 which is the year its source text was published:
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

What is expected from a LYING troll such as Nancy G...?

[Will Dockery]

General-Zod wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>> Faraway Star wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:40:16 AM UTC-6, Will Dockery wrote:

>>>> As usual.

>>> Nancy G is a sleazy troll, so such stunts are to be expected...

>> Pathetic but true.


> Nancy Gene is just an ignorant dipshit troll


> That is all.

No surprise there, after all, that's what NancyGene has been from the start, when she stalked Stephan Pickering to the group.

And so it goes.

(Autocorrect typo corrected.)

[Faraway Star]

that is correct, and even the name "Nancy Gene" was created to harass Stephan Pickering...

"Tear in her eye."