PPB: A July Dawn / John Francis O'Donnell

[George Dance]

Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
A July Dawn, by John Francis O'Donnell
[...]
One cloud stood overhead the sun –
A glorious trail of dome and spire –
The last star flickered, and was gone;
The first lark led the matin choir.
[...]
https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/07/a-july-dawn-john-francis-odonnell.html

#pennyspoems

[Will Dockery]

Good selection, interested to see what your most faithful reader, Nancy Gene, will think about it.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

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?

And like clockwork, here comes Nancy Gene, reading every post George Dance makes.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

George Dance should pray that she does, Donkey.

It's the only way his blog is going to be corrected.

Of course we all know that Donkeys like yourself would rather repeat their mistakes a hundred thousand times than admit that they were capable of error.

George "Baby Monkey" Dance appears to have more than a few Donkey genes in his lineage as well.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:12:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:28:02 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery 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?
> >
> > And like clockwork, here comes Nancy Gene, reading every post George Dance makes.
> George Dance should pray that she does

Sure, always good to have a new reader.

[Michael Pendragon]

It's even better to have a skilled proofreader -- especially when the blogger continually makes blunders like "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans."

[Will Dockery]

No argument with that.

[George Dance]

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:28:02 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

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.

Well, this one will have to wait. It's the turn of George Wither tonight.

[Michael Pendragon]

Do you want errors in your author bios, George?

Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?

Why must you always repay invaluable favors with pettiness and scorn?

[Will Dockery]

Interestingly, although Nancy Gene is so skilled a proofreader yet doesn't catch her own mistakes or those of her friends.

[Coco DeSockmonkey]

That's a lie, Donkey.

NancyGene catches plenty of errors in the ms for the print version of "AYoS" every year. You just don't see them, because like professional publishers, we don't edit our publications online.

FYI: You've used "interestingly" incorrectly. You should written "Interesting; although...".

[Will Dockery]

No it isn't, it is the archived truth, Pendragon, you delusional little fuckwit monkey.

🙂

[Coco DeSockmonkey]

As noted: we do not edit our publication online, so you would have no means of assessing NancyGene's contributions. She has found errors in many of the poems that we publish -- including one or two of my own.

Had I written "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" in one of my publications, I would be eternally grateful to anyone who pointed it out.

We all make errors. One thing that distinguishes the good writers from their less reputable counterparts is their ability to appreciate corrections.

[Will Dockery]

I don't care about what you and NancyGene do offline, there are many examples on the group where NancyGe doesn't correct obvious errors, of herself and her friends

HTH and HAND.

[George Dance]

No, sorry; I see Michael Monkey broke protocol and began trolling the Caroline Southey thread; so I'll have to respond to that tonight. And I'm limiting myself to one a day, as I don't want their monkeyshines to take too much of my time. I do have a good Wither quote to post, though, so I'll put it on tonight after I'm done with the Southey post.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 9:15:11 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> I don't care about what you and NancyGene do offline, there are many examples on the group where NancyGe doesn't correct obvious errors, of herself and her friends

I don't correct every error each person makes. No one does -- and no one should.

For instance, your sentence (above) requires a semicolon where you have used a comma. And you've misspelled NancyGene as "NancyGe." Not only that but "on the group" is incorrect; the proper way to phrase that would be "in the group." Further, there is no need for a comma after "errors"; and the sentence should end with "or her friends."

Normally, I let such mistakes by you go by without comment, as I see no point in bringing up your self-evident incompetence.

NancyGene is correcting errors "published" on George's blog.

Since George takes a great deal of pride in, and devotes a lot of time and effort to, his blog, one would think that he would be grateful for any such corrections.

Both you and George see corrections as personal attacks. I see them as invaluable favors.

Several years ago, PJR pointed out that I was mixing up "thy" and "thine." Rather than whine about how he didn't point out errors that his friends made, or insisting that my misuse had been correct, I 1) thanked him, 2) corrected my poem, 3) searched through all of my writing to find and correct similar errors, 4) submitted revised/corrected editions of my books to Amazon. I have also 5) learned from my mistake, and no longer commit the same error.

You and George would do well to get over your petty, fragile egos and adopt a similar approach.

[Michael Pendragon]

What protocol are you referring to, Baby Monkey?

Are your spam threads thought to be exempt from commentary in a Poetry Commentary group?

[George Dance]

Now, there's a good point. Michael Monkey has said that NastyGoon has corrected errors on AYOS, including in his poems; but he's also been insisting that opening troll threads on aapc is their way of correcting errors; so where are all the troll threads about AYoS. I can't remember seeing any; can you?

[Michael Pendragon]

I have said no such thing, Baby Monkey.

There are many ways in which one can correct errors.

Had you not been banned from AYoS, your errors in it would have been corrected behind the scenes (with personal emails being sent to you when deemed necessary).
As previously noted, some of us choose not to edit our publications in a public arena.

There are no AYoS "troll threads" because AYoS is edited prior to publication. The monthly issues are subject to minor corrections, and the year-end print volume is gone over with a fine-toothed comb.

If you find errors in the published monthly version of AYoS, please by all means point them out. I take publishing seriously and want AYoS to be as good as possible. If you're unable to find any errors, you cannot possibly blame NancyGene for missing the non-existent errors as well.

Which brings us to the crux of your accusation. You are not saying that NancyGene is wrong in pointing out the errors on your blog. You are whining about her not correcting the errors of others -- who are posting, not publishing, their poetry.

You're behaving like the snot-nosed crybaby who doesn't think his parents should punish him for having misbehaved on the grounds that his siblings had misbehaved, and gotten away with it, in the past.

[Will Dockery]

And, apparently, errors such as apostrophes used incorrectly are not a problem.

And so it goes.

[Coco DeSockmonkey]

As previously noted, I don't edit my publications online.

Here's a challenge for you: buy a copy of AYoS and see if you can find so much as *one* incorrectly used apostrophe in it.

[George Dance]

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 5:28:02 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery 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

> > > > We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?
> > >
> > > And like clockwork, here comes Nancy Gene, reading every post George Dance makes.
> > >
> > > 🙂
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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?

[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 Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:58:55 PM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:

> NancyGene is such a great preef reader, except apparently when it comes to her and her friends ' work.
>
We don't use preef and have never read it. Go back to your shed and lick yourself.

[Will Dockery]

NancyGene is such a great proof reader, except apparently when it comes to her and her friends' work.

(Typo corrected.)

🙂

[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:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "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."

> 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.

(Moved from the troll thread.)

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:07:40 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:

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

You found an error by Nancy Gene.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:48:50 AM UTC-4, 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 5:28:02 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery 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

No what?

You've broken off in mid-sentence again, George.

> > > > > We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?
> > > >
> > > > And like clockwork, here comes Nancy Gene, reading every post George Dance makes.
> > > >
> > > > 🙂
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
>

Do you have any idea how insanely paranoid that sounds, George?

I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.

> > 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.
>

I'm sorry, George. As you very well know, I don't click on the spam-links to your blog. Whatever you listed "Mamories" as, you'd obviously misspelled it.

> 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.

I have told you several times in the past that I don't click on your blog links. I read the poems via the posts and/or links provided by NancyGene.

> > 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.
>

I didn't say that you got the author's name wrong, George. Are you in competition with the Donkey for the title of AAPC Village Idiot? Or are you attempting to replace the late, unlamented Pickles as our resident pathological liar?

I said that given the questionable nature of the authorship, you should at least have made mention of the same.

> 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?
>

I think that you're both a paranoid schizophrenic and an extremely petty cunt. I don't expect you to thank anyone for correcting your editorial blunders.

[Rachel]

why so contrary

[Will Dockery]

As Zod put it, Pendragon is a control freak on an ego trip.

[Michael Pendragon]

I suppose because I am neither a paranoid schizophrenic, nor a petty cunt.

[Will Dockery]

You are an ignorant lying delusional fuckwit, though.

🙂

[George Dance]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:43:36 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.

> > > > > > "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.

Yes, of course I copied the poem from another source: I gave the source on the blog. (Your Monkey friend probably told you I've "plagiarized" the poems, but then he admits he knows nothing about it.)

> 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.

Yes, some editors change punctuation on their own (something you've falsely accused me of, BTW). Go to the best (most reliable) source available and copy it -- which is what I did.

> 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. I can understand that 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 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.

> 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 not.

> 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 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."

[Will Dockery]

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.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

Pendragon is in a tizzy again.

🙂

[George Dance]

I suspect you're just playing the peabrain again, Michael Monkey, since NG's explained it; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're clueless.

NG's proposed protocol was to have that the Bandar-Log should stop commenting on PPB threads (and of course similar threads from other non Bandar-Log), as that's counterproductive as I've explained to you: pointed out: criticizing which only bumps them to the top of the group). Instead, they would set up a separate troll thread for each PPB thread, and confine their commentary there. In that way, they could not only dump on the PPB posts but bury them all, by bumping only their own troll threads instead. Those being attacked in the troll threads would also be "starved" to use her word; their posts would not only be trashed, but would get little attention and few readers.

Let's call that NG's "troll-thread protocol" (TTP)|. It was a brilliant idea of theirs, actually, but of course you couldn't follow it. Your problem being that it wasn't your idea, and if an idea isn't your own you just can't understand it.

> Are your spam threads thought to be exempt from commentary in a Poetry Commentary group?

Nothing to do with that, of course; under the troll-thread protocol (TTP), the PPB poems et al would still get as much "commentary"; what they wouldn't get is reads and comments in their own threads.

Once again, it was a brilliant idea, and i do not mind praising NG for thinking of it: credit where due and all that. But Will outsmarted you, by criticizing you and NG in the PPB threads. He knew you were too much a narcissist to let his criticisms pass without comment, and instead you had to jump into the PPB threads instead. He was right, of course: you jumped in, and here you are bumping PPB threads instead.

You were, as the internet term goes, "trolled". Will counted on your narcissism to foil NG's nefarious scheme. And he ended up beating Michael Monkey again.

[Rachel]

It's better not to diagnose yourself.

What do your psychiatrist and psychologist call your mental afflictions?

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:04:48 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:49:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 10:19:29 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > No, sorry; I see Michael Monkey broke protocol and began trolling the Caroline Southey thread; so I'll have to respond to that tonight. And I'm limiting myself to one a day, as I don't want their monkeyshines to take too much of my time. I do have a good Wither quote to post, though, so I'll put it on tonight after I'm done with the Southey post.
> > >
> > What protocol are you referring to, Baby Monkey?
> I suspect you're just playing the peabrain again, Michael Monkey, since NG's explained it; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're clueless.
>

As you should be aware by this point, I report/block all threads that become Donkified -- including those started by yourself.

Messages that appear on blocked threads (even messages by NancyGene) cannot be seen by me so long as the thread remains blocked.

NEWSFLASH: The world doesn't revolve around you or your posts.

> NG's proposed protocol was to have that the Bandar-Log should stop commenting on PPB threads (and of course similar threads from other non Bandar-Log), as that's counterproductive as I've explained to you: pointed out: criticizing which only bumps them to the top of the group). Instead, they would set up a separate troll thread for each PPB thread, and confine their commentary there. In that way, they could not only dump on the PPB posts but bury them all, by bumping only their own troll threads instead. Those being attacked in the troll threads would also be "starved" to use her word; their posts would not only be trashed, but would get little attention and few readers.
>

I'm aware that both NancyGene and I block all threads started by the Donkey, his Stink, and Jordy's pervy uncle (preferably unopened), but I haven't heard of any proposed protocol along these lines.

Ignoring your childishly petty language, I agree with NancyGene's proposal in spirit, but cannot be bothered to set up alternate threads in order to reply to your posts -- or even to those of your Donkey.

That said, I always open threads begun by NancyGene, and having no interest in cross-posting my responses to various threads, I shall probably be complying with the alleged "protocol" out of convenience.

> Let's call that NG's "troll-thread protocol" (TTP)|. It was a brilliant idea of theirs, actually, but of course you couldn't follow it. Your problem being that it wasn't your idea, and if an idea isn't your own you just can't understand it.
>

Don't even try to guess my motives regarding anything, Plagiarist George. You really, really suck at it.

As previously noted, I have blocked several thousand threads over the past year, and have not seen NancyGene's proposal.

> > Are your spam threads thought to be exempt from commentary in a Poetry Commentary group?
> Nothing to do with that, of course; under the troll-thread protocol (TTP), the PPB poems et al would still get as much "commentary"; what they wouldn't get is reads and comments in their own threads.
>

I really don't see why you should care whether your troll threads are commented on or not... but you've always had an extremely petty attitude regarding such things.

> Once again, it was a brilliant idea, and i do not mind praising NG for thinking of it: credit where due and all that. But Will outsmarted you, by criticizing you and NG in the PPB threads. He knew you were too much a narcissist to let his criticisms pass without comment, and instead you had to jump into the PPB threads instead. He was right, of course: you jumped in, and here you are bumping PPB threads instead.
>

If you say so, George.

I really don't care whether your PPB/PPP/XYZ threads get bumped or not.

> You were, as the internet term goes, "trolled". Will counted on your narcissism to foil NG's nefarious scheme. And he ended up beating Michael Monkey again.
>

Again, if that's what you want to think, go right ahead.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 12:11:22 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:52:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:12:24 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:28:02 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > Interestingly, although Nancy Gene is so skilled a proofreader yet doesn't catch her own mistakes or those of her friends.
> > Now, there's a good point. Michael Monkey has said that NastyGoon has corrected errors on AYOS, including in his poems; but he's also been insisting that opening troll threads on aapc is their way of correcting errors; so where are all the troll threads about AYoS. I can't remember seeing any; can you?
> >
> I have said no such thing, Baby Monkey.

Actually, Lying Michael. you'd already insisted (at least once on this thread) that NG's troll-thread protocol was their "only way" to correct errors:
<quote>
Jul 29, 2023, 6:12:26 PM (yesterday)
"George Dance should pray that she does, Donkey.
"It's the only way his blog is going to be corrected." </q>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Less than a day later, you'd forgotten what you'd said, and rather than check you just decided to opt for denial instead.

> There are many ways in which one can correct errors.

Indeed there are; which makes your claim that NG's troll-thread protocol is their "only way" to do so all the more ludicrous.

> Had you not been banned from AYoS, your errors in it would have been corrected behind the scenes (with personal emails being sent to you when deemed necessary).

No, Lying Michael, that is not true at all. You would not have caught any "errors" of mine, because I was no longer giving you any poems for your AYoS. I'd told you that several times, and why I'd cut you off, which was why you decided to "ban" me retroactively. - the same way you "ban" everyone who wants nothing to do with you and your AYoS.

> As previously noted, some of us choose not to edit our publications in a public arena.
> There are no AYoS "troll threads" because AYoS is edited prior to publication. The monthly issues are subject to minor corrections, and the year-end print volume is gone over with a fine-toothed comb.

That's a distinction without a difference, Michael Monkey. Even though PPB and PPP are already "published," that does not mean that starting troll threads is your "only way" to get them edited. Here are three optionsd for PPP:

(1) Edit the page yourself. I'll review your changes and (if they're valid) approve them.
(2) Leave a comment on the wiki. Again, if your objections are valid, I'll make the changes on the wiki. (If not, and you're just trolling, I'll just remove your comment.)
(3) Send me an email, and I'll do the same as for a blog comment. But a comment on the blog will actually mean faster attention.
(Options 2 and 3 also work on PPB as well.)
There is no need for "troll threads".

> If you find errors in the published monthly version of AYoS, please by all means point them out. I take publishing seriously and want AYoS to be as good as possible. If you're unable to find any errors, you cannot possibly blame NancyGene for missing the non-existent errors as well.

I've been leaving your "AAPC version" of AYoS alone for a variety of reasons, from common courtesy (don't disrupt other people's poetry threads) to not wanting to give that project of yours any attention. But I'll keep your invitation in mind, and use it to comment on AYoS threads as needed in the future.

> Which brings us to the crux of your accusation. You are not saying that NancyGene is wrong in pointing out the errors on your blog.

That much is true. I am not criticizing NG for saying there are errors on my blog or (as here) on my wiki. I am criticizing their method of saying it, their troll-thread protocol (TTP). While both you and NG are pretending they are just trying to improve the wiki and blog by their troll threads, we all know they could do that without any troll threads. Their method is trolling, for the sake of trolling, and the pretense that they're trolling because they really just want to help me makes it dishonest "concern trolling."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern%20troll

> You are whining about her not correcting the errors of others -- who are posting, not publishing, their poetry.

No, Lying Michael, that is just one more of the stupid strawman arguments you like to make. What I've criticized is not whose posts NG chooses to comment on, but their method of commenting: their troll-thread protocol (TTP).

> You're behaving like the snot-nosed crybaby who doesn't think his parents should punish him for having misbehaved on the grounds that his siblings had misbehaved, and gotten away with it, in the past.

That's a piss-poor analogy, Michael. It rests on the silly idea that you and NG are the "parents" of this group, and everyone else your "children" whom you can treat however you want. When in fact, you're just a person on the group with no other status than them; just neighbors. And you both are very bad neighbors.

Here's an analogy back: NG is behaving like Rand Paul's criminal neighbor, who attacked Dr. Paul and broke his ribs because he thought his lawnmower was too noisy. The problem with that behavior was not that the neighbor didn't go around breaking his other neighbors' ribs. The problem was that he had plenty of other, non-criminal ways of doing something about the noise; there was no excuse for him acting as a criminal.

[Michael Pendragon]

I suffer from an overly developed intellect which allows me to perceive the world differently than others -- this heightened perception often isolates me from the greater portion of humankind who are living in a linearly-based mental construct governed by the imperialistic laws of materialism and causality. No doubt, the dunces of the world can apply every mental affliction in the book to my condition; but how can one diagnose the mental health of an illusion?

[Will Dockery]

Pendragon is obviously delusional.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:52:53 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 12:11:22 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:52:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:12:24 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:28:02 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > Interestingly, although Nancy Gene is so skilled a proofreader yet doesn't catch her own mistakes or those of her friends.
> > > Now, there's a good point. Michael Monkey has said that NastyGoon has corrected errors on AYOS, including in his poems; but he's also been insisting that opening troll threads on aapc is their way of correcting errors; so where are all the troll threads about AYoS. I can't remember seeing any; can you?
> > >
> > I have said no such thing, Baby Monkey.
> Actually, Lying Michael. you'd already insisted (at least once on this thread) that NG's troll-thread protocol was their "only way" to correct errors:
> <quote>
> Jul 29, 2023, 6:12:26 PM (yesterday)
> "George Dance should pray that she does, Donkey.
> "It's the only way his blog is going to be corrected." </q>

You really need to work on your reading comprehension, George.

I did not say that it was NancyGene's only way to correct errors. I said that it was the only way your blog was going to be corrected.

Since I have to walk you through this by the hand, I was commenting on your profound lack of editorial skills. Your blog is never going to be corrected, unless who possesses the knowledge and skill to do so (someone like NancyGene) steps in.

> Less than a day later, you'd forgotten what you'd said, and rather than check you just decided to opt for denial instead.

See above.

> > There are many ways in which one can correct errors.
> Indeed there are; which makes your claim that NG's troll-thread protocol is their "only way" to do so all the more ludicrous.

Again, your inability to parse basic English is your problem.

> > Had you not been banned from AYoS, your errors in it would have been corrected behind the scenes (with personal emails being sent to you when deemed necessary).
> No, Lying Michael, that is not true at all. You would not have caught any "errors" of mine, because I was no longer giving you any poems for your AYoS. I'd told you that several times, and why I'd cut you off, which was why you decided to "ban" me retroactively. - the same way you "ban" everyone who wants nothing to do with you and your AYoS.
>

My but you're one delusional dunce, Dance. You were banned when you falsely claimed that my editorial policy was prejudicial -- even though I had published your poetry.

As for your allegedly having stopped submitting... to the best of my knowledge you write 1 to 3 poems a year (if that). You can't submit a poem that you haven't written.

> > As previously noted, some of us choose not to edit our publications in a public arena.
> > There are no AYoS "troll threads" because AYoS is edited prior to publication. The monthly issues are subject to minor corrections, and the year-end print volume is gone over with a fine-toothed comb.
> That's a distinction without a difference, Michael Monkey. Even though PPB and PPP are already "published," that does not mean that starting troll threads is your "only way" to get them edited. Here are three optionsd for PPP:
>

I have never said anything about starting a troll thread, George.

> (1) Edit the page yourself. I'll review your changes and (if they're valid) approve them.

I have neither the time nor the desire to edit your blog. Be grateful that NancyGene is helping you in that regard.

> (2) Leave a comment on the wiki. Again, if your objections are valid, I'll make the changes on the wiki. (If not, and you're just trolling, I'll just remove your comment.)
>

My previous response applies to your wiki as well.

> (3) Send me an email, and I'll do the same as for a blog comment. But a comment on the blog will actually mean faster attention.
>

Again, see above.

> (Options 2 and 3 also work on PPB as well.)
> There is no need for "troll threads".

My understanding is that NancyGene submitted a proposed protocol to you regarding your spam-link threads. According to your description of it, she has chosen to respond to your posts in separate threads.

It is of no concern to me whether you receive your corrections in your own thread, in her thread, on your blog, or in your email.

I shall respond to them in whichever thread I happen to find them.

> > If you find errors in the published monthly version of AYoS, please by all means point them out. I take publishing seriously and want AYoS to be as good as possible. If you're unable to find any errors, you cannot possibly blame NancyGene for missing the non-existent errors as well.
> I've been leaving your "AAPC version" of AYoS alone for a variety of reasons, from common courtesy (don't disrupt other people's poetry threads) to not wanting to give that project of yours any attention. But I'll keep your invitation in mind, and use it to comment on AYoS threads as needed in the future.
>

FYI, this is a discussion group. It is common courtesy to *discuss* other people's threads -- not to avoid them.

> > Which brings us to the crux of your accusation. You are not saying that NancyGene is wrong in pointing out the errors on your blog.
> That much is true. I am not criticizing NG for saying there are errors on my blog or (as here) on my wiki. I am criticizing their method of saying it, their troll-thread protocol (TTP). While both you and NG are pretending they are just trying to improve the wiki and blog by their troll threads, we all know they could do that without any troll threads. Their method is trolling, for the sake of trolling, and the pretense that they're trolling because they really just want to help me makes it dishonest "concern trolling."
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern%20troll

I don't consider it "trolling" to discuss a poem, blog, wiki, etc., posted in, or linked to, a *discussion* group. I also don't see why you, or anyone else, should care whether NancyGene makes her comments in your thread or in one of her own.

IMO her corrections are not only to your benefit, but (based on the number of them) much-needed.

If her tone strikes you as offensive, perhaps you should stop calling her names like "NastyGoon." You reap what you sow, chucklehead.

> > You are whining about her not correcting the errors of others -- who are posting, not publishing, their poetry.
> No, Lying Michael, that is just one more of the stupid strawman arguments you like to make. What I've criticized is not whose posts NG chooses to comment on, but their method of commenting: their troll-thread protocol (TTP).
>

Are you seriously telling me that you're throwing a hissyfit because NancyGene creates a new thread rather than responding in your own?

You just finished (stupidly) telling me that you don't comment in my AYoS threads out of courtesy.

Wouldn't her refusing to comment in your PPB threads be considered an act of courtesy as well?

> > You're behaving like the snot-nosed crybaby who doesn't think his parents should punish him for having misbehaved on the grounds that his siblings had misbehaved, and gotten away with it, in the past.
> That's a piss-poor analogy, Michael. It rests on the silly idea that you and NG are the "parents" of this group, and everyone else your "children" whom you can treat however you want. When in fact, you're just a person on the group with no other status than them; just neighbors. And you both are very bad neighbors.
>

If you behave like a child, you'll be treated like a child.

One can only respond to someone based on the manner in which they present themselves.

> Here's an analogy back: NG is behaving like Rand Paul's criminal neighbor, who attacked Dr. Paul and broke his ribs because he thought his lawnmower was too noisy. The problem with that behavior was not that the neighbor didn't go around breaking his other neighbors' ribs. The problem was that he had plenty of other, non-criminal ways of doing something about the noise; there was no excuse for him acting as a criminal.
>

AFAICS NancyGene is correcting your dumbass errors.

If you want her to do so more discretely or politely, perhaps you should stop calling her by childish names.

[Rachel]

Why don't you get a partial lobotomy so you can be healthy?

[Rachel]

Surprising that a man who is so developed couldn't think of this himself, and thus put and end to his own suffering.

Instead, he had to receive this brilliant suggestion from a girl.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:48:50 AM UTC-4, 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:
> > > 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.
> >
> Do you have any idea how insanely paranoid that sounds, George?
>
> I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.

I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments. What I said was that you didn't find any. Of course you don't find any because you don't check for any: you have NG to do all the work for 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.
> >
> I'm sorry, George. As you very well know, I don't click on the spam-links to your blog. Whatever you listed "Mamories" as, you'd obviously misspelled it.

So you don't know what source I'd listed on the blog. Your ignorance is no reason for you to pretend I'd listed the wrong source; and that's not why you wre pretending. You were pretending I'd listed the wrong source because
(1) your current trolling is all about real or imagined errors on the blog; but
(2) for this particular poem, you were unable to find anything you could call an error on the blog; so
(3) you're scrambling around looking for something, anything, that you can pretend was an error on the blog.

> > I have to conclude that you haven't looked at any of the poems that NastyGoon has been trolling about, but are just trying to back up your colleague as per your usual m.o.

> I have told you several times in the past that I don't click on your blog links. I read the poems via the posts and/or links provided by NancyGene.

IOW, I was correct: you haven't looked at any of the evidence yourself, but are just supporting your colleague.
Of course, since you haven't looked at any of the evidence, that means your opinion of it is worthless; you're just an ignorant troll trying back up your more-informed troll colleague. Your admission of that helps one evaluate your contribution to this discussion.

> > > 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.
> >
> I didn't say that you got the author's name wrong, George.

For a second time I'll ask you to stop the stupid strawman arguments, Lying Michael. No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's "name wrong." What I'd claimed you said -- what you did say -- is that it was "highly probable" that O'Donnell wasn't the author, and that I'd made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. For no other reason, since by your own admission you haven't looked at the evidence, than the one I just gave: You couldn't find any errors in this blogged poem you're trolling about, so you're scrambling around trying to make up pretend errors instead.

> Are you in competition with the Donkey for the title of AAPC Village Idiot? Or are you attempting to replace the late, unlamented Pickles as our resident pathological liar?

Wow! Not only do you try to deflect by trying to insult me, but you start attacking other aapc posters (including one who may be dead), too. Once again you're behaving like an angry little monkey throwing poo because he's lost his temper. Yet you can't understand why you 're described here as a "shit-slinging monkey" so much.

> I said that given the questionable nature of the authorship, you should at least have made mention of the same.

Lying Michael, there is no "questionable nature of the authorship" -- and if you'd actually looked at the evidence, you'd know that.

> > 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?
> >
> I think that you're both a paranoid schizophrenic and an extremely petty cunt.

I think you're just throwing monkeyshit again.

> I don't expect you to thank anyone for correcting your editorial blunders.

Expect what you want; but that's no reason for you to claim (once again, falsely) that I don't thank those who spot errors on the blog. The very thread on which NG kicked off the current campaign is enough to show that your story is false:
"George Dance, you have the publication date wrong on Ellwood Roberts' "July" poem"
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/q6bkJ0cQEmQ/m/Z-J36ugzAAAJ?hl=en

NG pointed out the error in the date; I checked it out and confirmed they were correct; so I changed it and thanked them. That should have been the end.

Of course, since having the error fixed was only a pretext for NG to troll -- they were "concern trolling" -- that was not the end of it. NG is still trolling on that thread to this day.

[Michael Pendragon]

I don't see it as being particularly healthy to believe in the illusion of existence.

"Mental Health" in such a scenario would be redefined as "sharing in the illusions of the majority" -- which can never be seen as a good thing. In short, I would be dumbing myself down to the level of the Unwashed.

Perish the thought.

[Faraway Star]

That is Nancy G. since her only purpose here is trolling and attacking... so be it.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:50:32 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:48:50 AM UTC-4, 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:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > Do you have any idea how insanely paranoid that sounds, George?
> >
> > I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.
> I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments. What I said was that you didn't find any. Of course you don't find any because you don't check for any: you have NG to do all the work for you.
>

Apparently you're as clueless as to what your words mean as... Will Donkey is about his.

Here is what you wrote: "you and your buffoon didn't find any "errors" in the poem...".

My not finding something necessitates my having looked for it.

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > I'm sorry, George. As you very well know, I don't click on the spam-links to your blog. Whatever you listed "Mamories" as, you'd obviously misspelled it.
> So you don't know what source I'd listed on the blog. Your ignorance is no reason for you to pretend I'd listed the wrong source; and that's not why you wre pretending. You were pretending I'd listed the wrong source because
>

Whatever label you wish to place on "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans," the title still remains embarrassingly incorrect.

> (1) your current trolling is all about real or imagined errors on the blog; but
> (2) for this particular poem, you were unable to find anything you could call an error on the blog; so

There you go again, George.

In order for me to have been "unable to find anything," I would have to have attempted to do so.

I did not check your blog/wiki/post/whatever for typos. AFAIC, you can "publish" all the typos you want. Your editorial ineptitude is always good for a chuckle.

> (3) you're scrambling around looking for something, anything, that you can pretend was an error on the blog.

As previously noted: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos. I certainly haven't "scrambled" anywhere else.

> > > I have to conclude that you haven't looked at any of the poems that NastyGoon has been trolling about, but are just trying to back up your colleague as per your usual m.o.
> > I have told you several times in the past that I don't click on your blog links. I read the poems via the posts and/or links provided by NancyGene.
> IOW, I was correct: you haven't looked at any of the evidence yourself, but are just supporting your colleague.

MMP: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.
G"MB"D: I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments.

Please make up your mind and stick with it (regardless of the inaccuracy of said choice).

> Of course, since you haven't looked at any of the evidence, that means your opinion of it is worthless; you're just an ignorant troll trying back up your more-informed troll colleague. Your admission of that helps one evaluate your contribution to this discussion.
>

One doesn't need to look at your blog to realize that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" is incorrect.

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > I didn't say that you got the author's name wrong, George.
> For a second time I'll ask you to stop the stupid strawman arguments, Lying Michael. No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's "name wrong." What I'd claimed you said -- what you did say -- is that it was "highly probable" that O'Donnell wasn't the author, and that I'd made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. For no other reason, since by your own admission you haven't looked at the evidence, than the one I just gave: You couldn't find any errors in this blogged poem you're trolling about, so you're scrambling around trying to make up pretend errors instead.
>

You're doing it again, Georgie.

G"BM"D (Yesterday): "you're now saying I got the author wrong..."
G"BM"D (Today): "No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's 'name wrong.'"

Do you even look at what you'd written before attempting to deny it?

> > Are you in competition with the Donkey for the title of AAPC Village Idiot? Or are you attempting to replace the late, unlamented Pickles as our resident pathological liar?
> Wow! Not only do you try to deflect by trying to insult me, but you start attacking other aapc posters (including one who may be dead), too. Once again you're behaving like an angry little monkey throwing poo because he's lost his temper. Yet you can't understand why you 're described here as a "shit-slinging monkey" so much.
>

I'm calling it like it is, George.

Look at the lies you were caught in today: claiming that you hadn't said something that you'd said just the day before.

You're either an imbecile or a pathological liar. There's no other explanation for your behavior.

> > I said that given the questionable nature of the authorship, you should at least have made mention of the same.
> Lying Michael, there is no "questionable nature of the authorship" -- and if you'd actually looked at the evidence, you'd know that.
>

Several contemporary (with the author) sources listed the poem as "anonymous" or of unknown authorship. The poem was uncollected during the author's lifetime, and added to a posthumous collection due to its having been included among some newspaper clippings discovered by his son.

This is certainly cause for one to *question* the authorship of the poem. I would not deny the authorship based on the same, but I would note that there is some question regarding its authenticity.

> > > 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?
> > >
> > I think that you're both a paranoid schizophrenic and an extremely petty cunt.
> I think you're just throwing monkeyshit again.

I'm telling it like it is, George.

> > I don't expect you to thank anyone for correcting your editorial blunders.
> Expect what you want; but that's no reason for you to claim (once again, falsely) that I don't thank those who spot errors on the blog. The very thread on which NG kicked off the current campaign is enough to show that your story is false:
> "George Dance, you have the publication date wrong on Ellwood Roberts' "July" poem"
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/q6bkJ0cQEmQ/m/Z-J36ugzAAAJ?hl=en
>
> NG pointed out the error in the date; I checked it out and confirmed they were correct; so I changed it and thanked them. That should have been the end.
>
> Of course, since having the error fixed was only a pretext for NG to troll -- they were "concern trolling" -- that was not the end of it. NG is still trolling on that thread to this day.
>

Not only have you broken into another paranoid rant, but you're doing so unintelligibly as well.

[Michael Pendragon]

NancyGene writes and posts original poetry (at a highly skilled, professional level), critiques the poetry of others, proofreads and corrects AYoS and PPP/PPB, and both initiates and engages in literary conversations with other members.

You, otoh, constantly repost the same dozen or so poems you have written, are incapable of writing a critique, or correcting an error and are only here to slurp Will and his "friends" and attack Will's "enemies."

If you were half the writer/AAPC participant that NancyGene is, you might actually have something of value to contribute to the group.

[Faraway Star]

The majority of Nancy G's time is spent here stalking and trolling, Pen...

[George Dance]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:47:14 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:

> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:07:57 AM UTC-7, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:34:20 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:

> > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 5:55:23 PM UTC-7, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:42:32 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:

> > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 5:39:36 PM UTC-7, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > I think that you're both a paranoid schizophrenic and an extremely petty cunt. I don't expect you to thank anyone for correcting your editorial blunders.
> > > > > why so contrary
> > > > I suppose because I am neither a paranoid schizophrenic, nor a petty cunt.
> > > It's better not to diagnose yourself.
> > >
> > > What do your psychiatrist and psychologist call your mental afflictions?
> > I suffer from an overly developed intellect which allows me to perceive the world differently than others -- this heightened perception often isolates me from the greater portion of humankind who are living in a linearly-based mental construct governed by the imperialistic laws of materialism and causality.

Of that's meant to answer to Rachel's question, then it sounds like pure bullshit: I don't believe, and I don't think Rachel or anyone else will believe, that any psychiatrist or psychologist told you that.

> No doubt, the dunces of the world can apply every mental affliction in the book to my condition; but how can one diagnose the mental health of an illusion?

Now, that sounds more like the truth: You've never sought psychiatric help because you've managed to convince yourself that psychiatrists and psychologists are all "dunces", trapped in their "material/lineal" world an unable to understand your precious thought-patterns. So your condition has gone untreated.

> Why don't you get a partial lobotomy so you can be healthy?

Good question, Rachel. Had Michael Monkey been thinking, he'd have responded by quoting:
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

Which would be true enough; Michael likes to post drunk, and it's hard to imagine him posting without a bottle in front of him. But of course posting drunk is not his underlying problem; it's just a symptom.

[George Dance]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:51:04 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:

Indeed it is: and Michael Monkey, because he's doing back-up trolling in all of NastyGoon's current troll threads. He's just hoping that, if he doesn't talk about that, he and his ilk can pretend it isn't happening.

[George Dance]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:21:42 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:

Which, as I meant to say, something Michael Monkey knows very well, since he's doing backup trolling and attacking in all their threads.

In fairness, I'd say that NastyGoon is capable of doing more than that; unlike the rest of the Bandar-Log, they appear to have a normal, midrange intellect, capable of learning both how to write poetry and doing research on it. Nor do they have any personal reason for trolling and attacking here, since their one target -- Mr. Pickering -- has been not only absent but presumed dead for years. So why do they do it?

My own theory is that NastyGoon does it for the same reasons as the Asstroll does it:

They have to serve as Michael Monkey's flunkies because they think that's the only way to get "published" in AYoS, and they're hoping that getting into AYoS will actually give them some king of literary reputation.

[Will Dockery]

Another of the "big lies."

:)

[George Dance]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:33:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:50:32 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > Do you have any idea how insanely paranoid that sounds, George?
> > >
> > > I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.
> > I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments. What I said was that you didn't find any. Of course you don't find any because you don't check for any: you have NG to do all the work for you.
> >
> Apparently you're as clueless as to what your words mean as... Will Donkey is about his.
> Here is what you wrote: "you and your buffoon didn't find any "errors" in the poem...".
> My not finding something necessitates my having looked for it.

But, Lying Michael, your team -- which now looks down to "you and your buffoon" -- is actively looking for real and imagined "errors" and start troll threads about them. The fact that your buffoon has to do all the work, while you're confining yourself to cunty trolling, doesn't obviate that.

> > > >
> > > I'm sorry, George. As you very well know, I don't click on the spam-links to your blog. Whatever you listed "Mamories" as, you'd obviously misspelled it.

> > So you don't know what source I'd listed on the blog. Your ignorance is no reason for you to pretend I'd listed the wrong source; and that's not why you were pretending. You were pretending I'd listed the wrong source because

> >
> Whatever label you wish to place on "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans," the title still remains embarrassingly incorrect.

No, Lying Michael; that typo doesn't "remain" anywhere but in the screenshot of it that NG posted. The title of O'Donnell's debut collection is correct on the wiki, and has been for all the time you've been bitching about it being "wrong." But that's a minor lie. Your major one, that we're talking about, is your lie (which I notice NG backed up) that it appeared on my blog. Since you're trolling about the blog being "full of errors" it's natural that you'd attribute every error that NG finds or either of you imagine to the blog, but don't expect your lies to pass without correction.

> > (1) your current trolling is all about real or imagined errors on the blog; but
> > (2) for this particular poem, you were unable to find anything you could call an error on the blog; so
> There you go again, George.
>
> In order for me to have been "unable to find anything," I would have to have attempted to do so.

You have to be playing the peabrain again here, Michael Monkey. I can't believe you're unaware that "you" is a plural pronoun as well as singular one; and that when I said "you couldn't find any errors" I was referring to both you and your troll colleague.

> I did not check your blog/wiki/post/whatever for typos. AFAIC, you can "publish" all the typos you want. Your editorial ineptitude is always good for a chuckle.

As noted: on your team, it's NG's job to look for typos, and yours simply to "chuckle" (ie, to troll) about them, like you're doing here.

> > (3) you're scrambling around looking for something, anything, that you can pretend was an error on the blog.
> As previously noted: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos. I certainly haven't "scrambled" anywhere else.

As previously noted, my previous use of "you" was plural (which you probably know, and are just pretending to have forgotten. But you certainly have been part of the "scrambling around" -- it was you, in fact, who came up with the bullshit that it's "highly probable" that I'd attributed the poem to the wrong author.

> > > I have told you several times in the past that I don't click on your blog links. I read the poems via the posts and/or links provided by NancyGene.
> > IOW, I was correct: you haven't looked at any of the evidence yourself, but are just supporting your colleague.
> MMP: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.
> G"MB"D: I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments.

> Please make up your mind and stick with it (regardless of the inaccuracy of said choice).

My previous statements stand: NG is looking for real and imagined errors, while your contribution to your joint effort has been to troll about them.

> > Of course, since you haven't looked at any of the evidence, that means your opinion of it is worthless; you're just an ignorant troll trying back up your more-informed troll colleague. Your admission of that helps one evaluate your contribution to this discussion.
> >
> One doesn't need to look at your blog to realize that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" is incorrect.

And, of course, not looking at the blog allows you to pretend that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" was ever on it. But it is not, and never was; you're just trolling about another piece of bullshit you made up.

> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > I didn't say that you got the author's name wrong, George.
> > For a second time I'll ask you to stop the stupid strawman arguments, Lying Michael. No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's "name wrong." What I'd claimed you said -- what you did say -- is that it was "highly probable" that O'Donnell wasn't the author, and that I'd made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. For no other reason, since by your own admission you haven't looked at the evidence, than the one I just gave: You couldn't find any errors in this blogged poem you're trolling about, so you're scrambling around trying to make up pretend errors instead.
> >
> You're doing it again, Georgie.
>
> G"BM"D (Yesterday): "you're now saying I got the author wrong..."

Exactly. You were saying I'd put the wrong author's name on the poem; that calling O'Donnell the author was my mistake. As noted, you were bullshitting again, scrambling around to find some real or imagined "error" to justify your trolling.

> G"BM"D (Today): "No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's 'name wrong.'"

Exactly. I nevever claimed you'd said that I'd misspelled O'Donnell's nam. But you tried to pretend that's what I'd claimed, making up a strawman rather than defend from your bullshit about my alleged "mistake."

> Do you even look at what you'd written before attempting to deny it?

> > > Are you in competition with the Donkey for the title of AAPC Village Idiot? Or are you attempting to replace the late, unlamented Pickles as our resident pathological liar?
> > Wow! Not only do you try to deflect by trying to insult me, but you start attacking other aapc posters (including one who may be dead), too. Once again you're behaving like an angry little monkey throwing poo because he's lost his temper. Yet you can't understand why you 're described here as a "shit-slinging monkey" so much.
> >
> I'm calling it like it is, George.

You're throwing monkeyshit, like you always do (which is how you got the nickname Michael Monkey). Most of which, like your claim about O'Donnell not being the author, turns out to be untrue (which is how you got the nickname Lying Michael Monkey).

> Look at the lies you were caught in today: claiming that you hadn't said something that you'd said just the day before.

No, Lying Michael Monkey. See above.

> You're either an imbecile or a pathological liar. There's no other explanation for your behavior.

In fact, there's a simple explanation: I'm calling it as I see it.

> > > I said that given the questionable nature of the authorship, you should at least have made mention of the same.
> > Lying Michael, there is no "questionable nature of the authorship" -- and if you'd actually looked at the evidence, you'd know that.
> >
> Several contemporary (with the author) sources listed the poem as "anonymous" or of unknown authorship.

No, Lying Michael. Unlike you, I've been through all of NastyGoon's "sources". The only actual source they found was /Chambers's/ magazine, which simply printed the poem without any attribution. (NG's other three "sources" all coped the poem from /Chambers's/, or from one of the other copiers.)

>The poem was uncollected during the author's lifetime, and added to a posthumous collection due to its having been included among some newspaper clippings discovered by his son.

No, that is not what you were told, Lying Michael; you're bullshitting again. What both NG and I discovered was that "Mr John H. O'Donnell, son of the poet, placed at Mr Kelly's [the editor's] disposal a collection of his father's verses cut from magazines and newspapers" (presumably a scrapbook). What we both also know, but NG did not report, was that "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." Kelly could have found this poem could have been found by any of those sources -- you don't know, so you're once again bullshitting. .

> This is certainly cause for one to *question* the authorship of the poem. I would not deny the authorship based on the same, but I would note that there is some question regarding its authenticity.

No, neither of the actual facts that NG correctly reported -- that /Chambers's/ published the poem without a byline, and that O'Donnell kept a collection of his published verse -- is a reason to question the authorship of the poem. The magazine regularly published poetry without bylines, which does not mean they considered the authorship of them unknown. And even if the poem were in O'Donnells' collection of his published verse (something that NG did not discover), that would be no reason to doubt that it was not his published verse.

The only reason you're claiming that O'Donnell is "probably" not the author, in the process besmirching the editor's name, was so you could claim that I made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. As I said: you couldn't find any "errors" in this blog post you're trashing, so you're scrambling around trying to invent some.

[George Dance]

Yep. Michael Monkey loves to Goebbels the group.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:51:27 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:47:14 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:07:57 AM UTC-7, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:34:20 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 5:55:23 PM UTC-7, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:42:32 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 5:39:36 PM UTC-7, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > I think that you're both a paranoid schizophrenic and an extremely petty cunt. I don't expect you to thank anyone for correcting your editorial blunders.
> > > > > > why so contrary
> > > > > I suppose because I am neither a paranoid schizophrenic, nor a petty cunt.
> > > > It's better not to diagnose yourself.
> > > >
> > > > What do your psychiatrist and psychologist call your mental afflictions?
> > > I suffer from an overly developed intellect which allows me to perceive the world differently than others -- this heightened perception often isolates me from the greater portion of humankind who are living in a linearly-based mental construct governed by the imperialistic laws of materialism and causality.

> [I]f that's meant to answer to Rachel's question, then it sounds like pure bullshit: I don't believe, and I don't think Rachel or anyone else will believe, that any psychiatrist or psychologist told you that.
>

Self-diagnosis. You really are a dunce, George.

> > No doubt, the dunces of the world can apply every mental affliction in the book to my condition; but how can one diagnose the mental health of an illusion?
> Now, that sounds more like the truth: You've never sought psychiatric help because you've managed to convince yourself that psychiatrists and psychologists are all "dunces", trapped in their "material/lineal" world an unable to understand your precious thought-patterns. So your condition has gone untreated.
>

"Linear," George. Look it up.

> > Why don't you get a partial lobotomy so you can be healthy?
> Good question, Rachel. Had Michael Monkey been thinking, he'd have responded by quoting:
> "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

I used that line a week or so ago, George. Unlike your Donkey, I hate to repeat myself.

> Which would be true enough; Michael likes to post drunk, and it's hard to imagine him posting without a bottle in front of him. But of course posting drunk is not his underlying problem; it's just a symptom.
>

If I drink enough, I can delude myself into temporarily thinking that the construct of "Reality" is substantial enough to devote some fraction of my thought to.

When I'm really deep in my cups, I can even respond to you.

[Will Dockery]

He's so delusional that he might even believe his lies.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:44:55 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:33:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:50:32 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > Do you have any idea how insanely paranoid that sounds, George?
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.
> > > I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments. What I said was that you didn't find any. Of course you don't find any because you don't check for any: you have NG to do all the work for you.
> > >
> > Apparently you're as clueless as to what your words mean as... Will Donkey is about his.
> > Here is what you wrote: "you and your buffoon didn't find any "errors" in the poem...".
> > My not finding something necessitates my having looked for it.
> But, Lying Michael, your team -- which now looks down to "you and your buffoon" -- is actively looking for real and imagined "errors" and start troll threads about them. The fact that your buffoon has to do all the work, while you're confining yourself to cunty trolling, doesn't obviate that.
> > > > >

How does one "look down to" someone?

I may be drunk when I post, but you're either grammatically incompetent or stoned.

> > > > I'm sorry, George. As you very well know, I don't click on the spam-links to your blog. Whatever you listed "Mamories" as, you'd obviously misspelled it.
> > > So you don't know what source I'd listed on the blog. Your ignorance is no reason for you to pretend I'd listed the wrong source; and that's not why you were pretending. You were pretending I'd listed the wrong source because
> > >
> > Whatever label you wish to place on "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans," the title still remains embarrassingly incorrect.
> No, Lying Michael; that typo doesn't "remain" anywhere but in the screenshot of it that NG posted. The title of O'Donnell's debut collection is correct on the wiki, and has been for all the time you've been bitching about it being "wrong." But that's a minor lie. Your major one, that we're talking about, is your lie (which I notice NG backed up) that it appeared on my blog. Since you're trolling about the blog being "full of errors" it's natural that you'd attribute every error that NG finds or either of you imagine to the blog, but don't expect your lies to pass without correction.
>

What is the screenshot of, if not your blog/page/wiki/whateveryoucallit?

> > > (1) your current trolling is all about real or imagined errors on the blog; but
> > > (2) for this particular poem, you were unable to find anything you could call an error on the blog; so
> > There you go again, George.
> >
> > In order for me to have been "unable to find anything," I would have to have attempted to do so.
> You have to be playing the peabrain again here, Michael Monkey. I can't believe you're unaware that "you" is a plural pronoun as well as singular one; and that when I said "you couldn't find any errors" I was referring to both you and your troll colleague.
>

It makes no difference whether you were claiming that I did it on my own or with my colleague. Either way you were still saying that I did it -- and denying that you'd said it today.

> > I did not check your blog/wiki/post/whatever for typos. AFAIC, you can "publish" all the typos you want. Your editorial ineptitude is always good for a chuckle.
> As noted: on your team, it's NG's job to look for typos, and yours simply to "chuckle" (ie, to troll) about them, like you're doing here.

I'm not laughing at NancyGene's comments, George. I'm laughing at yours.

> > > (3) you're scrambling around looking for something, anything, that you can pretend was an error on the blog.
> > As previously noted: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos. I certainly haven't "scrambled" anywhere else.
> As previously noted, my previous use of "you" was plural (which you probably know, and are just pretending to have forgotten. But you certainly have been part of the "scrambling around" -- it was you, in fact, who came up with the bullshit that it's "highly probable" that I'd attributed the poem to the wrong author.
>

And, also as previously noted, it makes no difference whatsoever. I either did it, or I didn't. Whether I did it on my own, in tandem, or in a group is of no consequence.

> > > > I have told you several times in the past that I don't click on your blog links. I read the poems via the posts and/or links provided by NancyGene.
> > > IOW, I was correct: you haven't looked at any of the evidence yourself, but are just supporting your colleague.
> > MMP: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.
> > G"MB"D: I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments.
>
> > Please make up your mind and stick with it (regardless of the inaccuracy of said choice).
> My previous statements stand: NG is looking for real and imagined errors, while your contribution to your joint effort has been to troll about them.

Your previous statements (by which I'm assuming you mean yesterday's falsehoods) are contradicted by today's denials.

> > > Of course, since you haven't looked at any of the evidence, that means your opinion of it is worthless; you're just an ignorant troll trying back up your more-informed troll colleague. Your admission of that helps one evaluate your contribution to this discussion.
> > >
> > One doesn't need to look at your blog to realize that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" is incorrect.
> And, of course, not looking at the blog allows you to pretend that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" was ever on it. But it is not, and never was; you're just trolling about another piece of bullshit you made up.
>

There you go again, George. I didn't make anything up. NancyGene posted a screenshot of your blog/wiki/page/whatchmacallit that showed the error.

I laughed at the error ("Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" is funny). That's all.

> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > I didn't say that you got the author's name wrong, George.
> > > For a second time I'll ask you to stop the stupid strawman arguments, Lying Michael. No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's "name wrong." What I'd claimed you said -- what you did say -- is that it was "highly probable" that O'Donnell wasn't the author, and that I'd made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. For no other reason, since by your own admission you haven't looked at the evidence, than the one I just gave: You couldn't find any errors in this blogged poem you're trolling about, so you're scrambling around trying to make up pretend errors instead.
> > >
> > You're doing it again, Georgie.
> >
> > G"BM"D (Yesterday): "you're now saying I got the author wrong..."
> Exactly. You were saying I'd put the wrong author's name on the poem; that calling O'Donnell the author was my mistake. As noted, you were bullshitting again, scrambling around to find some real or imagined "error" to justify your trolling.
>

I never said any such thing, George.

Stop lying. Stop whining. Then post proof or STFU.

> > G"BM"D (Today): "No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's 'name wrong.'"
> Exactly. I nevever claimed you'd said that I'd misspelled O'Donnell's nam.

You're stuttering like a frantic... monkey, George. You're gonna bust a blood vessel if you keep this up.

> But you tried to pretend that's what I'd claimed, making up a strawman rather than defend from your bullshit about my alleged "mistake."

How does one "defend from [one's] bullshit"?

For the sixth time, I have never claimed that you got the author's name wrong. I said that you were remiss in your editorial duties in not having noted that some question regarding the poem's authorship exists.

> > Do you even look at what you'd written before attempting to deny it?
>
> > > > Are you in competition with the Donkey for the title of AAPC Village Idiot? Or are you attempting to replace the late, unlamented Pickles as our resident pathological liar?
> > > Wow! Not only do you try to deflect by trying to insult me, but you start attacking other aapc posters (including one who may be dead), too. Once again you're behaving like an angry little monkey throwing poo because he's lost his temper. Yet you can't understand why you 're described here as a "shit-slinging monkey" so much.
> > >
> > I'm calling it like it is, George.
> You're throwing monkeyshit, like you always do (which is how you got the nickname Michael Monkey). Most of which, like your claim about O'Donnell not being the author, turns out to be untrue (which is how you got the nickname Lying Michael Monkey).
>

"Dunce" is your nickname because the majority of AAPC members have been calling you that for years. The same holds true for "Mensa Man." You cannot say that one has a nickname when you're the only person who calls him it.

Once again, I'm forced to remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dunce.

> > Look at the lies you were caught in today: claiming that you hadn't said something that you'd said just the day before.
> No, Lying Michael Monkey. See above.

Are you referring to this?

G"BM"D (Yesterday): "you're now saying I got the author wrong..."

G"BM"D (Today): "No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's 'name wrong.'"

Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

> > You're either an imbecile or a pathological liar. There's no other explanation for your behavior.
> In fact, there's a simple explanation: I'm calling it as I see it.

No... you're just repeating a line I said to you in this same thread.

> > > > I said that given the questionable nature of the authorship, you should at least have made mention of the same.
> > > Lying Michael, there is no "questionable nature of the authorship" -- and if you'd actually looked at the evidence, you'd know that.
> > >
> > Several contemporary (with the author) sources listed the poem as "anonymous" or of unknown authorship.
> No, Lying Michael. Unlike you, I've been through all of NastyGoon's "sources". The only actual source they found was /Chambers's/ magazine, which simply printed the poem without any attribution. (NG's other three "sources" all coped the poem from /Chambers's/, or from one of the other copiers.)
>

If they "coped" the poem, wouldn't they have done so from "the other copers?" One should strive for consistency in their writing, George -- even in their errors.

> >The poem was uncollected during the author's lifetime, and added to a posthumous collection due to its having been included among some newspaper clippings discovered by his son.
> No, that is not what you were told, Lying Michael; you're bullshitting again. What both NG and I discovered was that "Mr John H. O'Donnell, son of the poet, placed at Mr Kelly's [the editor's] disposal a collection of his father's verses cut from magazines and newspapers" (presumably a scrapbook).
>

How is that in any way different from what I just said?

> What we both also know, but NG did not report, was that "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." Kelly could have found this poem could have been found by any of those sources -- you don't know, so you're once again bullshitting. .
>

Wait a second... "Kelly could have found this poem could have been found..."? That's a lot of "could haves" for someone who's trying to establish authorship.

I'm sure that Kelly could have found that he could have found conclusive evidence if conclusive evidence were there for him to could have, could have find.

Conversely, the possibility that he could have found that he could have found that no evidence of authorship existed means that the poem's authorship could be found to be could have suspect.

On the other hand, he could have found that he could have found that you are the biggest dunce on the planet.

> > This is certainly cause for one to *question* the authorship of the poem. I would not deny the authorship based on the same, but I would note that there is some question regarding its authenticity.
> No, neither of the actual facts that NG correctly reported -- that /Chambers's/ published the poem without a byline, and that O'Donnell kept a collection of his published verse -- is a reason to question the authorship of the poem. The magazine regularly published poetry without bylines, which does not mean they considered the authorship of them unknown. And even if the poem were in O'Donnells' collection of his published verse (something that NG did not discover), that would be no reason to doubt that it was not his published verse.
>

And by the same token, it would be no reason to assume that it was his.

The poem appeared anonymously in the journal, and remained uncollected during the author's lifetime. The sole basis of including it in the collection (at least insofar as any of us are aware) is that it was included in the clippings (possibly a scrapbook) provided by O'Donnell's son.

Is it impossible that the clipping had been saved because O'Donnell thought it a very good poem? I have saved copies of poems that I wished to reread and/or memorize.

Is it impossible that the clipping had been saved because O'Donnell had been a close friend of its actual author? I have saved copies of poems written by my friends as well.

AFAICS, the poem's authorship has not been conclusively established. It is *most likely* Mr. O'Donnell's work, but there is nevertheless a reasonable doubt that he did not.

> The only reason you're claiming that O'Donnell is "probably" not the author, in the process besmirching the editor's name, was so you could claim that I made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. As I said: you couldn't find any "errors" in this blog post you're trashing, so you're scrambling around trying to invent some.
>

No one has said that he was "probably not" the author, Dunce. Learn how to read.

[Will Dockery]

You nailed it, George.

[W.Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:21:42 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:
>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:50:32 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:48:50 AM UTC-4, 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:
>> > > > > 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.
>> > > >
>> > > Do you have any idea how insanely paranoid that sounds, George?
>> > >
>> > > I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.

>> > I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments.. What I said was that you didn't find any. Of course you don't find any because you don't check for any: you have NG to do all the work for you.

Like I said, Michael Pendragon is basically running a vanity press scam.

[Michael Pendragon]

Having your friend "publish" a print-on-demand chapbook of your poetry would be a prime an example of a vanity publication, Donkey.

AYoS was created as a sampler of the various AAPC poets' work. It has, however, branched out to include work submitted to the Official FB version of AAPC (one needn't be a member to submit poetry).

AYoS does not classify as a "vanity" because there is no nominal fee for submissions.

It would also not qualify as a "scam" as its publisher makes no money from fees or sales. Nor does it misrepresent itself in any way.

It is exactly what it purports to be: a sampler of the various AAPC poets' work.

As always, HtH & HAND

[Will Dockery]

My poetry book is more than just a print on demand item, there are copies available in many locations in the USA and Canada.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

Damn, but you're one stupid Donkey!

Just because your daughter is selling copies in her bait store, doesn't mean that the book isn't print-on-demand.

Print-on-demand refers to the method by which the book is printed. Print-on-demand is computer generated, as opposed to traditional books that are printed on presses from plates using moveable type.

It does not refer to how the book is sold.

[Faraway Star]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:27:02 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

> Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:

Quite right....

[Michael Pendragon]

Wrong. Again, "print-on-demand" refers to the method of *printing* a book -- not to how the printed book is distributed.

Traditional books are printed on a press, using plates (moveable type, offset plates, lithographic plates, etc). It is an expensive process and the books are printed in predetermined batches. A print run might be of 200, 5,000, 50,000, etc., copies. These set numbers constitute the "first edition" of the book. First editions are valuable among book collectors. Whereas print-on-demand prints additional copies as needed. Because additional copies are always available, and because there is no *limited* number of copies in a print run (the term "print run" loses all meaning in print-on-demand), these books have no value amongst collectors.

"Penny Dreadful" was originally typeset on a computer, then photocopied, and saddle stapled. Photocopied publications work in a similar manner to print-on-demand in that there are no set numbers to the print run and additional copies can be run off as needed. "PD" eventually became too large to produce in this manner (try saddle stapling a 220 page publication), so pageproofs were designed on computer and sent to a digital publisher. Even though these digital copies were run off of a computer printer, they were done in limited print runs of 500. Digital printing is of a lower quality than offset printing, but since the magazines were run in limited batches, they were not considered to be print-on-demand.

"AYoS," is print-on-demand. If I were to order 500 copies and sell them in various book stores around Manhattan on commission (as I used to do with "PD"), it would still be a print-on-demand publication because it is not printed in limited "runs."

Hopefully this clears up some of your confusion.

[Will Dockery]

Good evening, Zod, hope you're having a nice day so far.

[George Dance]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:11:18 PM UTC-4, Monkey "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:44:55 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:33:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:50:32 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > Apparently you're as clueless as to what your words mean as... Will Donkey is about his.
> > > Here is what you wrote: "you and your buffoon didn't find any "errors" in the poem...".
> > > My not finding something necessitates my having looked for it.
> > But, Lying Michael, your team -- which now looks down to "you and your buffoon" -- is actively looking for real and imagined "errors" and start troll threads about them. The fact that your buffoon has to do all the work, while you're confining yourself to cunty trolling, doesn't obviate that.
> > > > > >
> How does one "look down to" someone?
> I may be drunk when I post, but you're either grammatically incompetent or stoned.

> > > Whatever label you wish to place on "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans," the title still remains embarrassingly incorrect.
> > No, Lying Michael; that typo doesn't "remain" anywhere but in the screenshot of it that NG posted. The title of O'Donnell's debut collection is correct on the wiki, and has been for all the time you've been bitching about it being "wrong." But that's a minor lie. Your major one, that we're talking about, is your lie (which I notice NG backed up) that it appeared on my blog. Since you're trolling about the blog being "full of errors" it's natural that you'd attribute every error that NG finds or either of you imagine to the blog, but don't expect your lies to pass without correction.
> >
> What is the screenshot of, if not your blog /page/wiki/whateveryoucallit?

It's a copy of something that used to be on PPP, no different from this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180406134835/http://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Pendragon

> > > > (1) your current trolling is all about real or imagined errors on the blog; but
> > > > (2) for this particular poem, you were unable to find anything you could call an error on the blog; so
> > > There you go again, George.
> > >
> > > In order for me to have been "unable to find anything," I would have to have attempted to do so.
> > You have to be playing the peabrain again here, Michael Monkey. I can't believe you're unaware that "you" is a plural pronoun as well as singular one; and that when I said "you couldn't find any errors" I was referring to both you and your troll colleague.
> >
> It makes no difference whether you were claiming that I did it on my own or with my colleague. Either way you were still saying that I did it -- and denying that you'd said it today.

Lying Michael, no one said that you (singular verb this time) did any work at all. I said that none of your team found any. Which includes you: you did not find any erros. If you didn't find any errors because you were too incompetent, or because you were too lazy to look, makes no difference: you were still unable to find any. Learn what words mean and how to use them correctly,

> > > I did not check your blog/wiki/post/whatever for typos. AFAIC, you can "publish" all the typos you want. Your editorial ineptitude is always good for a chuckle.
> > As noted: on your team, it's NG's job to look for typos, and yours simply to "chuckle" (ie, to troll) about them, like you're doing here.
> I'm not laughing at NancyGene's comments, George. I'm laughing at yours.

> > > > (3) you're scrambling around looking for something, anything, that you can pretend was an error on the blog.
> > > As previously noted: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos. I certainly haven't "scrambled" anywhere else.
> > As previously noted, my previous use of "you" was plural (which you probably know, and are just pretending to have forgotten. But you certainly have been part of the "scrambling around" -- it was you, in fact, who came up with the bullshit that it's "highly probable" that I'd attributed the poem to the wrong author.
> >
> And, also as previously noted, it makes no difference whatsoever. I either did it, or I didn't. Whether I did it on my own, in tandem, or in a group is of no consequence.

In this case, the only "error" your team found on the blog post is one that you came up with: not by looking for and finding it, but by simply making it up.

> > > > IOW, I was correct: you haven't looked at any of the evidence yourself, but are just supporting your colleague.
> > > MMP: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.
> > > G"MB"D: I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments.
> >
> > > Please make up your mind and stick with it (regardless of the inaccuracy of said choice).
> > My previous statements stand: NG is looking for real and imagined errors, while your contribution to your joint effort has been to troll about them.

And, of course, to make up the only alleged error the two of managed to come up with for this blogpost.

> Your previous statements (by which I'm assuming you mean yesterday's falsehoods) are contradicted by today's denials.

> > > > Of course, since you haven't looked at any of the evidence, that means your opinion of it is worthless; you're just an ignorant troll trying back up your more-informed troll colleague. Your admission of that helps one evaluate your contribution to this discussion.
> > > >
> > > One doesn't need to look at your blog to realize that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" is incorrect.
> > And, of course, not looking at the blog allows you to pretend that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" was ever on it. But it is not, and never was; you're just trolling about another piece of bullshit you made up.
> >
> There you go again, George. I didn't make anything up. NancyGene posted a screenshot of your blog/wiki/page/whatchmacallit that showed the error.

Lying, Michael: you can't prove anything about the blog by posting screenshots of something else.

> I laughed at the error ("Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" is funny). That's all.

No, Lying Michael, that is not all. You also claim to have found (but in fact simply made up, as per your m.o.

> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I didn't say that you got the author's name wrong, George.
> > > > For a second time I'll ask you to stop the stupid strawman arguments, Lying Michael. No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's "name wrong." What I'd claimed you said -- what you did say -- is that it was "highly probable" that O'Donnell wasn't the author, and that I'd made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. For no other reason, since by your own admission you haven't looked at the evidence, than the one I just gave: You couldn't find any errors in this blogged poem you're trolling about, so you're scrambling around trying to make up pretend errors instead.
> > > >
> > > You're doing it again, Georgie.
> > >
> > > G"BM"D (Yesterday): "you're now saying I got the author wrong..."
> > Exactly. You were saying I'd put the wrong author's name on the poem; that calling O'Donnell the author was my mistake. As noted, you were bullshitting again, scrambling around to find some real or imagined "error" to justify your trolling.

> I never said any such thing, George.
>
> Stop lying. Stop whining. Then post proof or STFU.

Sure thing, Lying Michael. From one of NG's troll threads:
"it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made. One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this"
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/nFip5oRlWL8/m/5MSOZS9qCQAJ?hl=en

> > > G"BM"D (Today): "No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's 'name wrong.'"
> > Exactly. I nevever claimed you'd said that I'd misspelled O'Donnell's nam.
> You're stuttering like a frantic... monkey, George. You're gonna bust a blood vessel if you keep this up.
> > But you tried to pretend that's what I'd claimed, making up a strawman rather than defend from your bullshit about my alleged "mistake."
> How does one "defend from [one's] bullshit"?
>
> For the sixth time, I have never claimed that you got the author's name wrong.

So now you're not questioning the authorship?

> I said that you were remiss in your editorial duties in not having noted that some question regarding the poem's authorship exists.

Michael, if you want I can include as a blog comment that "a couple of trolls on aapc are questioning the poem's authorship." But I can't have been "remiss" in not including that before you began questioning it, back when I published the poem, could I?

> > > I'm calling it like it is, George.
> > You're throwing monkeyshit, like you always do (which is how you got the nickname Michael Monkey). Most of which, like your claim about O'Donnell not being the author, turns out to be untrue (which is how you got the nickname Lying Michael Monkey).
> >
> "Dunce" is your nickname because the majority of AAPC members have been calling you that for years.

I was going to call that another lie on your part, Lying Michael, but I'll ask you to PPoSTFU instead. You don't seem to have a clue how many "AAPC members" we've had here for years, it may be good for you to do some research for a change.

> The same holds true for "Mensa Man." You cannot say that one has a nickname when you're the only person who calls him it.

Oh, are you pretending that it's not *really* your nickname because I haven't got anyone else to call you that? I could get that changed, if you wish.

>
> Once again, I'm forced to remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dunce.

Nor does it revolve around Michael Monkey Peabrain. What's your point?

> > > Look at the lies you were caught in today: claiming that you hadn't said something that you'd said just the day before.
> > No, Lying Michael Monkey. See above.
> Are you referring to this?
> G"BM"D (Yesterday): "you're now saying I got the author wrong..."
> G"BM"D (Today): "No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's 'name wrong.'"
> Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Sure. It shows you can post edit.

> > > You're either an imbecile or a pathological liar. There's no other explanation for your behavior.
> > In fact, there's a simple explanation: I'm calling it as I see it.

> No ... you're just repeating a line I said to you in this same thread.

> > > > > I said that given the questionable nature of the authorship, you should at least have made mention of the same.
> > > > Lying Michael, there is no "questionable nature of the authorship" -- and if you'd actually looked at the evidence, you'd know that.
> > > >
> > > Several contemporary (with the author) sources listed the poem as "anonymous" or of unknown authorship.
> > No, Lying Michael. Unlike you, I've been through all of NastyGoon's "sources". The only actual source they found was /Chambers's/ magazine, which simply printed the poem without any attribution. (NG's other three "sources" all coped the poem from /Chambers's/, or from one of the other copiers.)
> >
> If they "coped" the poem, wouldn't they have done so from "the other copers?"
> One should strive for consistency in their writing, George -- even in their errors.

I'm glad you found another typo, Michael. But at least you didn't deny that NG found only one "source" -- which (despite your lie) did not list the poem as either "anonymous" or "of unknown authorship".

> > >The poem was uncollected during the author's lifetime, and added to a posthumous collection due to its having been included among some newspaper clippings discovered by his son.
> > No, that is not what you were told, Lying Michael; you're bullshitting again. What both NG and I discovered was that "Mr John H. O'Donnell, son of the poet, placed at Mr Kelly's [the editor's] disposal a collection of his father's verses cut from magazines and newspapers" (presumably a scrapbook).
> >
> How is that in any way different from what I just said?

Lying Michael, you just said that the poem was "added to a posthumous collection due to its having been included among some newspaper clippings discovered by his son." That is not in what I just quoted, or anywhere else. You made up a pretend "fact" again. As usual, I'll give you a pass the first time and not call it a lie (I'm quite familiar with your reading problems), but if you repeat after being corrected I'll be forced to call it a lie going forward.

> > What we both also know, but NG did not report, was that "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." Kelly could have found this poem could have been found by any of those sources -- you don't know, so you're once again bullshitting. .
> >
> Wait a second... "Kelly could have found this poem could have been found..."? That's a lot of "could haves" for someone who's trying to establish authorship.
>
> I'm sure that Kelly could have found that he could have found conclusive evidence if conclusive evidence were there for him to could have, could have find.

Of course he could have. You don't know whether he did nor not.

> Conversely, the possibility that he could have found that he could have found that no evidence of authorship existed means that the poem's authorship could be found to be could have suspect.

If he had found "no evidence of authorship," then he wouldn't likely have included it in the book he was editing, would he? I thought you said you'br worked for editors; didn't they teach you that?

> On the other hand, he could have found that he could have found that you are the biggest dunce on the planet.

> > > This is certainly cause for one to *question* the authorship of the poem. I would not deny the authorship based on the same, but I would note that there is some question regarding its authenticity.

> > No, neither of the actual facts that NG correctly reported -- that /Chambers's/ published the poem without a byline, and that O'Donnell kept a collection of his published verse -- is a reason to question the authorship of the poem. The magazine regularly published poetry without bylines, which does not mean they considered the authorship of them unknown. And even if the poem were in O'Donnells' collection of his published verse (something that NG did not discover), that would be no reason to doubt that it was [...] this published verse.

> And by the same token, it would be no reason to assume that it was his.
>
> The poem appeared anonymously in the journal, and remained uncollected during the author's lifetime.

> The sole basis of including it in the collection (at least insofar as any of us are aware) is that it was included in the clippings (possibly a scrapbook) provided by O'Donnell's son.

Lying Michael, you're the only one "aware" (because you made it up) that the poem was "included in the clippings (possibly a scrapbook) provided by O'Donnell's son." Then you claimed that "fact" you made up was the "reason" Kelly included the poem; and made up another "fact" that he had no other reason to include it.

> Is it impossible that the clipping had been saved because O'Donnell thought it a very good poem? I have saved copies of poems that I wished to reread and/or memorize.
>
> Is it impossible that the clipping had been saved because O'Donnell had been a close friend of its actual author? I have saved copies of poems written by my friends as well.

Sure, both are "possible". It's also possible that there was no such "clipping."

> AFAICS, the poem's authorship has not been conclusively established. It is *most likely* Mr. O'Donnell's work, but there is nevertheless a reasonable doubt that he did not.

You can doubt all you want, but there's nothing "reasonable" about it.

> > The only reason you're claiming that O'Donnell is "probably" not the author, in the process besmirching the editor's name, was so you could claim that I made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. As I said: you couldn't find any "errors" in this blog post you're trashing, so you're scrambling around trying to invent some.
> >
> No one has said that he was "probably not" the author, Dunce. Learn how to read.

Again, see the troll thread: "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." (stress added).

[Will Dockery]

Well put, George.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:02:41 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:11:18 PM UTC-4, Monkey "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:44:55 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:33:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:50:32 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > Apparently you're as clueless as to what your words mean as... Will Donkey is about his.
> > > > Here is what you wrote: "you and your buffoon didn't find any "errors" in the poem...".
> > > > My not finding something necessitates my having looked for it.
> > > But, Lying Michael, your team -- which now looks down to "you and your buffoon" -- is actively looking for real and imagined "errors" and start troll threads about them. The fact that your buffoon has to do all the work, while you're confining yourself to cunty trolling, doesn't obviate that.
> > > > > > >
> > How does one "look down to" someone?
> > I may be drunk when I post, but you're either grammatically incompetent or stoned.
> > > > Whatever label you wish to place on "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans," the title still remains embarrassingly incorrect.
> > > No, Lying Michael; that typo doesn't "remain" anywhere but in the screenshot of it that NG posted. The title of O'Donnell's debut collection is correct on the wiki, and has been for all the time you've been bitching about it being "wrong." But that's a minor lie. Your major one, that we're talking about, is your lie (which I notice NG backed up) that it appeared on my blog. Since you're trolling about the blog being "full of errors" it's natural that you'd attribute every error that NG finds or either of you imagine to the blog, but don't expect your lies to pass without correction.
> > >
> > What is the screenshot of, if not your blog /page/wiki/whateveryoucallit?
> It's a copy of something that used to be on PPP, no different from this:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20180406134835/http://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Pendragon

If PPP is your blog/wiki/website/whatever, then the "Mamories" typo appeared on the same, and has been archived. Thank you for confirming what NancyGene had already established.,

> > > > > (1) your current trolling is all about real or imagined errors on the blog; but
> > > > > (2) for this particular poem, you were unable to find anything you could call an error on the blog; so
> > > > There you go again, George.
> > > >
> > > > In order for me to have been "unable to find anything," I would have to have attempted to do so.
> > > You have to be playing the peabrain again here, Michael Monkey. I can't believe you're unaware that "you" is a plural pronoun as well as singular one; and that when I said "you couldn't find any errors" I was referring to both you and your troll colleague.
> > >
> > It makes no difference whether you were claiming that I did it on my own or with my colleague. Either way you were still saying that I did it -- and denying that you'd said it today.
> Lying Michael, no one said that you (singular verb this time) did any work at all. I said that none of your team found any. Which includes you: you did not find any erros. If you didn't find any errors because you were too incompetent, or because you were too lazy to look, makes no difference: you were still unable to find any. Learn what words mean and how to use them correctly,
>

I see no use to discussing the matter with someone who lies in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

George "BM" Dance: when I said "you couldn't find any errors" I was referring to both you and your troll colleague.

For me to have been unable to find any erros[sic], I must necessarily have first made some attempt to look for them.

Since we've already established that I made no such attempt, your insistence on maintaining that I did so is a lie.

Please stop wasting both of our time with this nonsense.

> > > > I did not check your blog/wiki/post/whatever for typos. AFAIC, you can "publish" all the typos you want. Your editorial ineptitude is always good for a chuckle.
> > > As noted: on your team, it's NG's job to look for typos, and yours simply to "chuckle" (ie, to troll) about them, like you're doing here.
> > I'm not laughing at NancyGene's comments, George. I'm laughing at yours.
>
> > > > > (3) you're scrambling around looking for something, anything, that you can pretend was an error on the blog.
> > > > As previously noted: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos. I certainly haven't "scrambled" anywhere else.
> > > As previously noted, my previous use of "you" was plural (which you probably know, and are just pretending to have forgotten. But you certainly have been part of the "scrambling around" -- it was you, in fact, who came up with the bullshit that it's "highly probable" that I'd attributed the poem to the wrong author.
> > >
> > And, also as previously noted, it makes no difference whatsoever. I either did it, or I didn't. Whether I did it on my own, in tandem, or in a group is of no consequence.
> In this case, the only "error" your team found on the blog post is one that you came up with: not by looking for and finding it, but by simply making it up.
>

Again, your bizarre insistence that "you" doesn't refer to the person you're addressing (on the grounds that it is plural) is the sort of sub-moronic trolling I would expect from your Donkey.

I haven't read your silly blog, much less attempted to find errors in it. Nor have I been "scrambling around" in an attempt to do so.

Unless you can provide evidence that I attempted to find errors on your blog/wiki/whateveritis, I advise you to let the matter drop.

Otherwise, I shall have to consider this thread to be a troll post, an < plonk > it accordingly.

> > > > > IOW, I was correct: you haven't looked at any of the evidence yourself, but are just supporting your colleague.
> > > > MMP: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.
> > > > G"MB"D: I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments.
> > >
> > > > Please make up your mind and stick with it (regardless of the inaccuracy of said choice).
> > > My previous statements stand: NG is looking for real and imagined errors, while your contribution to your joint effort has been to troll about them.
> And, of course, to make up the only alleged error the two of managed to come up with for this blogpost.

See above. < yawn >

> > Your previous statements (by which I'm assuming you mean yesterday's falsehoods) are contradicted by today's denials.
>
> > > > > Of course, since you haven't looked at any of the evidence, that means your opinion of it is worthless; you're just an ignorant troll trying back up your more-informed troll colleague. Your admission of that helps one evaluate your contribution to this discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > One doesn't need to look at your blog to realize that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" is incorrect.
> > > And, of course, not looking at the blog allows you to pretend that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" was ever on it. But it is not, and never was; you're just trolling about another piece of bullshit you made up.
> > >
> > There you go again, George. I didn't make anything up. NancyGene posted a screenshot of your blog/wiki/page/whatchmacallit that showed the error.
> Lying, Michael: you can't prove anything about the blog by posting screenshots of something else.

Stupid Dunce, I didn't post a screenshot of your blog or of anything else.

You have already admitted that NancyGene (not me) posted an archived screenshot taken from the Wayback Machine. That is proof that the error existed on your blog/wiki/whateverthef**kitis.

> > I laughed at the error ("Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" is funny). That's all.
> No, Lying Michael, that is not all. You also claim to have found (but in fact simply made up, as per your m.o.

Where did I make any such claim?

PP or STFU.

> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't say that you got the author's name wrong, George.
> > > > > For a second time I'll ask you to stop the stupid strawman arguments, Lying Michael. No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's "name wrong." What I'd claimed you said -- what you did say -- is that it was "highly probable" that O'Donnell wasn't the author, and that I'd made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. For no other reason, since by your own admission you haven't looked at the evidence, than the one I just gave: You couldn't find any errors in this blogged poem you're trolling about, so you're scrambling around trying to make up pretend errors instead.
> > > > >
> > > > You're doing it again, Georgie.
> > > >
> > > > G"BM"D (Yesterday): "you're now saying I got the author wrong..."
> > > Exactly. You were saying I'd put the wrong author's name on the poem; that calling O'Donnell the author was my mistake. As noted, you were bullshitting again, scrambling around to find some real or imagined "error" to justify your trolling.
>
> > I never said any such thing, George.
> >
> > Stop lying. Stop whining. Then post proof or STFU.
> Sure thing, Lying Michael. From one of NG's troll threads:
> "it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made. One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this"
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/nFip5oRlWL8/m/5MSOZS9qCQAJ?hl=en

WTF? Is your reading comprehension level even lower than that of your Donkey?

What part of "One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this" do you not understand?

> > > > G"BM"D (Today): "No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's 'name wrong.'"
> > > Exactly. I nevever claimed you'd said that I'd misspelled O'Donnell's nam.
> > You're stuttering like a frantic... monkey, George. You're gonna bust a blood vessel if you keep this up.
> > > But you tried to pretend that's what I'd claimed, making up a strawman rather than defend from your bullshit about my alleged "mistake."
> > How does one "defend from [one's] bullshit"?
> >
> > For the sixth time, I have never claimed that you got the author's name wrong.
> So now you're not questioning the authorship?
> > I said that you were remiss in your editorial duties in not having noted that some question regarding the poem's authorship exists.
> Michael, if you want I can include as a blog comment that "a couple of trolls on aapc are questioning the poem's authorship." But I can't have been "remiss" in not including that before you began questioning it, back when I published the poem, could I?
>

Of course you can have been remiss -- and, in fact, were precisely that.

An editor doesn't depend upon his readers to research the accuracy of what he "publishes."

An editor is expected to fully research his statements *prior* to their publication.

The fact that NancyGene was able to locate sources that place some question on the authorship of the poem, is proof of your not having made any attempt to verify your sources prior to publishing the poem.

> > > > I'm calling it like it is, George.
> > > You're throwing monkeyshit, like you always do (which is how you got the nickname Michael Monkey). Most of which, like your claim about O'Donnell not being the author, turns out to be untrue (which is how you got the nickname Lying Michael Monkey).
> > >
> > "Dunce" is your nickname because the majority of AAPC members have been calling you that for years.
> I was going to call that another lie on your part, Lying Michael, but I'll ask you to PPoSTFU instead. You don't seem to have a clue how many "AAPC members" we've had here for years, it may be good for you to do some research for a change.
>

Are you denying that you'd earned the "Dunce" nickname long before my arrival here?

> > The same holds true for "Mensa Man." You cannot say that one has a nickname when you're the only person who calls him it.
> Oh, are you pretending that it's not *really* your nickname because I haven't got anyone else to call you that? I could get that changed, if you wish.
> >

Who? Your Donkey and his socks?

You've earned a resounding Whoop-de-damn-do.

> > Once again, I'm forced to remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dunce.
> Nor does it revolve around Michael Monkey Peabrain. What's your point?

My point should have been obvious -- even to a dunce. "The world does not revolve around George Dance" means that just because you slap a childish nickname on someone, it automatically becomes their nickname. It only becomes a nickname when a large number of individuals pick up on it and start using it as well.

> > > > Look at the lies you were caught in today: claiming that you hadn't said something that you'd said just the day before.
> > > No, Lying Michael Monkey. See above.
> > Are you referring to this?
> > G"BM"D (Yesterday): "you're now saying I got the author wrong..."
> > G"BM"D (Today): "No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's 'name wrong.'"
> > Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> Sure. It shows you can post edit.

I have made no changes in either of your statements, Dunce. You have made two contradictory statements in the same thread (one day apart from each other).

Since both of your statements cannot be true (they cancel one another out), it follows that one of them has to be incorrect (ergo, a lie).

> > > > You're either an imbecile or a pathological liar. There's no other explanation for your behavior.
> > > In fact, there's a simple explanation: I'm calling it as I see it.
> > No ... you're just repeating a line I said to you in this same thread.
> > > > > > I said that given the questionable nature of the authorship, you should at least have made mention of the same.
> > > > > Lying Michael, there is no "questionable nature of the authorship" -- and if you'd actually looked at the evidence, you'd know that.
> > > > >
> > > > Several contemporary (with the author) sources listed the poem as "anonymous" or of unknown authorship.
> > > No, Lying Michael. Unlike you, I've been through all of NastyGoon's "sources". The only actual source they found was /Chambers's/ magazine, which simply printed the poem without any attribution. (NG's other three "sources" all coped the poem from /Chambers's/, or from one of the other copiers.)
> > >
> > If they "coped" the poem, wouldn't they have done so from "the other copers?"
> > One should strive for consistency in their writing, George -- even in their errors.
> I'm glad you found another typo, Michael. But at least you didn't deny that NG found only one "source" -- which (despite your lie) did not list the poem as either "anonymous" or "of unknown authorship".
>

Where is the "lie," Dunce?

Judging from your statement (immediately above), NancyGene found several sources that listed the poem as "anonymous" or "of unknown authorship."

Did you mean to say that NancyGene "found only one 'source"=' ... which *did* list the poem as either 'anonymous' or 'of unknown authorship'"?

> > > >The poem was uncollected during the author's lifetime, and added to a posthumous collection due to its having been included among some newspaper clippings discovered by his son.
> > > No, that is not what you were told, Lying Michael; you're bullshitting again. What both NG and I discovered was that "Mr John H. O'Donnell, son of the poet, placed at Mr Kelly's [the editor's] disposal a collection of his father's verses cut from magazines and newspapers" (presumably a scrapbook).
> > >
> > How is that in any way different from what I just said?
> Lying Michael, you just said that the poem was "added to a posthumous collection due to its having been included among some newspaper clippings discovered by his son." That is not in what I just quoted, or anywhere else. You made up a pretend "fact" again. As usual, I'll give you a pass the first time and not call it a lie (I'm quite familiar with your reading problems), but if you repeat after being corrected I'll be forced to call it a lie going forward.
>

You haven't corrected it, Dunce.

Please explain the alleged difference/s between:

1) Mr John H. O'Donnell, son of the poet, placed at Mr Kelly's [the editor's] disposal a collection of his father's verses cut from magazines and newspapers" (presumably a scrapbook).

and

2) the poem was "added to a posthumous collection due to its having been included among some newspaper clippings discovered by his son."

AFAICS, both sentences are saying the same thing.

What supposed point are you disputing and/or taking issue with?

> > > What we both also know, but NG did not report, was that "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." Kelly could have found this poem could have been found by any of those sources -- you don't know, so you're once again bullshitting. .
> > >
> > Wait a second... "Kelly could have found this poem could have been found..."? That's a lot of "could haves" for someone who's trying to establish authorship.
> >
> > I'm sure that Kelly could have found that he could have found conclusive evidence if conclusive evidence were there for him to could have, could have find.
> Of course he could have. You don't know whether he did nor not.

LOL! What a Dunce!

Neither of us said that he "could have found" said evidence. I was agreeing with you dopey claim that he "could have found this poem could have found" the same.

In short, I was making fun of your incompetently written claim.

> > Conversely, the possibility that he could have found that he could have found that no evidence of authorship existed means that the poem's authorship could be found to be could have suspect.
> If he had found "no evidence of authorship," then he wouldn't likely have included it in the book he was editing, would he? I thought you said you'br worked for editors; didn't they teach you that?
>

Earth to Dunce: There is a world of difference between "could have found" and "could have found that he could have found" (which is what you'd originally written).

You really are as dumb as your Donkey, Mr. Dunce.

> > On the other hand, he could have found that he could have found that you are the biggest dunce on the planet.
>
> > > > This is certainly cause for one to *question* the authorship of the poem. I would not deny the authorship based on the same, but I would note that there is some question regarding its authenticity.
> > > No, neither of the actual facts that NG correctly reported -- that /Chambers's/ published the poem without a byline, and that O'Donnell kept a collection of his published verse -- is a reason to question the authorship of the poem. The magazine regularly published poetry without bylines, which does not mean they considered the authorship of them unknown. And even if the poem were in O'Donnells' collection of his published verse (something that NG did not discover), that would be no reason to doubt that it was [...] this published verse.
> > And by the same token, it would be no reason to assume that it was his.
> >
> > The poem appeared anonymously in the journal, and remained uncollected during the author's lifetime.
>
> > The sole basis of including it in the collection (at least insofar as any of us are aware) is that it was included in the clippings (possibly a scrapbook) provided by O'Donnell's son.
> Lying Michael, you're the only one "aware" (because you made it up) that the poem was "included in the clippings (possibly a scrapbook) provided by O'Donnell's son." Then you claimed that "fact" you made up was the "reason" Kelly included the poem; and made up another "fact" that he had no other reason to include it.
>

You're the one who made that claim, George:

George "BM" Dunce: Mr John H. O'Donnell, son of the poet, placed at Mr Kelly's [the editor's] disposal a collection of his father's verses cut from magazines and newspapers" (presumably a scrapbook).

> > Is it impossible that the clipping had been saved because O'Donnell thought it a very good poem? I have saved copies of poems that I wished to reread and/or memorize.
> >
> > Is it impossible that the clipping had been saved because O'Donnell had been a close friend of its actual author? I have saved copies of poems written by my friends as well.
> Sure, both are "possible". It's also possible that there was no such "clipping."

In which case, why did you bring it up at all?

The poem was only published as "anonymous" during Mr. O'Donnell's lifetime. Where did the editor of his collected works find evidence of the poem's authorship?

> > AFAICS, the poem's authorship has not been conclusively established. It is *most likely* Mr. O'Donnell's work, but there is nevertheless a reasonable doubt that he did not.
> You can doubt all you want, but there's nothing "reasonable" about it.

It is reasonable to believe that a poem which was only published anonymously during an author's lifetime, may not have been his when first attributed to him in a posthumous collection.

Over one hundred poems have been incorrectly attributed to Edgar A. Poe over the years. And since I highly doubt that he's the only author to have had poems incorrectly attributed to him, it would be reasonable to suppose that some of the poems posthumously attributed to Mr. O'Donnell were incorrectly attributed as well.

> > > The only reason you're claiming that O'Donnell is "probably" not the author, in the process besmirching the editor's name, was so you could claim that I made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. As I said: you couldn't find any "errors" in this blog post you're trashing, so you're scrambling around trying to invent some.
> > >
> > No one has said that he was "probably not" the author, Dunce. Learn how to read.
> Again, see the troll thread: "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." (stress added).
>

"A mistake or two" does not refer to the poem in question.

It *is* highly probable that there are one or two mistakes in said collection.

"The Unabridged Edgar Allan Poe," Running Press Book Publishers, 1983, is an essential collection to have in one's library as it contains the *original* versions of Poe's tales and poems, as opposed to revised versions we're more familiar with -- Poe revised and reprinted many of works and most collections (justifiably) go with his final revisions.

This collection contains the poem "Lines on Ale." At the time of the book's publication, this poem was believed to have been written by Mr. Poe (it was discovered to be apocryphal in 2014).

https://www.eapoe.org/works/info/pp090.htm

IOW: As late as 2014, a posthumously collected poem was still being incorrectly attributed to Mr. Poe.

Here is a list of other poems that have been at one time incorrectly attributed to Mr. Poe, and subsequently rejected:

https://www.eapoe.org/works/mabbott/tom1p113.htm

And here is a list of poems that have not yet been rejected, but whose status (as having been authored by Mr. Poe) is doubtful:

https://www.eapoe.org/works/mabbott/tom1p112.htm

Do you really think it unlikely that the posthumous collection of Mr. O'Donnell's poetry is free from any such errors?

[George Dance]

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 12:56:34 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:02:41 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:11:18 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:44:55 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:33:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:50:32 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Apparently you're as clueless as to what your words mean as... Will Donkey is about his.

> > > > > Whatever label you wish to place on "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans," the title still remains embarrassingly incorrect.
> > > > No, Lying Michael; that typo doesn't "remain" anywhere but in the screenshot of it that NG posted. The title of O'Donnell's debut collection is correct on the wiki, and has been for all the time you've been bitching about it being "wrong." But that's a minor lie. Your major one, that we're talking about, is your lie (which I notice NG backed up) that it appeared on my blog. Since you're trolling about the blog being "full of errors" it's natural that you'd attribute every error that NG finds or either of you imagine to the blog, but don't expect your lies to pass without correction.
> > > >
> > > What is the screenshot of, if not your blog /page/wiki/whateveryoucallit?
> > It's a copy of something that used to be on PPP, no different from this:
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20180406134835/http://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Pendragon
> If PPP is your blog/wiki/website/whatever

Michael, I don't have a "blog/wiki/website/whatever". I have two poetry websites: one is a blog, and one is a wiki. PPP stands for "Penny's Poetry Pages," which is the name of the wiki. Understand?

>, then the "Mamories" typo appeared on the same, and has been archived. Thank you for confirming what NancyGene had already established.,

That's nice, but it's not what NG claimed and I told her was a lie; that the error was on my blog. It's nice that they "established" something else instead, but I'd have to ask who cares.
(BTW, you don't need to put a comma after a period, even at the end of a paragraph.)

> > > > > > (1) your current trolling is all about real or imagined errors on the blog; but
> > > > > > (2) for this particular poem, you were unable to find anything you could call an error on the blog; so
> > > > > There you go again, George.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order for me to have been "unable to find anything," I would have to have attempted to do so.
> > > > You have to be playing the peabrain again here, Michael Monkey. I can't believe you're unaware that "you" is a plural pronoun as well as singular one; and that when I said "you couldn't find any errors" I was referring to both you and your troll colleague.
> > > >
> > > It makes no difference whether you were claiming that I did it on my own or with my colleague. Either way you were still saying that I did it -- and denying that you'd said it today.

> > Lying Michael, no one said that you (singular verb this time) did any work at all. I said that none of your team found any. Which includes you: you did not find any errors. If you didn't find any errors because you were too incompetent, or because you were too lazy to look, makes no difference: you were still unable to find any. Learn what words mean and how to use them correctly,

> >
> I see no use to discussing the matter with someone who lies in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
>

> George "BM" Dance: when I said "you couldn't find any erros" I was referring to both you and your troll colleague.

>
> For me to have been unable to find any erros[sic], I must necessarily have first made some attempt to look for them.

Not at all. Either you were able to find any errors, or you were not able (unable) to find any. In your case, you were not able to, precisely because you didn't bother to look.

> Since we've already established that I made no such attempt, your insistence on maintaining that I did so is a lie.

No one "maintained" that you attempted to do anything (but troll), Lying Michael. I've asked you at least once in this thread to stop with the stupid strawman arguments, so I won't ask againb but I do plan to keep pointing them out when you keep making it.

> Please stop wasting both of our time with this nonsense.

Fine with me. Drop the lie that "Mamories" (rather than "Memories") was a typo that NG found in the poem, and I'll have no reason to keep correcting your error.

> > > > > > (3) you're scrambling around looking for something, anything, that you can pretend was an error on the blog.
> > > > > As previously noted: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos. I certainly haven't "scrambled" anywhere else.
> > > > As previously noted, my previous use of "you" was plural (which you probably know, and are just
pretending to have forgotten. But you certainly have been part of the "scrambling around" -- it was you, in fact, who came up with the bullshit that it's "highly probable" that I'd attributed the poem to the wrong author.
> > > >
> > > And, also as previously noted, it makes no difference whatsoever. I either did it, or I didn't. Whether I did it on my own, in tandem, or in a group is of no consequence.
> > In this case, the only "error" your team found on the blog post is one that you came up with: not by looking for and finding it, but by simply making it up.
> >
> Again, your bizarre insistence that "you" doesn't refer to the person you're addressing

> (on the grounds that it is plural) is the sort of sub-moronic trolling I would expect from your Donkey.

WTF is wrong with you, Michael Monkey? I didn't make any such insistence. I even went out of the way in the last sentence to accommodate your bizarre insistence that it's not a plural verb, using "you" for the singular and "your team" for the plural.

> I haven't read your silly blog, much less attempted to find errors in it. Nor have I been "scrambling around" in an attempt to do so.
>
> Unless you can provide evidence that I attempted to find errors on your blog/wiki/whateveritis, I advise you to let the matter drop.
>
> Otherwise, I shall have to consider this thread to be a troll post, an < plonk > it accordingly.

Oh, is that one of your rule/guidelines/whatever? That if I conclude a post is "a troll post" I can just write <plonk> and that will be sufficient? Good to know; that makes things much easier.

<plonk>

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 4:56:01 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 12:56:34 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:02:41 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:11:18 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:44:55 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:33:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:50:32 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Apparently you're as clueless as to what your words mean as... Will Donkey is about his.
> > > > > > Whatever label you wish to place on "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans," the title still remains embarrassingly incorrect.
> > > > > No, Lying Michael; that typo doesn't "remain" anywhere but in the screenshot of it that NG posted. The title of O'Donnell's debut collection is correct on the wiki, and has been for all the time you've been bitching about it being "wrong." But that's a minor lie. Your major one, that we're talking about, is your lie (which I notice NG backed up) that it appeared on my blog. Since you're trolling about the blog being "full of errors" it's natural that you'd attribute every error that NG finds or either of you imagine to the blog, but don't expect your lies to pass without correction.
> > > > >
> > > > What is the screenshot of, if not your blog /page/wiki/whateveryoucallit?
> > > It's a copy of something that used to be on PPP, no different from this:
> > > https://web.archive.org/web/20180406134835/http://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Pendragon
> > If PPP is your blog/wiki/website/whatever
> Michael, I don't have a "blog/wiki/website/whatever". I have two poetry websites: one is a blog, and one is a wiki. PPP stands for "Penny's Poetry Pages," which is the name of the wiki. Understand?
>

I've no interest in what you have, Dunce. And I'm not about to waste any of my remaining gray matter on remembering which is which.

AFAIC, it's all just part of your blog.

> >, then the "Mamories" typo appeared on the same, and has been archived. Thank you for confirming what NancyGene had already established.,
> That's nice, but it's not what NG claimed and I told her was a lie; that the error was on my blog. It's nice that they "established" something else instead, but I'd have to ask who cares.
>

Like I said: No one cares whether the error was on your blog or your wiki or your web page, web site, or Instagram.

You misspelled "Memories" as "Mamories." Deal with it.

> (BTW, you don't need to put a comma after a period, even at the end of a paragraph.)

Better to accidentally hit two adjacent keys when posting on Usenet, then citing "Mamories of Irish Franciscans" on a blog.

> > > > > > > (1) your current trolling is all about real or imagined errors on the blog; but
> > > > > > > (2) for this particular poem, you were unable to find anything you could call an error on the blog; so
> > > > > > There you go again, George.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In order for me to have been "unable to find anything," I would have to have attempted to do so.
> > > > > You have to be playing the peabrain again here, Michael Monkey. I can't believe you're unaware that "you" is a plural pronoun as well as singular one; and that when I said "you couldn't find any errors" I was referring to both you and your troll colleague.
> > > > >
> > > > It makes no difference whether you were claiming that I did it on my own or with my colleague. Either way you were still saying that I did it -- and denying that you'd said it today.
> > > Lying Michael, no one said that you (singular verb this time) did any work at all. I said that none of your team found any. Which includes you: you did not find any errors. If you didn't find any errors because you were too incompetent, or because you were too lazy to look, makes no difference: you were still unable to find any. Learn what words mean and how to use them correctly,
> > >
> > I see no use to discussing the matter with someone who lies in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
> >
> > George "BM" Dance: when I said "you couldn't find any erros" I was referring to both you and your troll colleague.
> >
> > For me to have been unable to find any erros[sic], I must necessarily have first made some attempt to look for them.
> Not at all. Either you were able to find any errors, or you were not able (unable) to find any. In your case, you were not able to, precisely because you didn't bother to look.

Dunce logic is running full steam.

For the third time: you cannot say that someone was "unable to find" something if said someone never bothered to look.

Words matter. Don't be a Donkey. Learn what they mean and start using them correctly.

> > Since we've already established that I made no such attempt, your insistence on maintaining that I did so is a lie.
> No one "maintained" that you attempted to do anything (but troll), Lying Michael. I've asked you at least once in this thread to stop with the stupid strawman arguments, so I won't ask againb but I do plan to keep pointing them out when you keep making it.
>

Again, saying that I was "unable to find" something necessitates my having made an attempt to find it.

Learn what words mean and use them correctly.

There are free basic English courses available online. I suggest that you enroll in one ASAP.

> > Please stop wasting both of our time with this nonsense.
> Fine with me. Drop the lie that "Mamories" (rather than "Memories") was a typo that NG found in the poem, and I'll have no reason to keep correcting your error.

No one said that she found it in the poem, Dunce.

Confused?

> > > > > > > (3) you're scrambling around looking for something, anything, that you can pretend was an error on the blog.
> > > > > > As previously noted: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos. I certainly haven't "scrambled" anywhere else.
> > > > > As previously noted, my previous use of "you" was plural (which you probably know, and are just
> pretending to have forgotten. But you certainly have been part of the "scrambling around" -- it was you, in fact, who came up with the bullshit that it's "highly probable" that I'd attributed the poem to the wrong author.
> > > > >

For the fourth or fifth time, I never said any such thing.

I said that it was highly probable that editor Dowling made one or two mistakes when compiling the posthumous collection. I also said that one cannot blame you for Dowling's mistakes.

Again, I urge you to LEARN HOW TO FUCKING READ.

> > > > And, also as previously noted, it makes no difference whatsoever. I either did it, or I didn't. Whether I did it on my own, in tandem, or in a group is of no consequence.
> > > In this case, the only "error" your team found on the blog post is one that you came up with: not by looking for and finding it, but by simply making it up.
> > >
> > Again, your bizarre insistence that "you" doesn't refer to the person you're addressing
>
> > (on the grounds that it is plural) is the sort of sub-moronic trolling I would expect from your Donkey.
> WTF is wrong with you, Michael Monkey? I didn't make any such insistence. I even went out of the way in the last sentence to accommodate your bizarre insistence that it's not a plural verb, using "you" for the singular and "your team" for the plural.
>

See above.

> > I haven't read your silly blog, much less attempted to find errors in it. Nor have I been "scrambling around" in an attempt to do so.
> >
> > Unless you can provide evidence that I attempted to find errors on your blog/wiki/whateveritis, I advise you to let the matter drop.
> >
> > Otherwise, I shall have to consider this thread to be a troll post, an < plonk > it accordingly.
> Oh, is that one of your rule/guidelines/whatever? That if I conclude a post is "a troll post" I can just write <plonk> and that will be sufficient? Good to know; that makes things much easier.
>
> <plonk>

Aw, Baby Monkey plonked me first. How cute.

[Will Dockery]

Good rule to know.

🙂

[W.Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:28:02 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery 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?
>>
>> And like clockwork, here comes Nancy Gene, reading every post George Dance makes.

> George Dance should pray that she does

Proof-reading, maybe, but I'm sure George Dance could live without NancyGenes's added insults and personal attacks.

[Michael Pendragon]

If one doesn't wish to be subjected to insults, he shouldn't call others by childish names.

Tit for Tat is a two way street, Jackass.

[Will Dockery]

I always call you Pendragon, yet you still call me by the childish name-calling.

Sounds like you're projecting.


HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

Always is an absolute, Donkey. There's a saying that the only absolute is that there aren't any absolutes. Speaking in absolutes will only end with your having been shown to be a liar.

That said, you have repeatedly stated that you have no problem with being addressed as "Donkey." You even appear to be rather proud of that appellation.

And since, as I've explained to you on numerous occasions, my family has taken to referring to you as "Will Donkey," I couldn't imagine calling you anything else.

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 9:17:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 8:51:21 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 8:45:34 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 7:00:27 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:28:02 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery 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?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And like clockwork, here comes Nancy Gene, reading every post George Dance makes.
> > > >
> > > > > George Dance should pray that she does
> > > >
> > > > Proof-reading, maybe, but I'm sure George Dance could live without NancyGenes's added insults and personal attacks.
> > > If one doesn't wish to be subjected to insults, he shouldn't call others by childish names.
> > >
> > > Tit for Tat is a two way street, Jackass.
> > I always call you Pendragon, yet you still call me by the childish name-calling.
> Always is an absolute

Okay, most of the time, then.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

I seem to recall more than a few "shit-slinging Monkey"s appearing in your posts, Willie.

Let us say that you frequently engage in various forms of childish name-calling, whereas I merely make use of a nickname my youngest son gave to you after having misread your name.

[Will Dockery]

But I always call you Michael Pendragon.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

Then who were you calling a "shit-slinging Monkey," Donkster?

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon, of course.

[Michael Pendragon]

And, of course, you fail to see how you've just contradicted yourself.

[Will Dockery]

No, I call you Michael Pendragon.

The fact that you're a delusional little shit slinging monkey is beside the point.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

You're using the wrong words again, Donkey.

You *address* me as "Michael Pendragon."

You *call* me a "little shit slinging monkey."

Do us all a favor (yourself, especially) and enroll in a basic English course.

[Will Dockery]

> You *address* me as "Michael Pendragon."

Yes, and if you were sincere about being against name-calling you'd call me by my name, "Will Dockery."

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

I said that if our resident Dunce "could live without NancyGenes's added insults and personal attacks" (as you claimed), he should stop calling her names like "NastyGoon."

That, however, is between NancyGene and George.

As far as you're concerned, "Will Donkey" you are, and "Will Donkey" you'll stay.

You've repeatedly claimed that you aren't bothered by it, so stop whining and suck it up.

[Will Dockery]

Okay, for the record, I'd prefer you use my real name, just as I call you by your chosen name, Michael Pendragon.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

I'm glad to see you answer honestly for a change.

Unfortunately, as I've already explained, "Will Donkey" has become so deeply associated with your identity, that I cannot think of you by any other name.

However, in the hope of building a better AAPC, I am willing to honor your wishes... but only if you honor mine in return.

I'll address you as "Will Dockery" if you 1) stop making "Good Morning," "Good Afternoon," "Hello," etc., posts to Jordy, and 2) Stop thanking Zod for his daily bout of nods.

[Will Dockery]

Good post, no wonder Michael Pendragon wanted to deflect from it.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Please point out an example of deflection on my part, Donkey.

AFAICS, this "good post," represents yet another example of Georgie Porgy running away.

[Will Dockery]

The last 10-20 posts you've made.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

Do you mean *after* Georgie Porgy ran away?

If so, there is no longer any specific point in any specific argument to deflect from.

Alert readers will note that I addressed each of Mr. Porgy's points *after* he abandoned the argument. Since I addressed his points, I could not be simultaneously deflecting from them, as the two acts would cancel each other out.

I think you mean that I am attempting to *distract* readers from the (no longer active) argument... but one really can't distract anyone, as they can only read one post at any given time.

The correct way to express this would be to say that I am hijacking George's thread... but since George < plonked > it, there's really nothing to hijack. And, for the record, you have made as many posts after Porgy's departure as I have.

[Will Dockery]

^^^^^^^^^^^

Question for Michael Pendragon ^^^^^

When you write <plonk> and stop posting, are you actually running away?

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

That depends on the situation.

In the above situation, Georgie Porgy was getting his butt whipped.

He was deflecting from the questions, creating his usual strawmen, etc.

I had threatened to < plonk > him, if he continued to dance around the issues.

So... Georgie decided to < plonk > me first -- as an excuse for evading the issues.

[Will Dockery]

No, that's just more of your delusional thinking, Pendragon.

[Michael Pendragon]

Really? Please explain how Porgy addressed the questions.

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:02:41 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:11:18 PM UTC-4, Monkey "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:44:55 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:33:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:50:32 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>
> > > > Apparently you're as clueless as to what your words mean as... Will Donkey is about his.

> > > > Here is what you wrote: "you and your buffoon didn't find any "errors" in the poem...".
> > > > My not finding something necessitates my having looked for it.
> > > But, Lying Michael, your team -- which now looks down to "you and your buffoon" -- is actively looking for real and imagined "errors" and start troll threads about them. The fact that your buffoon has to do all the work, while you're confining yourself to cunty trolling, doesn't obviate that.
> > > > > > >
> > How does one "look down to" someone?
> > I may be drunk when I post, but you're either grammatically incompetent or stoned.

> > > > Whatever label you wish to place on "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans," the title still remains embarrassingly incorrect.
> > > No, Lying Michael; that typo doesn't "remain" anywhere but in the screenshot of it that NG posted. The title of O'Donnell's debut collection is correct on the wiki, and has been for all the time you've been bitching about it being "wrong." But that's a minor lie. Your major one, that we're talking about, is your lie (which I notice NG backed up) that it appeared on my blog. Since you're trolling about the blog being "full of errors" it's natural that you'd attribute every error that NG finds or either of you imagine to the blog, but don't expect your lies to pass without correction.
> > >
> > What is the screenshot of, if not your blog /page/wiki/whateveryoucallit?
> It's a copy of something that used to be on PPP, no different from this:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20180406134835/http://pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Pendragon

> > > > > (1) your current trolling is all about real or imagined errors on the blog; but
> > > > > (2) for this particular poem, you were unable to find anything you could call an error on the blog; so
> > > > There you go again, George.
> > > >
> > > > In order for me to have been "unable to find anything," I would have to have attempted to do so.
> > > You have to be playing the peabrain again here, Michael Monkey. I can't believe you're unaware that "you" is a plural pronoun as well as singular one; and that when I said "you couldn't find any errors" I was referring to both you and your troll colleague.
> > >
> > It makes no difference whether you were claiming that I did it on my own or with my colleague. Either way you were still saying that I did it -- and denying that you'd said it today.

> Lying Michael, no one said that you (singular verb this time) did any work at all. I said that none of your team found any. Which includes you: you did not find any erros. If you didn't find any errors because you were too incompetent, or because you were too lazy to look, makes no difference: you were still unable to find any. Learn what words mean and how to use them correctly,
> > > > I did not check your blog/wiki/post/whatever for typos. AFAIC, you can "publish" all the typos you want. Your editorial ineptitude is always good for a chuckle.
> > > As noted: on your team, it's NG's job to look for typos, and yours simply to "chuckle" (ie, to troll) about them, like you're doing here.
> > I'm not laughing at NancyGene's comments, George. I'm laughing at yours.

>
> > > > > (3) you're scrambling around looking for something, anything, that you can pretend was an error on the blog.
> > > > As previously noted: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos. I certainly haven't "scrambled" anywhere else.
> > > As previously noted, my previous use of "you" was plural (which you probably know, and are just pretending to have forgotten. But you certainly have been part of the "scrambling around" -- it was you, in fact, who came up with the bullshit that it's "highly probable" that I'd attributed the poem to the wrong author.
> > >
> > And, also as previously noted, it makes no difference whatsoever. I either did it, or I didn't. Whether I did it on my own, in tandem, or in a group is of no consequence.
> In this case, the only "error" your team found on the blog post is one that you came up with: not by looking for and finding it, but by simply making it up.

> > > > > IOW, I was correct: you haven't looked at any of the evidence yourself, but are just supporting your colleague.
> > > > MMP: I wasn't even checking your poem for typos.
> > > > G"MB"D: I didn't say you were Lying Michael. Please stop the strawman arguments.
> > >
> > > > Please make up your mind and stick with it (regardless of the inaccuracy of said choice).
> > > My previous statements stand: NG is looking for real and imagined errors, while your contribution to your joint effort has been to troll about them.
> And, of course, to make up the only alleged error the two of managed to come up with for this blogpost.
> > Your previous statements (by which I'm assuming you mean yesterday's falsehoods) are contradicted by today's denials.
>
> > > > > Of course, since you haven't looked at any of the evidence, that means your opinion of it is worthless; you're just an ignorant troll trying back up your more-informed troll colleague. Your admission of that helps one evaluate your contribution to this discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > One doesn't need to look at your blog to realize that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" is incorrect.
> > > And, of course, not looking at the blog allows you to pretend that "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" was ever on it. But it is not, and never was; you're just trolling about another piece of bullshit you made up.
> > >
> > There you go again, George. I didn't make anything up. NancyGene posted a screenshot of your blog/wiki/page/whatchmacallit that showed the error.
> Lying, Michael: you can't prove anything about the blog by posting screenshots of something else.
> > I laughed at the error ("Mamories of the Irish Franciscans" is funny). That's all.
> No, Lying Michael, that is not all. You also claim to have found (but in fact simply made up, as per your m.o.
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't say that you got the author's name wrong, George.
> > > > > For a second time I'll ask you to stop the stupid strawman arguments, Lying Michael. No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's "name wrong." What I'd claimed you said -- what you did say -- is that it was "highly probable" that O'Donnell wasn't the author, and that I'd made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. For no other reason, since by your own admission you haven't looked at the evidence, than the one I just gave: You couldn't find any errors in this blogged poem you're trolling about, so you're scrambling around trying to make up pretend errors instead.
> > > > >
> > > > You're doing it again, Georgie.
> > > >
> > > > G"BM"D (Yesterday): "you're now saying I got the author wrong..."
> > > Exactly. You were saying I'd put the wrong author's name on the poem; that calling O'Donnell the author was my mistake. As noted, you were bullshitting again, scrambling around to find some real or imagined "error" to justify your trolling.
>
> > I never said any such thing, George.
> >
> > Stop lying. Stop whining. Then post proof or STFU.
> Sure thing, Lying Michael. From one of NG's troll threads:
> "it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made. One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this"
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/nFip5oRlWL8/m/5MSOZS9qCQAJ?hl=en
> > > > G"BM"D (Today): "No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's 'name wrong.'"
> > > Exactly. I nevever claimed you'd said that I'd misspelled O'Donnell's nam.
> > You're stuttering like a frantic... monkey, George. You're gonna bust a blood vessel if you keep this up.
> > > But you tried to pretend that's what I'd claimed, making up a strawman rather than defend from your bullshit about my alleged "mistake."
> > How does one "defend from [one's] bullshit"?
> >
> > For the sixth time, I have never claimed that you got the author's name wrong.
> So now you're not questioning the authorship?
> > I said that you were remiss in your editorial duties in not having noted that some question regarding the poem's authorship exists.
> Michael, if you want I can include as a blog comment that "a couple of trolls on aapc are questioning the poem's authorship." But I can't have been "remiss" in not including that before you began questioning it, back when I published the poem, could I?
> > > > I'm calling it like it is, George.
> > > You're throwing monkeyshit, like you always do (which is how you got the nickname Michael Monkey). Most of which, like your claim about O'Donnell not being the author, turns out to be untrue (which is how you got the nickname Lying Michael Monkey).
> > >
> > "Dunce" is your nickname because the majority of AAPC members have been calling you that for years.
> I was going to call that another lie on your part, Lying Michael, but I'll ask you to PPoSTFU instead. You don't seem to have a clue how many "AAPC members" we've had here for years, it may be good for you to do some research for a change.
> > The same holds true for "Mensa Man." You cannot say that one has a nickname when you're the only person who calls him it.
> Oh, are you pretending that it's not *really* your nickname because I haven't got anyone else to call you that? I could get that changed, if you wish.
> >
> > Once again, I'm forced to remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dunce.
> Nor does it revolve around Michael Monkey Peabrain. What's your point?
> > > > Look at the lies you were caught in today: claiming that you hadn't said something that you'd said just the day before.
> > > No, Lying Michael Monkey. See above.
> > Are you referring to this?
> > G"BM"D (Yesterday): "you're now saying I got the author wrong..."
> > G"BM"D (Today): "No one claimed that you'd said I got O'Donnell's 'name wrong.'"
> > Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> Sure. It shows you can post edit.
> > > > You're either an imbecile or a pathological liar. There's no other explanation for your behavior.
> > > In fact, there's a simple explanation: I'm calling it as I see it.
> > No ... you're just repeating a line I said to you in this same thread.
> > > > > > I said that given the questionable nature of the authorship, you should at least have made mention of the same.
> > > > > Lying Michael, there is no "questionable nature of the authorship" -- and if you'd actually looked at the evidence, you'd know that.
> > > > >
> > > > Several contemporary (with the author) sources listed the poem as "anonymous" or of unknown authorship.
> > > No, Lying Michael. Unlike you, I've been through all of NastyGoon's "sources". The only actual source they found was /Chambers's/ magazine, which simply printed the poem without any attribution. (NG's other three "sources" all coped the poem from /Chambers's/, or from one of the other copiers.)
> > >
> > If they "coped" the poem, wouldn't they have done so from "the other copers?"
> > One should strive for consistency in their writing, George -- even in their errors.
> I'm glad you found another typo, Michael. But at least you didn't deny that NG found only one "source" -- which (despite your lie) did not list the poem as either "anonymous" or "of unknown authorship".
> > > >The poem was uncollected during the author's lifetime, and added to a posthumous collection due to its having been included among some newspaper clippings discovered by his son.
> > > No, that is not what you were told, Lying Michael; you're bullshitting again. What both NG and I discovered was that "Mr John H. O'Donnell, son of the poet, placed at Mr Kelly's [the editor's] disposal a collection of his father's verses cut from magazines and newspapers" (presumably a scrapbook).
> > >
> > How is that in any way different from what I just said?
> Lying Michael, you just said that the poem was "added to a posthumous collection due to its having been included among some newspaper clippings discovered by his son." That is not in what I just quoted, or anywhere else. You made up a pretend "fact" again. As usual, I'll give you a pass the first time and not call it a lie (I'm quite familiar with your reading problems), but if you repeat after being corrected I'll be forced to call it a lie going forward.
> > > What we both also know, but NG did not report, was that "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." Kelly could have found this poem could have been found by any of those sources -- you don't know, so you're once again bullshitting. .
> > >
> > Wait a second... "Kelly could have found this poem could have been found..."? That's a lot of "could haves" for someone who's trying to establish authorship.
> >
> > I'm sure that Kelly could have found that he could have found conclusive evidence if conclusive evidence were there for him to could have, could have find.
> Of course he could have. You don't know whether he did nor not.
> > Conversely, the possibility that he could have found that he could have found that no evidence of authorship existed means that the poem's authorship could be found to be could have suspect.
> If he had found "no evidence of authorship," then he wouldn't likely have included it in the book he was editing, would he? I thought you said you'br worked for editors; didn't they teach you that?
> > On the other hand, he could have found that he could have found that you are the biggest dunce on the planet.
>
> > > > This is certainly cause for one to *question* the authorship of the poem. I would not deny the authorship based on the same, but I would note that there is some question regarding its authenticity.
> > > No, neither of the actual facts that NG correctly reported -- that /Chambers's/ published the poem without a byline, and that O'Donnell kept a collection of his published verse -- is a reason to question the authorship of the poem. The magazine regularly published poetry without bylines, which does not mean they considered the authorship of them unknown. And even if the poem were in O'Donnells' collection of his published verse (something that NG did not discover), that would be no reason to doubt that it was [...] this published verse.
> > And by the same token, it would be no reason to assume that it was his.
> >
> > The poem appeared anonymously in the journal, and remained uncollected during the author's lifetime.
>
> > The sole basis of including it in the collection (at least insofar as any of us are aware) is that it was included in the clippings (possibly a scrapbook) provided by O'Donnell's son.
> Lying Michael, you're the only one "aware" (because you made it up) that the poem was "included in the clippings (possibly a scrapbook) provided by O'Donnell's son." Then you claimed that "fact" you made up was the "reason" Kelly included the poem; and made up another "fact" that he had no other reason to include it.
> > Is it impossible that the clipping had been saved because O'Donnell thought it a very good poem? I have saved copies of poems that I wished to reread and/or memorize.
> >
> > Is it impossible that the clipping had been saved because O'Donnell had been a close friend of its actual author? I have saved copies of poems written by my friends as well.
> Sure, both are "possible". It's also possible that there was no such "clipping."
> > AFAICS, the poem's authorship has not been conclusively established. It is *most likely* Mr. O'Donnell's work, but there is nevertheless a reasonable doubt that he did not.
> You can doubt all you want, but there's nothing "reasonable" about it.
> > > The only reason you're claiming that O'Donnell is "probably" not the author, in the process besmirching the editor's name, was so you could claim that I made a "mistake" in attributing the poem to him. As I said: you couldn't find any "errors" in this blog post you're trashing, so you're scrambling around trying to invent some.
> > >
> > No one has said that he was "probably not" the author, Dunce. Learn how to read.
> Again, see the troll thread: "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." (stress added).

Did you miss this post, Pendragon?

[Michael Pendragon]

No, Donkey.

That post has been addressed point by point.