“Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
>
> “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!

Good day J.C.

Well put...!

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:22 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > </q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > </q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong.." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > </q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > </q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one..
> > > > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > > > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > > >
> > > Except that in the quoted passage, the only name that I called you was "George."
> > >
> > > As PJR used to repeatedly ask, Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > > > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > > The evidence was posted earlier in this thread, Dunce (courtesy of myself):
> > > Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin
> > > If you are unable to remember the previous posts in this discussion, it would be advantageous to you to review them prior to posting.
> > > > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > > > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > > > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> > > >
> > > Are you denying that Shakespeare's plays were performed on stage?
> > >
> > > Shakespeare didn't publish his plays, Dunce. They were collected and published 7 years after his death. Whether Shakespeare thought of his plays as having Acts is entirely unknown.
> > > > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
> > > >
> > > And would not his extended the metaphor to pertain to the *entire poem* necessarily render it a "closet drama"?
> > > > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > > Again, he wished his poem to be regarded as a "closet drama."
> > >
> > > One does not re-cast a poem in dramatic form extend a metaphor. Re-casting a poem in dramatic form *changes* the form from that of a poem to that of a drama.
> > >
> > > Austin wished his poem to be considered a "closet drama" like Byron's "Manfred" and Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound."
> > >
> > > As per PoemHunter, he was heavily influenced by Byron: "Although his writing was inspired and shaped by the works of Byron and Scott, Austin was actually a mediocre poet, and was the target of much derision."
> > > > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > > > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
> > > >
> > > The only name I called you in the passage you'd quoted is "George."
> > >
> > > Does you Tit for Tat system of "ethics" justify attacking others because they're involved in a fight with one of your friends? If so, does it allow you to attack others for having insulted a politician, political party, or political issue that you support?
> > I've tried to tell them why their tit for tat would embroil them in an endless spat from which they will not extract themselves:
> > Blind idiots, always they talk so simple minded about gangs and leaders, ignorant to the fact that this strife is a complex web of individual struggles interwoven in fighting.
> > So much of this strife is caused by the viciousness of the self perpetuating flaming cycle and there's no way to sort out what's self defense, what's solely or justly provoked or what's actual uncalled for trolling. Nor is there probably any stopping it now. This has gone on too long, people are now too entrenched and embittered, so not to be provoked and not to go overboard.
> >
> Actually, I've got no real animosity for the Donkeys, and am perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones. I don't even care if they continue to call me names, level false accusations against me, etc. All that I want from them is that they limit themselves to 10 posts per day (with unlimited posts in the four designated threads mentioned elsewhere).

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:54:01 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > > > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > > > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on.. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > snip
> > > > >
> > > > > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > > > > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > Except that in the quoted passage, the only name that I called you was "George."
> > > >
> > > > As PJR used to repeatedly ask, Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > > > > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > > > The evidence was posted earlier in this thread, Dunce (courtesy of myself):
> > > > Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin
> > > > If you are unable to remember the previous posts in this discussion, it would be advantageous to you to review them prior to posting.
> > > > > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > > > > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > > > > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> > > > >
> > > > Are you denying that Shakespeare's plays were performed on stage?
> > > >
> > > > Shakespeare didn't publish his plays, Dunce. They were collected and published 7 years after his death. Whether Shakespeare thought of his plays as having Acts is entirely unknown.
> > > > > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
> > > > >
> > > > And would not his extended the metaphor to pertain to the *entire poem* necessarily render it a "closet drama"?
> > > > > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > > > Again, he wished his poem to be regarded as a "closet drama."
> > > >
> > > > One does not re-cast a poem in dramatic form extend a metaphor. Re-casting a poem in dramatic form *changes* the form from that of a poem to that of a drama.
> > > >
> > > > Austin wished his poem to be considered a "closet drama" like Byron's "Manfred" and Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound."
> > > >
> > > > As per PoemHunter, he was heavily influenced by Byron: "Although his writing was inspired and shaped by the works of Byron and Scott, Austin was actually a mediocre poet, and was the target of much derision."
> > > > > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > > > > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
> >
> > > So much of this strife is caused by the viciousness of the self perpetuating flaming cycle
> Which could all end if we all simply decided to exist peacefully here..!

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 5:42:08 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:54:01 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > > > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > > > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > > > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > > > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > > > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > > > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > > > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > > > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > > > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > > > > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > > > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > > > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > > > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > > > > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > > > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > > > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > > > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > > > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > > > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > > > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > > > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > snip
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > > > > > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Except that in the quoted passage, the only name that I called you was "George."
> > > > >
> > > > > As PJR used to repeatedly ask, Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > > > > > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > > > > The evidence was posted earlier in this thread, Dunce (courtesy of myself):
> > > > > Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin
> > > > > If you are unable to remember the previous posts in this discussion, it would be advantageous to you to review them prior to posting.
> > > > > > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > > > > > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > > > > > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Are you denying that Shakespeare's plays were performed on stage?
> > > > >
> > > > > Shakespeare didn't publish his plays, Dunce. They were collected and published 7 years after his death. Whether Shakespeare thought of his plays as having Acts is entirely unknown.
> > > > > > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > And would not his extended the metaphor to pertain to the *entire poem* necessarily render it a "closet drama"?
> > > > > > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > > > > Again, he wished his poem to be regarded as a "closet drama."
> > > > >
> > > > > One does not re-cast a poem in dramatic form extend a metaphor. Re-casting a poem in dramatic form *changes* the form from that of a poem to that of a drama.
> > > > >
> > > > > Austin wished his poem to be considered a "closet drama" like Byron's "Manfred" and Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound."
> > > > >
> > > > > As per PoemHunter, he was heavily influenced by Byron: "Although his writing was inspired and shaped by the works of Byron and Scott, Austin was actually a mediocre poet, and was the target of much derision."
> > > > > > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > > > > > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
> > >
> > > > So much of this strife is caused by the viciousness of the self perpetuating flaming cycle
> > Which could all end if we all simply decided to exist peacefully here..!
> But you didn't demonstrate any peaceful intent

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
> “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
>

Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute to which one might attribute some worth.

Nor, for that matter, have you.

In Dunce's favor, he at least possesses the ability to write and discuss poetry -- both of which you do not.

Michael Pendragon
"Well, most kids from my era were getting it on by that age (13-14) or even earlier, myself included, but with each other, folks of a similar age… True, we do things somewhat differently down South."
-- Will Dockery, on the normalcy of sex with adolescents “down South.”

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 5:45:13 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 5:42:08 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:54:01 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > > > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > > > > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > > > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > > > > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > > > > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > > > > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > > > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George.. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > > > > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > > > > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > > > > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > > > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > > > > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > > > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > > > > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > > > > > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > > > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > > > > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > > > > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > > > > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > > > > > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > > > > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > > > > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > > > > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > > > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > > > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > > > > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays.. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > > > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > > > > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > > > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > > > > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained..
> > > > > > > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > > > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > > > > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > snip
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > > > > > > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Except that in the quoted passage, the only name that I called you was "George."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As PJR used to repeatedly ask, Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > > > > > > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > > > > > The evidence was posted earlier in this thread, Dunce (courtesy of myself):
> > > > > > Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin
> > > > > > If you are unable to remember the previous posts in this discussion, it would be advantageous to you to review them prior to posting.
> > > > > > > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > > > > > > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > > > > > > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you denying that Shakespeare's plays were performed on stage?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shakespeare didn't publish his plays, Dunce. They were collected and published 7 years after his death. Whether Shakespeare thought of his plays as having Acts is entirely unknown.
> > > > > > > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title.. He was extending his metaphor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And would not his extended the metaphor to pertain to the *entire poem* necessarily render it a "closet drama"?
> > > > > > > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > > > > > Again, he wished his poem to be regarded as a "closet drama."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One does not re-cast a poem in dramatic form extend a metaphor. Re-casting a poem in dramatic form *changes* the form from that of a poem to that of a drama.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Austin wished his poem to be considered a "closet drama" like Byron's "Manfred" and Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As per PoemHunter, he was heavily influenced by Byron: "Although his writing was inspired and shaped by the works of Byron and Scott, Austin was actually a mediocre poet, and was the target of much derision."
> > > > > > > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > > > > > > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
> > > >
> > > > > So much of this strife is caused by the viciousness of the self perpetuating flaming cycle
> > > Which could all end if we all simply decided to exist peacefully here...!
> > But you didn't demonstrate any peaceful intent
> Zod has always been a piece, even when he was in the Navy.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:26:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 5:45:13 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 5:42:08 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:54:01 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > > > > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > > > > > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory..
> > > > > > > > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > > > > > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > > > > > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > > > > > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > > > > > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > > > > > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > > > > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > > > > > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > > > > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > > > > > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > > > > > > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > > > > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > > > > > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > > > > > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > > > > > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > > > > > > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > > > > > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > > > > > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > > > > > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > > > > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > > > > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > > > > > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > > > > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene.. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > > > > > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > > > > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > > > > > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > > > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > > > > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > > > > > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > snip
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > > > > > > > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Except that in the quoted passage, the only name that I called you was "George."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As PJR used to repeatedly ask, Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > > > > > > > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > > > > > > The evidence was posted earlier in this thread, Dunce (courtesy of myself):
> > > > > > > Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin
> > > > > > > If you are unable to remember the previous posts in this discussion, it would be advantageous to you to review them prior to posting.
> > > > > > > > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > > > > > > > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > > > > > > > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you denying that Shakespeare's plays were performed on stage?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shakespeare didn't publish his plays, Dunce. They were collected and published 7 years after his death. Whether Shakespeare thought of his plays as having Acts is entirely unknown.
> > > > > > > > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And would not his extended the metaphor to pertain to the *entire poem* necessarily render it a "closet drama"?
> > > > > > > > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > > > > > > Again, he wished his poem to be regarded as a "closet drama."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One does not re-cast a poem in dramatic form extend a metaphor. Re-casting a poem in dramatic form *changes* the form from that of a poem to that of a drama.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Austin wished his poem to be considered a "closet drama" like Byron's "Manfred" and Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As per PoemHunter, he was heavily influenced by Byron: "Although his writing was inspired and shaped by the works of Byron and Scott, Austin was actually a mediocre poet, and was the target of much derision."
> > > > > > > > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > > > > > > > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
> > > > >
> > > > > > So much of this strife is caused by the viciousness of the self perpetuating flaming cycle
> > > > Which could all end if we all simply decided to exist peacefully here..!
> > > But you didn't demonstrate any peaceful intent
> > Zod has always been a man of peace, even when he was in the Navy.
>
> I hear he managed to repeatedly shirk his duties by swapping cum-gobbling for swabbing.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:23:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
>
> > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> >
> Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute

Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.

HTH and HAND.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:23:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
> >
> > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > >
> > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.

Unlike our resident Dunce (and our resident Donkey, for that matter) I don't pretend to be either a pillar of morality or the victim of malicious trolls.

I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.

That said, the only "shit" I've ever thrown is yours -- right back in you dumbassed face.

Michael Pendragon
“You deliver pizza for a living, you can't write to save your life and your music is an embarrassment
against humanity. You're about as famous as the next homeless person begging me
for change.”
-- J.R. Sherman to Will Dockery

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 9:42:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:23:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
> > >
> > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > > >
> > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
>
>
> I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.

Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
> That said, the only "shit" I've ever thrown

Is whatever of your own monkey shit that you haven't eaten, Pendragon.

Glad to set the record straight on that.

HTH and HAND.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:43:35 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 9:42:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:23:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > > > >
> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> >
> >
> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.

No, Donkey. I don't lie. I don't have to.

And as to being delusional... everyone is. Life is an illusion. To be alive is to be delusional.

> > That said, the only "shit" I've ever thrown
> Is whatever of your own monkey shit that you haven't eaten, Pendragon.
>
> Glad to set the record straight on that.

As previously noted, I throw your own shit back in your face.

Everything I've ever said about you comes directly from *your* posts and *your* photos.

When a fat, stumpy-legged Donkey posts photos of himself online, he can't blame others for pointing out that he's a fat, stumpy-legged Donkey.

Michael Pendragon
"I've already stated my opinion doesn't offend me that the word fetus doesn't offend me."
-- Will Donkey, a man unoffended by his own opinions

Michael Pendragon wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > Jordy C wrote:
>
>> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
>> > > > >
>> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
>> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
>> >
>> >
>> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
>> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.

> I don't lie

That's another lie right there.

And so it goes.

😃

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 8:49:13 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote:
> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> > Jordy C wrote:
> >
> >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
> > I don't lie
>
> That's another lie right there.

No, Donkey, it isn't.

Every word I've ever posted about you was directly based on *your* posts and *your* photos.

Once again, I challenge you to post one lie that I've supposedly written.

Anything you post, I'll support from your own writings and photos.

-- Michael Pendragon
"...such as the (deleted) post above."
-- Will Donkey, demonstrating his propensity for gibberish

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 9:03:45 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 8:49:13 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > Jordy C wrote:
> > >
> > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> > >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
> > > I don't lie
> >
> > That's another lie right there.
> No

Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon, you delusional little fuckwit?

😃

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 9:53:56 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 9:03:45 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 8:49:13 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >> > Jordy C wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> > > >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
> > > > I don't lie
> > >
> > > That's another lie right there.
> > No
> Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon, you delusional little fuckwit?

Once again, I challenge you to post one lie that I've supposedly written.

Anything you post, I'll support from your own writings and photos.

-- Michael Pendragon
"...such as the (deleted) post above."
-- Will Donkey, demonstrating his propensity for gibberish

Michael Pendragon wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> Jordy C wrote:
>
> >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
>
> I don't lie

Like I said, that's another lie right there.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:10:10 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote:
> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> Jordy C wrote:
> >
> > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> > >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
> >
> > I don't lie
> Like I said, that's another lie right there.

You're repeating yourself, Donkey.

Again, if you can post an example of a supposed "lie" I'd made about you, I can readily show that it was based on your own words and/or photographs.

Put up or stop whining.

Michael Pendragon
"He's not obsessing, he's laughing.overover this typo..."
-- Will Donkey laughing overover other people's typos.

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:16:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:10:10 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >> Jordy C wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> > > >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
> > >
> > > I don't lie
> > Like I said, that's another lie right there.
> You're repeating yourself

You asked for an example of your lying, and that's the most recent example.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:21:23 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:16:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:10:10 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > >> Jordy C wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > > > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> > > > >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
> > > >
> > > > I don't lie
> > > Like I said, that's another lie right there.
> > You're repeating yourself
> You asked for an example of your lying, and that's the most recent example.

No, Donkey, it isn't. It's a denial of your unsupported accusation.

For it to become an example, you would first need to provide evidence that I had lied.

So, again: post an example of a supposed "lie" that I've made, and I shall show that it was derived from your own words and/or photographs.

Michael Pendragon

WILL DONKEY: As always, thanks again for helping bring these almost forgotten poets out of obscurity, George Dance.
GENERAL ZOD: Seconded...
WILL DONKEY: Good morning, Zod, agreed.*

*Will Donkey agreeing with himself.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:21:23 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:16:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>> Jordy C wrote:
>
>> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
>> > > > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
>> > > > >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't lie
>> > > Like I said, that's another lie right there.
>> > You're repeating yourself
>> You asked for an example of your lying, and that's the most recent example.

> No

Yes, Pendragon, and you've been lying and shit slinging here for years, now.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 12:55:18 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:21:23 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:16:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>> Jordy C wrote:
> >
> >> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> >> > > > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> >> > > > >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I don't lie
> >> > > Like I said, that's another lie right there.
> >> > You're repeating yourself
> >> You asked for an example of your lying, and that's the most recent example.
>
> > No
> Yes, Pendragon, and you've been lying and shit slinging here for years, now.

Yet you're unable to cite one specific example.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Michael Pendragon
“I call it as I see it, Pendragon. I don't need you mucking things up with your facts.”
-- Will Dockery, giving us the facts on facts

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:08:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:16:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> Jordy C wrote:
>
> > >> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
>
> > >> > > > >> > > > Dance has as yet to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >> > > > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
>
> > Yes, Pendragon, and you've been lying and shit slinging here for years, now.
> Yet you're unable to cite one specific example.

Here is ONE example for you Penhead, your many lies about Mike and myself being gay, which is simply an untruth...

You have been corrected about this lie yet you continue to spread it...

There you go.

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:16:55 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:08:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:16:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>> Jordy C wrote:
> >
> > > >> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> >
> > > >> > > > >> > > > Dance has as yet to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > >> > > > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> >
> > > Yes, Pendragon, and you've been lying and shit slinging here for years, now.
> > Yet you're unable to cite one specific example.
> Here is ONE example for you Penhead, your many lies about Mike and myself being gay, which is simply an untruth...
>
> You have been corrected about this lie yet you continue to spread it...
>
> There you go.

As I said, that is based entirely upon Will Donkey's posts. I've explained many times how Will always insists on addressing you as a couple.

If Will presents you as a couple, and addresses you as a couple, I can only assume that you are a couple.

I don't know you. I don't know Dirty. And I don't know (nor care about) your sleeping arrangements under the tarp.

I can only base what I know about you on what you and Will Donkey post.

HtH & HAND

Michael Pendragon
"The poet has the last, definitive, word on the meaning(s) of his poetry."
-- Will Dockery on the multiplicity of definitives

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:30:13 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:16:55 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:
> > >>> Jordy C wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
>
> > Here is ONE example for you Penhead, your many lies about Mike and myself being gay, which is simply an untruth...
> >
> > You have been corrected about this lie yet you continue to spread it...
> >
> > There you go.
> As I said, that is based entirely

Based entirely on YOUR sleazy fantasies about Mike and myself, Penhead, stop lying..!