On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:24:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 1:10:18 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 11:22:21 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:01:39 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:55:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:34:28 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > > That's a source I hadn't seen, but it changes nothing. As with the Adams anthology, it looks like Larcom just found the poem in /Chambers's Journal/ and reprinted it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > It shows that Larcom was unable to determine the poem's authorship in 1876 (two years after O'Donnell's death).
> > > > Larcom may have been "unable to determine the poem's authorship" simply because she didn't try to. What makes you think she did?
> > > >
> > > I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, I naturally assume that other editors will do what I would have done in a similar situation. I would have attempted to contact the author for permission to reprint his poem -- and were I able to contact him, would have enquired as to whether he would like to poem to appear under his name, or to remain anonymous.
> > Oh, I see: you've put Larcom on the "good side" of your story, so you're going to pretend her ethics were beyond reproach.
> No, Dunce, I'm doing no such thing.
>
> Are your really this stupid [he asked rhetorically]?
>
> I'm saying that having worked in the publishing industry, I naturally assume that other editors perform their jobs in a professional manner, and in accordance with the industry standards. Unless it has been proven otherwise, of course.
>
> Conversely, as you are a known plagiarist, a pathological liar, a sloppy editor (to put it mildly), and a petty little cunt, you just as naturally assume that editors are as unscrupulous and incompetent at yourself.
>
> I hope that clears things up for you.
> > She grabbed a poem out of a British journal and printed it without bothering about permission or paying for it. (Which was legal in those days, there being no international copyright.) She also rewrote parts of the poem, and changed the title, once again on her own. But of course, you're convinced she'd *must* have made a scrupulous search to find the author, to ask him what name he wanted on his poem that she'd butchered.
> >
> See above.
>
> We each project our own characteristics, behaviors and practices onto others.
> > (Same with Adams, BTW; he did a great job editing his volume, but he did take British poems without permission, and did make his own changes.)
> >
> That's nice, Dunce. Have you proof that he took poems without permission, or are you projecting again?
> > > You, otoh, being a brain-dead, aging stoner, are a lazy mo-fo who takes ten years to "publish" a small chapbook of Donkey drivel, project your own qualities onto other editors accordingly.
> > Yes, Monkey, we know: I published Will in a book and on my blog, which is how I and my blog got on your "adversary" list in the first place.
> >
> Your memory isn't very good, Dunce. I advised you to self-publish it on Amazon/Kindle, provided the link, and wished you luck in your endeavor.
>
> You had gotten on my bad side long before your Donkey book came out (when you started defending Pickles, Ginsberg, and NAMBLA). However, in spite of your despicable views, I nevertheless attempted to bury the hatchet, and even published some of your poetry in AYoS.
>
> It was only after you had falsely accused me of using preferential editorial practices in AYoS that you were returned to my supposed "adversary list.."
> > > > > Dowling's collection was published 15 years later. O'Donnell, being deceased, was not around to confirm that the poem was his. Therefore, Dowling had to have acquired that information from a secondary source (since neither the original publication, nor the version in Lucy Lacorm's anthology, had listed the author's name).
> > > > As I've already told you, the editor's name was Frank Kelly; Dowling just wrote an introduction. Kelly and O'Donnell were both members of the same literary society, so they'd have been acquaintances if not friends.
> > > >
> > > Georgie thinks that I've been paying attention to him (snigger).
> > No one thinks that you're paying attention to any of this, Mr. Monkey. As usual, you made up your own story, inventing your own "facts" to fit, and you're sticking to it. Keep telling yourself that makes you look good.
> >
> Whether the editor was Mr. Kelly or Mr. Dowling is irrelevant to the discussion, Dunce. It was just another attempted deflection on you part, and was treated as such by my above dismissal.
> > > > > This casts some doubt on the poem's authorship -- particularly since the only "source" we have been informed of is of a circumstantial nature (“Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.”).
> > > > No, that is another false statement from you, Lying Michael. According to Dowling's introduction:
> > > > "For months Mr Kelly devoted the scanty leisure of his days to the object he had at heart. He ransacked the British Museum, transcribed hundreds of poems, and entered into correspondence with people who could give him copies of verses, or supply information 'on the subject of his research. A notion may be formed of the labour expended from the fact that he has had to exclude for want of room, a greater mass of MS. than would make three volumes as bulky as this one." (viii)
> > > > https://archive.org/details/poemsjohn00odonrich/page/n11/mode/1up
> >
> > > Ransacking the British Museum would not turn up the authorship of an anonymously published poem. Nor is it likely that any of his friends would have been in possession of the anonymous poem -- and, even if they were, their testimony would be hearsay -- and possibly subject to misremembering after in the 17 years that had passed since the poet's death.
> > Both Kelly, O'Donnell, and many of their "friends" were in the same literary club, as I told you. Whether or not they had copies, it's likely they knew O'Donnell was publishing in /Chambers/. As NG already explained, all one had to do to find the authorship was to contact /Chambers's/. "Hearsay" has nothing to do with it.
> >
> Assuming that Chambers's was still publishing, and that they willing to look up the information and respond.
>
> As NancyGene has shown, they received to Chambers's account records and were able to find a payment made to Mr. O'Donnell for "A July Dawn" listed in it.
> > > > You were already informed of that.
> >
> > > Mr. Kelly's herculean efforts aside, the above passage sheds no light on the poem's authorship... nor, for that matter, does it even so much as suggest that said authorship had been determined.
> > Thank you for finally getting the editor's name right, Mr. Monkey; but what the passage does show is that he did a lot more than just publish a bunch of "clippings" without doing any other, as per your original story about (though I'll note that once again you're changing your story on the fly). It also shows he is as likely to have run into the poem from some other source as he was to have found it in the "clippings" -- you have no reason (except that you imagined it) to think "July Dawn" was ever on the "clippings". None. You've just been making up your own pretend "facts", as per your usual m.o.
> >
> I can only analyze the information that you provide, Dunce.
>
> And, as per usual, I never said that he just published clippings. If you ever recount one of my statements accurately, the world will most likely go spinning into the sun.
> > > > > A collection of magazine and newspaper clippings only shows that John Francis O'Donnell had seen fit to save copies of the poems in question.. It does not *prove* that all of the poems that he saved were his own. As previously explained, I have saved copies of many poems that I liked. In fact, I still have a few original copies of poems that had been sent to me for "Penny Dreadful" and "Songs of Innocence & Experience."
> > > > Since there's no reason to think that the poem was even in the collection of "clippings," I don't see any point in reading the rest. You don't know where and when Kelly encountered the poem, or why he was convinced it was O'Donnell's.
> > > >
> > > That's right, Dunce. I don't know why Kelly was convinced it was O'Donnell's, and neither do you.
> > I can't say I'm every doubt-free, though I have no more doubt of this poem than for any other 19th-century poem I've published.
> >
> Unfortunately, I have to doubt the accuracy of your blog regarding said poems as well.
> > And I'm more than willing to give Kelly, who looks by all accounts to be honest, intelligent, and civil, the benefit of the doubt. YMMV; I know the above isn't your type.
> >
> What are you talking about, Dunce?
>
> I've already explained that I generally assume that editors will conduct themselves as I would in a similar situation.
> > > All that we know about the poem's authorship is that it:
> > >
> > > 1) had originally been published anonymously;
> > Without a byline, not "anonymously." /Chambers's/ didn't even suggest it was by an unknown author.
> I didn't say that it had been submitted anonymously, Dunce. I said that it had been published anonymously.
>
> Words matter. Learn what they mean.
> > > 2) had been reprinted, again anonymously, shortly after O'Donnell's death,
> > Without his permission, and in violation of his copyright (which, again, was legal). Pace your story, there's no reason to think the two editors who pirated his poem made any effort to contact him.
> > > and
> Again, you are projecting your own editorial lack of scruples on others.
> > > 3) that Kelly was greatly indebted to O'Donnell's son for sharing his father's collection of poems he had clipped out of newspapers and magazines (which may have included an anonymous copy of this poem).
> > Which may or may not have anything to do with anything, but allows you to make up shit as per your wont.
> It is the only evidence that *you* had provided.
> > > > > My, but you're a snippy little cunt!
> > > > Oh, shut the fuck up, troll, if you have nothing better to contribute to the discussion than that. .
> > > Like I said.
> >
> > > FYI: The addition of a second period neither increases nor emphasizes the finality of a sentence.
> >
> > > > > There is nothing wrong with reminding you (and any potential readers) that the collection in question was compiled and published 17 years after O'Donnell's death
> > > > Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. I think everyone could solve 1891-1874=x for themselves, but if you think you're contributing to the discussion ...
> > > >
> > > Are your really so dense as to be unable to see how the passing of 17 years could obscure the origins of an anonymously published poem?
> > Mr. Monkey, if you want to believe you're the only one in the room smart enough to imagine what "could" have happened, you go right ahead and do so. FWIW, I think you're the only one stupid enough to confuse what you imagined with what actually did happen. Your way of armchair imagining rather than doing any work to find out what did happen is much easier, of course, but it counts for nothing.
> >
> It is not my job to do your editorial research for you, Dunce. You should have confirmed the poem's authorship *prior* to having stolen... er, published it... without the permission of the author's estate, and in violation of the (conveniently expired) copyright he once held.
> > > > > , and was therefore done so through secondary sources (including the aforementioned circumstantial evidence).
> > > > You're saying the editor couldn't have talked to the author in 1891 because the author was dead? Thank you again, Captain Obvious.
> > > >
> > > On usually confirms a poem's authorship by going to the source.
> >
> > > In this case the first source (the author) was deceased; and the second source (the magazine) had published it anonymously.
> > In this case the first source and the author knew each other; since you want to talk what "could" have happened, he could have learned about it from O'Donnell 17 years previously, and have read the poem then. While the second source, though they published the poem without a byline, had a record of the author (as NG has confirmed) -- all an editor had to do to find his identity was contact them.
> >
> He could have done a lot of things, Dunce. But he didn't.
>
> As NancyGene has since shown, he obtained access to the accounts ledger of Chambers's and was able to find a payment for the poem in question made to Mr. O'Donnell in that.
> > > Lacking these two sources, the only means of establishing O'Donnell's authorship would be the introduction of an original copy (preferably signed) in his hand.
> > You haven't shown either source to be "lacking". Try again.
> I haven't said that either source was lacking, Dunce.
>
> Learn how to read, already.
> > > > > > > If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source.
> > > > > > That's called a non-sequitur. Of course I copied the poem from another source -- I gave the source on the blog -- and I've told you before that I prefer to copy them rather than retype them. That doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be any "obvious errors" though; that would depend on whether my source contained "obvious errors" or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > That is not a non-sequitur, Mr. Dunce.
> > > > >
> > > > > NancyGene is implying that the *only* reason there were no errors in your copy of the poem was because you had copy/pasted it from another source.
> > If so, that would be a stupid thing for NG to imply. As they know I copy all my poems from other sources; and that does not make them error-free, as NG knows.
> >
> Damn! but you're stupid, Dunce!
>
> The only reason that no errors turned up in that particular blog entry was because the source you had copy/pasted it from had been error free.
>
> This doesn't imply that *every* source you copy/paste your blog entries from is error free. Just the one from which you stole "A July Dawn."
> > > > > IOW: She is saying that you are too incompetent an editor to have corrected any errors on your own.
> > > > Oh, so they were just trolling again. Got it.
> > > No, silly Dunce -- she was making a well-founded observation.
> > Oh, NG's backup troll says they're not trolling. That's convincing.
> The number of errors NancyGene has located on your blog is all the "convincing" that's required.
> > > > > Since a non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from the argument that preceded it, your labeling it as such is wrong.
> > I called NG's argument a non-sequitur, Monkey, not the "implication" their backup troll made up after the fact.
> You mislabled it because you're too dense to understand it -- even after having had it explained to you.
> > > > Sorry, Michael, but the conclusion "there were no errors in the poem" does not logically follow from "you directly copied the poem from another source". One has nothing to do with the other. In human logic, anyway; YLMV.
> > > >
> > > That is not what I said, Dunce.
> > I'm addressing NG's argument, Monkey, not your "implication." Their argument was a non-sequitur.
> See above.
> > > Please enroll in a basic English course.
> >
> > > I said that the *only* way a semi-literate moron like George "BM" Dunce could "publish" an error-free poem would be if he copy-pasted an already edited (and, consequently, error-free) poem from another source.
> > Once again, Michael Monkey, I was addressing what NG said, not their backup troll's spin on it. I know you have to be the center of attention and all, but what you''re saying is not important and I'm not talking about it. You were just repeating your troll's lame and adding some of your own monkeyshit to it.
> > >
> See above.
> > > Which, it turns out, is precisely what you did.
> > Yes, as I said, I copy and paste poems rather than retype them. I have no idea what you do instead, and don't care to hear about it. You can go on about it for another 1/2 hour, if you want. Or would you rather drop this silly deflection of yours and move on?
> >
> You should *proofread* them after having pasted them to your blog, and *corrected* them when necessary.
> > > > > > > We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).
> > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's where I started off, too. But I read through Gilder's book and couldn't find the poem there. So I checked with Adams and found the same thing you did. I mean, you did a good job and all, but you are not telling me anything new.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance.
> > > > >
> > > > > NancyGene is providing both you, and any readers, with a detailed description of how her research into the subject proceeded.
> >
> > > > Then don't bitch about me talking about my own research.
> >
> > > No one has done any such thing, Mr. Paranoia.
> > "Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance." That's exactly what you were doing, Lying Michael. As soon as I started comparing my research with NG, you started bitching.
> >
> Again, no one has done any such thing.
>
> Take your medication. Your paranoid delusions are getting out of control.
> > > > > > I am sorry, but as long as you choose to run in the same troll pack as the Monkey and the Chimp, you are going to be NastyGoon the Big Buffoon. If you wish to be treated to in a more civil manner, I'd be happy to; all you have to do is start behaving like someone who deserves to be treated that way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Seriously?
> > > > > "I won't be your friend and will call you all sorts of names unless you stop being friends with my enemies!"
> > > > > You're even more childish (and petty) than I thought, Mr. Dance.
> > > > Oh, grow up. If you can't handle being called a name, maybe you should both leave Usenet. Go to your private facebook group, where you don't have to worry about what others call you.
> > > >
> > > I call you childish, so you respond by telling me to "grow up." T4T or IKYABWAI? You're so predictable.
> > I've been calling you childish and a baby since I had to witness your first tantrum (which was not directed at me -- you've been thowing tantrums at lots of people over the years). Calling you childish and a baby is accurate description of you, and I'm certainly not going to stop using it out of fear that you'll start throwing your poo at me (which of course is all you were doing above). That's what you'll do in any case.
> >
> IKYABWAI doesn't change your m.o. (with all due respect to the late Mr. Herman).
> > > > > > > > > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> > > > > > > > That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.
> > > > > > > It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time.
> > > > > > See, NG, that's what happens when you run in a pack with Lying Michael; you start telling clumsy, easily disproven lies just like him. We know that typo was *not* on the blog, because you posted a screenshot of it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Where's the lie, George?
> > > > NG's, you mean? "It was on your blog site..." (right after I'd pointed out that it wasn't). ",,, for an unknown amount of time" was also untrue, but I'd ascribe that to NG's ignorance rather than deliberate dishonesty..
> > > >
> > > How do you explain NancyGene's posting a link to an archived copy of your blog site where the error can clearly be seen?
> > NG didn't post a link to an "archived copy," Peabrain. They posted a link to a screenshot they'd taken, which was *not* from my blog. (To be fair, they never said that it was from my blog, until you did and they had to back up your lie.)
> >
> The screen shot had to have been of something, Dunce.
> > > > > NancyGene has provided archived evidence that the error at one time had been "published" on your blog.
> > > > > > https://imgur.com/gallery/mjEYKXl
> > > > I don't believe you actually think that's my "blog," since you've been to the blog (remember that I've published your poetry there) and should be able to remember it. There's a chance you may have forgotten, considering that was a few years ago. But NastyGoon has no such excuse, since they've been to the blog numerous times in July.
> > > >
> > > I don't speak computer jargon, Dunce. I don't know the difference between a blog, a wiki, and a web page, and couldn't care less.
> > In this case you don't have to, Peabrain. You just have to have been to the blog (which you both have) and know therefore know what the pages look like (which you both should).
> >
> I don't go to your blog, Dunce.
>
> How many times do I need to explain that to you?
> > > As far as I can make out, your current argument is that the image NancyGene linked to wasn't your actual blog, but a screenshot of your blog from some time in the past.
> > No, Lying Michael; since you've been to the blog years ago, you know very well that it never looked like that screenshot.
> Man up and admit your mistake, Dunce. Or, was your "Mamories" typo yet another projection on your part?
> > > Since you have subsequently corrected the error on your blog, NancyGene's archival screenshot is no longer to be considered your blog because...
> > >
> > > I give up. Dunce Logic is circular, nonsensical, and predicated upon the pettiest of semantic particulars (incorrectly), and frustratingly convoluted and obtuse. The above argument is no exception.
> > The above argument you just stated is all that, because (again no exception) it's a strawman you made up, to misrepresent what I said and attack your misrepresentation for the win. It again demonstrates what a dishonest little shit you are, and I'll thank you for helping me not just say that but demonstrate it.
> >
> I'm afraid that Dunce Logic is a very real thing... which you demonstrate here on a daily basis.
> > > The plain truth is that you 1) mistakenly "published" the typo on your blog
> >
> > > (or wiki) which you subsequently corrected; and 2) NancyGene provided evidence of your having previously made said mistake.
> > Which NG tried to pass off as an error in O'Donnell's blogged poem but did not lie and say that it was; you're the one who came up with that lie.
> >
> Did you or did you not make the typo, Dunce?
>
> If you did not, how do you explain its having been archived in said screenshot?
> > > > > > Anyone who's been on my poetry blog (including you, multiple times) knows that that is *not* it.
> > > >
> > > > > Are you pretending that someone went through the trouble of creating (and archiving) a fake blog page? To what end would someone have done such a thing?
> > > > That's perhaps the stupidest strawman argument you've come up with so far in this discussion, Michael; and you've already set a high barrier. Why do you think someone would try to create a "fake blog page" and not try to make it look like a real blog page?
> > > >
> > > That's sarcasm, you witless dolt.
> > It was yet another stupid strawman on your part, Lying Michael. As noted, that's just part of your usual m.o.
> You really need to learn what humor is... and how to recognize it, dolt.
> > > > > Did they hope that someone like NancyGene would discover the fake error years later and proceed to rub your nose in it?
> > > > It was your stupid idea; don't expect me to help you explain it.
> > > That's more sarcasm, Dunderdunce.
> > Aw, is baby getting mad again? Maybe you should get NG to check your diaper -- after all, you already have them doing everything else for you.
> >
> Baby is enjoying watching you dance, Dunce.
> > > > > > Face it, you found no real or pretend "errors" on the blog, so you went looking elsewhere for "errors" you could troll about.
> > > > > How would one find a "pretend error," George?
> > > > You find something that isn't an error and call it one, of course. NastyGoon tends to do that a lot.
> > > You're rather slow on the uptake, Dunce.
> > >
> > > One cannot *find* a "pretend error" as no such animal exists. One can pretend that an error exists, but one cannot *find* said non-existent error.
> > Funny, when you find these non-errors, "error" is precisely what you call them. I'm repeating your word, but adding scare-quotes to indicate it's your word.
> >
> OMFG, but you're dense!
>
> "Error" is a legitimate word.
>
> The concept of *finding* "non-existent errors" is oxymoronic. One cannot find what does not exist.
>
> Words matter.
>
> Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.
> > > > > If a "pretend error" is only pretend, it would not be an error at all. Are you saying that NancyGene was unable to find any non-errors on your blog?
> > > > None that they could call errors.
> >
> > > You just claimed that a "pretend error" means "something that isn't an error and you call it one." In that case, NancyGene should be able to randomly select any word or statement in your blog and "pretend" that it is incorrect.
> > I'm sure they would, too, if they thought they could get away with it; but I don't think NG is that stupid. You'd back them up, of course, but
> >
> Your brain has turned off mid-sentence... again.
>
> You really ought to have that checked by a specialist.
> > > You can't even keep your own gibberish straight -- no wonder that your Dunce Logic inevitably proves so inane.
> > No rebuttal at all to what I said, just more poo from an angry little monkey boy. Seriously, I think you should run to NG and let her check that diaper of yours; it must be getting full by now.
> >
> I'm glad that you realize that childish name-calling is not a legitimate rebuttal, Dunce.
> > > > > > > It is an embarrassing and funny error.
> > > > > > No, it isn't that embarrassing. It looks like you get embarrassed by such things, since you delete all the posts where you make mistakes; but no one else really cares. Mistakes happen, and all one can do is fix 'em.
> > > > > >
> > > > > The idea that someone would publish a book about the "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is extremely funny, George.
> > > > It is a bit funnier than the actual typo NG found, which explains why you'd opt for a pretend "error" instead.
> > > That isn't a "pretend error," Dunce. That's a hypothetical speculation. The *idea* that someone would publish such a book is hilarious.
> > As funny as someone publishing an anthology and putting "A Yeaf of Sundays" on the cover?
> The typo isn't on the cover, Dunce. It's just on an AAPC thread.
> > > > > Once again your utter inability to recognize humor of any kind is in evidence. When an editor makes an error that is going to cause everyone who reads it to laugh, he should be extremely embarrassed by it.
> > > > Since the only way anyone is going to read about "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is by reading it in one of your posts in this thread, or any of the multiple threads you're sure to start repeating it in), so I can't say that I'm worried about that.
> > > >
> > > "Mamories" (which is what you'd published) phonetically translates to "Mammaries." Yes, it would have been funnier if you'd accidentally written "Mammaries," however, only Will Donkey and his legendary autocorrect app could commit an error of that proportion.
> > > > > Once again, NancyGene found an archived page of your blog which *shows* that the error was there.
> > > > No, Michael; NastyGoon did not find "an archived page" of my blog. NastyGoon took a screen shot of something else.
> > > What word are you having your hissyfit over, Dunce?
> > >
> > > Rather than whining incessantly over a word, why not just tell me the word you would like me use?
> > >
> > "Elsewhere." NG found a screenshot from "elsewhere." Now let's see if you'll use it.
> Can you identify where "elsewhere" is, Dunce?
>
> More importantly, can you show that the error in question had never been made by you?
> > > Once you do, I can ask you if the _____ that NancyGene provided a link to accurately documented an error that existed on your blog at some point in the past.
> > And I'll tell you again: no. NG couldn't find an error on the post they were flaming, so they looked elsewhere
> You're dropping periods, Dunce.
>
> NancyGene found a very funny error, Dunce.
>
> Are you denying that you were the one who had made it?
> > > > > AFAICS, you are being your naturally duplicitous self: implying that the error *never* existed by referring to current, corrected version of your blog (without specifying it as such).
> > > > Then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. What I told you was:
> > > > "Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all."
> > > >
> > > In spite of all your whining, bitching, and dancing around the issue, it still seems that the error in question *did* exist on your blog at some point in the past.
> > That's your story and you're sticking to it. It "seems" that you think that particular strawman will let you pull a win out of this mess of yours, eventually.
> >
> A screenshot is an *image* of an existing web page (or wiki page, or blog page, or whatever). In order for NancyGene to have take a shot of it, it must have existed somewhere on the internet.
>
> Are you claiming that you had never made that typo?
>
> AFAICS, you're "arguing" that the screenshot isn't of your blog, but of an archived copy of your blog. Is that what you're trying to say?
> > > > > This demonstrates how deeply such deceitfulness has become a part of your nature.
> > > > I think it demonstrates more about your penchant for making up and attacking a straw man when you can. This is what, four so far in this post? Or five?
> > > >
> > > None, Dunce.
> > Shit, Lying, Michael; I've been so busy counting your strawman arguments in this thread that I haven't been counting your lies. Well, the above is one, anyway. And every time you say that NG actually found the "Mamories" typo on the blog, that's been another. So, 12 or 13 lies to far?
> >
> The correct answer remains "None."
> > > And your attempt to deflect the argument with false accusations has been noted.
> > Which "argument" of yours do you mean, Lying Michael? The only arguments I've seen from strawman and ad hominem arguments. Those seem to be the only arguments you're capable of.
> >
> Who says that I'm talking about my argument, Dunce?
>
> The argument refers to any/all of the points raised throughout the course of this discussion. Whenever NancyGene or I would argue against one of your idiotic claims, you ran away from it and went into your Baby Monkey dance..
> > Which makes me wonder why I'm letting you waste more of my time on your monkeyshines. So, as Peter Gabriel would say,
> >
> > <plonk the monkey >
> What you do with your monkey is your own business, George.
>
> Share it on alt.rec.onanism if you must, but please refrain from doing so at AAPC.

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:24:15 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 1:10:18 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 11:22:21 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:01:39 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:55:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:34:28 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > > That's a source I hadn't seen, but it changes nothing. As with the Adams anthology, it looks like Larcom just found the poem in /Chambers's Journal/ and reprinted it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > It shows that Larcom was unable to determine the poem's authorship in 1876 (two years after O'Donnell's death).
> > > > Larcom may have been "unable to determine the poem's authorship" simply because she didn't try to. What makes you think she did?
> > > >
> > > I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, I naturally assume that other editors will do what I would have done in a similar situation. I would have attempted to contact the author for permission to reprint his poem -- and were I able to contact him, would have enquired as to whether he would like to poem to appear under his name, or to remain anonymous.
> > Oh, I see: you've put Larcom on the "good side" of your story, so you're going to pretend her ethics were beyond reproach.
> No, Dunce, I'm doing no such thing.
>
> Are your really this stupid [he asked rhetorically]?
>
> I'm saying that having worked in the publishing industry, I naturally assume that other editors perform their jobs in a professional manner, and in accordance with the industry standards. Unless it has been proven otherwise, of course.
>
> Conversely, as you are a known plagiarist, a pathological liar, a sloppy editor (to put it mildly), and a petty little cunt, you just as naturally assume that editors are as unscrupulous and incompetent at yourself.
>
> I hope that clears things up for you.
> > She grabbed a poem out of a British journal and printed it without bothering about permission or paying for it. (Which was legal in those days, there being no international copyright.) She also rewrote parts of the poem, and changed the title, once again on her own. But of course, you're convinced she'd *must* have made a scrupulous search to find the author, to ask him what name he wanted on his poem that she'd butchered.
> >
> See above.
>
> We each project our own characteristics, behaviors and practices onto others.
> > (Same with Adams, BTW; he did a great job editing his volume, but he did take British poems without permission, and did make his own changes.)
> >
> That's nice, Dunce. Have you proof that he took poems without permission, or are you projecting again?
> > > You, otoh, being a brain-dead, aging stoner, are a lazy mo-fo who takes ten years to "publish" a small chapbook of Donkey drivel, project your own qualities onto other editors accordingly.
> > Yes, Monkey, we know: I published Will in a book and on my blog, which is how I and my blog got on your "adversary" list in the first place.
> >
> Your memory isn't very good, Dunce. I advised you to self-publish it on Amazon/Kindle, provided the link, and wished you luck in your endeavor.
>
> You had gotten on my bad side long before your Donkey book came out (when you started defending Pickles, Ginsberg, and NAMBLA). However, in spite of your despicable views, I nevertheless attempted to bury the hatchet, and even published some of your poetry in AYoS.
>
> It was only after you had falsely accused me of using preferential editorial practices in AYoS that you were returned to my supposed "adversary list.."
> > > > > Dowling's collection was published 15 years later. O'Donnell, being deceased, was not around to confirm that the poem was his. Therefore, Dowling had to have acquired that information from a secondary source (since neither the original publication, nor the version in Lucy Lacorm's anthology, had listed the author's name).
> > > > As I've already told you, the editor's name was Frank Kelly; Dowling just wrote an introduction. Kelly and O'Donnell were both members of the same literary society, so they'd have been acquaintances if not friends.
> > > >
> > > Georgie thinks that I've been paying attention to him (snigger).
> > No one thinks that you're paying attention to any of this, Mr. Monkey. As usual, you made up your own story, inventing your own "facts" to fit, and you're sticking to it. Keep telling yourself that makes you look good.
> >
> Whether the editor was Mr. Kelly or Mr. Dowling is irrelevant to the discussion, Dunce. It was just another attempted deflection on you part, and was treated as such by my above dismissal.
> > > > > This casts some doubt on the poem's authorship -- particularly since the only "source" we have been informed of is of a circumstantial nature (“Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.”).
> > > > No, that is another false statement from you, Lying Michael. According to Dowling's introduction:
> > > > "For months Mr Kelly devoted the scanty leisure of his days to the object he had at heart. He ransacked the British Museum, transcribed hundreds of poems, and entered into correspondence with people who could give him copies of verses, or supply information 'on the subject of his research. A notion may be formed of the labour expended from the fact that he has had to exclude for want of room, a greater mass of MS. than would make three volumes as bulky as this one." (viii)
> > > > https://archive.org/details/poemsjohn00odonrich/page/n11/mode/1up
> >
> > > Ransacking the British Museum would not turn up the authorship of an anonymously published poem. Nor is it likely that any of his friends would have been in possession of the anonymous poem -- and, even if they were, their testimony would be hearsay -- and possibly subject to misremembering after in the 17 years that had passed since the poet's death.
> > Both Kelly, O'Donnell, and many of their "friends" were in the same literary club, as I told you. Whether or not they had copies, it's likely they knew O'Donnell was publishing in /Chambers/. As NG already explained, all one had to do to find the authorship was to contact /Chambers's/. "Hearsay" has nothing to do with it.
> >
> Assuming that Chambers's was still publishing, and that they willing to look up the information and respond.
>
> As NancyGene has shown, they received to Chambers's account records and were able to find a payment made to Mr. O'Donnell for "A July Dawn" listed in it.
> > > > You were already informed of that.
> >
> > > Mr. Kelly's herculean efforts aside, the above passage sheds no light on the poem's authorship... nor, for that matter, does it even so much as suggest that said authorship had been determined.
> > Thank you for finally getting the editor's name right, Mr. Monkey; but what the passage does show is that he did a lot more than just publish a bunch of "clippings" without doing any other, as per your original story about (though I'll note that once again you're changing your story on the fly). It also shows he is as likely to have run into the poem from some other source as he was to have found it in the "clippings" -- you have no reason (except that you imagined it) to think "July Dawn" was ever on the "clippings". None. You've just been making up your own pretend "facts", as per your usual m.o.
> >
> I can only analyze the information that you provide, Dunce.
>
> And, as per usual, I never said that he just published clippings. If you ever recount one of my statements accurately, the world will most likely go spinning into the sun.
> > > > > A collection of magazine and newspaper clippings only shows that John Francis O'Donnell had seen fit to save copies of the poems in question.. It does not *prove* that all of the poems that he saved were his own. As previously explained, I have saved copies of many poems that I liked. In fact, I still have a few original copies of poems that had been sent to me for "Penny Dreadful" and "Songs of Innocence & Experience."
> > > > Since there's no reason to think that the poem was even in the collection of "clippings," I don't see any point in reading the rest. You don't know where and when Kelly encountered the poem, or why he was convinced it was O'Donnell's.
> > > >
> > > That's right, Dunce. I don't know why Kelly was convinced it was O'Donnell's, and neither do you.
> > I can't say I'm every doubt-free, though I have no more doubt of this poem than for any other 19th-century poem I've published.
> >
> Unfortunately, I have to doubt the accuracy of your blog regarding said poems as well.
> > And I'm more than willing to give Kelly, who looks by all accounts to be honest, intelligent, and civil, the benefit of the doubt. YMMV; I know the above isn't your type.
> >
> What are you talking about, Dunce?
>
> I've already explained that I generally assume that editors will conduct themselves as I would in a similar situation.
> > > All that we know about the poem's authorship is that it:
> > >
> > > 1) had originally been published anonymously;
> > Without a byline, not "anonymously." /Chambers's/ didn't even suggest it was by an unknown author.
> I didn't say that it had been submitted anonymously, Dunce. I said that it had been published anonymously.
>
> Words matter. Learn what they mean.
> > > 2) had been reprinted, again anonymously, shortly after O'Donnell's death,
> > Without his permission, and in violation of his copyright (which, again, was legal). Pace your story, there's no reason to think the two editors who pirated his poem made any effort to contact him.
> > > and
> Again, you are projecting your own editorial lack of scruples on others.
> > > 3) that Kelly was greatly indebted to O'Donnell's son for sharing his father's collection of poems he had clipped out of newspapers and magazines (which may have included an anonymous copy of this poem).
> > Which may or may not have anything to do with anything, but allows you to make up shit as per your wont.
> It is the only evidence that *you* had provided.
> > > > > My, but you're a snippy little cunt!
> > > > Oh, shut the fuck up, troll, if you have nothing better to contribute to the discussion than that. .
> > > Like I said.
> >
> > > FYI: The addition of a second period neither increases nor emphasizes the finality of a sentence.
> >
> > > > > There is nothing wrong with reminding you (and any potential readers) that the collection in question was compiled and published 17 years after O'Donnell's death
> > > > Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. I think everyone could solve 1891-1874=x for themselves, but if you think you're contributing to the discussion ...
> > > >
> > > Are your really so dense as to be unable to see how the passing of 17 years could obscure the origins of an anonymously published poem?
> > Mr. Monkey, if you want to believe you're the only one in the room smart enough to imagine what "could" have happened, you go right ahead and do so. FWIW, I think you're the only one stupid enough to confuse what you imagined with what actually did happen. Your way of armchair imagining rather than doing any work to find out what did happen is much easier, of course, but it counts for nothing.
> >
> It is not my job to do your editorial research for you, Dunce. You should have confirmed the poem's authorship *prior* to having stolen... er, published it... without the permission of the author's estate, and in violation of the (conveniently expired) copyright he once held.
> > > > > , and was therefore done so through secondary sources (including the aforementioned circumstantial evidence).
> > > > You're saying the editor couldn't have talked to the author in 1891 because the author was dead? Thank you again, Captain Obvious.
> > > >
> > > On usually confirms a poem's authorship by going to the source.
> >
> > > In this case the first source (the author) was deceased; and the second source (the magazine) had published it anonymously.
> > In this case the first source and the author knew each other; since you want to talk what "could" have happened, he could have learned about it from O'Donnell 17 years previously, and have read the poem then. While the second source, though they published the poem without a byline, had a record of the author (as NG has confirmed) -- all an editor had to do to find his identity was contact them.
> >
> He could have done a lot of things, Dunce. But he didn't.
>
> As NancyGene has since shown, he obtained access to the accounts ledger of Chambers's and was able to find a payment for the poem in question made to Mr. O'Donnell in that.
> > > Lacking these two sources, the only means of establishing O'Donnell's authorship would be the introduction of an original copy (preferably signed) in his hand.
> > You haven't shown either source to be "lacking". Try again.
> I haven't said that either source was lacking, Dunce.
>
> Learn how to read, already.
> > > > > > > If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source.
> > > > > > That's called a non-sequitur. Of course I copied the poem from another source -- I gave the source on the blog -- and I've told you before that I prefer to copy them rather than retype them. That doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be any "obvious errors" though; that would depend on whether my source contained "obvious errors" or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > That is not a non-sequitur, Mr. Dunce.
> > > > >
> > > > > NancyGene is implying that the *only* reason there were no errors in your copy of the poem was because you had copy/pasted it from another source.
> > If so, that would be a stupid thing for NG to imply. As they know I copy all my poems from other sources; and that does not make them error-free, as NG knows.
> >
> Damn! but you're stupid, Dunce!
>
> The only reason that no errors turned up in that particular blog entry was because the source you had copy/pasted it from had been error free.
>
> This doesn't imply that *every* source you copy/paste your blog entries from is error free. Just the one from which you stole "A July Dawn."
> > > > > IOW: She is saying that you are too incompetent an editor to have corrected any errors on your own.
> > > > Oh, so they were just trolling again. Got it.
> > > No, silly Dunce -- she was making a well-founded observation.
> > Oh, NG's backup troll says they're not trolling. That's convincing.
> The number of errors NancyGene has located on your blog is all the "convincing" that's required.
> > > > > Since a non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from the argument that preceded it, your labeling it as such is wrong.
> > I called NG's argument a non-sequitur, Monkey, not the "implication" their backup troll made up after the fact.
> You mislabled it because you're too dense to understand it -- even after having had it explained to you.
> > > > Sorry, Michael, but the conclusion "there were no errors in the poem" does not logically follow from "you directly copied the poem from another source". One has nothing to do with the other. In human logic, anyway; YLMV.
> > > >
> > > That is not what I said, Dunce.
> > I'm addressing NG's argument, Monkey, not your "implication." Their argument was a non-sequitur.
> See above.
> > > Please enroll in a basic English course.
> >
> > > I said that the *only* way a semi-literate moron like George "BM" Dunce could "publish" an error-free poem would be if he copy-pasted an already edited (and, consequently, error-free) poem from another source.
> > Once again, Michael Monkey, I was addressing what NG said, not their backup troll's spin on it. I know you have to be the center of attention and all, but what you''re saying is not important and I'm not talking about it. You were just repeating your troll's lame and adding some of your own monkeyshit to it.
> > >
> See above.
> > > Which, it turns out, is precisely what you did.
> > Yes, as I said, I copy and paste poems rather than retype them. I have no idea what you do instead, and don't care to hear about it. You can go on about it for another 1/2 hour, if you want. Or would you rather drop this silly deflection of yours and move on?
> >
> You should *proofread* them after having pasted them to your blog, and *corrected* them when necessary.
> > > > > > > We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).
> > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's where I started off, too. But I read through Gilder's book and couldn't find the poem there. So I checked with Adams and found the same thing you did. I mean, you did a good job and all, but you are not telling me anything new.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance.
> > > > >
> > > > > NancyGene is providing both you, and any readers, with a detailed description of how her research into the subject proceeded.
> >
> > > > Then don't bitch about me talking about my own research.
> >
> > > No one has done any such thing, Mr. Paranoia.
> > "Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance." That's exactly what you were doing, Lying Michael. As soon as I started comparing my research with NG, you started bitching.
> >
> Again, no one has done any such thing.
>
> Take your medication. Your paranoid delusions are getting out of control.
> > > > > > I am sorry, but as long as you choose to run in the same troll pack as the Monkey and the Chimp, you are going to be NastyGoon the Big Buffoon. If you wish to be treated to in a more civil manner, I'd be happy to; all you have to do is start behaving like someone who deserves to be treated that way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Seriously?
> > > > > "I won't be your friend and will call you all sorts of names unless you stop being friends with my enemies!"
> > > > > You're even more childish (and petty) than I thought, Mr. Dance.
> > > > Oh, grow up. If you can't handle being called a name, maybe you should both leave Usenet. Go to your private facebook group, where you don't have to worry about what others call you.
> > > >
> > > I call you childish, so you respond by telling me to "grow up." T4T or IKYABWAI? You're so predictable.
> > I've been calling you childish and a baby since I had to witness your first tantrum (which was not directed at me -- you've been thowing tantrums at lots of people over the years). Calling you childish and a baby is accurate description of you, and I'm certainly not going to stop using it out of fear that you'll start throwing your poo at me (which of course is all you were doing above). That's what you'll do in any case.
> >
> IKYABWAI doesn't change your m.o. (with all due respect to the late Mr. Herman).
> > > > > > > > > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> > > > > > > > That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.
> > > > > > > It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time.
> > > > > > See, NG, that's what happens when you run in a pack with Lying Michael; you start telling clumsy, easily disproven lies just like him. We know that typo was *not* on the blog, because you posted a screenshot of it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Where's the lie, George?
> > > > NG's, you mean? "It was on your blog site..." (right after I'd pointed out that it wasn't). ",,, for an unknown amount of time" was also untrue, but I'd ascribe that to NG's ignorance rather than deliberate dishonesty..
> > > >
> > > How do you explain NancyGene's posting a link to an archived copy of your blog site where the error can clearly be seen?
> > NG didn't post a link to an "archived copy," Peabrain. They posted a link to a screenshot they'd taken, which was *not* from my blog. (To be fair, they never said that it was from my blog, until you did and they had to back up your lie.)
> >
> The screen shot had to have been of something, Dunce.
> > > > > NancyGene has provided archived evidence that the error at one time had been "published" on your blog.
> > > > > > https://imgur.com/gallery/mjEYKXl
> > > > I don't believe you actually think that's my "blog," since you've been to the blog (remember that I've published your poetry there) and should be able to remember it. There's a chance you may have forgotten, considering that was a few years ago. But NastyGoon has no such excuse, since they've been to the blog numerous times in July.
> > > >
> > > I don't speak computer jargon, Dunce. I don't know the difference between a blog, a wiki, and a web page, and couldn't care less.
> > In this case you don't have to, Peabrain. You just have to have been to the blog (which you both have) and know therefore know what the pages look like (which you both should).
> >
> I don't go to your blog, Dunce.
>
> How many times do I need to explain that to you?
> > > As far as I can make out, your current argument is that the image NancyGene linked to wasn't your actual blog, but a screenshot of your blog from some time in the past.
> > No, Lying Michael; since you've been to the blog years ago, you know very well that it never looked like that screenshot.
> Man up and admit your mistake, Dunce. Or, was your "Mamories" typo yet another projection on your part?
> > > Since you have subsequently corrected the error on your blog, NancyGene's archival screenshot is no longer to be considered your blog because...
> > >
> > > I give up. Dunce Logic is circular, nonsensical, and predicated upon the pettiest of semantic particulars (incorrectly), and frustratingly convoluted and obtuse. The above argument is no exception.
> > The above argument you just stated is all that, because (again no exception) it's a strawman you made up, to misrepresent what I said and attack your misrepresentation for the win. It again demonstrates what a dishonest little shit you are, and I'll thank you for helping me not just say that but demonstrate it.
> >
> I'm afraid that Dunce Logic is a very real thing... which you demonstrate here on a daily basis.
> > > The plain truth is that you 1) mistakenly "published" the typo on your blog
> >
> > > (or wiki) which you subsequently corrected; and 2) NancyGene provided evidence of your having previously made said mistake.
> > Which NG tried to pass off as an error in O'Donnell's blogged poem but did not lie and say that it was; you're the one who came up with that lie.
> >
> Did you or did you not make the typo, Dunce?
>
> If you did not, how do you explain its having been archived in said screenshot?
> > > > > > Anyone who's been on my poetry blog (including you, multiple times) knows that that is *not* it.
> > > >
> > > > > Are you pretending that someone went through the trouble of creating (and archiving) a fake blog page? To what end would someone have done such a thing?
> > > > That's perhaps the stupidest strawman argument you've come up with so far in this discussion, Michael; and you've already set a high barrier. Why do you think someone would try to create a "fake blog page" and not try to make it look like a real blog page?
> > > >
> > > That's sarcasm, you witless dolt.
> > It was yet another stupid strawman on your part, Lying Michael. As noted, that's just part of your usual m.o.
> You really need to learn what humor is... and how to recognize it, dolt.
> > > > > Did they hope that someone like NancyGene would discover the fake error years later and proceed to rub your nose in it?
> > > > It was your stupid idea; don't expect me to help you explain it.
> > > That's more sarcasm, Dunderdunce.
> > Aw, is baby getting mad again? Maybe you should get NG to check your diaper -- after all, you already have them doing everything else for you.
> >
> Baby is enjoying watching you dance, Dunce.
> > > > > > Face it, you found no real or pretend "errors" on the blog, so you went looking elsewhere for "errors" you could troll about.
> > > > > How would one find a "pretend error," George?
> > > > You find something that isn't an error and call it one, of course. NastyGoon tends to do that a lot.
> > > You're rather slow on the uptake, Dunce.
> > >
> > > One cannot *find* a "pretend error" as no such animal exists. One can pretend that an error exists, but one cannot *find* said non-existent error.
> > Funny, when you find these non-errors, "error" is precisely what you call them. I'm repeating your word, but adding scare-quotes to indicate it's your word.
> >
> OMFG, but you're dense!
>
> "Error" is a legitimate word.
>
> The concept of *finding* "non-existent errors" is oxymoronic. One cannot find what does not exist.
>
> Words matter.
>
> Learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.
> > > > > If a "pretend error" is only pretend, it would not be an error at all. Are you saying that NancyGene was unable to find any non-errors on your blog?
> > > > None that they could call errors.
> >
> > > You just claimed that a "pretend error" means "something that isn't an error and you call it one." In that case, NancyGene should be able to randomly select any word or statement in your blog and "pretend" that it is incorrect.
> > I'm sure they would, too, if they thought they could get away with it; but I don't think NG is that stupid. You'd back them up, of course, but
> >
> Your brain has turned off mid-sentence... again.
>
> You really ought to have that checked by a specialist.
> > > You can't even keep your own gibberish straight -- no wonder that your Dunce Logic inevitably proves so inane.
> > No rebuttal at all to what I said, just more poo from an angry little monkey boy. Seriously, I think you should run to NG and let her check that diaper of yours; it must be getting full by now.
> >
> I'm glad that you realize that childish name-calling is not a legitimate rebuttal, Dunce.
> > > > > > > It is an embarrassing and funny error.
> > > > > > No, it isn't that embarrassing. It looks like you get embarrassed by such things, since you delete all the posts where you make mistakes; but no one else really cares. Mistakes happen, and all one can do is fix 'em.
> > > > > >
> > > > > The idea that someone would publish a book about the "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is extremely funny, George.
> > > > It is a bit funnier than the actual typo NG found, which explains why you'd opt for a pretend "error" instead.
> > > That isn't a "pretend error," Dunce. That's a hypothetical speculation. The *idea* that someone would publish such a book is hilarious.
> > As funny as someone publishing an anthology and putting "A Yeaf of Sundays" on the cover?
> The typo isn't on the cover, Dunce. It's just on an AAPC thread.
> > > > > Once again your utter inability to recognize humor of any kind is in evidence. When an editor makes an error that is going to cause everyone who reads it to laugh, he should be extremely embarrassed by it.
> > > > Since the only way anyone is going to read about "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is by reading it in one of your posts in this thread, or any of the multiple threads you're sure to start repeating it in), so I can't say that I'm worried about that.
> > > >
> > > "Mamories" (which is what you'd published) phonetically translates to "Mammaries." Yes, it would have been funnier if you'd accidentally written "Mammaries," however, only Will Donkey and his legendary autocorrect app could commit an error of that proportion.
> > > > > Once again, NancyGene found an archived page of your blog which *shows* that the error was there.
> > > > No, Michael; NastyGoon did not find "an archived page" of my blog. NastyGoon took a screen shot of something else.
> > > What word are you having your hissyfit over, Dunce?
> > >
> > > Rather than whining incessantly over a word, why not just tell me the word you would like me use?
> > >
> > "Elsewhere." NG found a screenshot from "elsewhere." Now let's see if you'll use it.
> Can you identify where "elsewhere" is, Dunce?
>
> More importantly, can you show that the error in question had never been made by you?
> > > Once you do, I can ask you if the _____ that NancyGene provided a link to accurately documented an error that existed on your blog at some point in the past.
> > And I'll tell you again: no. NG couldn't find an error on the post they were flaming, so they looked elsewhere
> You're dropping periods, Dunce.
>
> NancyGene found a very funny error, Dunce.
>
> Are you denying that you were the one who had made it?
> > > > > AFAICS, you are being your naturally duplicitous self: implying that the error *never* existed by referring to current, corrected version of your blog (without specifying it as such).
> > > > Then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. What I told you was:
> > > > "Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all."
> > > >
> > > In spite of all your whining, bitching, and dancing around the issue, it still seems that the error in question *did* exist on your blog at some point in the past.
> > That's your story and you're sticking to it. It "seems" that you think that particular strawman will let you pull a win out of this mess of yours, eventually.
> >
> A screenshot is an *image* of an existing web page (or wiki page, or blog page, or whatever). In order for NancyGene to have take a shot of it, it must have existed somewhere on the internet.
>
> Are you claiming that you had never made that typo?
>
> AFAICS, you're "arguing" that the screenshot isn't of your blog, but of an archived copy of your blog. Is that what you're trying to say?
> > > > > This demonstrates how deeply such deceitfulness has become a part of your nature.
> > > > I think it demonstrates more about your penchant for making up and attacking a straw man when you can. This is what, four so far in this post? Or five?
> > > >
> > > None, Dunce.
> > Shit, Lying, Michael; I've been so busy counting your strawman arguments in this thread that I haven't been counting your lies. Well, the above is one, anyway. And every time you say that NG actually found the "Mamories" typo on the blog, that's been another. So, 12 or 13 lies to far?
> >
> The correct answer remains "None."
> > > And your attempt to deflect the argument with false accusations has been noted.
> > Which "argument" of yours do you mean, Lying Michael? The only arguments I've seen from strawman and ad hominem arguments. Those seem to be the only arguments you're capable of.
> >
> Who says that I'm talking about my argument, Dunce?
>
> The argument refers to any/all of the points raised throughout the course of this discussion. Whenever NancyGene or I would argue against one of your idiotic claims, you ran away from it and went into your Baby Monkey dance..
> > Which makes me wonder why I'm letting you waste more of my time on your monkeyshines. So, as Peter Gabriel would say,
> >
> > <plonk the monkey >
> What you do with your monkey is your own business, George.
>
> Share it on alt.rec.onanism if you must, but please refrain from doing so at AAPC.
George Dance argues on the diagonal.