Was "A July Dawn" written by John Francis O'Donnell?

[NancyGene]

"Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover

"Memories of the Irish Franciscans" (not "Mamories") (1871) does not contain the poem. https://books.google.com/books?id=imMNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover

"Through the Year With the Poets," edited by Oscar Fay Adams (1886) (pp. 15-16) calls the poem "July Dawning," with the author listed as "Unknown."
https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/14/mode/2up

"Poems by John Francis O'Donnell," compiled by John T. Kelly, with an introduction by Richard Dowling, was not published until 1891. Mr. O'Donnell died in 1874. The poems to be included came from a number of people, including “Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.” (At viii in the book.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=UiBIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=A+July+Dawn,+by+John+Francis+O%27Donnell&source=bl&ots=lMGLR3_vxN&sig=ACfU3U1jCGgCQYUx2Hoa2Afr7v8Tn2k_5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP-dHPv7SAAxXKl2oFHWEABCkQ6AF6BAgtEAM#v=onepage&q=A%20July%20Dawn%2C%20by%20John%20Francis%20O'Donnell&f=false
The poem is called "A July Dawn" in that book (pp. 54-55).

We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?

[Michael Pendragon]

You've got me wondering as well.

The authorship of many uncollected 19th century poems is questionable at best, with many poems having been incorrectly attributed. One reason for this is that authors often published their poetry in newspapers, magazines, and journals anonymously, under their first name, or an initial/set of initials, and single-use aliases. "The Raven," for instance, first appeared in the "American Review" attributed only to "Quarles."

Since Mr. O'Donnell's posthumous collection was put together with the help of his son, who provided newspaper clippings, it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made.

One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this -- however, based on the number of above-cited sources that list its author as "Unknown" or unattributed, a more responsible editor would have made note of its questionable status.

[NancyGene]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:

> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> > > > >
> > > > > "Memories of the Irish Franciscans" (not "Mamories") (1871) does not contain the poem. https://books.google.com/books?id=imMNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
> > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> > > > >
> > > > > "Through the Year With the Poets," edited by Oscar Fay Adams (1886) (pp. 15-16) calls the poem "July Dawning," with the author listed as "Unknown."
> > > > > https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/14/mode/2up
>
> > > > > "Poems by John Francis O'Donnell," compiled by John T. Kelly, with an introduction by Richard Dowling, was not published until 1891. Mr. O'Donnell died in 1874. The poems to be included came from a number of people, including “Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.” (At viii in the book.)
> > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=UiBIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=A+July+Dawn,+by+John+Francis+O%27Donnell&source=bl&ots=lMGLR3_vxN&sig=ACfU3U1jCGgCQYUx2Hoa2Afr7v8Tn2k_5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP-dHPv7SAAxXKl2oFHWEABCkQ6AF6BAgtEAM#v=onepage&q=A%20July%20Dawn%2C%20by%20John%20Francis%20O'Donnell&f=false
> > > > > The poem is called "A July Dawn" in that book (pp. 54-55).

> No shit. That's the source I used for the text, and that's the name on the poem. Let's note that you found no

Did you freeze up again, George Dance? We would recommend that you go to a doctor for that, since it has happened so frequently. Stopping mid-sentence as you do may mean low Mensa levels. Note that book was published in 1891.

> > > > > We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?
> > > >

> > > It actually took longer than I expected. But I found the reason; when they couldn't find any real or imagined "errors" in the poem, so they had to clicked over to the bio and search it until they found a couple of typos.

If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source. However, the use of dashes in the poem varies according to the source material. In "Through the Year With the Poets," (1886), there are commas and no dashes. The 1874 printings (with no attribution), use em dashes.

We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).
> > >
> > > Well, this one will have to wait. It's the turn of George Wither tonight.
> > Do you want errors in your author bios, George?
> Of course not. If I find an actual error of fact (which does happen), even a typo, I'll correct it immediately. But again I'll repeat that's a deflection: you and your buffoon didn't find any "errors" in the poem, so you decided to change the subject to something else.
See above on some controversy about the poem. Note that we are not Michael's "buffoon." If you cannot carry on a civil discussion, we will have the Mounties mount you.

> > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.

It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time. It is an embarrassing and funny error. Was there an interest in the mammaries of those Franciscans? It certainly does have something to do with the poem and the blog, since it was on the blog and in the bibliography for Mr. O'Donnell. He did not study mammaries.
>
> I have to conclude that you haven't looked at any of thepoems that NastyGoon has been trolling about, but are just trying to back up your colleague as per your usual m.o.
Do you really believe that? We do not. ("the poems" are two words)

> > Why must you always repay invaluable favors with pettiness and scorn?
> Well, let's look at the "errors" you and your colleague claim to have found in this poem. Exactly one: you're now saying I got the author wrong simply because NastyGoon (who, according to you, "knows how to do a little research") did too little of it this time and came up empty-handed. So the two of you 'speculated,' and decided that O'Donnell "probably" did not write it. You couldn't find any errors in this poem, so you made up a "probable" one.

Look at our citations, George Dance. The first two printings of the poem that survive do not have an identified author. One source on the Internet says it was written by Mr. Gilder. We do not have the clippings of newspaper articles or other papers that were gathered for the "Poems" book, so we do not know for sure who actually write it. It may have been Mr. O'Donnell or he may have appropriated it. Note that we did not write (nor did Michael) that he "probably" did not write the poem.
>
> Do you think your notion that I'd change anything on the blog or wiki because two unreliable sources made up a story like that, much less that I'd believes you'd done me an "invaluable favor" by getting me to do that, deserves anything but scorn?

Then you are a fool, George Dance. Also, "believes" should be "believe."

[NancyGene]

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:28:44 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > "Memories of the Irish Franciscans" (not "Mamories") (1871) does not contain the poem. https://books.google.com/books?id=imMNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
> >
> > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > "Through the Year With the Poets," edited by Oscar Fay Adams (1886) (pp. 15-16) calls the poem "July Dawning," with the author listed as "Unknown."
> > https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/14/mode/2up
> >
> > "Poems by John Francis O'Donnell," compiled by John T. Kelly, with an introduction by Richard Dowling, was not published until 1891. Mr. O'Donnell died in 1874. The poems to be included came from a number of people, including “Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.” (At viii in the book.)
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=UiBIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=A+July+Dawn,+by+John+Francis+O%27Donnell&source=bl&ots=lMGLR3_vxN&sig=ACfU3U1jCGgCQYUx2Hoa2Afr7v8Tn2k_5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP-dHPv7SAAxXKl2oFHWEABCkQ6AF6BAgtEAM#v=onepage&q=A%20July%20Dawn%2C%20by%20John%20Francis%20O'Donnell&f=false
> > The poem is called "A July Dawn" in that book (pp. 54-55).
> >
> > We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?
> You've got me wondering as well.

Short of examining Mr. Donnell's son's papers and the basis for the collected poems, there is at least reasonable doubt.

>
> The authorship of many uncollected 19th century poems is questionable at best, with many poems having been incorrectly attributed. One reason for this is that authors often published their poetry in newspapers, magazines, and journals anonymously, under their first name, or an initial/set of initials, and single-use aliases. "The Raven," for instance, first appeared in the "American Review" attributed only to "Quarles."

We see at https://www.eapoe.org/works/poems/ravena.htm: "Why Poe choose to publish the poem under a pseudonym is uncertain, though it was apparently a general preference for the American Review." Therefore the American Review didn't want real names? We will have to check if we are published there!

>
> Since Mr. O'Donnell's posthumous collection was put together with the help of his son, who provided newspaper clippings, it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made.

The anonymous poems seemed to make the rounds of newspapers and magazines as poetry fillers.

>
> One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this -- however, based on the number of above-cited sources that list its author as "Unknown" or unattributed, a more responsible editor would have made note of its questionable status.

That's what we think too. There is some controversy existent with the poem, and George Dance has not addressed this. The controversy is more interesting than the poem is.

[Rachel]

I don't know if the guy or organization is Chamber or Chambers but shouldn't it be Chamber's or Chambers' Journal?

Who omitted the apostrophe?

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:44:29 PM UTC-7, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:28:44 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>

> > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> > > >
> > > > "Memories of the Irish Franciscans" (not "Mamories") (1871) does not contain the poem. https://books.google.com/books?id=imMNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
> > > >
> > > > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.

Good find, Rachel ^^^^^^^^^^

> > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> > > >
> > > > "Through the Year With the Poets," edited by Oscar Fay Adams (1886) (pp. 15-16) calls the poem "July Dawning," with the author listed as "Unknown."
> > > > https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/14/mode/2up
> > > >
> > > > "Poems by John Francis O'Donnell," compiled by John T. Kelly, with an introduction by Richard Dowling, was not published until 1891. Mr. O'Donnell died in 1874. The poems to be included came from a number of people, including “Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.” (At viii in the book.)
> > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=UiBIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=A+July+Dawn,+by+John+Francis+O%27Donnell&source=bl&ots=lMGLR3_vxN&sig=ACfU3U1jCGgCQYUx2Hoa2Afr7v8Tn2k_5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP-dHPv7SAAxXKl2oFHWEABCkQ6AF6BAgtEAM#v=onepage&q=A%20July%20Dawn%2C%20by%20John%20Francis%20O'Donnell&f=false
> > > > The poem is called "A July Dawn" in that book (pp. 54-55).
> > > >
> > > > We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?

> > > You've got me wondering as well.
> > >
> > > The authorship of many uncollected 19th century poems is questionable at best, with many poems having been incorrectly attributed. One reason for this is that authors often published their poetry in newspapers, magazines, and journals anonymously, under their first name, or an initial/set of initials, and single-use aliases. "The Raven," for instance, first appeared in the "American Review" attributed only to "Quarles."
> > >
> > > Since Mr. O'Donnell's posthumous collection was put together with the help of his son, who provided newspaper clippings, it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made.
> > >
> > > One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this -- however, based on the number of above-cited sources that list its author as "Unknown" or unattributed, a more responsible editor would have made note of its questionable status.
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > >

> > > No shit. That's the source I used for the text, and that's the name on the poem. Let's note that you found no
> >
> > Did you freeze up again, George Dance? We would recommend that you go to a doctor for that, since it has happened so frequently. Stopping mid-sentence as you do may mean low Mensa levels. Note that book was published in 1891.

> > > > > > > We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?
> > > > > >

> > > > > It actually took longer than I expected. But I found the reason; when they couldn't find any real or imagined "errors" in the poem, so they had to clicked over to the bio and search it until they found a couple of typos.
> >
> > If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source. However, the use of dashes in the poem varies according to the source material. In "Through the Year With the Poets," (1886), there are commas and no dashes. The 1874 printings (with no attribution), use em dashes.
> >
> > We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, this one will have to wait. It's the turn of George Wither tonight.
> > > > Do you want errors in your author bios, George?
> > > Of course not. If I find an actual error of fact (which does happen), even a typo, I'll correct it immediately. But again I'll repeat that's a deflection: you and your buffoon didn't find any "errors" in the poem, so you decided to change the subject to something else.
> > See above on some controversy about the poem. Note that we are not Michael's "buffoon." If you cannot carry on a civil discussion, we will have the Mounties mount you.
> >
> > > > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> > > That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.
> >
> > It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time. It is an embarrassing and funny error. Was there an interest in the mammaries of those Franciscans? It certainly does have something to do with the poem and the blog, since it was on the blog and in the bibliography for Mr. O'Donnell. He did not study mammaries.
> > >
> > > I have to conclude that you haven't looked at any of thepoems that NastyGoon has been trolling about, but are just trying to back up your colleague as per your usual m.o.
> > Do you really believe that? We do not. ("the poems" are two words)
> >
> > > > Why must you always repay invaluable favors with pettiness and scorn?
> > > Well, let's look at the "errors" you and your colleague claim to have found in this poem. Exactly one: you're now saying I got the author wrong simply because NastyGoon (who, according to you, "knows how to do a little research") did too little of it this time and came up empty-handed. So the two of you 'speculated,' and decided that O'Donnell "probably" did not write it. You couldn't find any errors in this poem, so you made up a "probable" one.
> >
> > Look at our citations, George Dance. The first two printings of the poem that survive do not have an identified author. One source on the Internet says it was written by Mr. Gilder. We do not have the clippings of newspaper articles or other papers that were gathered for the "Poems" book, so we do not know for sure who actually write it. It may have been Mr. O'Donnell or he may have appropriated it. Note that we did not write (nor did Michael) that he "probably" did not write the poem.
> > >
> > > Do you think your notion that I'd change anything on the blog or wiki because two unreliable sources made up a story like that, much less that I'd believes you'd done me an "invaluable favor" by getting me to do that, deserves anything but scorn?
> >
> > Then you are a fool, George Dance. Also, "believes" should be "believe."
> I don't know if the guy or organization is Chamber or Chambers but shouldn't it be Chamber's or Chambers' Journal?
>
> Who omitted the apostrophe?

Good find, Rachel.

[Rachel]

How can I find something that isn't there?!?!?!?!?!

[Will Dockery]

You found an error by Nancy Gene.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:

Technically, it's "Chambers's Journal of Popular Literature, Science, and Art."

But, as I've said, few of us bother to point out every undotted "i" or uncrossed "t" in a Usenet post.

We do, otoh, point out errors in poems (supposedly posted here for comments and corrections), and it works published on blogs or print-on-demand (both of which can be corrected).

[Will Dockery]

Plus, as we know, apostrophes "don't matter."

🙂

[Rachel]

ahhh.....GOOD POINT, my dear watson!!! :)

[Rachel]

finding something that is missing

it's mind-boggling

[Will Dockery]

With the current topic of the day, yes.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:

> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:44:29 PM UTC-7, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:28:44 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:

<snip for focus>

> > > > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
> > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> > > >

snip

> I don't know if the guy or organization is Chamber or Chambers but shouldn't it be Chamber's or Chambers' Journal?

You're right, Rachel. In this case, since the guy is Chambers, it can be spelled "Chambers' Journal" or should be "Chambers's Journal".

https://dvpp.uvic.ca/prs_417.html

> Who omitted the apostrophe?

NastyGoon, of course. You have to remember that they're Bandar-Log, and they have their own style conventions ("monkeystyle").

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:58:01 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:44:29 PM UTC-7, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:28:44 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> <snip for focus>
> > > > > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
> > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> > > > >
> snip
> > I don't know if the guy or organization is Chamber or Chambers but shouldn't it be Chamber's or Chambers' Journal?
> You're right, Rachel. In this case, since the guy is Chambers, it can be spelled "Chambers' Journal" or should be "Chambers's Journal".

No Dance, she's incorrect. The title of the journal is "Chambers's Journal of Popular Literature, Science, and Art."

This is how the title appeared on the journal's cover:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chambers_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/0MoEAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR3&printsec=frontcover

> https://dvpp.uvic.ca/prs_417.html
>
> > Who omitted the apostrophe?
>
> NastyGoon, of course. You have to remember that they're Bandar-Log, and they have their own style conventions ("monkeystyle").

One can only assume that you are compensating for the forced isolation of your childhood by lashing out with childish name-calling here.

I pity you.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:58:01 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:44:29 PM UTC-7, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:28:44 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> <snip for focus>

> > > > > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
> > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> > > > >

> snip
> > I don't know if the guy or organization is Chamber or Chambers but shouldn't it be Chamber's or Chambers' Journal?
> You're right, Rachel. In this case, since the guy is Chambers, it can be spelled "Chambers' Journal" or should be "Chambers's Journal".
>

> https://dvpp.uvic.ca/prs_417.html
>
> > Who omitted the apostrophe?
>
> NastyGoon, of course. You have to remember that they're Bandar-Log, and they have their own style conventions ("monkeystyle").

The one and only, both of them.

🙂

[George Dance]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover

That's a source I hadn't seen, but it changes nothing. As with the Adams anthology, it looks like Larcom just found the poem in /Chambers's Journal/ and reprinted it.

> > > > > > "Memories of the Irish Franciscans" (not "Mamories") (1871) does not contain the poem. https://books.google.com/books?id=imMNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
> > > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Through the Year With the Poets," edited by Oscar Fay Adams (1886) (pp. 15-16) calls the poem "July Dawning," with the author listed as "Unknown."
> > > > > > https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/14/mode/2up
> >
> > > > > > "Poems by John Francis O'Donnell," compiled by John T. Kelly, with an introduction by Richard Dowling, was not published until 1891. Mr. O'Donnell died in 1874. The poems to be included came from a number of people, including “Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.” (At viii in the book.)
> > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=UiBIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=A+July+Dawn,+by+John+Francis+O%27Donnell&source=bl&ots=lMGLR3_vxN&sig=ACfU3U1jCGgCQYUx2Hoa2Afr7v8Tn2k_5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP-dHPv7SAAxXKl2oFHWEABCkQ6AF6BAgtEAM#v=onepage&q=A%20July%20Dawn%2C%20by%20John%20Francis%20O'Donnell&f=false
> > > > > > The poem is called "A July Dawn" in that book (pp. 54-55).
> > No shit. That's the source I used for the text, and that's the name on the poem. Let's note that you found no
> Did you freeze up again, George Dance? We would recommend that you go to a doctor for that, since it has happened so frequently. Stopping mid-sentence as you do may mean low Mensa levels.

Sorry; reading your list of "sources" that I'd already tracked down was getting boring, so I probably nodded off. I believe that was what I was going to say: that while you did a good job of looking, you found no new information that would lead anyone to doubt O'Donnell's authorship.

> Note that book was published in 1891.

Again, no shit. As you know, all that information -- the poem title, the book title, and the date -- were on the blog; that's where you originally got them from.

> > > > > > We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?
> > > > >

> If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source.

That's called a non-sequitur. Of course I copied the poem from another source -- I gave the source on the blog -- and I've told you before that I prefer to copy them rather than retype them. That doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be any "obvious errors" though; that would depend on whether my source contained "obvious errors" or not.

> However, the use of dashes in the poem varies according to the source material. In "Through the Year With the Poets," (1886), there are commas and no dashes. The 1874 printings (with no attribution), use em dashes.

> We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).

Yes, that's where I started off, too. But I read through Gilder's book and couldn't find the poem there. So I checked with Adams and found the same thing you did. I mean, you did a good job and all, but you are not telling me anything new.

> > Of course not. If I find an actual error of fact (which does happen), even a typo, I'll correct it immediately. But again I'll repeat that's a deflection: you and your buffoon didn't find any "errors" in the poem, so you decided to change the subject to something else.
> See above on some controversy about the poem. Note that we are not Michael's "buffoon." If you cannot carry on a civil discussion, we will have the Mounties mount you.

I am sorry, but as long as you choose to run in the same troll pack as the Monkey and the Chimp, you are going to be NastyGoon the Big Buffoon. If you wish to be treated to in a more civil manner, I'd be happy to; all you have to do is start behaving like someone who deserves to be treated that way.

> > > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> > That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.
> It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time.

See, NG, that's what happens when you run in a pack with Lying Michael; you start telling clumsy, easily disproven lies just like him. We know that typo was *not* on the blog, because you posted a screenshot of it:

https://imgur.com/gallery/mjEYKXl

Anyone who's been on my poetry blog (including you, multiple times) knows that that is *not* it.

Face it, you found no real or pretend "errors" on the blog, so you went looking elsewhere for "errors" you could troll about.

> It is an embarrassing and funny error.

No, it isn't that embarrassing. It looks like you get embarrassed by such things, since you delete all the posts where you make mistakes; but no one else really cares. Mistakes happen, and all one can do is fix 'em.

> Was there an interest in the mammaries of those Franciscans? It certainly does have something to do with the poem and the blog, since it was on the blog

No, NastyGoon, it was *not* on the blog. You really are turning into Michael Monkey; now you've even started Goebbelsing.

> and in the bibliography for Mr. O'Donnell. He did not study mammaries.
> >
> > I have to conclude that you haven't looked at any of thepoems that NastyGoon has been trolling about, but are just trying to back up your colleague as per your usual m.o.

> Do you really believe that? We do not. ("the poems" are two words)

Why not? What makes you think Michael Monkey bothers with any of that? That's what he has you for.

> > Well, let's look at the "errors" you and your colleague claim to have found in this poem. Exactly one: you're now saying I got the author wrong simply because NastyGoon (who, according to you, "knows how to do a little research") did too little of it this time and came up empty-handed. So the two of you 'speculated,' and decided that O'Donnell "probably" did not write it. You couldn't find any errors in this poem, so you made up a "probable" one.

> Look at our citations, George Dance. The first two printings of the poem that survive do not have an identified author.

I've looked at them. You really have just one source, /Chambers's/. Larcom and Adams were American anthologists; it looks like in this case they just nicked an unsigned poem from a British journal, so they're not independent sources. They attributed it to author unknown because there was no author given on that page in /Chambers's/.

> One source on the Internet says it was written by Mr. Gilder.

Well, we both know how that happened. While Discover Poetry is a good site to find poems other sites don't carry, it can't be considered a reliable source for determining authorship. That's all you can conclude from that.

> We do not have the clippings of newspaper articles or other papers that were gathered for the "Poems" book, so we do not know for sure who actually write it.

"...we do not know for sure who actually *wrote* it." (past tense). The papers probably went to the Irish Literary Society, and are wherever their files went. If there were a question of authorship, they'd be available, but there really is none.

> It may have been Mr. O'Donnell or he may have appropriated it.

I'm sorry, NG, but just because we haven't seen the source material, that is no reason to insinuate that O'Donnell was a plagiarist -- or that the editor, Frank T. Kelly, was incompetent. I have no reason to doubt that all the poems in the book are O'Donnell's own.

> Note that we did not write (nor did Michael) that he "probably" did not write the poem.

You wrote only: "We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?"
Michael Monkey answered your question: " it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made. One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You're right: Michael Monkey didn't say I made a "probable" error. He said I made a "highly probable" mistake.

> > Do you think your notion that I'd change anything on the blog or wiki because two unreliable sources made up a story like that, much less that I'd believes you'd done me an "invaluable favor" by getting me to do that, deserves anything but scorn?
> Then you are a fool, George Dance.

There you go, lashing out just like someone I won't mention again in this post.

Instead of that, let's look at your evidence. You found one source for the poem - /Chambers's/ - as all the other sites seem to have copied from that one. Did O'Donnell contribute to /Chambers's/? Indeed he did; according to the Digital Victorian Poetry Project, he contributed 16 poems in total to the magazine -- including "July Dawning":
https://dvpp.uvic.ca/prs_417.html

I'm sure you'd have run into that site, in time. It took me long enough -- a good part of three weeks -- to find it. And you were pressed for time, as you needed something for your troll war.

> Also, "believes" should be "believe."

Shall I expect another imgur picture? if so, please do not label it as from my "blog."

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:34:28 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> That's a source I hadn't seen, but it changes nothing. As with the Adams anthology, it looks like Larcom just found the poem in /Chambers's Journal/ and reprinted it.
>

It shows that Larcom was unable to determine the poem's authorship in 1876 (two years after O'Donnell's death). Dowling's collection was published 15 years later. O'Donnell, being deceased, was not around to confirm that the poem was his. Therefore, Dowling had to have acquired that information from a secondary source (since neither the original publication, nor the version in Lucy Lacorm's anthology, had listed the author's name).

This casts some doubt on the poem's authorship -- particularly since the only "source" we have been informed of is of a circumstantial nature (“Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.”).

A collection of magazine and newspaper clippings only shows that John Francis O'Donnell had seen fit to save copies of the poems in question. It does not *prove* that all of the poems that he saved were his own. As previously explained, I have saved copies of many poems that I liked. In fact, I still have a few original copies of poems that had been sent to me for "Penny Dreadful" and "Songs of Innocence & Experience."

It is, therefore, not inconceivable that Mr. O'Donnell kept copies of poems that he liked in his collection of clippings. Also bear in mind that Mr. O'Donnell, so far as anyone knows, did not collect these clippings with any plans of having them submitted to a publisher after his death. He kept them for his own, unknown reasons.

As previously noted: It is highly probable that the poems in his collection of clippings were his own -- but there is also reason to suspect that one or two of them might have been the work of someone else.

Would a box (or possibly, a scrapbook) of poems clipped out of magazines and newspapers be admitted in a court of law as incontrovertible evidence? Hardly.

It would be considered circumstantial evidence, and would only determine the probability of the poem having been O'Donnell's.

> > > > > > > "Memories of the Irish Franciscans" (not "Mamories") (1871) does not contain the poem. https://books.google.com/books?id=imMNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
> > > > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Through the Year With the Poets," edited by Oscar Fay Adams (1886) (pp. 15-16) calls the poem "July Dawning," with the author listed as "Unknown."
> > > > > > > https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/14/mode/2up
> > >
> > > > > > > "Poems by John Francis O'Donnell," compiled by John T. Kelly, with an introduction by Richard Dowling, was not published until 1891. Mr. O'Donnell died in 1874. The poems to be included came from a number of people, including “Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.” (At viii in the book.)
> > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=UiBIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=A+July+Dawn,+by+John+Francis+O%27Donnell&source=bl&ots=lMGLR3_vxN&sig=ACfU3U1jCGgCQYUx2Hoa2Afr7v8Tn2k_5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP-dHPv7SAAxXKl2oFHWEABCkQ6AF6BAgtEAM#v=onepage&q=A%20July%20Dawn%2C%20by%20John%20Francis%20O'Donnell&f=false
> > > > > > > The poem is called "A July Dawn" in that book (pp. 54-55).
> > > No shit. That's the source I used for the text, and that's the name on the poem. Let's note that you found no
> > Did you freeze up again, George Dance? We would recommend that you go to a doctor for that, since it has happened so frequently. Stopping mid-sentence as you do may mean low Mensa levels.
> Sorry; reading your list of "sources" that I'd already tracked down was getting boring, so I probably nodded off. I believe that was what I was going to say: that while you did a good job of looking, you found no new information that would lead anyone to doubt O'Donnell's authorship.
>

You've been nodding off quite a bit, of late, old man. Are you suffering from narcolepsy?

> > Note that book was published in 1891.
> Again, no shit. As you know, all that information -- the poem title, the book title, and the date -- were on the blog; that's where you originally got them from.
>

My, but you're a snippy little cunt!

There is nothing wrong with reminding you (and any potential readers) that the collection in question was compiled and published 17 years after O'Donnell's death, and was therefore done so through secondary sources (including the aforementioned circumstantial evidence).

> > > > > > > We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?
> > > > > >
> > If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source.
> That's called a non-sequitur. Of course I copied the poem from another source -- I gave the source on the blog -- and I've told you before that I prefer to copy them rather than retype them. That doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be any "obvious errors" though; that would depend on whether my source contained "obvious errors" or not.
>

That is not a non-sequitur, Mr. Dunce.

NancyGene is implying that the *only* reason there were no errors in your copy of the poem was because you had copy/pasted it from another source. IOW: She is saying that you are too incompetent an editor to have corrected any errors on your own.

Since a non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from the argument that preceded it, your labeling it as such is wrong.

> > However, the use of dashes in the poem varies according to the source material. In "Through the Year With the Poets," (1886), there are commas and no dashes. The 1874 printings (with no attribution), use em dashes.
>
> > We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).
> Yes, that's where I started off, too. But I read through Gilder's book and couldn't find the poem there. So I checked with Adams and found the same thing you did. I mean, you did a good job and all, but you are not telling me anything new.
>

Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance.

NancyGene is providing both you, and any readers, with a detailed description of how her research into the subject proceeded.

> > > Of course not. If I find an actual error of fact (which does happen), even a typo, I'll correct it immediately. But again I'll repeat that's a deflection: you and your buffoon didn't find any "errors" in the poem, so you decided to change the subject to something else.
> > See above on some controversy about the poem. Note that we are not Michael's "buffoon." If you cannot carry on a civil discussion, we will have the Mounties mount you.
> I am sorry, but as long as you choose to run in the same troll pack as the Monkey and the Chimp, you are going to be NastyGoon the Big Buffoon. If you wish to be treated to in a more civil manner, I'd be happy to; all you have to do is start behaving like someone who deserves to be treated that way.
>

Seriously?

"I won't be your friend and will call you all sorts of names unless you stop being friends with my enemies!"

You're even more childish (and petty) than I thought, Mr. Dance.

> > > > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> > > That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.
> > It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time.
> See, NG, that's what happens when you run in a pack with Lying Michael; you start telling clumsy, easily disproven lies just like him. We know that typo was *not* on the blog, because you posted a screenshot of it:
>

Where's the lie, George?

NancyGene has provided archived evidence that the error at one time had been "published" on your blog.

> https://imgur.com/gallery/mjEYKXl
>
> Anyone who's been on my poetry blog (including you, multiple times) knows that that is *not* it.

Are you pretending that someone went through the trouble of creating (and archiving) a fake blog page? To what end would someone have done such a thing? Did they hope that someone like NancyGene would discover the fake error years later and proceed to rub your nose in it?

> Face it, you found no real or pretend "errors" on the blog, so you went looking elsewhere for "errors" you could troll about.

How would one find a "pretend error," George?

If a "pretend error" is only pretend, it would not be an error at all. Are you saying that NancyGene was unable to find any non-errors on your blog?

> > It is an embarrassing and funny error.
> No, it isn't that embarrassing. It looks like you get embarrassed by such things, since you delete all the posts where you make mistakes; but no one else really cares. Mistakes happen, and all one can do is fix 'em.
>

The idea that someone would publish a book about the "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is extremely funny, George. Once again your utter inability to recognize humor of any kind is in evidence. When an editor makes an error that is going to cause everyone who reads it to laugh, he should be extremely embarrassed by it.

> > Was there an interest in the mammaries of those Franciscans? It certainly does have something to do with the poem and the blog, since it was on the blog
> No, NastyGoon, it was *not* on the blog. You really are turning into Michael Monkey; now you've even started Goebbelsing.

Once again, NancyGene found an archived page of your blog which *shows* that the error was there.

AFAICS, you are being your naturally duplicitous self: implying that the error *never* existed by referring to current, corrected version of your blog (without specifying it as such).

This demonstrates how deeply such deceitfulness has become a part of your nature.

> > and in the bibliography for Mr. O'Donnell. He did not study mammaries.
> > >
> > > I have to conclude that you haven't looked at any of thepoems that NastyGoon has been trolling about, but are just trying to back up your colleague as per your usual m.o.
>
> > Do you really believe that? We do not. ("the poems" are two words)
> Why not? What makes you think Michael Monkey bothers with any of that? That's what he has you for.

I have read Mr. O'Donnell's poem.

I didn't read it on the Baby Monkey blog. I read the original version that NancyGene had supplied a link to.

> > > Well, let's look at the "errors" you and your colleague claim to have found in this poem. Exactly one: you're now saying I got the author wrong simply because NastyGoon (who, according to you, "knows how to do a little research") did too little of it this time and came up empty-handed. So the two of you 'speculated,' and decided that O'Donnell "probably" did not write it. You couldn't find any errors in this poem, so you made up a "probable" one.
>
> > Look at our citations, George Dance. The first two printings of the poem that survive do not have an identified author.
> I've looked at them. You really have just one source, /Chambers's/. Larcom and Adams were American anthologists; it looks like in this case they just nicked an unsigned poem from a British journal, so they're not independent sources. They attributed it to author unknown because there was no author given on that page in /Chambers's/.
>

What's your point?

Editors were unable to identify the poem's authorship when it was still relatively current. Would an editor 15 years later have more, or less, resources at his disposal?

> > One source on the Internet says it was written by Mr. Gilder.
> Well, we both know how that happened. While Discover Poetry is a good site to find poems other sites don't carry, it can't be considered a reliable source for determining authorship. That's all you can conclude from that.
>

The point remains that there is no reliable source for determining the authorship of this poem. There is no direct evidence of its authorship, and the secondary evidence it's based on is circumstantial. The best we can do is to say that there is probable cause to believe Mr. O'Donnell was the author.

> > We do not have the clippings of newspaper articles or other papers that were gathered for the "Poems" book, so we do not know for sure who actually write it.
> "...we do not know for sure who actually *wrote* it." (past tense). The papers probably went to the Irish Literary Society, and are wherever their files went. If there were a question of authorship, they'd be available, but there really is none.
>

This is an assumption on your part. You have no proof whatsoever that the Irish Literary Society had been contacted, and none that they had any record of the poem's author.

> > It may have been Mr. O'Donnell or he may have appropriated it.
> I'm sorry, NG, but just because we haven't seen the source material, that is no reason to insinuate that O'Donnell was a plagiarist -- or that the editor, Frank T. Kelly, was incompetent. I have no reason to doubt that all the poems in the book are O'Donnell's own.
>

NancyGene has cast no such aspersions on either individual.

The inclusion of an anonymously published poem in a posthumous collection (17 years after the supposed author's death) is necessarily going to be suspect. Unless a signed copy, or an original copy in the author's hand, exists, one can only go by circumstantial evidence.

And, as I have shown you earlier, over 100 poems have been mistakenly attributed to Edgar Poe over the years. Incorrectly attributing poems to authors in posthumous collections happens far more frequently than you are aware.

> > Note that we did not write (nor did Michael) that he "probably" did not write the poem.
> You wrote only: "We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?"
> Michael Monkey answered your question: " it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made. One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You're right: Michael Monkey didn't say I made a "probable" error. He said I made a "highly probable" mistake.

No, you dunce, I said no such thing.

I said that it is highly probable that one or two poems were incorrectly attributed to O'Donnell in Dowling's collection of his works. I also said that you were *NOT* to be blamed for Mr. Dowling's errors.

LEARN TO READ!

> > > Do you think your notion that I'd change anything on the blog or wiki because two unreliable sources made up a story like that, much less that I'd believes you'd done me an "invaluable favor" by getting me to do that, deserves anything but scorn?
> > Then you are a fool, George Dance.
> There you go, lashing out just like someone I won't mention again in this post.

She is not lashing out at you, George.

You claim that anyone who has the temerity to correct your blog is deserving of your scorn. You are the definition of a fool.

> Instead of that, let's look at your evidence. You found one source for the poem - /Chambers's/ - as all the other sites seem to have copied from that one. Did O'Donnell contribute to /Chambers's/? Indeed he did; according to the Digital Victorian Poetry Project, he contributed 16 poems in total to the magazine -- including "July Dawning":
> https://dvpp.uvic.ca/prs_417.html
>

You're repeating yourself, Mr. Dunce.

> I'm sure you'd have run into that site, in time. It took me long enough -- a good part of three weeks -- to find it. And you were pressed for time, as you needed something for your troll war.
> > Also, "believes" should be "believe."
> Shall I expect another imgur picture? if so, please do not label it as from my "blog."

It was a picture taken of your blog. What else should one label it as?

[Faraway Star]

Interesting reading indeed...

[George Dance]

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:55:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:34:28 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> > That's a source I hadn't seen, but it changes nothing. As with the Adams anthology, it looks like Larcom just found the poem in /Chambers's Journal/ and reprinted it.
> >
> It shows that Larcom was unable to determine the poem's authorship in 1876 (two years after O'Donnell's death).

Larcom may have been "unable to determine the poem's authorship" simply because she didn't try to. What makes you think she did?

> Dowling's collection was published 15 years later. O'Donnell, being deceased, was not around to confirm that the poem was his. Therefore, Dowling had to have acquired that information from a secondary source (since neither the original publication, nor the version in Lucy Lacorm's anthology, had listed the author's name).

As I've already told you, the editor's name was Frank Kelly; Dowling just wrote an introduction. Kelly and O'Donnell were both members of the same literary society, so they'd have been acquaintances if not friends.

> This casts some doubt on the poem's authorship -- particularly since the only "source" we have been informed of is of a circumstantial nature (“Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.”).

No, that is another false statement from you, Lying Michael. According to Dowling's introduction:
"For months Mr Kelly devoted the scanty leisure of his days to the object he had at heart. He ransacked the British Museum, transcribed hundreds of poems, and entered into correspondence with people who could give him copies of verses, or supply information 'on the subject of his research. A notion may be formed of the labour expended from the fact that he has had to exclude for want of room, a greater mass of MS. than would make three volumes as bulky as this one." (viii)
https://archive.org/details/poemsjohn00odonrich/page/n11/mode/1up

You were already informed of that.

> A collection of magazine and newspaper clippings only shows that John Francis O'Donnell had seen fit to save copies of the poems in question. It does not *prove* that all of the poems that he saved were his own. As previously explained, I have saved copies of many poems that I liked. In fact, I still have a few original copies of poems that had been sent to me for "Penny Dreadful" and "Songs of Innocence & Experience."

Since there's no reason to think that the poem was even in the collection of "clippings," I don't see any point in reading the rest. You don't know where and when Kelly encountered the poem, or why he was convinced it was O'Donnell's.

> It is, therefore, not inconceivable that Mr. O'Donnell kept copies of poems that he liked in his collection of clippings. Also bear in mind that Mr. O'Donnell, so far as anyone knows, did not collect these clippings with any plans of having them submitted to a publisher after his death. He kept them for his own, unknown reasons.
>
> As previously noted: It is highly probable that the poems in his collection of clippings were his own -- but there is also reason to suspect that one or two of them might have been the work of someone else.
>
> Would a box (or possibly, a scrapbook) of poems clipped out of magazines and newspapers be admitted in a court of law as incontrovertible evidence? Hardly.
>
> It would be considered circumstantial evidence, and would only determine the probability of the poem having been O'Donnell's.

See above.

> > > > > > > > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
> > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Through the Year With the Poets," edited by Oscar Fay Adams (1886) (pp. 15-16) calls the poem "July Dawning," with the author listed as "Unknown."
> > > > > > > > https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/14/mode/2up
> > > >
> > > > > > > > "Poems by John Francis O'Donnell," compiled by John T. Kelly, with an introduction by Richard Dowling, was not published until 1891. Mr. O'Donnell died in 1874. The poems to be included came from a number of people, including “Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.” (At viii in the book.)
> > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=UiBIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=A+July+Dawn,+by+John+Francis+O%27Donnell&source=bl&ots=lMGLR3_vxN&sig=ACfU3U1jCGgCQYUx2Hoa2Afr7v8Tn2k_5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP-dHPv7SAAxXKl2oFHWEABCkQ6AF6BAgtEAM#v=onepage&q=A%20July%20Dawn%2C%20by%20John%20Francis%20O'Donnell&f=false
> > > > > > > > The poem is called "A July Dawn" in that book (pp. 54-55).
> > > > No shit. That's the source I used for the text, and that's the name on the poem. Let's note that you found no
> > > Did you freeze up again, George Dance? We would recommend that you go to a doctor for that, since it has happened so frequently. Stopping mid-sentence as you do may mean low Mensa levels.
> > Sorry; reading your list of "sources" that I'd already tracked down was getting boring, so I probably nodded off. I believe that was what I was going to say: that while you did a good job of looking, you found no new information that would lead anyone to doubt O'Donnell's authorship.
> >
> You've been nodding off quite a bit, of late, old man. Are you suffering from narcolepsy?

Are you suffering from ADHD? Or just trolling again? In either case, please try to stay on topic.

> > > Note that book was published in 1891.

> > Again, no shit. As you know, all that information -- the poem title, the book title, and the date -- were on the blog; that's where you originally got them from.
> >
> My, but you're a snippy little cunt!

Oh, shut the fuck up, troll, if you have nothing better to contribute to the discussion than that. .

> There is nothing wrong with reminding you (and any potential readers) that the collection in question was compiled and published 17 years after O'Donnell's death

Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. I think everyone could solve 1891-1874=x for themselves, but if you think you're contributing to the discussion ...

> , and was therefore done so through secondary sources (including the aforementioned circumstantial evidence).

You're saying the editor couldn't have talked to the author in 1891 because the author was dead? Thank you again, Captain Obvious.

> > > If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source.
> > That's called a non-sequitur. Of course I copied the poem from another source -- I gave the source on the blog -- and I've told you before that I prefer to copy them rather than retype them. That doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be any "obvious errors" though; that would depend on whether my source contained "obvious errors" or not.
> >
> That is not a non-sequitur, Mr. Dunce.
>
> NancyGene is implying that the *only* reason there were no errors in your copy of the poem was because you had copy/pasted it from another source.
> IOW: She is saying that you are too incompetent an editor to have corrected any errors on your own.

Oh, so they were just trolling again. Got it.

> Since a non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from the argument that preceded it, your labeling it as such is wrong.

Sorry, Michael, but the conclusion "there were no errors in the poem" does not logically follow from "you directly copied the poem from another source". One has nothing to do with the other. In human logic, anyway; YLMV.

> > > However, the use of dashes in the poem varies according to the source material. In "Through the Year With the Poets," (1886), there are commas and no dashes. The 1874 printings (with no attribution), use em dashes.
> >
> > > We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).

> > Yes, that's where I started off, too. But I read through Gilder's book and couldn't find the poem there. So I checked with Adams and found the same thing you did. I mean, you did a good job and all, but you are not telling me anything new.
> >
> Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance.
>
> NancyGene is providing both you, and any readers, with a detailed description of how her research into the subject proceeded.

Then don't bitch about me talking about my own research.

> > > See above on some controversy about the poem. Note that we are not Michael's "buffoon." If you cannot carry on a civil discussion, we will have the Mounties mount you.
> > I am sorry, but as long as you choose to run in the same troll pack as the Monkey and the Chimp, you are going to be NastyGoon the Big Buffoon. If you wish to be treated to in a more civil manner, I'd be happy to; all you have to do is start behaving like someone who deserves to be treated that way.
> >
> Seriously?
> "I won't be your friend and will call you all sorts of names unless you stop being friends with my enemies!"
> You're even more childish (and petty) than I thought, Mr. Dance.

Oh, grow up. If you can't handle being called a name, maybe you should both leave Usenet. Go to your private facebook group, where you don't have to worry about what others call you.

> > > > > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> > > > That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.
> > > It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time.
> > See, NG, that's what happens when you run in a pack with Lying Michael; you start telling clumsy, easily disproven lies just like him. We know that typo was *not* on the blog, because you posted a screenshot of it:
> >
> Where's the lie, George?

NG's, you mean? "It was on your blog site..." (right after I'd pointed out that it wasn't). ",,, for an unknown amount of time" was also untrue, but I'd ascribe that to NG's ignorance rather than deliberate dishonesty.

> NancyGene has provided archived evidence that the error at one time had been "published" on your blog.
> > https://imgur.com/gallery/mjEYKXl

I don't believe you actually think that's my "blog," since you've been to the blog (remember that I've published your poetry there) and should be able to remember it. There's a chance you may have forgotten, considering that was a few years ago. But NastyGoon has no such excuse, since they've been to the blog numerous times in July.

> > Anyone who's been on my poetry blog (including you, multiple times) knows that that is *not* it.

> Are you pretending that someone went through the trouble of creating (and archiving) a fake blog page? To what end would someone have done such a thing?

That's perhaps the stupidest strawman argument you've come up with thing you've said so far in this discussion, Michael; and you've already set a high barrier. Why do you think someone would try to create a "fake blog page" and not try to make it look like a real blog page?

> Did they hope that someone like NancyGene would discover the fake error years later and proceed to rub your nose in it?

It was your stupid idea; don't expect me to help you explain it.

> > Face it, you found no real or pretend "errors" on the blog, so you went looking elsewhere for "errors" you could troll about.
> How would one find a "pretend error," George?

You find something that isn't an error and call it one, of course. NastyGoon tends to do that a lot.

> If a "pretend error" is only pretend, it would not be an error at all. Are you saying that NancyGene was unable to find any non-errors on your blog?

None that they could call errors.

> > > It is an embarrassing and funny error.
> > No, it isn't that embarrassing. It looks like you get embarrassed by such things, since you delete all the posts where you make mistakes; but no one else really cares. Mistakes happen, and all one can do is fix 'em.
> >
> The idea that someone would publish a book about the "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is extremely funny, George.

It is a bit funnier than the actual typo NG found, which explains why you'd opt for a pretend "error" instead.

> Once again your utter inability to recognize humor of any kind is in evidence. When an editor makes an error that is going to cause everyone who reads it to laugh, he should be extremely embarrassed by it.

Since the only way anyone is going to read about "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is by reading it in one of your posts in this thread, or any of the multiple threads you're sure to start repeating it in), so I can't say that I'm worried about that.

> > > Was there an interest in the mammaries of those Franciscans? It certainly does have something to do with the poem and the blog, since it was on the blog
> > No, NastyGoon, it was *not* on the blog. You really are turning into Michael Monkey; now you've even started Goebbelsing.
> Once again, NancyGene found an archived page of your blog which *shows* that the error was there.

No, Michael; NastyGoon did not find "an archived page" of my blog. NastyGoon took a screen shot of something else.

> AFAICS, you are being your naturally duplicitous self: implying that the error *never* existed by referring to current, corrected version of your blog (without specifying it as such).

Then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. What I told you was:

"Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all."

> This demonstrates how deeply such deceitfulness has become a part of your nature.

I think it demonstrates more about your penchant for making up and attacking a straw man when you can. This is what, four so far in this post? Or five?

> > > and in the bibliography for Mr. O'Donnell. He did not study mammaries.
> > > >

> > > Do you really believe that? We do not. ("the poems" are two words)
> > Why not? What makes you think Michael Monkey bothers with any of that? That's what he has you for.
> I have read Mr. O'Donnell's poem.
> I didn't read it on the Baby Monkey blog. I read the original version that NancyGene had supplied a link to.

Tell someone who cares, Michael Monkey.

> > > > Well, let's look at the "errors" you and your colleague claim to have found in this poem. Exactly one: you're now saying I got the author wrong simply because NastyGoon (who, according to you, "knows how to do a little research") did too little of it this time and came up empty-handed. So the two of you 'speculated,' and decided that O'Donnell "probably" did not write it. You couldn't find any errors in this poem, so you made up a "probable" one.
> >
> > > Look at our citations, George Dance. The first two printings of the poem that survive do not have an identified author.
> > I've looked at them. You really have just one source, /Chambers's/. Larcom and Adams were American anthologists; it looks like in this case they just nicked an unsigned poem from a British journal, so they're not independent sources. They attributed it to author unknown because there was no author given on that page in /Chambers's/.
> >
> What's your point?

As I just explained, NG found one source: /Chambers's Journal/. All the other sources

> Editors were unable to identify the poem's authorship when it was still relatively current.

As I already explained to you, there's no reason to think that either Larcom or Adams tried to identify the author.

> Would an editor 15 years later have more, or less, resources at his disposal?

More, I'd say; he was the Director of the Irish Literary Club (as the Society was called then), knew O'Donnell, and knew who O'Donnell's friends were. He also had access to the British Museum archives, and spend months going through them in the course of writing the book. While there's no indication that Larcom or Adams did any research on the subject.

> > > One source on the Internet says it was written by Mr. Gilder.
> > Well, we both know how that happened. While Discover Poetry is a good site to find poems other sites don't carry, it can't be considered a reliable source for determining authorship. That's all you can conclude from that.
> >
> The point remains that there is no reliable source for determining the authorship of this poem.

So you've claimed. But you haven't actually done any research on it yourself; as I said, you're just doing backup trolling in a couple of threads.

> There is no direct evidence of its authorship

You mean, NastyGoon didn't find any, and you didn't even look for any (so of course you couldn't find any either). That's hardly definitive.

> , and the secondary evidence it's based on is circumstantial. The best we can do is to say that there is probable cause to believe Mr. O'Donnell was the author.

You can say whatever you want. I told you what I'd say; that you've provided no reason for questioning the authorship.

> > > We do not have the clippings of newspaper articles or other papers that were gathered for the "Poems" book, so we do not know for sure who actually write it.
> > "...we do not know for sure who actually *wrote* it." (past tense). The papers probably went to the Irish Literary Society, and are wherever their files went. If there were a question of authorship, they'd be available, but there really is none.
> >
> This is an assumption on your part. You have no proof whatsoever that the Irish Literary Society had been contacted, and none that they had any record of the poem's author.

We know that both the author and the editor were members of the Southwark Irish Literary Club (which became the Irish Literary Society in 1892), and that Kelly was the Secretary. There'd be no need for him to "contact" himself.

> > > It may have been Mr. O'Donnell or he may have appropriated it.
> > I'm sorry, NG, but just because we haven't seen the source material, that is no reason to insinuate that O'Donnell was a plagiarist -- or that the editor, Frank T. Kelly, was incompetent. I have no reason to doubt that all the poems in the book are O'Donnell's own.
> >
> NancyGene has cast no such aspersions on either individual.
>
> The inclusion of an anonymously published poem in a posthumous collection (17 years after the supposed author's death) is necessarily going to be suspect. Unless a signed copy, or an original copy in the author's hand, exists, one can only go by circumstantial evidence.

Well, you'll have to go look and see if there is one. That would be a more productive use of your time than what you're doing at present.

> And, as I have shown you earlier, over 100 poems have been mistakenly attributed to Edgar Poe over the years. Incorrectly attributing poems to authors in posthumous collections happens far more frequently than you are aware.

> > > Note that we did not write (nor did Michael) that he "probably" did not write the poem.
> > You wrote only: "We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?"
> > Michael Monkey answered your question: " it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made. One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > You're right: Michael Monkey didn't say I made a "probable" error. He said I made a "highly probable" mistake.
> No, you dunce, I said no such thing.
>
> I said that it is highly probable that one or two poems were incorrectly attributed to O'Donnell in Dowling's collection of his works. I also said that you were *NOT* to be blamed for Mr. Dowling's errors.

> LEARN TO READ!

I read it just fine. You claimed that Kelly made a "mistake" in attribu

> > > > Do you think your notion that I'd change anything on the blog or wiki because two unreliable sources made up a story like that, much less that I'd believes you'd done me an "invaluable favor" by getting me to do that, deserves anything but scorn?
> > > Then you are a fool, George Dance.
> > There you go, lashing out just like someone I won't mention again in this post.
> She is not lashing out at you, George.
>
> You claim that anyone who has the temerity to correct your blog is deserving of your scorn.

No, I did not; that's yet another strawman from you. I specifically refer to two unreliable trolls, NastyGoon and her backup, Michael Monkey Peabrain. As for anyone else, we'll look at what they have. You two had nothing that I can see.

> You are the definition of a fool.

Wow! NastyGoon's backup troll agrees with NastyGoon. Stop the fricking presses!

> > Instead of that, let's look at your evidence. You found one source for the poem - /Chambers's/ - as all the other sites seem to have copied from that one. Did O'Donnell contribute to /Chambers's/? Indeed he did; according to the Digital Victorian Poetry Project, he contributed 16 poems in total to the magazine -- including "July Dawning":
> > https://dvpp.uvic.ca/prs_417.html
> >
> You're repeating yourself, Mr. Dunce.

Since you haven't responded to that citation, I think it's fair to repeat it.

> > I'm sure you'd have run into that site, in time. It took me long enough -- a good part of three weeks -- to find it. And you were pressed for time, as you needed something for your troll war.

> > > Also, "believes" should be "believe."
> > Shall I expect another imgur picture? if so, please do not label it as from my "blog."

> It was a picture taken of your blog.

No, Michael, it was not. You're Goebbelsing again.

> What else should one label it as?

An old screenshot from somewhere other than my blog. Maybe you can say it was from a "whatever".

[NancyGene]

George Dance, quit splitting hairs. To anyone else, your blog, wiki, wigwam, and navel gazing sites are all the same. They are your blog. Maybe blarrrgggii would suit you? If you referred to your home and we argued that it wasn't your home but an apartment, would that be an argument worth pursuing over dozens of posts?

> > NancyGene has provided archived evidence that the error at one time had been "published" on your blog.
> > > https://imgur.com/gallery/mjEYKXl
> I don't believe you actually think that's my "blog," since you've been to the blog (remember that I've published your poetry there) and should be able to remember it. There's a chance you may have forgotten, considering that was a few years ago. But NastyGoon has no such excuse, since they've been to the blog numerous times in July.
> > > Anyone who's been on my poetry blog (including you, multiple times) knows that that is *not* it.

Blarrrgggii.

>
> > Are you pretending that someone went through the trouble of creating (and archiving) a fake blog page? To what end would someone have done such a thing?
> That's perhaps the stupidest strawman argument you've come up with thing you've said so far in this discussion, Michael; and you've already set a high barrier. Why do you think someone would try to create a "fake blog page" and not try to make it look like a real blog page?
> > Did they hope that someone like NancyGene would discover the fake error years later and proceed to rub your nose in it?
> It was your stupid idea; don't expect me to help you explain it.
> > > Face it, you found no real or pretend "errors" on the blog, so you went looking elsewhere for "errors" you could troll about.
> > How would one find a "pretend error," George?
> You find something that isn't an error and call it one, of course. NastyGoon tends to do that a lot.
> > If a "pretend error" is only pretend, it would not be an error at all. Are you saying that NancyGene was unable to find any non-errors on your blog?
> None that they could call errors.
> > > > It is an embarrassing and funny error.
> > > No, it isn't that embarrassing. It looks like you get embarrassed by such things, since you delete all the posts where you make mistakes; but no one else really cares. Mistakes happen, and all one can do is fix 'em.
> > >
> > The idea that someone would publish a book about the "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is extremely funny, George.
> It is a bit funnier than the actual typo NG found, which explains why you'd opt for a pretend "error" instead.
> > Once again your utter inability to recognize humor of any kind is in evidence. When an editor makes an error that is going to cause everyone who reads it to laugh, he should be extremely embarrassed by it.
> Since the only way anyone is going to read about "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is by reading it in one of your posts in this thread, or any of the multiple threads you're sure to start repeating it in), so I can't say that I'm worried about that.
> > > > Was there an interest in the mammaries of those Franciscans? It certainly does have something to do with the poem and the blog, since it was on the blog
> > > No, NastyGoon, it was *not* on the blog. You really are turning into Michael Monkey; now you've even started Goebbelsing.

Blarrrgggii. We also see, from recent research, that Mr. O'Donnell's book was also called "Memoirs of the Franciscans" (ref.: DIGITAL VICTORIAN PERIODICAL POETRY). The "Mamories/Memories of the Irish Franciscans" seems to be the title on the books that have survived.

> > Once again, NancyGene found an archived page of your blog which *shows* that the error was there.
> No, Michael; NastyGoon did not find "an archived page" of my blog. NastyGoon took a screen shot of something else.
> > AFAICS, you are being your naturally duplicitous self: implying that the error *never* existed by referring to current, corrected version of your blog (without specifying it as such).
> Then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. What I told you was:
> "Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all."
> > This demonstrates how deeply such deceitfulness has become a part of your nature.
> I think it demonstrates more about your penchant for making up and attacking a straw man when you can. This is what, four so far in this post? Or five?
> > > > and in the bibliography for Mr. O'Donnell. He did not study mammaries.
> > > > >
> > > > Do you really believe that? We do not. ("the poems" are two words)
> > > Why not? What makes you think Michael Monkey bothers with any of that? That's what he has you for.
> > I have read Mr. O'Donnell's poem.
> > I didn't read it on the Baby Monkey blog. I read the original version that NancyGene had supplied a link to.
> Tell someone who cares, Michael Monkey.
> > > > > Well, let's look at the "errors" you and your colleague claim to have found in this poem. Exactly one: you're now saying I got the author wrong simply because NastyGoon (who, according to you, "knows how to do a little research") did too little of it this time and came up empty-handed. So the two of you 'speculated,' and decided that O'Donnell "probably" did not write it. You couldn't find any errors in this poem, so you made up a "probable" one.
> > >
> > > > Look at our citations, George Dance. The first two printings of the poem that survive do not have an identified author.
> > > I've looked at them. You really have just one source, /Chambers's/. Larcom and Adams were American anthologists; it looks like in this case they just nicked an unsigned poem from a British journal, so they're not independent sources. They attributed it to author unknown because there was no author given on that page in /Chambers's/.
> > >
> > What's your point?
> As I just explained, NG found one source: /Chambers's Journal/. All the other sources

Are you freezing up again, George Dance?

That's twice you have frozen in a couple of minutes. We are available for a WebMD consultation on your condition. We may have to operate. Please shave your head.

> > > > > Do you think your notion that I'd change anything on the blog or wiki because two unreliable sources made up a story like that, much less that I'd believes you'd done me an "invaluable favor" by getting me to do that, deserves anything but scorn?
> > > > Then you are a fool, George Dance.
> > > There you go, lashing out just like someone I won't mention again in this post.
> > She is not lashing out at you, George.
> >
> > You claim that anyone who has the temerity to correct your blog is deserving of your scorn.
> No, I did not; that's yet another strawman from you. I specifically refer to two unreliable trolls, NastyGoon and her backup, Michael Monkey Peabrain. As for anyone else, we'll look at what they have. You two had nothing that I can see.
> > You are the definition of a fool.
> Wow! NastyGoon's backup troll agrees with NastyGoon. Stop the fricking presses!
> > > Instead of that, let's look at your evidence. You found one source for the poem - /Chambers's/ - as all the other sites seem to have copied from that one. Did O'Donnell contribute to /Chambers's/? Indeed he did; according to the Digital Victorian Poetry Project, he contributed 16 poems in total to the magazine -- including "July Dawning":
> > > https://dvpp.uvic.ca/prs_417.html

We have more to say on that, including that was a good find, George Dance, but in the spirit of George Dance thinking, we would have found it with just a little more research and why did it take you so long? So, thank you, but no thank you.

> > >
> > You're repeating yourself, Mr. Dunce.
> Since you haven't responded to that citation, I think it's fair to repeat it.
> > > I'm sure you'd have run into that site, in time. It took me long enough -- a good part of three weeks -- to find it. And you were pressed for time, as you needed something for your troll war.

Why would it take you 3 weeks? We would have found it in a few minutes.

>
> > > > Also, "believes" should be "believe."
> > > Shall I expect another imgur picture? if so, please do not label it as from my "blog."
>
> > It was a picture taken of your blog.
> No, Michael, it was not. You're Goebbelsing again.
> > What else should one label it as?
> An old screenshot from somewhere other than my blog. Maybe you can say it was from a "whatever".

Your Blarrrgggii. Does that cover all iterations? It was a screenshot from the specific day that we found the error.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:01:39 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:55:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:34:28 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> > > That's a source I hadn't seen, but it changes nothing. As with the Adams anthology, it looks like Larcom just found the poem in /Chambers's Journal/ and reprinted it.
> > >
> > It shows that Larcom was unable to determine the poem's authorship in 1876 (two years after O'Donnell's death).
> Larcom may have been "unable to determine the poem's authorship" simply because she didn't try to. What makes you think she did?
>

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Interestingly, I naturally assume that other editors will do what I would have done in a similar situation. I would have attempted to contact the author for permission to reprint his poem -- and were I able to contact him, would have enquired as to whether he would like to poem to appear under his name, or to remain anonymous.

You, otoh, being a brain-dead, aging stoner, are a lazy mo-fo who takes ten years to "publish" a small chapbook of Donkey drivel, project your own qualities onto other editors accordingly.

> > Dowling's collection was published 15 years later. O'Donnell, being deceased, was not around to confirm that the poem was his. Therefore, Dowling had to have acquired that information from a secondary source (since neither the original publication, nor the version in Lucy Lacorm's anthology, had listed the author's name).
> As I've already told you, the editor's name was Frank Kelly; Dowling just wrote an introduction. Kelly and O'Donnell were both members of the same literary society, so they'd have been acquaintances if not friends.
>

Georgie thinks that I've been paying attention to him (snigger).

> > This casts some doubt on the poem's authorship -- particularly since the only "source" we have been informed of is of a circumstantial nature (“Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.”).
> No, that is another false statement from you, Lying Michael. According to Dowling's introduction:
> "For months Mr Kelly devoted the scanty leisure of his days to the object he had at heart. He ransacked the British Museum, transcribed hundreds of poems, and entered into correspondence with people who could give him copies of verses, or supply information 'on the subject of his research. A notion may be formed of the labour expended from the fact that he has had to exclude for want of room, a greater mass of MS. than would make three volumes as bulky as this one." (viii)
> https://archive.org/details/poemsjohn00odonrich/page/n11/mode/1up

Ransacking the British Museum would not turn up the authorship of an anonymously published poem. Nor is it likely that any of his friends would have been in possession of the anonymous poem -- and, even if they were, their testimony would be hearsay -- and possibly subject to misremembering after in the 17 years that had passed since the poet's death.

> You were already informed of that.

Mr. Kelly's herculean efforts aside, the above passage sheds no light on the poem's authorship... nor, for that matter, does it even so much as suggest that said authorship had been determined.

> > A collection of magazine and newspaper clippings only shows that John Francis O'Donnell had seen fit to save copies of the poems in question. It does not *prove* that all of the poems that he saved were his own. As previously explained, I have saved copies of many poems that I liked. In fact, I still have a few original copies of poems that had been sent to me for "Penny Dreadful" and "Songs of Innocence & Experience."
> Since there's no reason to think that the poem was even in the collection of "clippings," I don't see any point in reading the rest. You don't know where and when Kelly encountered the poem, or why he was convinced it was O'Donnell's.
>

That's right, Dunce. I don't know why Kelly was convinced it was O'Donnell's, and neither do you.

All that we know about the poem's authorship is that it:

1) had originally been published anonymously;
2) had been reprinted, again anonymously, shortly after O'Donnell's death,
and
3) that Kelly was greatly indebted to O'Donnell's son for sharing his father's collection of poems he had clipped out of newspapers and magazines (which may have included an anonymous copy of this poem).

> > It is, therefore, not inconceivable that Mr. O'Donnell kept copies of poems that he liked in his collection of clippings. Also bear in mind that Mr. O'Donnell, so far as anyone knows, did not collect these clippings with any plans of having them submitted to a publisher after his death. He kept them for his own, unknown reasons.
> >
> > As previously noted: It is highly probable that the poems in his collection of clippings were his own -- but there is also reason to suspect that one or two of them might have been the work of someone else.
> >
> > Would a box (or possibly, a scrapbook) of poems clipped out of magazines and newspapers be admitted in a court of law as incontrovertible evidence? Hardly.
> >
> > It would be considered circumstantial evidence, and would only determine the probability of the poem having been O'Donnell's.
> See above.
> > > > > > > > > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
> > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Through the Year With the Poets," edited by Oscar Fay Adams (1886) (pp. 15-16) calls the poem "July Dawning," with the author listed as "Unknown."
> > > > > > > > > https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/14/mode/2up
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Poems by John Francis O'Donnell," compiled by John T. Kelly, with an introduction by Richard Dowling, was not published until 1891. Mr. O'Donnell died in 1874. The poems to be included came from a number of people, including “Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.” (At viii in the book.)
> > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=UiBIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=A+July+Dawn,+by+John+Francis+O%27Donnell&source=bl&ots=lMGLR3_vxN&sig=ACfU3U1jCGgCQYUx2Hoa2Afr7v8Tn2k_5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP-dHPv7SAAxXKl2oFHWEABCkQ6AF6BAgtEAM#v=onepage&q=A%20July%20Dawn%2C%20by%20John%20Francis%20O'Donnell&f=false
> > > > > > > > > The poem is called "A July Dawn" in that book (pp. 54-55).
> > > > > No shit. That's the source I used for the text, and that's the name on the poem. Let's note that you found no
> > > > Did you freeze up again, George Dance? We would recommend that you go to a doctor for that, since it has happened so frequently. Stopping mid-sentence as you do may mean low Mensa levels.
> > > Sorry; reading your list of "sources" that I'd already tracked down was getting boring, so I probably nodded off. I believe that was what I was going to say: that while you did a good job of looking, you found no new information that would lead anyone to doubt O'Donnell's authorship.
> > >
> > You've been nodding off quite a bit, of late, old man. Are you suffering from narcolepsy?
> Are you suffering from ADHD? Or just trolling again? In either case, please try to stay on topic.

Your nodding off is pertinent to the topic, Dunce, as it helps explain your inability to understand the greater portion of what my colleague and I have been saying.

> > > > Note that book was published in 1891.
>
> > > Again, no shit. As you know, all that information -- the poem title, the book title, and the date -- were on the blog; that's where you originally got them from.
> > >
> > My, but you're a snippy little cunt!
> Oh, shut the fuck up, troll, if you have nothing better to contribute to the discussion than that. .

Like I said.

FYI: The addition of a second period neither increases nor emphasizes the finality of a sentence.

> > There is nothing wrong with reminding you (and any potential readers) that the collection in question was compiled and published 17 years after O'Donnell's death
> Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. I think everyone could solve 1891-1874=x for themselves, but if you think you're contributing to the discussion ...
>

Are your really so dense as to be unable to see how the passing of 17 years could obscure the origins of an anonymously published poem?

> > , and was therefore done so through secondary sources (including the aforementioned circumstantial evidence).
> You're saying the editor couldn't have talked to the author in 1891 because the author was dead? Thank you again, Captain Obvious.
>

On usually confirms a poem's authorship by going to the source.

In this case the first source (the author) was deceased; and the second source (the magazine) had published it anonymously.

Lacking these two sources, the only means of establishing O'Donnell's authorship would be the introduction of an original copy (preferably signed) in his hand.

> > > > If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source.
> > > That's called a non-sequitur. Of course I copied the poem from another source -- I gave the source on the blog -- and I've told you before that I prefer to copy them rather than retype them. That doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be any "obvious errors" though; that would depend on whether my source contained "obvious errors" or not.
> > >
> > That is not a non-sequitur, Mr. Dunce.
> >
> > NancyGene is implying that the *only* reason there were no errors in your copy of the poem was because you had copy/pasted it from another source.
> > IOW: She is saying that you are too incompetent an editor to have corrected any errors on your own.
> Oh, so they were just trolling again. Got it.

No, silly Dunce -- she was making a well-founded observation.

> > Since a non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from the argument that preceded it, your labeling it as such is wrong.
> Sorry, Michael, but the conclusion "there were no errors in the poem" does not logically follow from "you directly copied the poem from another source". One has nothing to do with the other. In human logic, anyway; YLMV.
>

That is not what I said, Dunce.

Please enroll in a basic English course.

I said that the *only* way a semi-literate moron like George "BM" Dunce could "publish" an error-free poem would be if he copy-pasted an already edited (and, consequently, error-free) poem from another source.

Which, it turns out, is precisely what you did.

> > > > However, the use of dashes in the poem varies according to the source material. In "Through the Year With the Poets," (1886), there are commas and no dashes. The 1874 printings (with no attribution), use em dashes.
> > >
> > > > We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).
>
> > > Yes, that's where I started off, too. But I read through Gilder's book and couldn't find the poem there. So I checked with Adams and found the same thing you did. I mean, you did a good job and all, but you are not telling me anything new.
> > >
> > Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance.
> >
> > NancyGene is providing both you, and any readers, with a detailed description of how her research into the subject proceeded.
> Then don't bitch about me talking about my own research.

No one has done any such thing, Mr. Paranoia.

> > > > See above on some controversy about the poem. Note that we are not Michael's "buffoon." If you cannot carry on a civil discussion, we will have the Mounties mount you.
> > > I am sorry, but as long as you choose to run in the same troll pack as the Monkey and the Chimp, you are going to be NastyGoon the Big Buffoon. If you wish to be treated to in a more civil manner, I'd be happy to; all you have to do is start behaving like someone who deserves to be treated that way.
> > >
> > Seriously?
> > "I won't be your friend and will call you all sorts of names unless you stop being friends with my enemies!"
> > You're even more childish (and petty) than I thought, Mr. Dance.
> Oh, grow up. If you can't handle being called a name, maybe you should both leave Usenet. Go to your private facebook group, where you don't have to worry about what others call you.
>

I call you childish, so you respond by telling me to "grow up." T4T or IKYABWAI? You're so predictable.

> > > > > > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> > > > > That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.
> > > > It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time.
> > > See, NG, that's what happens when you run in a pack with Lying Michael; you start telling clumsy, easily disproven lies just like him. We know that typo was *not* on the blog, because you posted a screenshot of it:
> > >
> > Where's the lie, George?
> NG's, you mean? "It was on your blog site..." (right after I'd pointed out that it wasn't). ",,, for an unknown amount of time" was also untrue, but I'd ascribe that to NG's ignorance rather than deliberate dishonesty.
>

How do you explain NancyGene's posting a link to an archived copy of your blog site where the error can clearly be seen?

> > NancyGene has provided archived evidence that the error at one time had been "published" on your blog.
> > > https://imgur.com/gallery/mjEYKXl
> I don't believe you actually think that's my "blog," since you've been to the blog (remember that I've published your poetry there) and should be able to remember it. There's a chance you may have forgotten, considering that was a few years ago. But NastyGoon has no such excuse, since they've been to the blog numerous times in July.
>

I don't speak computer jargon, Dunce. I don't know the difference between a blog, a wiki, and a web page, and couldn't care less.

As far as I can make out, your current argument is that the image NancyGene linked to wasn't your actual blog, but a screenshot of your blog from some time in the past. Since you have subsequently corrected the error on your blog, NancyGene's archival screenshot is no longer to be considered your blog because...

I give up. Dunce Logic is circular, nonsensical, and predicated upon the pettiest of semantic particulars (incorrectly), and frustratingly convoluted and obtuse. The above argument is no exception.

The plain truth is that you 1) mistakenly "published" the typo on your blog (or wiki) which you subsequently corrected; and 2) NancyGene provided evidence of your having previously made said mistake.

> > > Anyone who's been on my poetry blog (including you, multiple times) knows that that is *not* it.
>
> > Are you pretending that someone went through the trouble of creating (and archiving) a fake blog page? To what end would someone have done such a thing?
> That's perhaps the stupidest strawman argument you've come up with thing you've said so far in this discussion, Michael; and you've already set a high barrier. Why do you think someone would try to create a "fake blog page" and not try to make it look like a real blog page?
>

That's sarcasm, you witless dolt.

> > Did they hope that someone like NancyGene would discover the fake error years later and proceed to rub your nose in it?
> It was your stupid idea; don't expect me to help you explain it.

That's more sarcasm, Dunderdunce.

> > > Face it, you found no real or pretend "errors" on the blog, so you went looking elsewhere for "errors" you could troll about.
> > How would one find a "pretend error," George?
> You find something that isn't an error and call it one, of course. NastyGoon tends to do that a lot.

You're rather slow on the uptake, Dunce.

One cannot *find* a "pretend error" as no such animal exists. One can pretend that an error exists, but one cannot *find* said non-existent error.

> > If a "pretend error" is only pretend, it would not be an error at all. Are you saying that NancyGene was unable to find any non-errors on your blog?
> None that they could call errors.

You just claimed that a "pretend error" means "something that isn't an error and you call it one." In that case, NancyGene should be able to randomly select any word or statement in your blog and "pretend" that it is incorrect.

You can't even keep your own gibberish straight -- no wonder that your Dunce Logic inevitably proves so inane.

> > > > It is an embarrassing and funny error.
> > > No, it isn't that embarrassing. It looks like you get embarrassed by such things, since you delete all the posts where you make mistakes; but no one else really cares. Mistakes happen, and all one can do is fix 'em.
> > >
> > The idea that someone would publish a book about the "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is extremely funny, George.
> It is a bit funnier than the actual typo NG found, which explains why you'd opt for a pretend "error" instead.

That isn't a "pretend error," Dunce. That's a hypothetical speculation. The *idea* that someone would publish such a book is hilarious.

> > Once again your utter inability to recognize humor of any kind is in evidence. When an editor makes an error that is going to cause everyone who reads it to laugh, he should be extremely embarrassed by it.
> Since the only way anyone is going to read about "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is by reading it in one of your posts in this thread, or any of the multiple threads you're sure to start repeating it in), so I can't say that I'm worried about that.
>

"Mamories" (which is what you'd published) phonetically translates to "Mammaries." Yes, it would have been funnier if you'd accidentally written "Mammaries," however, only Will Donkey and his legendary autocorrect app could commit an error of that proportion.

> > > > Was there an interest in the mammaries of those Franciscans? It certainly does have something to do with the poem and the blog, since it was on the blog
> > > No, NastyGoon, it was *not* on the blog. You really are turning into Michael Monkey; now you've even started Goebbelsing.
> > Once again, NancyGene found an archived page of your blog which *shows* that the error was there.
> No, Michael; NastyGoon did not find "an archived page" of my blog. NastyGoon took a screen shot of something else.

What word are you having your hissyfit over, Dunce?

Rather than whining incessantly over a word, why not just tell me the word you would like me use?

Once you do, I can ask you if the _____ that NancyGene provided a link to accurately documented an error that existed on your blog at some point in the past.

> > AFAICS, you are being your naturally duplicitous self: implying that the error *never* existed by referring to current, corrected version of your blog (without specifying it as such).
> Then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. What I told you was:
> "Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all."
>

In spite of all your whining, bitching, and dancing around the issue, it still seems that the error in question *did* exist on your blog at some point in the past.

> > This demonstrates how deeply such deceitfulness has become a part of your nature.
> I think it demonstrates more about your penchant for making up and attacking a straw man when you can. This is what, four so far in this post? Or five?
>

None, Dunce. And your attempt to deflect the argument with false accusations has been noted.

> > > > and in the bibliography for Mr. O'Donnell. He did not study mammaries.
> > > > >
> > > > Do you really believe that? We do not. ("the poems" are two words)
> > > Why not? What makes you think Michael Monkey bothers with any of that? That's what he has you for.
> > I have read Mr. O'Donnell's poem.
> > I didn't read it on the Baby Monkey blog. I read the original version that NancyGene had supplied a link to.
> Tell someone who cares, Michael Monkey.

Aw... did Baby Monkey's feelings get hurt?

> > > > > Well, let's look at the "errors" you and your colleague claim to have found in this poem. Exactly one: you're now saying I got the author wrong simply because NastyGoon (who, according to you, "knows how to do a little research") did too little of it this time and came up empty-handed. So the two of you 'speculated,' and decided that O'Donnell "probably" did not write it. You couldn't find any errors in this poem, so you made up a "probable" one.
> > >
> > > > Look at our citations, George Dance. The first two printings of the poem that survive do not have an identified author.
> > > I've looked at them. You really have just one source, /Chambers's/. Larcom and Adams were American anthologists; it looks like in this case they just nicked an unsigned poem from a British journal, so they're not independent sources. They attributed it to author unknown because there was no author given on that page in /Chambers's/.
> > >
> > What's your point?
> As I just explained, NG found one source: /Chambers's Journal/. All the other sources

Narcolepsy again, Dunce?

> > Editors were unable to identify the poem's authorship when it was still relatively current.
> As I already explained to you, there's no reason to think that either Larcom or Adams tried to identify the author.

Projecting again (see above)?

> > Would an editor 15 years later have more, or less, resources at his disposal?
> More, I'd say; he was the Director of the Irish Literary Club (as the Society was called then), knew O'Donnell, and knew who O'Donnell's friends were. He also had access to the British Museum archives, and spend months going through them in the course of writing the book. While there's no indication that Larcom or Adams did any research on the subject.
>

Why should the Irish Mammaries Club, O'Donnell's surviving friends, or the British Mammary Archives have any knowledge regarding the authorship of an anonymously published poem?

> > > > One source on the Internet says it was written by Mr. Gilder.
> > > Well, we both know how that happened. While Discover Poetry is a good site to find poems other sites don't carry, it can't be considered a reliable source for determining authorship. That's all you can conclude from that.
> > >
> > The point remains that there is no reliable source for determining the authorship of this poem.
> So you've claimed. But you haven't actually done any research on it yourself; as I said, you're just doing backup trolling in a couple of threads.
>

Allow me to modify the above: *George Dance* failed to provide any reliable sources for attributing the poem to Mr. O'Donnell.

> > There is no direct evidence of its authorship
> You mean, NastyGoon didn't find any, and you didn't even look for any (so of course you couldn't find any either). That's hardly definitive.
>

I mean that *George Dance* failed to provide any direct evidence regarding the poem's authorship.

> > , and the secondary evidence it's based on is circumstantial. The best we can do is to say that there is probable cause to believe Mr. O'Donnell was the author.
> You can say whatever you want. I told you what I'd say; that you've provided no reason for questioning the authorship.

Wrong.

The *fact* that the poem had been published anonymously during Mr. O'Donnell's lifetime, and was nut attributed to him until 17 years after his death is sufficient reason to place its authorship in question.

> > > > We do not have the clippings of newspaper articles or other papers that were gathered for the "Poems" book, so we do not know for sure who actually write it.
> > > "...we do not know for sure who actually *wrote* it." (past tense). The papers probably went to the Irish Literary Society, and are wherever their files went. If there were a question of authorship, they'd be available, but there really is none.
> > >
> > This is an assumption on your part. You have no proof whatsoever that the Irish Literary Society had been contacted, and none that they had any record of the poem's author.
> We know that both the author and the editor were members of the Southwark Irish Literary Club (which became the Irish Literary Society in 1892), and that Kelly was the Secretary. There'd be no need for him to "contact" himself.
>

Which, again, does not even begin to establish that the Irish Literary Society would have had any knowledge of the poem's authorship.

> > > > It may have been Mr. O'Donnell or he may have appropriated it.
> > > I'm sorry, NG, but just because we haven't seen the source material, that is no reason to insinuate that O'Donnell was a plagiarist -- or that the editor, Frank T. Kelly, was incompetent. I have no reason to doubt that all the poems in the book are O'Donnell's own.
> > >
> > NancyGene has cast no such aspersions on either individual.
> >
> > The inclusion of an anonymously published poem in a posthumous collection (17 years after the supposed author's death) is necessarily going to be suspect. Unless a signed copy, or an original copy in the author's hand, exists, one can only go by circumstantial evidence.
> Well, you'll have to go look and see if there is one. That would be a more productive use of your time than what you're doing at present.
>

Picking my nose would prove to be a more productive use of my time than my discussing anything with a dunce.

> > And, as I have shown you earlier, over 100 poems have been mistakenly attributed to Edgar Poe over the years. Incorrectly attributing poems to authors in posthumous collections happens far more frequently than you are aware.
>
> > > > Note that we did not write (nor did Michael) that he "probably" did not write the poem.
> > > You wrote only: "We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?"
> > > Michael Monkey answered your question: " it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made. One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > You're right: Michael Monkey didn't say I made a "probable" error. He said I made a "highly probable" mistake.
> > No, you dunce, I said no such thing.
> >
> > I said that it is highly probable that one or two poems were incorrectly attributed to O'Donnell in Dowling's collection of his works. I also said that you were *NOT* to be blamed for Mr. Dowling's errors.
>
> > LEARN TO READ!
> I read it just fine. You claimed that Kelly made a "mistake" in attribu

WAKE UP! You narcoleptic f**k.

I made no such claim at all. I said that it was highly probable that Mr. Kelly (I'd actually said Mr. Dowling, but we'll pretend I didn't for the sake of argument) incorrectly attributed one or two poems to Mr. O'Donnell.

Based on the number of poems incorrectly attributed to Mr. Poe or the years (discussed earlier), I would be astounded to learn that no such errors of that sort made their way into Mr. Kelly's collection.

> > > > > Do you think your notion that I'd change anything on the blog or wiki because two unreliable sources made up a story like that, much less that I'd believes you'd done me an "invaluable favor" by getting me to do that, deserves anything but scorn?
> > > > Then you are a fool, George Dance.
> > > There you go, lashing out just like someone I won't mention again in this post.
> > She is not lashing out at you, George.
> >
> > You claim that anyone who has the temerity to correct your blog is deserving of your scorn.
> No, I did not; that's yet another strawman from you. I specifically refer to two unreliable trolls, NastyGoon and her backup, Michael Monkey Peabrain. As for anyone else, we'll look at what they have. You two had nothing that I can see.
>

Since we are the only two to have noted the errors in your blog, my statement stands.

> > You are the definition of a fool.
> Wow! NastyGoon's backup troll agrees with NastyGoon. Stop the fricking presses!

So now I'm NancyGene's backup troll? The last time you went off on one of your paranoid/persecution rants, you claimed that NancyGene was working for me.

Apparently you can't keep your delusions straight, as well.

> > > Instead of that, let's look at your evidence. You found one source for the poem - /Chambers's/ - as all the other sites seem to have copied from that one. Did O'Donnell contribute to /Chambers's/? Indeed he did; according to the Digital Victorian Poetry Project, he contributed 16 poems in total to the magazine -- including "July Dawning":
> > > https://dvpp.uvic.ca/prs_417.html
> > >
> > You're repeating yourself, Mr. Dunce.
> Since you haven't responded to that citation, I think it's fair to repeat it.

There's nothing further to say about it, Dunce.

The poem originally anonymously in Chambers's Journal. Over the course of the next 17 years, *all* known reprints of the poem listed it as "anonymous" (using Chambers's as a source). The attribution first appeared in Kelly's collect, 17 years after the first publication (and the author's death) based on... what?

> > > I'm sure you'd have run into that site, in time. It took me long enough -- a good part of three weeks -- to find it. And you were pressed for time, as you needed something for your troll war.
>
> > > > Also, "believes" should be "believe."
> > > Shall I expect another imgur picture? if so, please do not label it as from my "blog."
>
> > It was a picture taken of your blog.
> No, Michael, it was not. You're Goebbelsing again.

I'm sorry, Dunce. Would "screenshot" be more acceptable?

> > What else should one label it as?
> An old screenshot from somewhere other than my blog. Maybe you can say it was from a "whatever".

Bottom line: Did the error *ever* appear on your blog or wiki (etc.) at any time in the past?

[George Dance]

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 11:22:21 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:01:39 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:55:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:34:28 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> > > > That's a source I hadn't seen, but it changes nothing. As with the Adams anthology, it looks like Larcom just found the poem in /Chambers's Journal/ and reprinted it.
> > > >
> > > It shows that Larcom was unable to determine the poem's authorship in 1876 (two years after O'Donnell's death).
> > Larcom may have been "unable to determine the poem's authorship" simply because she didn't try to. What makes you think she did?
> >
> I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Interestingly, I naturally assume that other editors will do what I would have done in a similar situation. I would have attempted to contact the author for permission to reprint his poem -- and were I able to contact him, would have enquired as to whether he would like to poem to appear under his name, or to remain anonymous.

Oh, I see: you've put Larcom on the "good side" of your story, so you're going to pretend her ethics were beyond reproach. She grabbed a poem out of a British journal and printed it without bothering about permission or paying for it. (Which was legal in those days, there being no international copyright.) She also rewrote parts of the poem, and changed the title, once again on her own. But of course, you're convinced she'd *must* have made a scrupulous search to find the author, to ask him what name he wanted on his poem that she'd butchered.

(Same with Adams, BTW; he did a great job editing his volume, but he did take British poems without permission, and did make his own changes.)

> You, otoh, being a brain-dead, aging stoner, are a lazy mo-fo who takes ten years to "publish" a small chapbook of Donkey drivel, project your own qualities onto other editors accordingly.

Yes, Monkey, we know: I published Will in a book and on my blog, which is how I and my blog got on your "adversary" list in the first place.

> > > Dowling's collection was published 15 years later. O'Donnell, being deceased, was not around to confirm that the poem was his. Therefore, Dowling had to have acquired that information from a secondary source (since neither the original publication, nor the version in Lucy Lacorm's anthology, had listed the author's name).
> > As I've already told you, the editor's name was Frank Kelly; Dowling just wrote an introduction. Kelly and O'Donnell were both members of the same literary society, so they'd have been acquaintances if not friends.
> >
> Georgie thinks that I've been paying attention to him (snigger).

No one thinks that you're paying attention to any of this, Mr. Monkey. As usual, you made up your own story, inventing your own "facts" to fit, and you're sticking to it. Keep telling yourself that makes you look good.

> > > This casts some doubt on the poem's authorship -- particularly since the only "source" we have been informed of is of a circumstantial nature (“Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.”).
> > No, that is another false statement from you, Lying Michael. According to Dowling's introduction:
> > "For months Mr Kelly devoted the scanty leisure of his days to the object he had at heart. He ransacked the British Museum, transcribed hundreds of poems, and entered into correspondence with people who could give him copies of verses, or supply information 'on the subject of his research. A notion may be formed of the labour expended from the fact that he has had to exclude for want of room, a greater mass of MS. than would make three volumes as bulky as this one." (viii)
> > https://archive.org/details/poemsjohn00odonrich/page/n11/mode/1up

> Ransacking the British Museum would not turn up the authorship of an anonymously published poem. Nor is it likely that any of his friends would have been in possession of the anonymous poem -- and, even if they were, their testimony would be hearsay -- and possibly subject to misremembering after in the 17 years that had passed since the poet's death.

Both Kelly, O'Donnell, and many of their "friends" were in the same literary club, as I told you. Whether or not they had copies, it's likely they knew O'Donnell was publishing in /Chambers/. As NG already explained, all one had to do to find the authorship was to contact /Chambers's/. "Hearsay" has nothing to do with it.

> > You were already informed of that.

> Mr. Kelly's herculean efforts aside, the above passage sheds no light on the poem's authorship... nor, for that matter, does it even so much as suggest that said authorship had been determined.

Thank you for finally getting the editor's name right, Mr. Monkey; but what the passage does show is that he did a lot more than just publish a bunch of "clippings" without doing any other, as per your original story about (though I'll note that once again you're changing your story on the fly). It also shows he is as likely to have run into the poem from some other source as he was to have found it in the "clippings" -- you have no reason (except that you imagined it) to think "July Dawn" was ever on the "clippings". None. You've just been making up your own pretend "facts", as per your usual m.o.

> > > A collection of magazine and newspaper clippings only shows that John Francis O'Donnell had seen fit to save copies of the poems in question. It does not *prove* that all of the poems that he saved were his own. As previously explained, I have saved copies of many poems that I liked. In fact, I still have a few original copies of poems that had been sent to me for "Penny Dreadful" and "Songs of Innocence & Experience."
> > Since there's no reason to think that the poem was even in the collection of "clippings," I don't see any point in reading the rest. You don't know where and when Kelly encountered the poem, or why he was convinced it was O'Donnell's.
> >
> That's right, Dunce. I don't know why Kelly was convinced it was O'Donnell's, and neither do you.

I can't say I'm every doubt-free, though I have no more doubt of this poem than for any other 19th-century poem I've published. And I'm more than willing to give Kelly, who looks by all accounts to be honest, intelligent, and civil, the benefit of the doubt. YMMV; I know the above isn't your type.

> All that we know about the poem's authorship is that it:
>
> 1) had originally been published anonymously;

Without a byline, not "anonymously." /Chambers's/ didn't even suggest it was by an unknown author.

> 2) had been reprinted, again anonymously, shortly after O'Donnell's death,

Without his permission, and in violation of his copyright (which, again, was legal). Pace your story, there's no reason to think the two editors who pirated his poem made any effort to contact him.

> and
> 3) that Kelly was greatly indebted to O'Donnell's son for sharing his father's collection of poems he had clipped out of newspapers and magazines (which may have included an anonymous copy of this poem).

Which may or may not have anything to do with anything, but allows you to make up shit as per your wont.

> > > My, but you're a snippy little cunt!
> > Oh, shut the fuck up, troll, if you have nothing better to contribute to the discussion than that. .
> Like I said.

> FYI: The addition of a second period neither increases nor emphasizes the finality of a sentence.

> > > There is nothing wrong with reminding you (and any potential readers) that the collection in question was compiled and published 17 years after O'Donnell's death
> > Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. I think everyone could solve 1891-1874=x for themselves, but if you think you're contributing to the discussion ...
> >
> Are your really so dense as to be unable to see how the passing of 17 years could obscure the origins of an anonymously published poem?

Mr. Monkey, if you want to believe you're the only one in the room smart enough to imagine what "could" have happened, you go right ahead and do so. FWIW, I think you're the only one stupid enough to confuse what you imagined with what actually did happen. Your way of armchair imagining rather than doing any work to find out what did happen is much easier, of course, but it counts for nothing.

> > > , and was therefore done so through secondary sources (including the aforementioned circumstantial evidence).
> > You're saying the editor couldn't have talked to the author in 1891 because the author was dead? Thank you again, Captain Obvious.
> >
> On usually confirms a poem's authorship by going to the source.

> In this case the first source (the author) was deceased; and the second source (the magazine) had published it anonymously.

In this case the first source and the author knew each other; since you want to talk what "could" have happened, he could have learned about it from O'Donnell 17 years previously, and have read the poem then. While the second source, though they published the poem without a byline, had a record of the author (as NG has confirmed) -- all an editor had to do to find his identity was contact them.

> Lacking these two sources, the only means of establishing O'Donnell's authorship would be the introduction of an original copy (preferably signed) in his hand.

You haven't shown either source to be "lacking". Try again.

> > > > > If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source.
> > > > That's called a non-sequitur. Of course I copied the poem from another source -- I gave the source on the blog -- and I've told you before that I prefer to copy them rather than retype them. That doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be any "obvious errors" though; that would depend on whether my source contained "obvious errors" or not.
> > > >
> > > That is not a non-sequitur, Mr. Dunce.
> > >
> > > NancyGene is implying that the *only* reason there were no errors in your copy of the poem was because you had copy/pasted it from another source.

If so, that would be a stupid thing for NG to imply. As they know I copy all my poems from other sources; and that does not make them error-free, as NG knows.

> > > IOW: She is saying that you are too incompetent an editor to have corrected any errors on your own.
> > Oh, so they were just trolling again. Got it.
> No, silly Dunce -- she was making a well-founded observation.

Oh, NG's backup troll says they're not trolling. That's convincing.

> > > Since a non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from the argument that preceded it, your labeling it as such is wrong.

I called NG's argument a non-sequitur, Monkey, not the "implication" their backup troll made up after the fact.

> > Sorry, Michael, but the conclusion "there were no errors in the poem" does not logically follow from "you directly copied the poem from another source". One has nothing to do with the other. In human logic, anyway; YLMV.
> >
> That is not what I said, Dunce.

I'm addressing NG's argument, Monkey, not your "implication." Their argument was a non-sequitur.

>
> Please enroll in a basic English course.

> I said that the *only* way a semi-literate moron like George "BM" Dunce could "publish" an error-free poem would be if he copy-pasted an already edited (and, consequently, error-free) poem from another source.

Once again, Michael Monkey, I was addressing what NG said, not their backup troll's spin on it. I know you have to be the center of attention and all, but what you''re saying is not important and I'm not talking about it. You were just repeating your troll's lame and adding some of your own monkeyshit to it.

>
> Which, it turns out, is precisely what you did.

Yes, as I said, I copy and paste poems rather than retype them. I have no idea what you do instead, and don't care to hear about it. You can go on about it for another 1/2 hour, if you want. Or would you rather drop this silly deflection of yours and move on?

> > > > > We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).
> >
> > > > Yes, that's where I started off, too. But I read through Gilder's book and couldn't find the poem there. So I checked with Adams and found the same thing you did. I mean, you did a good job and all, but you are not telling me anything new.
> > > >
> > > Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance.
> > >
> > > NancyGene is providing both you, and any readers, with a detailed description of how her research into the subject proceeded.

> > Then don't bitch about me talking about my own research.

> No one has done any such thing, Mr. Paranoia.

"Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance." That's exactly what you were doing, Lying Michael. As soon as I started comparing my research with NG, you started bitching.

> > > > I am sorry, but as long as you choose to run in the same troll pack as the Monkey and the Chimp, you are going to be NastyGoon the Big Buffoon. If you wish to be treated to in a more civil manner, I'd be happy to; all you have to do is start behaving like someone who deserves to be treated that way.
> > > >
> > > Seriously?
> > > "I won't be your friend and will call you all sorts of names unless you stop being friends with my enemies!"
> > > You're even more childish (and petty) than I thought, Mr. Dance.
> > Oh, grow up. If you can't handle being called a name, maybe you should both leave Usenet. Go to your private facebook group, where you don't have to worry about what others call you.
> >
> I call you childish, so you respond by telling me to "grow up." T4T or IKYABWAI? You're so predictable.

I've been calling you childish and a baby since I had to witness your first tantrum (which was not directed at me -- you've been thowing tantrums at lots of people over the years). Calling you childish and a baby is accurate description of you, and I'm certainly not going to stop using it out of fear that you'll start throwing your poo at me (which of course is all you were doing above). That's what you'll do in any case.

> > > > > > > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> > > > > > That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.
> > > > > It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time.
> > > > See, NG, that's what happens when you run in a pack with Lying Michael; you start telling clumsy, easily disproven lies just like him. We know that typo was *not* on the blog, because you posted a screenshot of it:
> > > >
> > > Where's the lie, George?
> > NG's, you mean? "It was on your blog site..." (right after I'd pointed out that it wasn't). ",,, for an unknown amount of time" was also untrue, but I'd ascribe that to NG's ignorance rather than deliberate dishonesty.
> >
> How do you explain NancyGene's posting a link to an archived copy of your blog site where the error can clearly be seen?

NG didn't post a link to an "archived copy," Peabrain. They posted a link to a screenshot they'd taken, which was *not* from my blog. (To be fair, they never said that it was from my blog, until you did and they had to back up your lie.)

> > > NancyGene has provided archived evidence that the error at one time had been "published" on your blog.
> > > > https://imgur.com/gallery/mjEYKXl
> > I don't believe you actually think that's my "blog," since you've been to the blog (remember that I've published your poetry there) and should be able to remember it. There's a chance you may have forgotten, considering that was a few years ago. But NastyGoon has no such excuse, since they've been to the blog numerous times in July.
> >
> I don't speak computer jargon, Dunce. I don't know the difference between a blog, a wiki, and a web page, and couldn't care less.

In this case you don't have to, Peabrain. You just have to have been to the blog (which you both have) and know therefore know what the pages look like (which you both should).

> As far as I can make out, your current argument is that the image NancyGene linked to wasn't your actual blog, but a screenshot of your blog from some time in the past.

No, Lying Michael; since you've been to the blog years ago, you know very well that it never looked like that screenshot.

> Since you have subsequently corrected the error on your blog, NancyGene's archival screenshot is no longer to be considered your blog because...
>
> I give up. Dunce Logic is circular, nonsensical, and predicated upon the pettiest of semantic particulars (incorrectly), and frustratingly convoluted and obtuse. The above argument is no exception.

The above argument you just stated is all that, because (again no exception) it's a strawman you made up, to misrepresent what I said and attack your misrepresentation for the win. It again demonstrates what a dishonest little shit you are, and I'll thank you for helping me not just say that but demonstrate it.

> The plain truth is that you 1) mistakenly "published" the typo on your blog

> (or wiki) which you subsequently corrected; and 2) NancyGene provided evidence of your having previously made said mistake.

Which NG tried to pass off as an error in O'Donnell's blogged poem but did not lie and say that it was; you're the one who came up with that lie.

> > > > Anyone who's been on my poetry blog (including you, multiple times) knows that that is *not* it.
> >
> > > Are you pretending that someone went through the trouble of creating (and archiving) a fake blog page? To what end would someone have done such a thing?

> > That's perhaps the stupidest strawman argument you've come up with so far in this discussion, Michael; and you've already set a high barrier. Why do you think someone would try to create a "fake blog page" and not try to make it look like a real blog page?

> >
> That's sarcasm, you witless dolt.

It was yet another stupid strawman on your part, Lying Michael. As noted, that's just part of your usual m.o.

> > > Did they hope that someone like NancyGene would discover the fake error years later and proceed to rub your nose in it?
> > It was your stupid idea; don't expect me to help you explain it.
> That's more sarcasm, Dunderdunce.

Aw, is baby getting mad again? Maybe you should get NG to check your diaper -- after all, you already have them doing everything else for you.

> > > > Face it, you found no real or pretend "errors" on the blog, so you went looking elsewhere for "errors" you could troll about.
> > > How would one find a "pretend error," George?
> > You find something that isn't an error and call it one, of course. NastyGoon tends to do that a lot.
> You're rather slow on the uptake, Dunce.
>
> One cannot *find* a "pretend error" as no such animal exists. One can pretend that an error exists, but one cannot *find* said non-existent error.

Funny, when you find these non-errors, "error" is precisely what you call them. I'm repeating your word, but adding scare-quotes to indicate it's your word.

> > > If a "pretend error" is only pretend, it would not be an error at all. Are you saying that NancyGene was unable to find any non-errors on your blog?
> > None that they could call errors.

> You just claimed that a "pretend error" means "something that isn't an error and you call it one." In that case, NancyGene should be able to randomly select any word or statement in your blog and "pretend" that it is incorrect.

I'm sure they would, too, if they thought they could get away with it; but I don't think NG is that stupid. You'd back them up, of course, but

> You can't even keep your own gibberish straight -- no wonder that your Dunce Logic inevitably proves so inane.

No rebuttal at all to what I said, just more poo from an angry little monkey boy. Seriously, I think you should run to NG and let her check that diaper of yours; it must be getting full by now.

> > > > > It is an embarrassing and funny error.
> > > > No, it isn't that embarrassing. It looks like you get embarrassed by such things, since you delete all the posts where you make mistakes; but no one else really cares. Mistakes happen, and all one can do is fix 'em.
> > > >
> > > The idea that someone would publish a book about the "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is extremely funny, George.
> > It is a bit funnier than the actual typo NG found, which explains why you'd opt for a pretend "error" instead.
> That isn't a "pretend error," Dunce. That's a hypothetical speculation. The *idea* that someone would publish such a book is hilarious.

As funny as someone publishing an anthology and putting "A Yeaf of Sundays" on the cover?

> > > Once again your utter inability to recognize humor of any kind is in evidence. When an editor makes an error that is going to cause everyone who reads it to laugh, he should be extremely embarrassed by it.
> > Since the only way anyone is going to read about "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is by reading it in one of your posts in this thread, or any of the multiple threads you're sure to start repeating it in), so I can't say that I'm worried about that.
> >
> "Mamories" (which is what you'd published) phonetically translates to "Mammaries." Yes, it would have been funnier if you'd accidentally written "Mammaries," however, only Will Donkey and his legendary autocorrect app could commit an error of that proportion.

> > > Once again, NancyGene found an archived page of your blog which *shows* that the error was there.
> > No, Michael; NastyGoon did not find "an archived page" of my blog. NastyGoon took a screen shot of something else.
> What word are you having your hissyfit over, Dunce?
>
> Rather than whining incessantly over a word, why not just tell me the word you would like me use?
>

"Elsewhere." NG found a screenshot from "elsewhere." Now let's see if you'll use it.

> Once you do, I can ask you if the _____ that NancyGene provided a link to accurately documented an error that existed on your blog at some point in the past.

And I'll tell you again: no. NG couldn't find an error on the post they were flaming, so they looked elsewhere

> > > AFAICS, you are being your naturally duplicitous self: implying that the error *never* existed by referring to current, corrected version of your blog (without specifying it as such).
> > Then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. What I told you was:
> > "Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all."
> >
> In spite of all your whining, bitching, and dancing around the issue, it still seems that the error in question *did* exist on your blog at some point in the past.

That's your story and you're sticking to it. It "seems" that you think that particular strawman will let you pull a win out of this mess of yours, eventually.

> > > This demonstrates how deeply such deceitfulness has become a part of your nature.
> > I think it demonstrates more about your penchant for making up and attacking a straw man when you can. This is what, four so far in this post? Or five?
> >
> None, Dunce.

Shit, Lying, Michael; I've been so busy counting your strawman arguments in this thread that I haven't been counting your lies. Well, the above is one, anyway. And every time you say that NG actually found the "Mamories" typo on the blog, that's been another. So, 12 or 13 lies to far?

> And your attempt to deflect the argument with false accusations has been noted.

Which "argument" of yours do you mean, Lying Michael? The only arguments I've seen from strawman and ad hominem arguments. Those seem to be the only arguments you're capable of.

Which makes me wonder why I'm letting you waste more of my time on your monkeyshines. So, as Peter Gabriel would say,

<plonk the monkey >

[Will Dockery]

Again, we put.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 1:10:18 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 11:22:21 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:01:39 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:55:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:34:28 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > That's a source I hadn't seen, but it changes nothing. As with the Adams anthology, it looks like Larcom just found the poem in /Chambers's Journal/ and reprinted it.
> > > > >
> > > > It shows that Larcom was unable to determine the poem's authorship in 1876 (two years after O'Donnell's death).
> > > Larcom may have been "unable to determine the poem's authorship" simply because she didn't try to. What makes you think she did?
> > >
> > I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.
> >
> > Interestingly, I naturally assume that other editors will do what I would have done in a similar situation. I would have attempted to contact the author for permission to reprint his poem -- and were I able to contact him, would have enquired as to whether he would like to poem to appear under his name, or to remain anonymous.
> Oh, I see: you've put Larcom on the "good side" of your story, so you're going to pretend her ethics were beyond reproach.

No, Dunce, I'm doing no such thing.

Are your really this stupid [he asked rhetorically]?

I'm saying that having worked in the publishing industry, I naturally assume that other editors perform their jobs in a professional manner, and in accordance with the industry standards. Unless it has been proven otherwise, of course.

Conversely, as you are a known plagiarist, a pathological liar, a sloppy editor (to put it mildly), and a petty little cunt, you just as naturally assume that editors are as unscrupulous and incompetent at yourself.

I hope that clears things up for you.

> She grabbed a poem out of a British journal and printed it without bothering about permission or paying for it. (Which was legal in those days, there being no international copyright.) She also rewrote parts of the poem, and changed the title, once again on her own. But of course, you're convinced she'd *must* have made a scrupulous search to find the author, to ask him what name he wanted on his poem that she'd butchered.
>

See above.

We each project our own characteristics, behaviors and practices onto others.

> (Same with Adams, BTW; he did a great job editing his volume, but he did take British poems without permission, and did make his own changes.)
>

That's nice, Dunce. Have you proof that he took poems without permission, or are you projecting again?

> > You, otoh, being a brain-dead, aging stoner, are a lazy mo-fo who takes ten years to "publish" a small chapbook of Donkey drivel, project your own qualities onto other editors accordingly.
> Yes, Monkey, we know: I published Will in a book and on my blog, which is how I and my blog got on your "adversary" list in the first place.
>

Your memory isn't very good, Dunce. I advised you to self-publish it on Amazon/Kindle, provided the link, and wished you luck in your endeavor.

You had gotten on my bad side long before your Donkey book came out (when you started defending Pickles, Ginsberg, and NAMBLA). However, in spite of your despicable views, I nevertheless attempted to bury the hatchet, and even published some of your poetry in AYoS.

It was only after you had falsely accused me of using preferential editorial practices in AYoS that you were returned to my supposed "adversary list."

> > > > Dowling's collection was published 15 years later. O'Donnell, being deceased, was not around to confirm that the poem was his. Therefore, Dowling had to have acquired that information from a secondary source (since neither the original publication, nor the version in Lucy Lacorm's anthology, had listed the author's name).
> > > As I've already told you, the editor's name was Frank Kelly; Dowling just wrote an introduction. Kelly and O'Donnell were both members of the same literary society, so they'd have been acquaintances if not friends.
> > >
> > Georgie thinks that I've been paying attention to him (snigger).
> No one thinks that you're paying attention to any of this, Mr. Monkey. As usual, you made up your own story, inventing your own "facts" to fit, and you're sticking to it. Keep telling yourself that makes you look good.
>

Whether the editor was Mr. Kelly or Mr. Dowling is irrelevant to the discussion, Dunce. It was just another attempted deflection on you part, and was treated as such by my above dismissal.

> > > > This casts some doubt on the poem's authorship -- particularly since the only "source" we have been informed of is of a circumstantial nature (“Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.”).
> > > No, that is another false statement from you, Lying Michael. According to Dowling's introduction:
> > > "For months Mr Kelly devoted the scanty leisure of his days to the object he had at heart. He ransacked the British Museum, transcribed hundreds of poems, and entered into correspondence with people who could give him copies of verses, or supply information 'on the subject of his research. A notion may be formed of the labour expended from the fact that he has had to exclude for want of room, a greater mass of MS. than would make three volumes as bulky as this one." (viii)
> > > https://archive.org/details/poemsjohn00odonrich/page/n11/mode/1up
>
> > Ransacking the British Museum would not turn up the authorship of an anonymously published poem. Nor is it likely that any of his friends would have been in possession of the anonymous poem -- and, even if they were, their testimony would be hearsay -- and possibly subject to misremembering after in the 17 years that had passed since the poet's death.
> Both Kelly, O'Donnell, and many of their "friends" were in the same literary club, as I told you. Whether or not they had copies, it's likely they knew O'Donnell was publishing in /Chambers/. As NG already explained, all one had to do to find the authorship was to contact /Chambers's/. "Hearsay" has nothing to do with it.
>

Assuming that Chambers's was still publishing, and that they willing to look up the information and respond.

As NancyGene has shown, they received to Chambers's account records and were able to find a payment made to Mr. O'Donnell for "A July Dawn" listed in it.

> > > You were already informed of that.
>
> > Mr. Kelly's herculean efforts aside, the above passage sheds no light on the poem's authorship... nor, for that matter, does it even so much as suggest that said authorship had been determined.
> Thank you for finally getting the editor's name right, Mr. Monkey; but what the passage does show is that he did a lot more than just publish a bunch of "clippings" without doing any other, as per your original story about (though I'll note that once again you're changing your story on the fly). It also shows he is as likely to have run into the poem from some other source as he was to have found it in the "clippings" -- you have no reason (except that you imagined it) to think "July Dawn" was ever on the "clippings". None. You've just been making up your own pretend "facts", as per your usual m.o.
>

I can only analyze the information that you provide, Dunce.

And, as per usual, I never said that he just published clippings. If you ever recount one of my statements accurately, the world will most likely go spinning into the sun.

> > > > A collection of magazine and newspaper clippings only shows that John Francis O'Donnell had seen fit to save copies of the poems in question. It does not *prove* that all of the poems that he saved were his own. As previously explained, I have saved copies of many poems that I liked. In fact, I still have a few original copies of poems that had been sent to me for "Penny Dreadful" and "Songs of Innocence & Experience."
> > > Since there's no reason to think that the poem was even in the collection of "clippings," I don't see any point in reading the rest. You don't know where and when Kelly encountered the poem, or why he was convinced it was O'Donnell's.
> > >
> > That's right, Dunce. I don't know why Kelly was convinced it was O'Donnell's, and neither do you.
> I can't say I'm every doubt-free, though I have no more doubt of this poem than for any other 19th-century poem I've published.
>

Unfortunately, I have to doubt the accuracy of your blog regarding said poems as well.

> And I'm more than willing to give Kelly, who looks by all accounts to be honest, intelligent, and civil, the benefit of the doubt. YMMV; I know the above isn't your type.
>

What are you talking about, Dunce?

I've already explained that I generally assume that editors will conduct themselves as I would in a similar situation.

> > All that we know about the poem's authorship is that it:
> >
> > 1) had originally been published anonymously;
> Without a byline, not "anonymously." /Chambers's/ didn't even suggest it was by an unknown author.

I didn't say that it had been submitted anonymously, Dunce. I said that it had been published anonymously.

Words matter. Learn what they mean.

> > 2) had been reprinted, again anonymously, shortly after O'Donnell's death,
> Without his permission, and in violation of his copyright (which, again, was legal). Pace your story, there's no reason to think the two editors who pirated his poem made any effort to contact him.
> > and

Again, you are projecting your own editorial lack of scruples on others.

> > 3) that Kelly was greatly indebted to O'Donnell's son for sharing his father's collection of poems he had clipped out of newspapers and magazines (which may have included an anonymous copy of this poem).
> Which may or may not have anything to do with anything, but allows you to make up shit as per your wont.

It is the only evidence that *you* had provided.

> > > > My, but you're a snippy little cunt!
> > > Oh, shut the fuck up, troll, if you have nothing better to contribute to the discussion than that. .
> > Like I said.
>
> > FYI: The addition of a second period neither increases nor emphasizes the finality of a sentence.
>
> > > > There is nothing wrong with reminding you (and any potential readers) that the collection in question was compiled and published 17 years after O'Donnell's death
> > > Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. I think everyone could solve 1891-1874=x for themselves, but if you think you're contributing to the discussion ...
> > >
> > Are your really so dense as to be unable to see how the passing of 17 years could obscure the origins of an anonymously published poem?
> Mr. Monkey, if you want to believe you're the only one in the room smart enough to imagine what "could" have happened, you go right ahead and do so. FWIW, I think you're the only one stupid enough to confuse what you imagined with what actually did happen. Your way of armchair imagining rather than doing any work to find out what did happen is much easier, of course, but it counts for nothing.
>

It is not my job to do your editorial research for you, Dunce. You should have confirmed the poem's authorship *prior* to having stolen... er, published it... without the permission of the author's estate, and in violation of the (conveniently expired) copyright he once held.

> > > > , and was therefore done so through secondary sources (including the aforementioned circumstantial evidence).
> > > You're saying the editor couldn't have talked to the author in 1891 because the author was dead? Thank you again, Captain Obvious.
> > >
> > On usually confirms a poem's authorship by going to the source.
>
> > In this case the first source (the author) was deceased; and the second source (the magazine) had published it anonymously.
> In this case the first source and the author knew each other; since you want to talk what "could" have happened, he could have learned about it from O'Donnell 17 years previously, and have read the poem then. While the second source, though they published the poem without a byline, had a record of the author (as NG has confirmed) -- all an editor had to do to find his identity was contact them.
>

He could have done a lot of things, Dunce. But he didn't.

As NancyGene has since shown, he obtained access to the accounts ledger of Chambers's and was able to find a payment for the poem in question made to Mr. O'Donnell in that.

> > Lacking these two sources, the only means of establishing O'Donnell's authorship would be the introduction of an original copy (preferably signed) in his hand.
> You haven't shown either source to be "lacking". Try again.

I haven't said that either source was lacking, Dunce.

Learn how to read, already.

> > > > > > If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source.
> > > > > That's called a non-sequitur. Of course I copied the poem from another source -- I gave the source on the blog -- and I've told you before that I prefer to copy them rather than retype them. That doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be any "obvious errors" though; that would depend on whether my source contained "obvious errors" or not.
> > > > >
> > > > That is not a non-sequitur, Mr. Dunce.
> > > >
> > > > NancyGene is implying that the *only* reason there were no errors in your copy of the poem was because you had copy/pasted it from another source.
> If so, that would be a stupid thing for NG to imply. As they know I copy all my poems from other sources; and that does not make them error-free, as NG knows.
>

Damn! but you're stupid, Dunce!

The only reason that no errors turned up in that particular blog entry was because the source you had copy/pasted it from had been error free.

This doesn't imply that *every* source you copy/paste your blog entries from is error free. Just the one from which you stole "A July Dawn."

> > > > IOW: She is saying that you are too incompetent an editor to have corrected any errors on your own.
> > > Oh, so they were just trolling again. Got it.
> > No, silly Dunce -- she was making a well-founded observation.
> Oh, NG's backup troll says they're not trolling. That's convincing.

The number of errors NancyGene has located on your blog is all the "convincing" that's required.

> > > > Since a non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from the argument that preceded it, your labeling it as such is wrong.
> I called NG's argument a non-sequitur, Monkey, not the "implication" their backup troll made up after the fact.

You mislabled it because you're too dense to understand it -- even after having had it explained to you.

> > > Sorry, Michael, but the conclusion "there were no errors in the poem" does not logically follow from "you directly copied the poem from another source". One has nothing to do with the other. In human logic, anyway; YLMV.
> > >
> > That is not what I said, Dunce.
> I'm addressing NG's argument, Monkey, not your "implication." Their argument was a non-sequitur.

See above.

> > Please enroll in a basic English course.
>
> > I said that the *only* way a semi-literate moron like George "BM" Dunce could "publish" an error-free poem would be if he copy-pasted an already edited (and, consequently, error-free) poem from another source.
> Once again, Michael Monkey, I was addressing what NG said, not their backup troll's spin on it. I know you have to be the center of attention and all, but what you''re saying is not important and I'm not talking about it. You were just repeating your troll's lame and adding some of your own monkeyshit to it.
> >

See above.

> > Which, it turns out, is precisely what you did.
> Yes, as I said, I copy and paste poems rather than retype them. I have no idea what you do instead, and don't care to hear about it. You can go on about it for another 1/2 hour, if you want. Or would you rather drop this silly deflection of yours and move on?
>

You should *proofread* them after having pasted them to your blog, and *corrected* them when necessary.

> > > > > > We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).
> > >
> > > > > Yes, that's where I started off, too. But I read through Gilder's book and couldn't find the poem there. So I checked with Adams and found the same thing you did. I mean, you did a good job and all, but you are not telling me anything new.
> > > > >
> > > > Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance.
> > > >
> > > > NancyGene is providing both you, and any readers, with a detailed description of how her research into the subject proceeded.
>
> > > Then don't bitch about me talking about my own research.
>
> > No one has done any such thing, Mr. Paranoia.
> "Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance." That's exactly what you were doing, Lying Michael. As soon as I started comparing my research with NG, you started bitching.
>

Again, no one has done any such thing.

Take your medication. Your paranoid delusions are getting out of control.

> > > > > I am sorry, but as long as you choose to run in the same troll pack as the Monkey and the Chimp, you are going to be NastyGoon the Big Buffoon. If you wish to be treated to in a more civil manner, I'd be happy to; all you have to do is start behaving like someone who deserves to be treated that way.
> > > > >
> > > > Seriously?
> > > > "I won't be your friend and will call you all sorts of names unless you stop being friends with my enemies!"
> > > > You're even more childish (and petty) than I thought, Mr. Dance.
> > > Oh, grow up. If you can't handle being called a name, maybe you should both leave Usenet. Go to your private facebook group, where you don't have to worry about what others call you.
> > >
> > I call you childish, so you respond by telling me to "grow up." T4T or IKYABWAI? You're so predictable.
> I've been calling you childish and a baby since I had to witness your first tantrum (which was not directed at me -- you've been thowing tantrums at lots of people over the years). Calling you childish and a baby is accurate description of you, and I'm certainly not going to stop using it out of fear that you'll start throwing your poo at me (which of course is all you were doing above). That's what you'll do in any case.
>

IKYABWAI doesn't change your m.o. (with all due respect to the late Mr. Herman).

> > > > > > > > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> > > > > > > That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.
> > > > > > It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time.
> > > > > See, NG, that's what happens when you run in a pack with Lying Michael; you start telling clumsy, easily disproven lies just like him. We know that typo was *not* on the blog, because you posted a screenshot of it:
> > > > >
> > > > Where's the lie, George?
> > > NG's, you mean? "It was on your blog site..." (right after I'd pointed out that it wasn't). ",,, for an unknown amount of time" was also untrue, but I'd ascribe that to NG's ignorance rather than deliberate dishonesty.
> > >
> > How do you explain NancyGene's posting a link to an archived copy of your blog site where the error can clearly be seen?
> NG didn't post a link to an "archived copy," Peabrain. They posted a link to a screenshot they'd taken, which was *not* from my blog. (To be fair, they never said that it was from my blog, until you did and they had to back up your lie.)
>

The screen shot had to have been of something, Dunce.

> > > > NancyGene has provided archived evidence that the error at one time had been "published" on your blog.
> > > > > https://imgur.com/gallery/mjEYKXl
> > > I don't believe you actually think that's my "blog," since you've been to the blog (remember that I've published your poetry there) and should be able to remember it. There's a chance you may have forgotten, considering that was a few years ago. But NastyGoon has no such excuse, since they've been to the blog numerous times in July.
> > >
> > I don't speak computer jargon, Dunce. I don't know the difference between a blog, a wiki, and a web page, and couldn't care less.
> In this case you don't have to, Peabrain. You just have to have been to the blog (which you both have) and know therefore know what the pages look like (which you both should).
>

I don't go to your blog, Dunce.

How many times do I need to explain that to you?

> > As far as I can make out, your current argument is that the image NancyGene linked to wasn't your actual blog, but a screenshot of your blog from some time in the past.
> No, Lying Michael; since you've been to the blog years ago, you know very well that it never looked like that screenshot.

Man up and admit your mistake, Dunce. Or, was your "Mamories" typo yet another projection on your part?

> > Since you have subsequently corrected the error on your blog, NancyGene's archival screenshot is no longer to be considered your blog because...
> >
> > I give up. Dunce Logic is circular, nonsensical, and predicated upon the pettiest of semantic particulars (incorrectly), and frustratingly convoluted and obtuse. The above argument is no exception.
> The above argument you just stated is all that, because (again no exception) it's a strawman you made up, to misrepresent what I said and attack your misrepresentation for the win. It again demonstrates what a dishonest little shit you are, and I'll thank you for helping me not just say that but demonstrate it.
>

I'm afraid that Dunce Logic is a very real thing... which you demonstrate here on a daily basis.

> > The plain truth is that you 1) mistakenly "published" the typo on your blog
>
> > (or wiki) which you subsequently corrected; and 2) NancyGene provided evidence of your having previously made said mistake.
> Which NG tried to pass off as an error in O'Donnell's blogged poem but did not lie and say that it was; you're the one who came up with that lie.
>

Did you or did you not make the typo, Dunce?

If you did not, how do you explain its having been archived in said screenshot?

> > > > > Anyone who's been on my poetry blog (including you, multiple times) knows that that is *not* it.
> > >
> > > > Are you pretending that someone went through the trouble of creating (and archiving) a fake blog page? To what end would someone have done such a thing?
> > > That's perhaps the stupidest strawman argument you've come up with so far in this discussion, Michael; and you've already set a high barrier. Why do you think someone would try to create a "fake blog page" and not try to make it look like a real blog page?
> > >
> > That's sarcasm, you witless dolt.
> It was yet another stupid strawman on your part, Lying Michael. As noted, that's just part of your usual m.o.

You really need to learn what humor is... and how to recognize it, dolt.

> > > > Did they hope that someone like NancyGene would discover the fake error years later and proceed to rub your nose in it?
> > > It was your stupid idea; don't expect me to help you explain it.
> > That's more sarcasm, Dunderdunce.
> Aw, is baby getting mad again? Maybe you should get NG to check your diaper -- after all, you already have them doing everything else for you.
>

Baby is enjoying watching you dance, Dunce.

> > > > > Face it, you found no real or pretend "errors" on the blog, so you went looking elsewhere for "errors" you could troll about.
> > > > How would one find a "pretend error," George?
> > > You find something that isn't an error and call it one, of course. NastyGoon tends to do that a lot.
> > You're rather slow on the uptake, Dunce.
> >
> > One cannot *find* a "pretend error" as no such animal exists. One can pretend that an error exists, but one cannot *find* said non-existent error.
> Funny, when you find these non-errors, "error" is precisely what you call them. I'm repeating your word, but adding scare-quotes to indicate it's your word.
>

OMFG, but you're dense!

"Error" is a legitimate word.

The concept of *finding* "non-existent errors" is oxymoronic. One cannot find what does not exist.

Words matter.

Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.

> > > > If a "pretend error" is only pretend, it would not be an error at all. Are you saying that NancyGene was unable to find any non-errors on your blog?
> > > None that they could call errors.
>
> > You just claimed that a "pretend error" means "something that isn't an error and you call it one." In that case, NancyGene should be able to randomly select any word or statement in your blog and "pretend" that it is incorrect.
> I'm sure they would, too, if they thought they could get away with it; but I don't think NG is that stupid. You'd back them up, of course, but
>

Your brain has turned off mid-sentence... again.

You really ought to have that checked by a specialist.

> > You can't even keep your own gibberish straight -- no wonder that your Dunce Logic inevitably proves so inane.
> No rebuttal at all to what I said, just more poo from an angry little monkey boy. Seriously, I think you should run to NG and let her check that diaper of yours; it must be getting full by now.
>

I'm glad that you realize that childish name-calling is not a legitimate rebuttal, Dunce.

> > > > > > It is an embarrassing and funny error.
> > > > > No, it isn't that embarrassing. It looks like you get embarrassed by such things, since you delete all the posts where you make mistakes; but no one else really cares. Mistakes happen, and all one can do is fix 'em.
> > > > >
> > > > The idea that someone would publish a book about the "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is extremely funny, George.
> > > It is a bit funnier than the actual typo NG found, which explains why you'd opt for a pretend "error" instead.
> > That isn't a "pretend error," Dunce. That's a hypothetical speculation. The *idea* that someone would publish such a book is hilarious.
> As funny as someone publishing an anthology and putting "A Yeaf of Sundays" on the cover?

The typo isn't on the cover, Dunce. It's just on an AAPC thread.

> > > > Once again your utter inability to recognize humor of any kind is in evidence. When an editor makes an error that is going to cause everyone who reads it to laugh, he should be extremely embarrassed by it.
> > > Since the only way anyone is going to read about "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is by reading it in one of your posts in this thread, or any of the multiple threads you're sure to start repeating it in), so I can't say that I'm worried about that.
> > >
> > "Mamories" (which is what you'd published) phonetically translates to "Mammaries." Yes, it would have been funnier if you'd accidentally written "Mammaries," however, only Will Donkey and his legendary autocorrect app could commit an error of that proportion.
> > > > Once again, NancyGene found an archived page of your blog which *shows* that the error was there.
> > > No, Michael; NastyGoon did not find "an archived page" of my blog. NastyGoon took a screen shot of something else.
> > What word are you having your hissyfit over, Dunce?
> >
> > Rather than whining incessantly over a word, why not just tell me the word you would like me use?
> >
> "Elsewhere." NG found a screenshot from "elsewhere." Now let's see if you'll use it.

Can you identify where "elsewhere" is, Dunce?

More importantly, can you show that the error in question had never been made by you?

> > Once you do, I can ask you if the _____ that NancyGene provided a link to accurately documented an error that existed on your blog at some point in the past.
> And I'll tell you again: no. NG couldn't find an error on the post they were flaming, so they looked elsewhere

You're dropping periods, Dunce.

NancyGene found a very funny error, Dunce.

Are you denying that you were the one who had made it?

> > > > AFAICS, you are being your naturally duplicitous self: implying that the error *never* existed by referring to current, corrected version of your blog (without specifying it as such).
> > > Then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. What I told you was:
> > > "Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all."
> > >
> > In spite of all your whining, bitching, and dancing around the issue, it still seems that the error in question *did* exist on your blog at some point in the past.
> That's your story and you're sticking to it. It "seems" that you think that particular strawman will let you pull a win out of this mess of yours, eventually.
>

A screenshot is an *image* of an existing web page (or wiki page, or blog page, or whatever). In order for NancyGene to have take a shot of it, it must have existed somewhere on the internet.

Are you claiming that you had never made that typo?

AFAICS, you're "arguing" that the screenshot isn't of your blog, but of an archived copy of your blog. Is that what you're trying to say?

> > > > This demonstrates how deeply such deceitfulness has become a part of your nature.
> > > I think it demonstrates more about your penchant for making up and attacking a straw man when you can. This is what, four so far in this post? Or five?
> > >
> > None, Dunce.
> Shit, Lying, Michael; I've been so busy counting your strawman arguments in this thread that I haven't been counting your lies. Well, the above is one, anyway. And every time you say that NG actually found the "Mamories" typo on the blog, that's been another. So, 12 or 13 lies to far?
>

The correct answer remains "None."

> > And your attempt to deflect the argument with false accusations has been noted.
> Which "argument" of yours do you mean, Lying Michael? The only arguments I've seen from strawman and ad hominem arguments. Those seem to be the only arguments you're capable of.
>

Who says that I'm talking about my argument, Dunce?

The argument refers to any/all of the points raised throughout the course of this discussion. Whenever NancyGene or I would argue against one of your idiotic claims, you ran away from it and went into your Baby Monkey dance.

> Which makes me wonder why I'm letting you waste more of my time on your monkeyshines. So, as Peter Gabriel would say,
>
> <plonk the monkey >

What you do with your monkey is your own business, George.

Share it on alt.rec.onanism if you must, but please refrain from doing so at AAPC.

[Ash Wurthing]

Lo7 of teh day!!

[NancyGene]

George Dance argues on the diagonal.